CNN.com - Transcripts

Transcript Providers

Return to Transcripts main page

Paula Zahn Now

Ohio Town Hall Meeting

Aired October 21, 2004 - 20:00 ET

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

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

PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: There are 12 days to go. And, tonight, PRIME TIME POLITICS comes to you from one of the most crucial counties in one of the most hotly contested battleground states.
Good evening and welcome. I'm Paula Zahn. And, tonight, I join you from this magnificent town hall in South Charleston in Clark County, Ohio. In a little bit, you'll meet some 170 voters, half of them undecided. They have a lot of questions. And what they want to know tonight is which of the two candidates, the president or the senator, has the right answers for their community and our country.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN (voice-over): Clark County, Ohio is some 500 miles from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But in the battle for the White House, this is the front line. No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio.

This battleground state is full of hard-core Republicans and no- nonsense Democrats. With 20 electoral votes at stake, it is not surprising President Bush and Senator Kerry are here almost every other day.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Four more years of lost jobs, 235,000 of them gone from Ohio.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I understand you have been hit hard in Ohio. I know that.

ZAHN: Mr. Bush won the state in 2000. But that was then. This is now. Plants once thriving sit abandoned or have been torn down altogether. Job losses have hit hard, especially in Springfield, the largest town in the county, a county where unemployment is a whopping 8.6 percent, three points above the national average.

Kelly Lewis (ph) works for the county. While she feels for her unemployed neighbors, Kelly knows she's not immune.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ohio has really, really took a very bad hit. We lost over hundreds of thousands of jobs.

ZAHN: Unemployment isn't the only worry. Jim and Sherry Wahl run the Houstonia, voted one of the top bed-and-breakfasts in America. But, with aging parents, they're anxious about rising health care costs.

JIM WAHL, VOTER: Our parents are paying hundreds of dollars a month for, you know, for prescription drugs. And, you know, it gets to be outrageous.

ZAHN: With 12 days to go, Ohio goes down to the wire. Tonight, questions and answers from the heartland.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is a special edition of PAULA ZAHN NOW, "A Town Hall Meeting: The Undecided Vote."

Live from South Charleston, Ohio, here's Paula Zahn.

(APPLAUSE)

ZAHN: Good evening. Thank you again. And welcome to our fourth in our series of town hall meetings. Delighted to be here. Thank you so much for your hospitality.

Just a quick update on the campaign now. Senator Kerry has been to Ohio 18 times since March and this morning to goose hunt near the town of Youngstown. He and his fellow hunters bagged four. The Bush campaign pretty quickly calling that nothing but a glossy photo-op.

A little bit later on in Columbus, Mr. Kerry was introduced and endorsed by actor Christopher Reeve's widow, Dana. The senator gave a speech once again expressing his support for stem cell research. Meanwhile, the president was just next door today making his 40th visit as president to the battleground state of Pennsylvania. He attacked the senator's proposals on health care. The president has been to Ohio 12 times since just March.

And tonight, we are releasing our latest CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll of Ohio voters. As you can see, Senator Kerry holds a six-point lead among all registered voters. But, when we narrow things down to the all-important group of likely voters, the race becomes a dead heat. A different story -- or that survey, that is -- called the Ohio Poll suggests some reasons why.

Voters think President Bush will do a better job of handling Iraq and the war on terrorism, but they say Senator Kerry would be more effective with unemployment and the economy.

Now, let me tell you a little bit about this terrific group of people that have come out for tonight's meeting. There are about 170 folks with us tonight. About half of them are undecided. There are Democrats who prefer Senator Kerry. There are Democrats who prefer Mr. Bush. There are Republicans who are for the president and Republicans who are for Kerry. There are farmers, doctors, teachers, lawyers, nurses. There are college students and senior citizens.

Great to have this cross-section of folks with us here tonight.

Before we get started, I wanted to have the audience watching tonight gain a much better understanding of how you could be undecided at this point. So I want to start off by asking one of you folks why that is the case.

You have a microphone right here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Paula.

ZAHN: Help us understand why, at this stage of the campaign, you don't know who to vote for.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, first of all, Paula, thanks for coming to Ohio.

ZAHN: It's been a pleasure.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, we have about two weeks to go. And I am undecided. I'm registered one way.

And, frankly, I think I would feel a little more comfortable if I would find out more about a specific plan to end the war and restore the peace and concentrate on the issues here at home.

ZAHN: Are you comfortable saying how you are registered? If you're not, I understand that. I know that's a very private matter.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm a registered Republican.

ZAHN: So you obviously haven't heard from the president yet what you think is a specific plan how the U.S. gets out.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not enough specifics, no. I'm really vague about when we're going to bring our troops home back to their families, when we're going to concentrate on the issues that are important, health care, teaching, so many more issues that are just making me a little bit more uncomfortable. And I'm listening to both sides.

ZAHN: Terrific.

That's why we have operatives from both camps tonight. We've got someone else back here, right there.

Sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. I'm (INAUDIBLE)

And I tend to lean heavily toward the libertarian standpoint, or maybe even the constitutionalist standpoint. I'm a registered Republican. But I lean far to the right of George Bush. He's a little bit too liberal for me. But, from a libertarian standpoint, the thing I like about Kerry is -- at least my perception is that he might get us out of Iraq a little bit quicker, but will he do it more dangerously? I don't know. I don't know what to do yet.

ZAHN: What do you think you've got to hear tonight or during the next two weeks that will help seal your decision?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I guess I would like to see somebody say, we're going get out of Iraq as soon as humanly possible and, also, I'm going to get government off of the backs of everyone, small businessmen, self-employed people, everyone.

ZAHN: All right, I want to ask you why you are where you are at this stage of the campaign.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My biggest concern is, we keep hearing plans, not only plans about how we're going to get our troops out of Iraq, but plans on education, on health care, and all the issues, but we never hear the details.

And I'm tired of just hearing plans of this. But we need to know the specifics of how are they going to pay for these plans and how they are going to implement these plans.

ZAHN: Do you think you're getting the straight scoop from either campaigns?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm hearing more from President Bush's side, more details, more how he is going to accomplish things. I'm not getting anything from the Kerry side.

ZAHN: Can I ask you all a very broad question here about the tone of this campaign? I've heard a lot of people who are quite cynical about the process. They think this campaign is more negative than any they have witnessed before. Are you sick of the misrepresentation of issues from both camps?

(APPLAUSE)

ZAHN: So I guess our campaign representatives have their work cut out for them tonight, don't they?

And when we come back, you're going to meet both of them. We're going to be joined by former General Wesley Clark from the Kerry campaign and former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik of the Bush campaign.

And we'll have your questions again.

Live from Clark County, Ohio, this is PRIME TIME POLITICS

(APPLAUSE)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LINDA POLLOCK, VOTER: We stand behind our troops, We want to bring them home, but we want to bring them home safely. I want the country to be free there, too.

DAN YOUNG, VOTER: I certainly don't want to see, gee, it's too hard and let's leave. I don't think America should do that, can do that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're losing more men and women than they did during the invasion. And that is not the way to run things.

(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

ZAHN: And welcome back to our town hall meeting from Clark County, Ohio.

I'm joined tonight by two very special guests. Representing the Kerry campaign, retired General Wesley Clark, the former supreme allied commander of NATO. General Clark sought the Democratic presidential nomination earlier this year. And now representing the Bush campaign, Bernard Kerik, who was the New York City police commissioner during the September 11 attacks. Mr. Kerik last served in postwar Iraq, where he was give given the task of rebuilding Iraq's police, fire, immigration and border force.

Welcome to both of you.

(APPLAUSE)

ZAHN: Before we get to our first audience question tonight, before the two of you were introduced, there was a lot of talk among these undecided voters about the tone of the campaign. And they are fed up with the misrepresentations from both camps. Is there any defense of the way both of these campaigns are being run? All you have to do is a fact-check every day and you know both campaigns are equally culpable.

(CROSSTALK)

WESLEY CLARK (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There is entirely too much distortion.

But I do feel that, you know, there's -- all three parties should be held accountable, both campaigns and the press in general, because I do think that it is up to the press to help the campaigns police each other on keeping the facts straight. When I was running, I saw a lot of this, because I found I was asked questions about articles I had written and other things.

And they would take -- the press would take one phrase that may have been in commas out of a sentence, out of a paragraph, out of an article that really misrepresented the content and they would focus in on one phrase. So it is not good communications, but it makes for good politics in this culture. And what we really want to do is change this culture. We should be worried about the issues that are important to America. People should be stating those issues clearly, stating the facts clearly and helping the voters get a grip on the future of this country, because that's what this is about.

ZAHN: Mr. Kerik, are you troubled by the glossing over of facts by both campaigns?

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: I think I would agree with the general on the media representation. It is all about sound bites. This isn't about sound bites. This is about leadership.

It is about leadership, who is going to take this country forward in the next four years. I think the campaigns have to be held accountable. But I don't like some of the things I've heard, the tone, the -- you know, some of the comments, the personal comments. This should be about the issues, stay on the issues. Keep personalities out of it. Keep people's families out of it.

I won't even get into it here. Stay away from that stuff, stay with the issues, follow the issues. And I urge every American, every American, look at the records of these two men. Go to their records. What have they done? It is pretty easy to follow. Forget about what I say or the general says or the campaigns, for that matter. Senator Kerry has a record. Go to the Web sites. Look at where he's been, what he's done. Look at the president's record over the last four years, what he did as governor, and make a decision.

ZAHN: And make sure you read the fact checks and the papers the next day and pay attention to those segments on my show, because we really work very hard at trying to separate fact from fiction.

(LAUGHTER)

ZAHN: All right?

We've got our first question from our audience now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello.

ZAHN: Welcome.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Welcome to Clark County, Paula.

ZAHN: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And General Clark and Mr. Kerik.

My question has to do with the draft. And I direct it to Mr. Kerik.

During one of the presidential debates, President Bush stated that he is taking the military option of reinstituting the draft off the table. He emphasized that by -- he emphasized that by saying that as long as he is president, we are not going to have a draft, period. Since we seem to be short on soldiers as it is, and my son was one of them, why should I not interpret President Bush's statement about the draft to mean that he intends to wage a limited, rather than an all- out war against terrorism?

KERIK: Let me say a couple of things. First of all, I thank you for your son's service. There is nothing more important to this country at this point in time in my eyes, in my opinion. So I thank you for his service. And I thank all of the men and women in the military today for what they are doing.

With regard to the draft, I think this was something that came out of the Democratic campaign. I know for a fact that there was legislation put on the table by senator -- by Congressman Rangel out of New York City that went before Congress, was put before Congress. It was voted down more than 400-2. In fact, Charlie Rangel voted against it. He wrote it and he voted against it.

The president has said he's not going to institute the draft. Secretary Rumsfeld said there will be no draft. I know the president pretty well. I'll stand by his word.

ZAHN: Did that answer your question?

I'm going to give General Clark an opportunity to take a whack at that.

CLARK: Well, I think you've asked a very, very important question, because what you're saying is that if the president were to actually hold to this promise and we needed more troops, we might be damaging our ability to win the war on terror, because, right now, our troops are so extended that we can barely keep up with the rotation flow back and forth into Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't have a reserve to be able to keep up the rotation and deal with another crisis somewhere else.

So we clearly need more troops. And that's the implication of your question. And, yes, I agree. The troops are doing great over there. Thank you for your son's service and for all the men and women in uniform and their families.

But here is the real answer on this. The president of the United States has to do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And I understand why he would make a pledge like that. The questions haven't arisen from the Democratic Party. They've really arisen from young people across America who talk to their friends who are in the armed forces who are being called back for second and third tours in Iraq, who are in the Individual Ready Reserve and are being activated against their will to go to Iraq, and they say this is not going to last forever and I guess the only recourse is to have a draft.

I think that we don't know the real answer to that. And I wouldn't rely on the president's word that there won't be a draft. I think it really is a function of the foreign policy that the president pursues. But I would say this about the president's word. Before the 2000 election, he told us he would have a humble foreign policy for America. We have ended up with an arrogant foreign policy.

Before the war in Iraq, he told us that is Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat. The information says otherwise. We know that, in New York City in September, there was a meeting of Republicans where he said, I've got a secret plan for privatizing Social Security, but I won't disclose it until after the election.

I would say President Bush's word is as good as his record. But his record is bad.

ZAHN: All right, did you get the question answered. And do you take the president at his word? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not...

ZAHN: Do you think -- you have a son serving. I know this is a personal subject for you. Do you think there will be a draft, regardless of what the president has said?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, who is in the Ready Reserve.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think my point is that I don't think the issue -- it is a military preparedness issue. And I don't think it should be taken off the table. That's my point on that.

ZAHN: OK. Thank you very much.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Our next question from out here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. My name is Corey Pelfri (ph).

And I was wondering, my brother is in the United States Marines. And I'm kind of torn towards the war in Iraq. And I'm kind of bitter towards our president because my brother being over there. Can you kind of shed light on why I should be more for it than against it, please?

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Why don't we start with Mr. Kerik first.

If you an give me about a 30-second answer. We're trying to hit a commercial break and you'll both have an opportunity to...

(CROSSTALK)

KERIK: Why should we be for it?

Because there are a number of threats in this world, in my opinion. I stood beneath the twin towers on the day of September 11, when the second plane blew through the top of the building. I lost 23 men and women at the twin towers. We lost more than 2,800 in the buildings that day, not counting the Pentagon and Shanksville.

ZAHN: I don't mean to cut you off, sir, but what does that have to do with Saddam Hussein and the war in Iraq?

KERIK: Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are the threat, but al Qaeda isn't specifically the only problem.

There are other threats out there, the same mind-set, the same mentality, same hatred for this country. Saddam was one of those people. He harbored terrorists. He paid them. He trained them. He met with al Qaeda operatives. He was a threat, a substantial threat. I feel we should be in Iraq. I feel we should attack terrorism globally. We can't stop that fight.

ZAHN: All right, General Clark, I should point out the 9/11 Commission report says that there was no operational contact between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Your view of this question.

CLARK: Well, the war in Iraq was a distraction.

I looked at all the intelligence that I could get my hands on. I was the guy running the bombing for northern Iraq up until the summer of 2000. I worked against Saddam Hussein while I was on the Joint Staff starting in 1994. He was what we called a tier-two threat. He was a problem, but he wasn't the kind of imminent threat that al Qaeda was.

By taking us into Iraq, the president distracted America and distracted our armed forces from the real war against al Qaeda around the world. He failed to capture Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. The threat is now scattered and our armed forces are overextended trying to deal with Iraq. The result is, we're not safer. We're more vulnerable.

ZAHN: All right, gentlemen, we're going to take a short break.

Here, still ahead, more on the war on terror, including what each candidate would do to help protect the homeland in the event of an attack.

We'll be right back from Clark County, Ohio. Please stay with us.

(APPLAUSE)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN STURGELL, VOTER: Right now, the economy in this town is -- it is gone.

STEVEN MASSEY, VOTER: I want someone in office that is going to bring back some programs and also be sensitive to my tax issues.

SHERRY WAHL, VOTER: We need to be aggressive enough to learn new skills or change with the marketplace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And welcome back to Clark County, Ohio.

I'm with a group of mostly undecided voters here to question former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, representing the Bush/Cheney campaign, and retired General Wesley Clark, representing the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

Welcome back.

On to a question from Clark County.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good evening. My name is Shantal Baten (ph). And I'm a firefighter and EMT here in South Charleston.

And my question is, is, I'd like to know what will be done to assist small towns with limited manpower and a small tax base to be able to be better prepared, to be able to handle a disaster or terrorist attack?

ZAHN: General Clark.

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: I'll be happy to -- what we know now about homeland security is that we're underfunded across the board.

We have got major vulnerabilities that have been seen in study after study. We created a Department of Homeland Security, but it hasn't received the funding levels and it hasn't disbursed the funding that is required. So we're short on cybersecurity. We're short on protecting critical infrastructure like chemical plants. We're short on being able to see everything that comes through the ports and we're short on providing the resources to first-responders, especially in small towns, to let them get the manning up and get the training for some new equipment that's been issued.

We need a continuing flow of resources transferred from the federal government down to state and local levels to improve first- responder capabilities.

ZAHN: Mr. Kerik, first of all, do you acknowledge the weakness in the system now, particularly in the smaller towns in America?

KERIK: I really don't acknowledge a weakness in the system. You have to look at the overall system.

In the last three years, there has been a bigger reorganization in the law enforcement efforts, protection for homeland security, than in the last 50. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the merging of the 22 agencies, central clearinghouses for intelligence information, the Patriot Act, all of these things combined -- the Patriot Act alone now gives us the ability for the CIA and the FBI to talk to and communicate with the 770,000 police officers that work throughout our country.

Now you have three times the amount of funding coming into homeland security than we had in the prior Clinton administration over eight years, three times. Is that enough? I think it is enough for where we are today. The key is, that money is coming from the federal government. We now have to make sure that the state governments get it down to the municipalities, so you can do your job.

ZAHN: Isn't that the issue here?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's my concern.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: That cash-strapped communities -- and we have interviewed a lot of those mayors who tell us that they simply don't have the resources to put in this infrastructure we're talking about.

Just a brief rejoinder. I've got to move on to the next question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don't have the resources for the grant writers and things like that to be able to get grants those written like the larger cities do that have people that are employed to do that. We don't have those resources.

KERIK: And I think what the president has tried to do and will continue to try to do is create standards in the governor's offices, so when they get that money, that money can be distributed to those who need it best.

ZAHN: OK, on to an e-mail question now.

CLARK: Can I just -- quick rejoinder on this?

ZAHN: Briefly.

CLARK: It is true we have made progress. But the standard is not, how much more are we giving? It is, what is the requirement? And we're not meeting the requirement. Study after study has shown we're not meeting the requirement.

It's not just because you're not as good at writing applications for grants. It's because the amount of money coming into the system is not adequate. The money is, instead, being spent for things like the war in Iraq.

PAULA ZAHN, HOST: We have received nearly 10,000 e-mails with questions for the campaigns tonight. We're going to get to one of them right now.

This one is from Fred Rexroad in Yellow Springs, Ohio. He writes, "My office mate's son was wounded in Iraq. He states that his men were sharing body armor since there was not enough to give everyone a full set. Yet President Bush has said he provided every soldier with protection. Maybe not the newest and most advanced, but that they had what they needed. How do you explain the difference in these views?"

Bernard Kerik?

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER IRAQ ADMINISTRATOR: Well, I can say from my own personal perspective, seeing what I saw in Iraq for the four months I was there, no soldier was sharing body arm with another person. I never saw that. I never heard of it. Personally never heard of it, never saw it.

I can tell you that we need the best resources; we need the best equipment. When I was there last year, sometime between July and August we requested supplemental funding for resources, for equipment, for body armor. For the resources, for reconstruction, for the vetting, for the recruitment...

ZAHN: Do the soldiers have the stuff now? Do they have what they need? Because General Abizaid testified before Congress that we went into this war not having enough body armor for the soldiers.

KERIK: I think -- I think they have what they have now because the president has given it to them. And you think about resources, last year there was an $87 billion supplemental that was requested for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Senator Kerry voted against it.

ZAHN: All right. General Clark, there's a lot of confusion surrounding his voting for the war to authorize the war and voting against this authorization. Without getting in too many specifics about his Democratic alternative plan he embraced, try to set the record straight tonight.

CLARK: On the $87 billion, the issue was the accountability of the executive branch to the legislative branch. Under the United States Constitution, Congress holds the executive accountable by control of the purse strings.

There was lot of money already in the pipeline. The troops weren't going to run out of food and ammunition day after tomorrow. And the president sent in the $87 billion supplemental without ever giving the American people or their representatives in Congress a plan for success in Iraq.

It was the Congress' duty, I would contend, to ask the administration to provide that plan for success. And there was adequate time to do it and get the money to the troops.

The administration chose to politicize the issue as, "Hey, you're not supporting the troops," instead of doing their duty to the troops, which was to provide a plan whereby they could succeed.

ZAHN: Is the answer no? Do you deny the charge that Senator Kerry voted against that $87 billion authorization to appear more as an anti-war candidate to compete against Howard Dean in the primary?

CLARK: No. That's not true.

ZAHN: OK. We can talk about that more on the other side of break. We're going to be back with more from South Charleston, Ohio, right after this, including questions about the economy and how to stop the job losses right here in Ohio.

You're watching PRIME TIME POLITICS: THE UNDECIDED VOTE. We'll be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOB ELLIOT, OHIO RESIDENT: The No. 1 issue for me is the position on family values. I believe in the structure of the family, of the traditional family.

BILL THURMAN, OHIO RESIDENT: We can talk about the war. We can talk about the taxes. We can talk about the economy. But it's worthless if the society is not here. What does it matter? So I think we need to worry about our moral -- morality.

BECKY JONES, OHIO RESIDENT: Our schools need money, and if we can't educate our children, we're in bad shape. They're the future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Welcome back. We're joining once again from Clark County, Ohio, at the South Charleston town hall with former New York City police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, and retired General Wesley Clark.

Great to have both of you with us tonight. We have a question for the two of you from Sean (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good evening. I'm Sean McKinnis (ph). My dad was out of work for a year. He lost his job here in Clark County. And fortunately he did find a job that pays a lot less than what he had.

And I go Wittenberg University, and my sister will be joining me there in the fall. We've got college to pay for and other expenses.

How can we make jobs for the middle class that pay a lot of money that will help families be able to go to college and pay for health care, et cetera?

ZAHN: General Clark.

CLARK: Well, John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to help restore job creation to America. It is a complicated multipart plan. Let me tick off some of the pieces of it.

First of all, we need to stop rewarding companies through tax savings for exporting jobs. If they want to export jobs, fine. Do it on their own dime. We need to reward companies who create jobs here.

So John Kerry will take care of the tax reforms so the companies that export jobs don't get subsidized by the United States Treasury for doing it. And then he'll give a tax credit to companies who create jobs here.

We need to raise the minimum wage in this country. If we don't raise the minimum wage, we can't get the rate scales moving back up again so jobs will pay more. John Kerry has a plan to do that over a period of time so that it doesn't cost us jobs, but it raises everybody up in this country.

We need to put more money into research and development. And we in particular need to put that research and development money into things like energy independence, so we're not dependent on Arab oil or natural gas. And we need to put money into our ecology.

When we do R&D on energy and the ecology, we create new technology that will employ Americans and will also give us products to export to the rest of the world. Those are some of the ideas that we'll put in place.

ZAHN: And along that line are how would you defend the president's job record here? The single largest loss or net loss of jobs since Herbert Hoover.

KERIK: Well...

ZAHN: His father was a man very much affected by that.

KERIK: The one thing I would say about the job loss and this is something the Kerry camp has not talked about, during this entire campaign. I think the number going around is 1.6 million jobs lost.

I think people tend to forget in this country within three months after the day of September 11, we lost over a million jobs. Over a million. That's a big issue for this country.

You have to look at what's happened since that job loss, how the economy has come back, where the economy is today. That was an enormous, enormous challenge for the president. And the economy is on the comeback. They're doing better than they've done in the -- in the prior four years. And that's with those job losses.

So the economy is not perfect. It's not great. But it's getting better. But keep in mind, take it back to September 11. Take it back to why the jobs were lost and take it back to how important it is to keep the economy going.

The one thing that we cannot do, tax the economy. I learned from Rudy Giuliani in managing New York City, you don't stimulate an economy by taxing. And every one of Kerry's plans has something to do with increasing taxes. Look at his record.

ZAHN: All right. I know if the general had another minute to take that, the Democrats are hammering the Republicans for your answer, because they're saying just look at last three months of the performance of this economy. And that the job growth has not kept up with the population growth.

I know you're talking points by now. I listen to every speech John Kerry gives.

CLARK: I hear this on the trail. I mean, you know, I've heard this story so many times. I feel really bad for you and your family. But, I mean, I've heard it again and again and again across this country.

The jobs that we're creating are not as good as the jobs we lost, for the most part. And we're not creating enough jobs. We have to create 130,000 jobs on average per month just to keep up with the increase in the population. What we've had because we've got an unemployment rate of about 5.4 percent today, if you actually look at labor force participation and consider the people that just sort of gave up looking for jobs, our real unemployment rate is around 7.5 percent. I mean, we are in trouble on job creation.

ZAHN: All right, let's move on to our next question right here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi.

ZAHN: How are you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm Sheila Rice (ph). I'm a small business owner, and I'm concerned with health insurance costs for my workers. I currently employ about ten workers. And they're middle aged to older, but they don't have health care. So therefore they don't do preventive maintenance on their bodies with medicine or anything like that. So I'm really concerned about their health care costs for small business owners like myself.

ZAHN: Mr. Kerik, why don't you take that first?

KERIK: Well, I think most importantly we have to look at what the president said in the last few weeks with regard to health care. And addressing health care across the country, creating pools for -- for small business owners where they can pool into health care programs and plans.

We also have to look at frivolous lawsuits. That's been a tremendous burden on the health care systems. And that's something that has to be addressed in the future.

ZAHN: Mr. Clark?

CLARK: You're exactly right in your concern about small businesses and the -- you know, the health care costs for the average American family has gone up $3,500 a year.

President Bush has been in office over 36 -- 30 -- 42 months now, and he hasn't done a thing to enable small businesses to pool and get the insurance.

This is part of John Kerry's plan through the SCHIP program that we use for the State Child Health Insurance Program, to be able to allow that to expand so that all children are covered and states have the option to expand this pooling so that small businessmen can participate.

And as a last resort, John Kerry will provide the means for Americans to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress have. And he'll provide some savings and reimbursements for them to do that.

This will cost money. But it's money well spent, because for us to be competitive across the world, we have to encourage small business in this country. ZAHN: All right.

CLARK: And dealing with health care is a big factor in that.

ZAHN: For how many of you in this room tonight is health care a very important issue, particularly in your decision in this upcoming presidential race? Interesting.

And how many of you believe that whoever is elected is going to add significantly to the deficit because of the costs related to health care? Less convinced of that. Interesting.

We may even get to a deficit question on the other side. Hold it right there. When we come back, your health care and the attacks on trial lawyers during this campaign. And we will continue our town hall meeting when we come back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN DERR, OHIO RESIDENT: I would like to see the Congress and the Senate all work together for what's best for the country rather than for the political party.

LARRY SCHOENFELD, OHIO RESIDENT: I just want change. I think we need -- I think we need change.

ROBERT LEECH, OHIO RESIDENT: I don't believe we should be changing horses in midstream. When you do that, you get your feet wet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Welcome back to our town hall meeting in the battleground state of Ohio. Former New York City police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, is here representing the Bush/Cheney campaign. Retired General Wesley Clark is here for the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

And they actually talk to each other during the commercial breaks. These guys know each other.

Sir, your question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. My name is Mark Roberts (ph), and I have to disclose that I'm a trial lawyer.

ZAHN: No boos -- no boos and hisses in this crowd.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. My question is for Commissioner Kerik. And I kind of realize that maybe tort reform isn't your area of expertise, either of you gentlemen, but I'm going to pose that question.

President Bush has said over and over that he's going to stop frivolous lawsuits against good doctors. But the tort reform legislation he supports severely restricts all the good cases. And I'd like to know...

ZAHN: Where you find a balance in that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... how that comes together. What's the basis of that?

KERIK: Well, honestly, it's not my forte. And it's...

ZAHN: Police chiefs don't do, like, tort reform stuff?

KERIK: No. I'm not big on tort reform. But I think we have to address the lawsuit issue.

You know, me, myself -- forget about the doctors, you know, in the New York City Police Department, when you run the NYPD, you have 55,000 people that work for you. You work for the eight million people in the city. I used to get sued about, I don't know, 10, 15 times a week, and 95 percent of those were frivolous. Ninety-five percent of those should have never made my desk, should have never got where they were.

Things like that have to be addressed, particularly in the arena of health care. I would agree with that.

ZAHN: And General Clark, the accusation against the Kerry camp is that you're too cozy with trial lawyers, particularly because of John Edwards being a former litigator and that an awful lot of campaign money has come into your coffers from trial lawyers.

You're probably taking a rap for that, aren't you?

CLARK: I think access to the courts is a very important American freedom. I think we've got to be very, very careful in what we do in tort reform not to deny people access to the courts.

If you're a big company or a city department or -- I was in the military. You always have lawyers. They work for you. You don't think anything about it. When you become a private citizen, when you're just an ordinary person out there, you don't have your own lawyer. You don't keep him on retainer at $500 a month. And if something goes wrong, you need access to the courts, and those trial lawyers are there to help ordinary people.

Now it's true...

ZAHN: But you do accept the fact that there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits?

CLARK: I don't accept the fact that there are a lot of them. But there are some. And that's why John Kerry and John Edwards have proposed dealing with tort reform as one of the issues in improving health care.

And I talked to John Edwards about it. Of course, he's a great trial lawyer. He says you need something like a three strikes and you're out rule. And somebody rules on whether it's a frivolous suit or not, and you keep doing that, you're out. And you don't have the right to introduce, and it will put lawyers out of business who introduce frivolous lawsuits.

But you've got to be very careful how you define it, because access to the courts is a fundamental freedom that we share in America.

ZAHN: I think that was a balance you were trying to get to with that question. Thank you.

On to our next question now. You must be on the Wittenberg football team.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am.

ZAHN: I read that on his shirt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Charlie O'Dell (ph).

ZAHN: We're really swift tonight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And going back to the war on terror. In this post-9/11 world, do you agree that preemptive strikes are the best way to fight the war on terror? And if so, where would our next target be, what country would want to attack next? And if not what is an alternative course of action that would be effective also?

KERIK: I would say absolutely 100 percent we have to be proactive and preemptive. If you go back to the president's speech of September 20, 2001, he talked about going to war, he mentioned Afghanistan. But he also talked about the global war on terror.

There are people that despise this country: our freedoms, our economic freedoms, our religious freedoms, our support for women and human rights. The fact that we can have this town hall meeting and there are women sitting in this room that aren't married, aren't covered, that have an education. That's what they despise.

We have to go after those people, because they have a standing order from people like Osama bin Laden and people out front like al- Zarqawi who is in Iraq today.

ZAHN: Can you specify the countries real quickly you think represent the greatest threat to us and then we'll let General Clark take that on the other side of the break.

KERIK: I say Iraq. I think we have to be concerned about Iran. We have to be concerned about Syria. We have to make sure we take a look at -- at North Korea. Those are some of the elements out there that we should be concerned with.

ZAHN: All right. Then we will let the general answer on the other side. We're going to take a short break.

CLARK: Preemptive -- preemptive... ZAHN: Do you mind holding that response for a commercial break? I know you can do that, General. Somebody has to pay for this show, OK. You get that.

Our town hall meeting continues right after this. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And welcome back to our town hall meeting in Clark County, Ohio.

Before we went to the break, Charlie over here of the Wittenberg football team -- you play guard, right, on the football team -- asked an important question about when you would employ preemptive action and what you see as the gravest threat to the U.S. security.

CLARK: Well, I think at all times the United States has to have the option to strike preemptively. But it may not be in the form of an invasion of a country to take down a country. It might be against a terrorist group.

In other words, we don't have to wait for them to strike us. If we've got information that they're going to strike us and there's no other way to deal with it, we should strike them first. But in the war on terror, what's important is that we go after the international terrorists and the people that struck us. That's al Qaeda.

What we did in Iraq was go after a state that wasn't involved in 9/11. So we have to be careful with that, because that's has used a lot of resources.

We do have threats from Iran, should they develop nuclear potential. We know that the North Korean situation is somewhat unstable. They do probably have nuclear weapons, it seems, at this point.

ZAHN: Are you as concerned about Syria as Mr. Kerik?

CLARK: So Syria and Iran are part of this region that has been really -- we've stimulated conflict in the region by invading Iraq.

The question is and can we use diplomacy to try to work through the region, to give our troops in Iraq a better chance? Right now Syria and Iran are both feeding the conflict in Iraq, because they see that they're next on our hit list.

What we need a president to do -- and this is what only John Kerry can do -- is use a combination of carrots and sticks with both Iran and Syria so that they see that it's in their interest to have a peaceful, stable, democratizing Iraq.

ZAHN: All right. I want to give the audience an opportunity now among those undecideds. Hold your hands up again, those of you came in tonight undecided. All right. Quite a few of you. You can put your hands down. How many of you heard something tonight that may help you cement your vote? A couple of you. Your campaigns still have a lot to do.

On to one last e-mail from Karen in Lorraine, Ohio. She writes, "How can it be justified that all the members of the Senate received flu shots 'because they shake hands a lot,' yet the majority of Americans cannot receive the vaccine unless you are in a 'high risk' group?"

A lot of laughter in this room. I would interpret that as cynicism. Quick answer.

CLARK: I don't think you can justify it. I think the administration was warned three years ago that we were reducing the number of vaccine makers and that we would eventually have a problem like this. They did nothing.

It's the responsibility of the president, the executive branch, to worry about public health in this country. And, you know, as John Kerry said, if they can't handle manufacturing flu vaccine, we should be worried about bioterrorism.

ZAHN: Thirty seconds for an answer. We should make it clear a lot of people think Congress shares equal...

KERIK: That's exactly what I was going to say. I disagree with the general. It's not the president's responsibility. It's really Congress' responsibility. And they need to do a better job at oversight. They need a better job -- do a better job on following this up.

ZAHN: Gentlemen, we're going to have to leave it there tonight. Wesley Clark, Bernard Kerik, we appreciate both of you joining us tonight.

We should make it clear the former police chief literally raced here. We won't tell you how much over the speed limit he had to go to get here, but he made it. You moved at a much more civil pace, I think, General.

CLARK: Well, I flew.

ZAHN: You flew.

We have one more town hall meeting before election day on November 1, the eve of the big vote we will be in Kissimmee, Florida, near Orlando. Don't forget to join us. Don't forget to submit your own town hall questions at our web site: CNN.com/Paula.

I hope you all learned something tonight. Did you? Did you enjoy it?

And that is it tonight from the heartland of beautiful Clark County, Ohio. Thanks to our town hall audience, and once again, General Clark, Bernard Kerik and all of you for joining us tonight. And I'm sure if you had the opportunity you would tell everybody get out and vote, right? Is that your closing thought?

CLARK: Exactly right.

ZAHN: No matter who they vote for, they should get out and take part in the process?

KERIK: This is the most important election of your lifetime.

CLARK: And ask the issues. Demand that the candidates and their groups answer your questions on the issues.

ZAHN: All right. And we're going to start to do that right here on this show. Thank you all for joining us again.

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

Aired October 21, 2004 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: There are 12 days to go. And, tonight, PRIME TIME POLITICS comes to you from one of the most crucial counties in one of the most hotly contested battleground states.
Good evening and welcome. I'm Paula Zahn. And, tonight, I join you from this magnificent town hall in South Charleston in Clark County, Ohio. In a little bit, you'll meet some 170 voters, half of them undecided. They have a lot of questions. And what they want to know tonight is which of the two candidates, the president or the senator, has the right answers for their community and our country.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN (voice-over): Clark County, Ohio is some 500 miles from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But in the battle for the White House, this is the front line. No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio.

This battleground state is full of hard-core Republicans and no- nonsense Democrats. With 20 electoral votes at stake, it is not surprising President Bush and Senator Kerry are here almost every other day.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Four more years of lost jobs, 235,000 of them gone from Ohio.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I understand you have been hit hard in Ohio. I know that.

ZAHN: Mr. Bush won the state in 2000. But that was then. This is now. Plants once thriving sit abandoned or have been torn down altogether. Job losses have hit hard, especially in Springfield, the largest town in the county, a county where unemployment is a whopping 8.6 percent, three points above the national average.

Kelly Lewis (ph) works for the county. While she feels for her unemployed neighbors, Kelly knows she's not immune.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ohio has really, really took a very bad hit. We lost over hundreds of thousands of jobs.

ZAHN: Unemployment isn't the only worry. Jim and Sherry Wahl run the Houstonia, voted one of the top bed-and-breakfasts in America. But, with aging parents, they're anxious about rising health care costs.

JIM WAHL, VOTER: Our parents are paying hundreds of dollars a month for, you know, for prescription drugs. And, you know, it gets to be outrageous.

ZAHN: With 12 days to go, Ohio goes down to the wire. Tonight, questions and answers from the heartland.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is a special edition of PAULA ZAHN NOW, "A Town Hall Meeting: The Undecided Vote."

Live from South Charleston, Ohio, here's Paula Zahn.

(APPLAUSE)

ZAHN: Good evening. Thank you again. And welcome to our fourth in our series of town hall meetings. Delighted to be here. Thank you so much for your hospitality.

Just a quick update on the campaign now. Senator Kerry has been to Ohio 18 times since March and this morning to goose hunt near the town of Youngstown. He and his fellow hunters bagged four. The Bush campaign pretty quickly calling that nothing but a glossy photo-op.

A little bit later on in Columbus, Mr. Kerry was introduced and endorsed by actor Christopher Reeve's widow, Dana. The senator gave a speech once again expressing his support for stem cell research. Meanwhile, the president was just next door today making his 40th visit as president to the battleground state of Pennsylvania. He attacked the senator's proposals on health care. The president has been to Ohio 12 times since just March.

And tonight, we are releasing our latest CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll of Ohio voters. As you can see, Senator Kerry holds a six-point lead among all registered voters. But, when we narrow things down to the all-important group of likely voters, the race becomes a dead heat. A different story -- or that survey, that is -- called the Ohio Poll suggests some reasons why.

Voters think President Bush will do a better job of handling Iraq and the war on terrorism, but they say Senator Kerry would be more effective with unemployment and the economy.

Now, let me tell you a little bit about this terrific group of people that have come out for tonight's meeting. There are about 170 folks with us tonight. About half of them are undecided. There are Democrats who prefer Senator Kerry. There are Democrats who prefer Mr. Bush. There are Republicans who are for the president and Republicans who are for Kerry. There are farmers, doctors, teachers, lawyers, nurses. There are college students and senior citizens.

Great to have this cross-section of folks with us here tonight.

Before we get started, I wanted to have the audience watching tonight gain a much better understanding of how you could be undecided at this point. So I want to start off by asking one of you folks why that is the case.

You have a microphone right here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Paula.

ZAHN: Help us understand why, at this stage of the campaign, you don't know who to vote for.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, first of all, Paula, thanks for coming to Ohio.

ZAHN: It's been a pleasure.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, we have about two weeks to go. And I am undecided. I'm registered one way.

And, frankly, I think I would feel a little more comfortable if I would find out more about a specific plan to end the war and restore the peace and concentrate on the issues here at home.

ZAHN: Are you comfortable saying how you are registered? If you're not, I understand that. I know that's a very private matter.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm a registered Republican.

ZAHN: So you obviously haven't heard from the president yet what you think is a specific plan how the U.S. gets out.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not enough specifics, no. I'm really vague about when we're going to bring our troops home back to their families, when we're going to concentrate on the issues that are important, health care, teaching, so many more issues that are just making me a little bit more uncomfortable. And I'm listening to both sides.

ZAHN: Terrific.

That's why we have operatives from both camps tonight. We've got someone else back here, right there.

Sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. I'm (INAUDIBLE)

And I tend to lean heavily toward the libertarian standpoint, or maybe even the constitutionalist standpoint. I'm a registered Republican. But I lean far to the right of George Bush. He's a little bit too liberal for me. But, from a libertarian standpoint, the thing I like about Kerry is -- at least my perception is that he might get us out of Iraq a little bit quicker, but will he do it more dangerously? I don't know. I don't know what to do yet.

ZAHN: What do you think you've got to hear tonight or during the next two weeks that will help seal your decision?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I guess I would like to see somebody say, we're going get out of Iraq as soon as humanly possible and, also, I'm going to get government off of the backs of everyone, small businessmen, self-employed people, everyone.

ZAHN: All right, I want to ask you why you are where you are at this stage of the campaign.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My biggest concern is, we keep hearing plans, not only plans about how we're going to get our troops out of Iraq, but plans on education, on health care, and all the issues, but we never hear the details.

And I'm tired of just hearing plans of this. But we need to know the specifics of how are they going to pay for these plans and how they are going to implement these plans.

ZAHN: Do you think you're getting the straight scoop from either campaigns?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm hearing more from President Bush's side, more details, more how he is going to accomplish things. I'm not getting anything from the Kerry side.

ZAHN: Can I ask you all a very broad question here about the tone of this campaign? I've heard a lot of people who are quite cynical about the process. They think this campaign is more negative than any they have witnessed before. Are you sick of the misrepresentation of issues from both camps?

(APPLAUSE)

ZAHN: So I guess our campaign representatives have their work cut out for them tonight, don't they?

And when we come back, you're going to meet both of them. We're going to be joined by former General Wesley Clark from the Kerry campaign and former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik of the Bush campaign.

And we'll have your questions again.

Live from Clark County, Ohio, this is PRIME TIME POLITICS

(APPLAUSE)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LINDA POLLOCK, VOTER: We stand behind our troops, We want to bring them home, but we want to bring them home safely. I want the country to be free there, too.

DAN YOUNG, VOTER: I certainly don't want to see, gee, it's too hard and let's leave. I don't think America should do that, can do that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're losing more men and women than they did during the invasion. And that is not the way to run things.

(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(APPLAUSE)

ZAHN: And welcome back to our town hall meeting from Clark County, Ohio.

I'm joined tonight by two very special guests. Representing the Kerry campaign, retired General Wesley Clark, the former supreme allied commander of NATO. General Clark sought the Democratic presidential nomination earlier this year. And now representing the Bush campaign, Bernard Kerik, who was the New York City police commissioner during the September 11 attacks. Mr. Kerik last served in postwar Iraq, where he was give given the task of rebuilding Iraq's police, fire, immigration and border force.

Welcome to both of you.

(APPLAUSE)

ZAHN: Before we get to our first audience question tonight, before the two of you were introduced, there was a lot of talk among these undecided voters about the tone of the campaign. And they are fed up with the misrepresentations from both camps. Is there any defense of the way both of these campaigns are being run? All you have to do is a fact-check every day and you know both campaigns are equally culpable.

(CROSSTALK)

WESLEY CLARK (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There is entirely too much distortion.

But I do feel that, you know, there's -- all three parties should be held accountable, both campaigns and the press in general, because I do think that it is up to the press to help the campaigns police each other on keeping the facts straight. When I was running, I saw a lot of this, because I found I was asked questions about articles I had written and other things.

And they would take -- the press would take one phrase that may have been in commas out of a sentence, out of a paragraph, out of an article that really misrepresented the content and they would focus in on one phrase. So it is not good communications, but it makes for good politics in this culture. And what we really want to do is change this culture. We should be worried about the issues that are important to America. People should be stating those issues clearly, stating the facts clearly and helping the voters get a grip on the future of this country, because that's what this is about.

ZAHN: Mr. Kerik, are you troubled by the glossing over of facts by both campaigns?

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: I think I would agree with the general on the media representation. It is all about sound bites. This isn't about sound bites. This is about leadership.

It is about leadership, who is going to take this country forward in the next four years. I think the campaigns have to be held accountable. But I don't like some of the things I've heard, the tone, the -- you know, some of the comments, the personal comments. This should be about the issues, stay on the issues. Keep personalities out of it. Keep people's families out of it.

I won't even get into it here. Stay away from that stuff, stay with the issues, follow the issues. And I urge every American, every American, look at the records of these two men. Go to their records. What have they done? It is pretty easy to follow. Forget about what I say or the general says or the campaigns, for that matter. Senator Kerry has a record. Go to the Web sites. Look at where he's been, what he's done. Look at the president's record over the last four years, what he did as governor, and make a decision.

ZAHN: And make sure you read the fact checks and the papers the next day and pay attention to those segments on my show, because we really work very hard at trying to separate fact from fiction.

(LAUGHTER)

ZAHN: All right?

We've got our first question from our audience now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello.

ZAHN: Welcome.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Welcome to Clark County, Paula.

ZAHN: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And General Clark and Mr. Kerik.

My question has to do with the draft. And I direct it to Mr. Kerik.

During one of the presidential debates, President Bush stated that he is taking the military option of reinstituting the draft off the table. He emphasized that by -- he emphasized that by saying that as long as he is president, we are not going to have a draft, period. Since we seem to be short on soldiers as it is, and my son was one of them, why should I not interpret President Bush's statement about the draft to mean that he intends to wage a limited, rather than an all- out war against terrorism?

KERIK: Let me say a couple of things. First of all, I thank you for your son's service. There is nothing more important to this country at this point in time in my eyes, in my opinion. So I thank you for his service. And I thank all of the men and women in the military today for what they are doing.

With regard to the draft, I think this was something that came out of the Democratic campaign. I know for a fact that there was legislation put on the table by senator -- by Congressman Rangel out of New York City that went before Congress, was put before Congress. It was voted down more than 400-2. In fact, Charlie Rangel voted against it. He wrote it and he voted against it.

The president has said he's not going to institute the draft. Secretary Rumsfeld said there will be no draft. I know the president pretty well. I'll stand by his word.

ZAHN: Did that answer your question?

I'm going to give General Clark an opportunity to take a whack at that.

CLARK: Well, I think you've asked a very, very important question, because what you're saying is that if the president were to actually hold to this promise and we needed more troops, we might be damaging our ability to win the war on terror, because, right now, our troops are so extended that we can barely keep up with the rotation flow back and forth into Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't have a reserve to be able to keep up the rotation and deal with another crisis somewhere else.

So we clearly need more troops. And that's the implication of your question. And, yes, I agree. The troops are doing great over there. Thank you for your son's service and for all the men and women in uniform and their families.

But here is the real answer on this. The president of the United States has to do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And I understand why he would make a pledge like that. The questions haven't arisen from the Democratic Party. They've really arisen from young people across America who talk to their friends who are in the armed forces who are being called back for second and third tours in Iraq, who are in the Individual Ready Reserve and are being activated against their will to go to Iraq, and they say this is not going to last forever and I guess the only recourse is to have a draft.

I think that we don't know the real answer to that. And I wouldn't rely on the president's word that there won't be a draft. I think it really is a function of the foreign policy that the president pursues. But I would say this about the president's word. Before the 2000 election, he told us he would have a humble foreign policy for America. We have ended up with an arrogant foreign policy.

Before the war in Iraq, he told us that is Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat. The information says otherwise. We know that, in New York City in September, there was a meeting of Republicans where he said, I've got a secret plan for privatizing Social Security, but I won't disclose it until after the election.

I would say President Bush's word is as good as his record. But his record is bad.

ZAHN: All right, did you get the question answered. And do you take the president at his word? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not...

ZAHN: Do you think -- you have a son serving. I know this is a personal subject for you. Do you think there will be a draft, regardless of what the president has said?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, who is in the Ready Reserve.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think my point is that I don't think the issue -- it is a military preparedness issue. And I don't think it should be taken off the table. That's my point on that.

ZAHN: OK. Thank you very much.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Our next question from out here?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi. My name is Corey Pelfri (ph).

And I was wondering, my brother is in the United States Marines. And I'm kind of torn towards the war in Iraq. And I'm kind of bitter towards our president because my brother being over there. Can you kind of shed light on why I should be more for it than against it, please?

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: Why don't we start with Mr. Kerik first.

If you an give me about a 30-second answer. We're trying to hit a commercial break and you'll both have an opportunity to...

(CROSSTALK)

KERIK: Why should we be for it?

Because there are a number of threats in this world, in my opinion. I stood beneath the twin towers on the day of September 11, when the second plane blew through the top of the building. I lost 23 men and women at the twin towers. We lost more than 2,800 in the buildings that day, not counting the Pentagon and Shanksville.

ZAHN: I don't mean to cut you off, sir, but what does that have to do with Saddam Hussein and the war in Iraq?

KERIK: Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are the threat, but al Qaeda isn't specifically the only problem.

There are other threats out there, the same mind-set, the same mentality, same hatred for this country. Saddam was one of those people. He harbored terrorists. He paid them. He trained them. He met with al Qaeda operatives. He was a threat, a substantial threat. I feel we should be in Iraq. I feel we should attack terrorism globally. We can't stop that fight.

ZAHN: All right, General Clark, I should point out the 9/11 Commission report says that there was no operational contact between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Your view of this question.

CLARK: Well, the war in Iraq was a distraction.

I looked at all the intelligence that I could get my hands on. I was the guy running the bombing for northern Iraq up until the summer of 2000. I worked against Saddam Hussein while I was on the Joint Staff starting in 1994. He was what we called a tier-two threat. He was a problem, but he wasn't the kind of imminent threat that al Qaeda was.

By taking us into Iraq, the president distracted America and distracted our armed forces from the real war against al Qaeda around the world. He failed to capture Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. The threat is now scattered and our armed forces are overextended trying to deal with Iraq. The result is, we're not safer. We're more vulnerable.

ZAHN: All right, gentlemen, we're going to take a short break.

Here, still ahead, more on the war on terror, including what each candidate would do to help protect the homeland in the event of an attack.

We'll be right back from Clark County, Ohio. Please stay with us.

(APPLAUSE)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN STURGELL, VOTER: Right now, the economy in this town is -- it is gone.

STEVEN MASSEY, VOTER: I want someone in office that is going to bring back some programs and also be sensitive to my tax issues.

SHERRY WAHL, VOTER: We need to be aggressive enough to learn new skills or change with the marketplace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And welcome back to Clark County, Ohio.

I'm with a group of mostly undecided voters here to question former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, representing the Bush/Cheney campaign, and retired General Wesley Clark, representing the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

Welcome back.

On to a question from Clark County.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good evening. My name is Shantal Baten (ph). And I'm a firefighter and EMT here in South Charleston.

And my question is, is, I'd like to know what will be done to assist small towns with limited manpower and a small tax base to be able to be better prepared, to be able to handle a disaster or terrorist attack?

ZAHN: General Clark.

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: I'll be happy to -- what we know now about homeland security is that we're underfunded across the board.

We have got major vulnerabilities that have been seen in study after study. We created a Department of Homeland Security, but it hasn't received the funding levels and it hasn't disbursed the funding that is required. So we're short on cybersecurity. We're short on protecting critical infrastructure like chemical plants. We're short on being able to see everything that comes through the ports and we're short on providing the resources to first-responders, especially in small towns, to let them get the manning up and get the training for some new equipment that's been issued.

We need a continuing flow of resources transferred from the federal government down to state and local levels to improve first- responder capabilities.

ZAHN: Mr. Kerik, first of all, do you acknowledge the weakness in the system now, particularly in the smaller towns in America?

KERIK: I really don't acknowledge a weakness in the system. You have to look at the overall system.

In the last three years, there has been a bigger reorganization in the law enforcement efforts, protection for homeland security, than in the last 50. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the merging of the 22 agencies, central clearinghouses for intelligence information, the Patriot Act, all of these things combined -- the Patriot Act alone now gives us the ability for the CIA and the FBI to talk to and communicate with the 770,000 police officers that work throughout our country.

Now you have three times the amount of funding coming into homeland security than we had in the prior Clinton administration over eight years, three times. Is that enough? I think it is enough for where we are today. The key is, that money is coming from the federal government. We now have to make sure that the state governments get it down to the municipalities, so you can do your job.

ZAHN: Isn't that the issue here?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's my concern.

(CROSSTALK)

ZAHN: That cash-strapped communities -- and we have interviewed a lot of those mayors who tell us that they simply don't have the resources to put in this infrastructure we're talking about.

Just a brief rejoinder. I've got to move on to the next question.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don't have the resources for the grant writers and things like that to be able to get grants those written like the larger cities do that have people that are employed to do that. We don't have those resources.

KERIK: And I think what the president has tried to do and will continue to try to do is create standards in the governor's offices, so when they get that money, that money can be distributed to those who need it best.

ZAHN: OK, on to an e-mail question now.

CLARK: Can I just -- quick rejoinder on this?

ZAHN: Briefly.

CLARK: It is true we have made progress. But the standard is not, how much more are we giving? It is, what is the requirement? And we're not meeting the requirement. Study after study has shown we're not meeting the requirement.

It's not just because you're not as good at writing applications for grants. It's because the amount of money coming into the system is not adequate. The money is, instead, being spent for things like the war in Iraq.

PAULA ZAHN, HOST: We have received nearly 10,000 e-mails with questions for the campaigns tonight. We're going to get to one of them right now.

This one is from Fred Rexroad in Yellow Springs, Ohio. He writes, "My office mate's son was wounded in Iraq. He states that his men were sharing body armor since there was not enough to give everyone a full set. Yet President Bush has said he provided every soldier with protection. Maybe not the newest and most advanced, but that they had what they needed. How do you explain the difference in these views?"

Bernard Kerik?

BERNARD KERIK, FORMER IRAQ ADMINISTRATOR: Well, I can say from my own personal perspective, seeing what I saw in Iraq for the four months I was there, no soldier was sharing body arm with another person. I never saw that. I never heard of it. Personally never heard of it, never saw it.

I can tell you that we need the best resources; we need the best equipment. When I was there last year, sometime between July and August we requested supplemental funding for resources, for equipment, for body armor. For the resources, for reconstruction, for the vetting, for the recruitment...

ZAHN: Do the soldiers have the stuff now? Do they have what they need? Because General Abizaid testified before Congress that we went into this war not having enough body armor for the soldiers.

KERIK: I think -- I think they have what they have now because the president has given it to them. And you think about resources, last year there was an $87 billion supplemental that was requested for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Senator Kerry voted against it.

ZAHN: All right. General Clark, there's a lot of confusion surrounding his voting for the war to authorize the war and voting against this authorization. Without getting in too many specifics about his Democratic alternative plan he embraced, try to set the record straight tonight.

CLARK: On the $87 billion, the issue was the accountability of the executive branch to the legislative branch. Under the United States Constitution, Congress holds the executive accountable by control of the purse strings.

There was lot of money already in the pipeline. The troops weren't going to run out of food and ammunition day after tomorrow. And the president sent in the $87 billion supplemental without ever giving the American people or their representatives in Congress a plan for success in Iraq.

It was the Congress' duty, I would contend, to ask the administration to provide that plan for success. And there was adequate time to do it and get the money to the troops.

The administration chose to politicize the issue as, "Hey, you're not supporting the troops," instead of doing their duty to the troops, which was to provide a plan whereby they could succeed.

ZAHN: Is the answer no? Do you deny the charge that Senator Kerry voted against that $87 billion authorization to appear more as an anti-war candidate to compete against Howard Dean in the primary?

CLARK: No. That's not true.

ZAHN: OK. We can talk about that more on the other side of break. We're going to be back with more from South Charleston, Ohio, right after this, including questions about the economy and how to stop the job losses right here in Ohio.

You're watching PRIME TIME POLITICS: THE UNDECIDED VOTE. We'll be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOB ELLIOT, OHIO RESIDENT: The No. 1 issue for me is the position on family values. I believe in the structure of the family, of the traditional family.

BILL THURMAN, OHIO RESIDENT: We can talk about the war. We can talk about the taxes. We can talk about the economy. But it's worthless if the society is not here. What does it matter? So I think we need to worry about our moral -- morality.

BECKY JONES, OHIO RESIDENT: Our schools need money, and if we can't educate our children, we're in bad shape. They're the future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Welcome back. We're joining once again from Clark County, Ohio, at the South Charleston town hall with former New York City police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, and retired General Wesley Clark.

Great to have both of you with us tonight. We have a question for the two of you from Sean (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good evening. I'm Sean McKinnis (ph). My dad was out of work for a year. He lost his job here in Clark County. And fortunately he did find a job that pays a lot less than what he had.

And I go Wittenberg University, and my sister will be joining me there in the fall. We've got college to pay for and other expenses.

How can we make jobs for the middle class that pay a lot of money that will help families be able to go to college and pay for health care, et cetera?

ZAHN: General Clark.

CLARK: Well, John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to help restore job creation to America. It is a complicated multipart plan. Let me tick off some of the pieces of it.

First of all, we need to stop rewarding companies through tax savings for exporting jobs. If they want to export jobs, fine. Do it on their own dime. We need to reward companies who create jobs here.

So John Kerry will take care of the tax reforms so the companies that export jobs don't get subsidized by the United States Treasury for doing it. And then he'll give a tax credit to companies who create jobs here.

We need to raise the minimum wage in this country. If we don't raise the minimum wage, we can't get the rate scales moving back up again so jobs will pay more. John Kerry has a plan to do that over a period of time so that it doesn't cost us jobs, but it raises everybody up in this country.

We need to put more money into research and development. And we in particular need to put that research and development money into things like energy independence, so we're not dependent on Arab oil or natural gas. And we need to put money into our ecology.

When we do R&D on energy and the ecology, we create new technology that will employ Americans and will also give us products to export to the rest of the world. Those are some of the ideas that we'll put in place.

ZAHN: And along that line are how would you defend the president's job record here? The single largest loss or net loss of jobs since Herbert Hoover.

KERIK: Well...

ZAHN: His father was a man very much affected by that.

KERIK: The one thing I would say about the job loss and this is something the Kerry camp has not talked about, during this entire campaign. I think the number going around is 1.6 million jobs lost.

I think people tend to forget in this country within three months after the day of September 11, we lost over a million jobs. Over a million. That's a big issue for this country.

You have to look at what's happened since that job loss, how the economy has come back, where the economy is today. That was an enormous, enormous challenge for the president. And the economy is on the comeback. They're doing better than they've done in the -- in the prior four years. And that's with those job losses.

So the economy is not perfect. It's not great. But it's getting better. But keep in mind, take it back to September 11. Take it back to why the jobs were lost and take it back to how important it is to keep the economy going.

The one thing that we cannot do, tax the economy. I learned from Rudy Giuliani in managing New York City, you don't stimulate an economy by taxing. And every one of Kerry's plans has something to do with increasing taxes. Look at his record.

ZAHN: All right. I know if the general had another minute to take that, the Democrats are hammering the Republicans for your answer, because they're saying just look at last three months of the performance of this economy. And that the job growth has not kept up with the population growth.

I know you're talking points by now. I listen to every speech John Kerry gives.

CLARK: I hear this on the trail. I mean, you know, I've heard this story so many times. I feel really bad for you and your family. But, I mean, I've heard it again and again and again across this country.

The jobs that we're creating are not as good as the jobs we lost, for the most part. And we're not creating enough jobs. We have to create 130,000 jobs on average per month just to keep up with the increase in the population. What we've had because we've got an unemployment rate of about 5.4 percent today, if you actually look at labor force participation and consider the people that just sort of gave up looking for jobs, our real unemployment rate is around 7.5 percent. I mean, we are in trouble on job creation.

ZAHN: All right, let's move on to our next question right here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi.

ZAHN: How are you?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm Sheila Rice (ph). I'm a small business owner, and I'm concerned with health insurance costs for my workers. I currently employ about ten workers. And they're middle aged to older, but they don't have health care. So therefore they don't do preventive maintenance on their bodies with medicine or anything like that. So I'm really concerned about their health care costs for small business owners like myself.

ZAHN: Mr. Kerik, why don't you take that first?

KERIK: Well, I think most importantly we have to look at what the president said in the last few weeks with regard to health care. And addressing health care across the country, creating pools for -- for small business owners where they can pool into health care programs and plans.

We also have to look at frivolous lawsuits. That's been a tremendous burden on the health care systems. And that's something that has to be addressed in the future.

ZAHN: Mr. Clark?

CLARK: You're exactly right in your concern about small businesses and the -- you know, the health care costs for the average American family has gone up $3,500 a year.

President Bush has been in office over 36 -- 30 -- 42 months now, and he hasn't done a thing to enable small businesses to pool and get the insurance.

This is part of John Kerry's plan through the SCHIP program that we use for the State Child Health Insurance Program, to be able to allow that to expand so that all children are covered and states have the option to expand this pooling so that small businessmen can participate.

And as a last resort, John Kerry will provide the means for Americans to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress have. And he'll provide some savings and reimbursements for them to do that.

This will cost money. But it's money well spent, because for us to be competitive across the world, we have to encourage small business in this country. ZAHN: All right.

CLARK: And dealing with health care is a big factor in that.

ZAHN: For how many of you in this room tonight is health care a very important issue, particularly in your decision in this upcoming presidential race? Interesting.

And how many of you believe that whoever is elected is going to add significantly to the deficit because of the costs related to health care? Less convinced of that. Interesting.

We may even get to a deficit question on the other side. Hold it right there. When we come back, your health care and the attacks on trial lawyers during this campaign. And we will continue our town hall meeting when we come back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN DERR, OHIO RESIDENT: I would like to see the Congress and the Senate all work together for what's best for the country rather than for the political party.

LARRY SCHOENFELD, OHIO RESIDENT: I just want change. I think we need -- I think we need change.

ROBERT LEECH, OHIO RESIDENT: I don't believe we should be changing horses in midstream. When you do that, you get your feet wet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: Welcome back to our town hall meeting in the battleground state of Ohio. Former New York City police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, is here representing the Bush/Cheney campaign. Retired General Wesley Clark is here for the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

And they actually talk to each other during the commercial breaks. These guys know each other.

Sir, your question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. My name is Mark Roberts (ph), and I have to disclose that I'm a trial lawyer.

ZAHN: No boos -- no boos and hisses in this crowd.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. My question is for Commissioner Kerik. And I kind of realize that maybe tort reform isn't your area of expertise, either of you gentlemen, but I'm going to pose that question.

President Bush has said over and over that he's going to stop frivolous lawsuits against good doctors. But the tort reform legislation he supports severely restricts all the good cases. And I'd like to know...

ZAHN: Where you find a balance in that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... how that comes together. What's the basis of that?

KERIK: Well, honestly, it's not my forte. And it's...

ZAHN: Police chiefs don't do, like, tort reform stuff?

KERIK: No. I'm not big on tort reform. But I think we have to address the lawsuit issue.

You know, me, myself -- forget about the doctors, you know, in the New York City Police Department, when you run the NYPD, you have 55,000 people that work for you. You work for the eight million people in the city. I used to get sued about, I don't know, 10, 15 times a week, and 95 percent of those were frivolous. Ninety-five percent of those should have never made my desk, should have never got where they were.

Things like that have to be addressed, particularly in the arena of health care. I would agree with that.

ZAHN: And General Clark, the accusation against the Kerry camp is that you're too cozy with trial lawyers, particularly because of John Edwards being a former litigator and that an awful lot of campaign money has come into your coffers from trial lawyers.

You're probably taking a rap for that, aren't you?

CLARK: I think access to the courts is a very important American freedom. I think we've got to be very, very careful in what we do in tort reform not to deny people access to the courts.

If you're a big company or a city department or -- I was in the military. You always have lawyers. They work for you. You don't think anything about it. When you become a private citizen, when you're just an ordinary person out there, you don't have your own lawyer. You don't keep him on retainer at $500 a month. And if something goes wrong, you need access to the courts, and those trial lawyers are there to help ordinary people.

Now it's true...

ZAHN: But you do accept the fact that there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits?

CLARK: I don't accept the fact that there are a lot of them. But there are some. And that's why John Kerry and John Edwards have proposed dealing with tort reform as one of the issues in improving health care.

And I talked to John Edwards about it. Of course, he's a great trial lawyer. He says you need something like a three strikes and you're out rule. And somebody rules on whether it's a frivolous suit or not, and you keep doing that, you're out. And you don't have the right to introduce, and it will put lawyers out of business who introduce frivolous lawsuits.

But you've got to be very careful how you define it, because access to the courts is a fundamental freedom that we share in America.

ZAHN: I think that was a balance you were trying to get to with that question. Thank you.

On to our next question now. You must be on the Wittenberg football team.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am.

ZAHN: I read that on his shirt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Charlie O'Dell (ph).

ZAHN: We're really swift tonight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And going back to the war on terror. In this post-9/11 world, do you agree that preemptive strikes are the best way to fight the war on terror? And if so, where would our next target be, what country would want to attack next? And if not what is an alternative course of action that would be effective also?

KERIK: I would say absolutely 100 percent we have to be proactive and preemptive. If you go back to the president's speech of September 20, 2001, he talked about going to war, he mentioned Afghanistan. But he also talked about the global war on terror.

There are people that despise this country: our freedoms, our economic freedoms, our religious freedoms, our support for women and human rights. The fact that we can have this town hall meeting and there are women sitting in this room that aren't married, aren't covered, that have an education. That's what they despise.

We have to go after those people, because they have a standing order from people like Osama bin Laden and people out front like al- Zarqawi who is in Iraq today.

ZAHN: Can you specify the countries real quickly you think represent the greatest threat to us and then we'll let General Clark take that on the other side of the break.

KERIK: I say Iraq. I think we have to be concerned about Iran. We have to be concerned about Syria. We have to make sure we take a look at -- at North Korea. Those are some of the elements out there that we should be concerned with.

ZAHN: All right. Then we will let the general answer on the other side. We're going to take a short break.

CLARK: Preemptive -- preemptive... ZAHN: Do you mind holding that response for a commercial break? I know you can do that, General. Somebody has to pay for this show, OK. You get that.

Our town hall meeting continues right after this. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAHN: And welcome back to our town hall meeting in Clark County, Ohio.

Before we went to the break, Charlie over here of the Wittenberg football team -- you play guard, right, on the football team -- asked an important question about when you would employ preemptive action and what you see as the gravest threat to the U.S. security.

CLARK: Well, I think at all times the United States has to have the option to strike preemptively. But it may not be in the form of an invasion of a country to take down a country. It might be against a terrorist group.

In other words, we don't have to wait for them to strike us. If we've got information that they're going to strike us and there's no other way to deal with it, we should strike them first. But in the war on terror, what's important is that we go after the international terrorists and the people that struck us. That's al Qaeda.

What we did in Iraq was go after a state that wasn't involved in 9/11. So we have to be careful with that, because that's has used a lot of resources.

We do have threats from Iran, should they develop nuclear potential. We know that the North Korean situation is somewhat unstable. They do probably have nuclear weapons, it seems, at this point.

ZAHN: Are you as concerned about Syria as Mr. Kerik?

CLARK: So Syria and Iran are part of this region that has been really -- we've stimulated conflict in the region by invading Iraq.

The question is and can we use diplomacy to try to work through the region, to give our troops in Iraq a better chance? Right now Syria and Iran are both feeding the conflict in Iraq, because they see that they're next on our hit list.

What we need a president to do -- and this is what only John Kerry can do -- is use a combination of carrots and sticks with both Iran and Syria so that they see that it's in their interest to have a peaceful, stable, democratizing Iraq.

ZAHN: All right. I want to give the audience an opportunity now among those undecideds. Hold your hands up again, those of you came in tonight undecided. All right. Quite a few of you. You can put your hands down. How many of you heard something tonight that may help you cement your vote? A couple of you. Your campaigns still have a lot to do.

On to one last e-mail from Karen in Lorraine, Ohio. She writes, "How can it be justified that all the members of the Senate received flu shots 'because they shake hands a lot,' yet the majority of Americans cannot receive the vaccine unless you are in a 'high risk' group?"

A lot of laughter in this room. I would interpret that as cynicism. Quick answer.

CLARK: I don't think you can justify it. I think the administration was warned three years ago that we were reducing the number of vaccine makers and that we would eventually have a problem like this. They did nothing.

It's the responsibility of the president, the executive branch, to worry about public health in this country. And, you know, as John Kerry said, if they can't handle manufacturing flu vaccine, we should be worried about bioterrorism.

ZAHN: Thirty seconds for an answer. We should make it clear a lot of people think Congress shares equal...

KERIK: That's exactly what I was going to say. I disagree with the general. It's not the president's responsibility. It's really Congress' responsibility. And they need to do a better job at oversight. They need a better job -- do a better job on following this up.

ZAHN: Gentlemen, we're going to have to leave it there tonight. Wesley Clark, Bernard Kerik, we appreciate both of you joining us tonight.

We should make it clear the former police chief literally raced here. We won't tell you how much over the speed limit he had to go to get here, but he made it. You moved at a much more civil pace, I think, General.

CLARK: Well, I flew.

ZAHN: You flew.

We have one more town hall meeting before election day on November 1, the eve of the big vote we will be in Kissimmee, Florida, near Orlando. Don't forget to join us. Don't forget to submit your own town hall questions at our web site: CNN.com/Paula.

I hope you all learned something tonight. Did you? Did you enjoy it?

And that is it tonight from the heartland of beautiful Clark County, Ohio. Thanks to our town hall audience, and once again, General Clark, Bernard Kerik and all of you for joining us tonight. And I'm sure if you had the opportunity you would tell everybody get out and vote, right? Is that your closing thought?

CLARK: Exactly right.

ZAHN: No matter who they vote for, they should get out and take part in the process?

KERIK: This is the most important election of your lifetime.

CLARK: And ask the issues. Demand that the candidates and their groups answer your questions on the issues.

ZAHN: All right. And we're going to start to do that right here on this show. Thank you all for joining us again.

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