Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

A Look at State of Union Address; Interest Rates, Stock Markets Edge Up

Aired February 06, 2005 - 10:00   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.


BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Betty Nguyen here at the CNN Center. ON THE STORY is straight ahead. But first, these stories "Now in the News."
Pope John Paul II appeared alert at his hospital window to give his traditional weekly blessing. In a statement read by an aide, the pope said his mission will continue despite health problems. His appearance drew loud cheers outside the hospital and at St. Peter's Square, where he was seen on video screens.

Iran is blasting President Bush for his State of the Union statement that Iran sponsors terrorism. Iran's foreign ministry says the U.S. supports Zionist terrorists and runs military prisons that use torture. Earlier, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice downplayed the possibility that the U.S. might consider invading Iran.

Medical examiners, they are working to determine how three children died in their apartment in Huntsville, Alabama. Their mother, Nathshay Ward, is charged with murder. Police say the woman admits to starving them. And the bodies of her 8, 9 and 11-year-old were found on Friday.

Right now the excitement is building in Jacksonville, Florida, hosting its first Super Bowl. The game pits the Patriots against the Eagles this evening. New England is favored by a touchdown, but reporters covering Philadelphia say the team looks confident and ready to go. It's going to be a good game.

I'm Betty Nguyen. CNN's ON THE STORY begins right now.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week. I'm on the story on the politics behind all those standing ovations for the president's speech Wednesday evening and how first lady Laura Bush is ready for the next four years.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Suzanne Malveaux, on the story of the message the president sent on Iraq and on Social Security.

KATHLEEN HAYS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kathleen Hays, on the story of why both interest rates and the stock market edged back up this week and what we did not hear about Social Security. We'll go to Iraq, where Jane Arraf talks about election day plus one week. We'll get to Rome to talk to Vatican analyst Delia Gallagher about the pope's health. And we'll talk to Susan Candiotti about security around today's Super Bowl.

E-mail us at onthestory@cnn.com.

Now, straight to Suzanne and the State of the Union.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): At the president's State of the Union address, we expected to hear what they call a blueprint of the second- term administration. Reaching out, hoping Americans would get on board with the Social Security reform plan.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now as we see a little gray in the mirror, or a lot of gray, and we watch our children moving into adulthood...

MALVEAUX: More on the U.S. mission in Iraq.

BUSH: And Iraqis must be able to defend their own country.

MALVEAUX: But what we didn't expect is that someone else would steal the president's thunder.

BUSH: We are honored that she is with us tonight.

MALVEAUX: But that's exactly what happened in this special and poignant moment when an Iraqi moment who voted for the first time reached out to an American couple who lost their son who fought in the war.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Of course, after the applause, the harder work, fighting a war and building support for his Social Security plan, something he did at end of the week from Fargo, North Dakota, to Tampa, Florida. It was a very busy week for the president.

CROWLEY: But let me -- let me start at the beginning, at the State of the Union and the hug. I admit it. They got me. Usually, you know, they can't get me with these things up there.

How much of that was planned? We know obviously they invited those two women, seated them where they seated them. The hug seemed to me -- please tell me it was spontaneous.

MALVEAUX: Well, you know, it was funny, because immediately people watched that. And there some who thought -- some cynics who thought, wait a minute, you know, perhaps a Bush aid nudged them and said this would be a great picture, this would really look good.

Bottom line is, you know, I mean, it's political stage craft in the sense that, yes, they put the Iraqi woman in the front, they put the couple in the back, but they didn't -- they didn't queue them to say, you know, let's hug, you know, this would make it look good for the president.

But obviously, I mean, when you put them in and position them -- and the box is so important, who they decide -- this was the moment the president and the administration had been looking for. That was that kind of mission accomplished moment, where you have the Iraqis dancing and then you have these two teams, these two people come together.

HAYS: More big ambitions in the State of the Union address. And the president kind of known for doing that. Of course the big ambition now is Social Security reform. But he also seemed to want to clear up a point he made about ending tyranny around the world.

MALVEAUX: You know, that was one of the things, too, that generated a lot of questions. You know, when they talked about Iran and North Korea.

And what was really interesting, it was pretty typical what you heard, when he said, well, we'll continue with our diplomacy. What wasn't typical and what was surprising is how he responded to some of the criticism talking about Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

I mean, these are countries that essentially the United States has worked with, have the worst human rights abuse records in the world, according to the State Department. And people are asking, hey, this is a double standard here. And that's where he decided, I'm going to push them just a little bit, just a little bit.

HAYS: But answer that for -- for everybody. But how powerful is this? To say this little -- throw out this little line in the State of the Union address, is that just to appease the critics, or can we assume then that Condi Rice has some grand plan that's going to be followed up on?

MALVEAUX: Well, you know Condi Rice is in the area. And she's going to be talking to them. And behind the scenes, of course, she is pushing them forward.

I mean, I think when you look at the political stage, the big picture here is obviously not for us, necessarily, but for the international audience. That they want them -- want them to get the point, to get the picture, and say, hey, look, you know, if we're going to push you here -- and it wasn't received very well.

I mean, you heard from a lot of the leadership around -- around the region. And they just thought, well, this is more of the same kind of patronizing, condescending thing we have heard from the administration. Maybe they're going to be more effective behind the scenes.

CROWLEY: But is it -- I mean, wasn't it in some sense also for here? Because the criticism really was, oh, yes, let's see him tell Saudi Arabia to, you know, have a democracy. Let's see him tell Egypt to, you know, get with it and not be imprisoning all of the dissenters.

But -- I mean, so it must have played well here. It just strikes me that that's a -- that was a domestic call.

MALVEAUX: It played well here. I mean, it played much better here than it did overseas.

HAYS: But the -- but the -- you know, the knives are really out on Social Security. This is such a charged debate. Be careful what you say, be careful who you say it to, because every word on Social Security will be held against you.

The president finally gave us some details behind the scenes. The White House gave us more details. He went on the road. How does the White House think it's going so far? Are they getting concerned?

MALVEAUX: They're very concerned. They're actually very concerned about this because I don't think, you know, at this point, they're not as effective as they had hoped they would be.

You see the president in kind of his typical campaign fashion, is on the road. They've clearly got their strategy in place.

If we can win over kind of like the grassroots' folks, as they did in the campaign, and have them put pressure on the Democrats, as you know, because they went to the states, the red states, where the Democrats were somewhat vulnerable on this issue, and said, hey, we're not going for this, then perhaps we can push them along. But they realize they're not even close to coming up with something that people are going to agree on.

They're not even close to coming up with something that Pelosi or Reid would actually sign off on. So, you know, they were intentionally vague in the State of the Union.

CROWLEY: And they've been -- also, they're going to have to take their eye off of the ball several times over the course of the year. It can't just be all Social Security all of the time.

We have got the budget coming up. And you can already hear people screaming about the promised cuts that he talked about.

MALVEAUX: And Kathleen, you know a lot about the figures too. But, I mean, we are talking about $2.5 trillion for 2005. And there are 150 -- I mean, Bush got out in the front and said there's going to be 150 federal programs that are either going to be cut or eliminated. That these are going to be very tough choices.

There are going to be a lot of unhappy people tomorrow when that budget is released. But we have already seen a lot of what's to come, a lot of the indicators for that.

HAYS: And, of course, again, you can see the policies, the debate shaking up, because the liberal side is saying these are going to fall disproportionately on lower-income people because there may be slower rates of growth in education and health care. And then they quickly talk about the Bush tax cut and what it adds.

I wonder when the president's response will be to that.

MALVEAUX: And what was interesting was that some of the things that came up in the State of the Union address that perhaps for one group actually satisfied some of their needs, not the Social Security folks, not the tax reform folks, but really the African-American community. The Congressional Black Caucus met with the president a couple of weeks ago. The NAACP had met with him earlier.

These were two groups that the president did not have a good relationship with on the first term. Didn't want to meet with them because of criticism in the past. He addressed a number of thing that they are concerned, talked about the criminal justice system, talked about AIDS in the African-American community. That was one group that was actually pleased with what the president had to say.

CROWLEY: We'll have more on the Iraqi woman honored at the State of the Union later in the hour in our "What's Her Story?" segment.

I'm back ON THE STORY next about the Democrats. Are they getting rolled this weekend, every week by the president? And my talk with first lady Laura Bush as she begins her second term.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY: My role probably hadn't changed as much as I have changed and just become more comfortable in this job that I have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Candy Crowley is CNN's senior political correspondent. She's been with the network since 1987. The National Press Foundation honored her with the 1998 Dirksen Award for distinguished reporting on Congress. She received the 1997 Joan Shorenstein Barone Award for excellence in journalism for coverage of the Bob Dole presidential campaign.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: That's what Democrats believe, and that's where we stand. And that's what we'll fight for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid with his party's response to President Bush's speech Wednesday. A tall order for Democrats to be effective challengers to President Bush and dig the party out of post-election identity crisis all at the same time.

Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

HAYS: You know, Harry Reid is such a mild mannered, almost soft- spoken kind of guy. But he is now the minority leader in the Senate. And it's interesting how feisty the Democrats are being.

I'm sure the Republicans saying, hey, wait a minute, we won the election. We picked up seats in the house. You guys are blocking -- trying to block confirmations and you're saying, hell no on Social Security. I mean...

CROWLEY: Well, it's what -- I mean, you know, look, when you can't get the podium yourself, you attach yourself to the other guy's podium. And that's what's going on with the confirmations.

They got a chance to vent on Iraq. They got a chance to vent on -- with the Gonzales nomination. They got a chance to go ahead and vent on civil rights. So we're going to hear -- I can't wait until we have other confirmations to get more toward the domestic policy, because they'll be able to vent there.

But, look, a lot of people said the same thing about Tom Daschle. Oh, he's such a nice guy, oh, he's so sweet. And he was tough, he was tough.

But what Harry Reid has going for him right now is the Democrats are still angry about everything. You know, they're in the minority. They lost the White House again when they really think that they should have won it. And they are united.

And they're going to use these platforms to be out there and say, here's what the Democratic Party stands for, because they feel they came out with the election with people going, well, what is the Democratic Party about? And they're listening to their base, which said, you're not tough enough on George Bush. You know, you've got to get out there and you've got to -- so they're very much pleasing their base at this point.

MALVEAUX: And what about Social Security? Because I talked to some of these Democrats and they say, well, we believe the president is being kind of fast and loose with the facts. We're going to come out publicly and slam him, but we're going to do some sort of education campaign to say, look, you know, Social Security can't -- can't go bankrupt essentially.

Do they feel confident in that issue?

CROWLEY: Not particularly, because here is why. How can you beat the bully pulpit?

I mean, here's the president on this tour that gets play every hour on the hour. It's very tough to be a Democrat now and get an education, you know, campaign going, because it's like, who is going out and listen to these guys?

So they are trying to do it in different forums. They can have news conferences. They can be on Capitol Hill and do it. They can do -- they're going to be advertising.

So they will push back. But, you know, I bring up Harold Ford, who's an up and comer in the party, or I'm sure he's further than that actually. I'm sure he would think he's further than that, and he is -- saying we can't just say no.

HAYS: And can you say, as Howard Dean has said, I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for? I admire their administration. I admire their organizational abilities. But is being a group of Bush haters -- and we know there are people out there like that -- going to be enough to lead the American people forward in the direction the Democrats want to go?

CROWLEY: Well, it keeps the money coming in. Because the people who fund the Democratic Party are the die-hards, and they are, in fact, the people who are most annoyed and most aggravated by George Bush's second term.

Howard Dean, as you know, is on a roll again. About to become this week the DNC chairman. This has delighted the Republicans, going, oh, this is great, they're suicidal.

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: The White House is absolutely delighted.

CROWLEY: Absolutely. I think that they should be just a little tiny bit cautious about this pre-celebration.

First of all, because the DNC does not -- or neither of the parties formulate what the party is about. They raise the money. They get the organization in place. And they keep the base happy.

Well, Howard Dean can do that. I mean, Howard Dean can, you know, bring around him the people that can get them on the Internet and that can, you know, start fund-raising, you know, in new and hipper ways. And the base loves him.

So this is not -- to me, I look at it and I think, well, as a DNC chief, this guy's great. But what the party needs is an attractive possibility for 2008 that can go out there and articulate. That's the person they're waiting for.

MALVEAUX: So, speaking of hipper, though, you had a great interview with the first lady this week. And she's the hipper, younger, fresher version...

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: Well, one really depressing thing she told me -- because I said to her, you know, everybody is talking about how great you looked at inauguration. I mean, what woman wears white when the cameras are on, right? And there she is in her winter white looking terrific.

And I said, "That's so wonderful." And she said, "Well, you know" -- she said, "I've been lifting weights three hours a week for three years now, and it's finally beginning to show."

I thought I want to shoot myself. I said, three years and now it's showing. But she looks great. But, you know, more importantly than that, she's -- she's just different from the six-year-ago Laura Bush, who I felt was the reluctant campaigner's wife. She talks as easily about Social Security and the need for a changes in it as she does about this initiative on boys and teen boys that she now wants to champion. She says herself, I didn't really realize when the president was sworn in the first time the kind of power that this position has.

HAYS: Tell us again your great line from this week about what this -- the role -- how this affects the president to become president or the first lady to become first lady.

CROWLEY: I mean, it really did strike me. And I think if you look back over time, even from Eleanor Roosevelt, that the power that is given to these men as president seems to weigh them down.

We always remark on, oh man, this guy looks 100 years older than he did. I mean, it's just -- that power has a way of weighing them down.

But the power that the women find for themselves seems to give them life. And I think Laura Bush is in that mode now.

She's finally realized that there is power there to be taken and used in a way that she wants to use it to do something. And it just has given her a strength that she didn't have six years ago. I think the same can be said for Hillary Clinton, who was strong going in, but who came out of that White House a powerhouse.

HAYS: Like a lioness.

MALVEAUX: And yet you also had a really great story about just Laura Bush as the mother, you know. Just taking care of the daughters.

CROWLEY: I was remarking how she can -- you know, she can talk about Social Security, she can talk about tax cuts, and those -- and so I said, "It must be great to have your girls around town in Washington." You know, her 20-something twins.

And she said, "Yes." She says, "You know, and just this weekend I was helping Jenna paint the curtain rods for her apartment." I'm thinking, OK, just the idea that she spends the weekend painting the curtain rods. She's still mom.

HAYS: I'm just so -- I am so glad to know there's another mother in America who is under her kid's thumb. You know, like so many of us.

CROWLEY: Exactly. Exactly.

HAYS: Well, another big topic, Iraq, looming over the political debate. We'll go there to ask Jane Arraf why she says post-election Iraq could be even more dangerous than before.

We're back ON THE STORY after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: That was a sea of protesters saying that this election was actually stolen form them. Now, there was surprisingly little violence during the elections themselves, but with the political risks, this post-election Iraq could be even more dangerous.

Welcome back. I'm Jane Arraf, ON THE STORY.

MALVEAUX: Jane, I know that for the president and for the White House, that really was an incredible moment. Almost to see the Iraqis dancing in the streets.

This is something that they wanted and had argued would happen from the very beginning. There was really a sense of vindication. Tell me how much of that was real and how much do you think it was kind of a little bit of exaggeration, perhaps even spin.

ARRAF: You know, there always is a tendency to take those little bits of joy, those little bits of hope and say, OK, this is it, it's working on the political level. But this was really a case where I think for me and for lots of Iraqis this was the first time since the end of major combat, when things started to go wrong, that there really was a feeling that, gosh, maybe this work. It was a joyous day in these elections, in these polling stations.

There were people killed across the country, but not nearly as many as expected. And where we were, we had to go to three different polling stations to actually find workers who had showed up and policemen who had showed up. But when we got to one of the polling sites where people were coming in to vote, I cannot tell you the feeling that was there.

These people were absolutely enraptured. There were old women who had walked for a long time. There were families, there were fathers showing their little girls how they were going to go about voting.

It was almost indescribable the feeling there. So in that sense, for those people that day, that was not exaggerated.

CROWLEY: Jane, so we're a week -- a week since. Does the joy continue? Or are we back to square one?

ARRAF: I think reality is setting in a little bit. Because what we have here -- and we're in this fascinating part of the country, which is the Sunni heartland, in the town where there was huge voter tout.

Now, here, the Shia-backed candidates, the parties backed by the Ayatollah Ali Sistani, have taken the most votes. But there has been quite a political race here.

There was a very strong candidate. The Iraqi Islamic Party, which was Sunni, has done well, partly because the governor of the province, a Sunni himself, was left off the ballot. The Election Commission says by mistake, he says by conspiracy.

And that's why we had those protesters chanting, saying that the election was stolen from them. There are a lot of things to be determined.

What happens in cases like that? What happens in places when the voting is contested? What happens to all of the political fallout?

I mean, you know how obviously -- you all know intimately how complicated American politics is. Imagine it here, where you have a whole new ball game.

HAYS: And what happens to the U.S. military? Apparently they played a pretty significant role during the elections. And a lot of questions now here the United States about an exit strategy.

ARRAF: Well, that's a fascinating thing. A lot of them, a considerable number of them were actually kept on for the elections. They thought they'd be home sooner than this.

At the base where we are, this is Task Force 22 of the 1st Infantry Division. We were with them in Falluja. They fought that battle in Falluja, paving the way for the Marines. They've had a really hard slog here.

They were in Najaf for that battle. They have been here about a year. And now they are two weeks from going home. And you can imagine what that's like.

But while it's happening, there is a new division coming in, new people. And half of those have been through Iraq before. It's their second deployment. Half of them have never been to this country before.

You know, whether they're coming or going, most of these soldiers feel that they will be back here again, that troops are going to here for a long, long time. And you have probably discussed this, but there's a lot of curiosity about whether there's the feeling in the U.S. as well.

MALVEAUX: And Jane, tell us about the security situation. Because there is some concern that perhaps it's even more dangerous now than it was about a week ago or even before the elections?

ARRAF: It's a very odd time right now, I have to tell you. Everyone is waiting for the pin to drop.

The election period itself was less volatile than many had predicted. We were in Baquba, where around that region there were 54 attacks that day.

Now, that sounds like a huge number, but the military took pride in the fact that the Iraqi army came and stayed. The Iraqi police did not run away. And none of the polling stations were overrun on election day. Now, it's been relatively quiet. We ran into a roadside bomb, an improvised explosive device, a couple of days ago. But it has been extraordinarily quiet. Not just here, but in other parts of the country. And no one is quite sure why.

Now, one of the reasons would be that they essentially filled the jails, basically rounding up a lot of people before elections. But still, it's not clear whether this insurgency has, whether the back of the insurgency has been broken, or whether this is just a lull before renewed attacks.

HAYS: Jane, thank you. And of course that's why you will continue to be ON THE STORY to answer that question in coming days. What are you expecting?

ARRAF: What we're expecting probably is continued attempts on the part of the military, anyway, to simultaneously fight the insurgency and have a role. Not an overt role, and this is the tricky part.

The military here in places like this, because there is no one else to do it, does things that involves not just fighting insurgents, but every facet that you can dream of. Meeting tribal sheiks, encouraging municipal governments. With the political situation so volatile, it's going to be very interesting to see how that works out.

We're following a lot of very close political races here, seeing what happens with the Sunni minority, who have felt shut out. We're going to be following this integration of military coming, new people coming in, these people leaving. And everyday is a surprise.

HAYS: And that's why we are always eager to see what you're following for us. Jane Arraf, again, thank you.

And from Iraq, back here to the domestic economy. Straight ahead, a look at jobs right now and retirement ahead.

Coming up, we'll go to Rome and talk with Delia Gallagher about the latest on the health of the pope.

And Susan Candiotti will be on the security story at the Super Bowl.

Plus, a check on what's in the news right now. That's all just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you have a 5- year-old you're already concerned about how you'll pay for college tuition 13 years down the road. If you've got children in their 20s, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter and it should not be a small matter to the United States Congress. (END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYS: President Bush putting a personal spin on his pitch for Social Security changes in his State of the Union. He shared new details, called for suggestions and, at the same time, left blank some key details.

Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

CROWLEY: You know, Kathleen, one thing we all know is that most people are change averse. You know, they like things to stay the same. So, first, what's the argument for doing this?

HAYS: The president's argument is, first of all, that this will give you something you own, something the government can't take away, which seems to apply that the government would.

The government's really never talked about taking Social Security away and, in fact, when he talks about bankruptcy or collapse, we know that that's somewhat inaccurate because the worst that could happen is a cut in people's benefits at some point in time but let's put that to one side.

You own something. The government can't take it away. You get a chance to invest part of your Social Security in the stock market. Right now, if you die, and you are -- you have adult survivors they don't get your Social Security, your dependent kids, your spouse.

But, if a 30-year-old woman whose father died who was collecting Social Security would get none of that. If there were a personal account there and it earned enough that adult child would be able to inherit some of that Social Security.

Those are some of the basic arguments for it. I think one more, I've heard the Libertarian think tanks make, is that people of modest means who might not have a chance to invest in the markets would now have a venue where they could also start learning about investing and saving. Of course there's a lot of people lined up on the other side with other arguments.

MALVEAUX: So, Kathleen, the Bush administration says this is all a part of the philosophical difference between them and the Democrats, pull the government out, have the market interest factors really work for them. So, what are the risks involved here? I mean what, if you decide I'm going to put in for this private account, what do you have to put in to actually get something out so that you're not losing your benefits?

HAYS: Well, first of all, let's everybody realize that part of the deal is here. Once you put money into a personal account you've agreed to accept that. That's what you're going to get. You've given up part of your guaranteed benefit.

Think about benefits, which you'll get in a personal account, but think of a guaranteed benefit. As soon as you take this up to say about a third to a fourth of your Social Security money and put it in the personal account, whatever that return, that account does that's what you're going to get. Again, you've already agreed I'm going to get a smaller benefit in the future, guaranteed benefit.

Right now the experts say you have to make and both sides agree pretty much a three percent real rate of return on your investment to break even. If you do better, some experts say you could probably make about four and a half percent. Then that excess above a certain amount you get to take out. But, if you earn less than that three percent rate of return, you will be short of what you would have had under that guaranteed benefit. This is the choice.

CROWLEY: You get to take out when, wait a minute. The stuff you make above three percent you get to take out.

HAYS: Yes, that's what you get. That's what you get. You have to make three percent to equal what you would have gotten under the guaranteed benefit.

CROWLEY: Right.

HAYS: That's your floor.

CROWLEY: Right.

HAYS: Anything above that, that's what you're more or less given a little calculation here and there.

CROWLEY: With the three percent you'd get your full benefit.

HAYS: Right. You'd get exactly what you would have gotten under the guaranteed benefit.

CROWLEY: From the guarantee. You make one percent above three percent of the market over 15, 20 years, if you come out one percent ahead, four percent ahead that's your money?

HAYS: That's-- but if you come out one percent behind, that's the reduction that you will have relative to what you would have had, had you stayed with the guaranteed benefit that is currently what we call the guaranteed benefit right now.

CROWLEY: Isn't their argument like over a 15 to 20-year period, if you look at the market in 20-year segments you're always ahead?

HAYS: Well, timing is everything. A Goldman Sachs economist this week put out a piece of research where they basically said, you know, if you retired, let's say you've been on this system, if you retired at the peak of the market in early 2000 or you retired at the bottom of the market, say late 2002 or early 2003, just that difference could cut your retirement benefit by about a third.

CROWLEY: But you could be ahead.

HAYS: Well, they basically said no. My understanding is they were -- well, that's a good question. Would you be ahead of what you would have had otherwise. But the thing is, it's hard to explain but if the market does really well for ten years and is flat or does poorly for five years, that can really reduce your benefit.

I don't have all the numbers in front of me. I can't exactly answer that question but the market is risky. That's the bottom line. That's why you get a higher return because it's risky.

MALVEAUX: Is the risk equal for everyone because I know there are some studies and certainly people are talking about the risks to the African American community and, Candy, you actually did an interview about this that because black men in particular die younger, there's a different equation here.

HAYS: I'm going to defer to Candy on this but I want to say quickly too that one thing we have to also remember is on the table. The president's personal accounts do not solve the basic challenge facing Social Security, which is the difference between money being paid in and money going out in the future. I think that's another thing that the Democrats are hammering home very hard because, again, it's part of the choice the American people are going to have to make.

CROWLEY: It's part of the sales pitch of the Bush administration. I think you saw him out there with African Americans telling stories of "I was 20 years old when my father died. My brother was 19. He was in college. He could have used some money. Had he had a personal account he could have had that. As it was, we were too old to get dad's benefits. Mom was too young to get any survivor benefits."

Now you have, both, you know, minority families and white families whose husbands die prior to collecting their Social Security but you have, in fact, women that are working longer in the course of time than their husbands are and, therefore, they take their Social Security money.

So, there's lots of figures out there. Most people say, look, African Americans take a lot out of this system, not just in retirement but in survivor benefits and in dependent things and disability. So, you take your facts and you run with it, right?

HAYS: I have a question, Candy. Do you think -- do you think there's any chance that this even survives? The Democrats seem so doggone against this. Will the American people really get a chance to look at both sides and make a choice? Or, do you think this becomes a case where the Democrats want to make sure President Bush doesn't get any kind of victory on Social Security?

CROWLEY: I'm going to answer it quickly because they've asked me to. I never thought he'd get his tax cuts.

From business to religion and the health of Pope John Paul II, CNN Analyst Delia Gallagher is ON THE STORY after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DELIA GALLAGHER, CNN VATICAN ANALYST: One has to consider also the underlying elements of the pope's strength and his doctors have said many time in the past that he's very strong-willed and strong physically.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: Pope John Paul II from Rome earlier today giving a brief blessing, the first time we've seen him since he went to the hospital Tuesday.

Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

Our Vatican Correspondent or our Vatican Analyst Delia Gallagher joins us from Rome. Delia, listening to this, was this reassuring to those who have been monitoring the pope's health over the last couple of days?

GALLAGHER: Yes, absolutely, Candy. I think the important point today is that we saw the pope, so we had a means of confirming what the Vatican has been telling us all along, which is that he's OK. He's getting better.

Now, the condition in which we saw him one is hard pressed to say he looks good. Good is always a relative term for the pope. But he certainly didn't look any worse than before he went into the hospital.

You heard his voice there very muffled, not as strong as usual. You can't really make out the words. He was giving a blessing at the end. But nonetheless, the important point was that we saw him and he looks OK, so that's certainly reassuring considering the alarm bells that went off on Tuesday night.

HAYS: But certainly, Delia, the question of the pope potentially becoming incapacitated and therefore unable to fulfill any of his duties as the head of the world's what one billion Catholics, what is the discussion in Rome now at the Vatican about how to handle that should that come to pass?

GALLAGHER: Well, that's actually one of the big open questions right now in the church. There is no provision for a mentally incapacitated pope. Let's make the point we're not there yet. Everybody has confirmed, and I myself can confirm that the pope is still mentally lucid. He's slower, et cetera, but he's still able to follow arguments.

However, it has raised the question for an eventual mentally incapacitated pope what does the church do? And the short answer is that there is no provision. There is a canon in the church law, the Code of Canon Law, which allows for removing a bishop who is mentally incapacitated. However, that presumes that you can bring that to the pope and he can authorize that removal.

In the case of the pope, however, there's nobody to authorize it, so the question becomes what are the criteria for declaring the pope incapacitated and who is going to do it? So, it's one of the big open questions right now in the church. MALVEAUX: And, Delia, because there are no provisions about that, is that part of the reason why the Vatican really isn't as forthcoming or getting as much information as people would like because perhaps they think there's a fear of panic within the international community that we don't have a plan here?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think that the Vatican is always reticent to give out too much information. We've seen in the last few days journalists asking for more information regarding his health but part of the reason of the Vatican's reticence has to do with their whole philosophy and their relationship to the media.

You know they don't feel that it's their job to talk to the media, 24 hours a day. The papal spokesman of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) said that just on Friday. They feel it's their job just to give a bit of information but they're not too interested in doing PR and the reasons for that partially are political, of course, to keep stability and partially for reasons of privacy about the pope's health.

So, yes, I think that the Vatican doesn't come forth with too much information, although if you want to compare it to other pontificates, of course, nowadays we do have a lot more information to work from and, of course, we have the confirmation that we got to see the pope, so we can see for ourselves what the real state of affairs is.

CROWLEY: Delia let me just take it back a couple steps and ask you what is it that would not get done were the pope incapacitated and there was no one to take his place? I mean I know he's the spiritual leader but what would be the big panic if there was -- if the pope were incapacitated and no one to declare that?

GALLAGHER: Well, that's a good question because really the pope has two jobs. One is to run the Curia, his Vatican offices here and they are responsible for making all kinds of daily decisions.

The other, as you said, is as a spiritual leader and this pope and his pontificate has really chosen the latter. He's chosen to become this worldwide communicator and to travel, et cetera.

So, that's obviously the main thing that would be lacking from this pontificate if the pope were to be mentally incapacitated. The day-to-day running of the Curia could go on. It's been going on for 26 years. They all know what the pope wants, so that could really continue business as usual in a sense.

But, of course, the long term repercussions of a mentally incapacitated pope would probably not be so good for the church and they'd want to do something about that.

HAYS: Delia, is it too early to talk about looking out into the future to succession, who the next pope might be? This pope was the first non-Italian pope in 455 years. Back to an Italian or do you look maybe in new parts of the world?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think you've got to consider in this day and age he's really opened up the College of Cardinals to a huge slew of international cardinals, so that's certainly got to be one consideration.

Also the fact that the Catholic Church is growing in continents such as South America, Africa, and India, so certainly representation from there would be important. But it is still a little bit too early to consider papal succession at this stage. He's still doing OK and will probably be back at the Vatican soon.

MALVEAUX: Delia Gallagher, thank you very much. We'll be watching your reports from Rome and religion.

We're going to make a hard turn to the Super Bowl and security preparations for this evening's game.

Susan Candiotti is back on that story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF JOHN RUTHERFORD, JACKSONVILLE, FL: We've been planning for 18 months. Let's get on the field and do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That is Sheriff John Rutherford and the field he's playing on today Super Bowl XXXIX. If you're talking security, he's the man in charge of it.

Welcome back. I'm Susan Candiotti ON THE STORY in Jacksonville.

HAYS: And behind the scenes, that's what's so interesting. There are going to be, you know, people drinking beer, they're having their snacks. They're watching the ads, not aware that there's a huge, huge security effort to back this thing up. Tell us about that.

CANDIOTTI: A very impressive one. As you heard the sheriff say he's been on the job working on this for 18 months in the planning stages, some very impressive work, as I said, that they have done.

For example, some of the whiz-bang things we've seen they've got a bank of video cameras that are trained in and around the stadium that they can watch throughout the game on monitors. We got to see that in action and it's quite something.

They can zero in on a single seat, if they wanted to, and if any trouble erupts on the field or outside the stadium, beyond it on, for example, bridges, heaven forbid something untoward should happen, for example, a hostage situation, the sheriff says "We'll be able to train our cameras on what's going on and follow it in a helicopter" if they had to.

MALVEAUX: And, Susan, what is it going to be like for the fans? Is it going to be kind of a different experience? Are they going to see anything or feel anything that's different this time around because of the security?

CANDIOTTI: Well, they say that if they're doing their job right you really shouldn't notice the security but, come on, there are going to be the long lines and people are getting more used to that now in this post-9/11 world, extra long lines as you go through security, for example, to enter the stadium.

No more tailgate parties like you used to have from now on. You have to park pretty far off and then you are bussed into the stadium. Things you used to not think twice about taking in, for example, a video camcorder not allowed anymore.

Cell phones you can still take in but those along with PDAs, those personal digital assistants, they're going to giving those a real closer look than they did before. Before they allowed you to take them in and they say, if you do, you're just going to slow down the lines.

CROWLEY: Susan, is there such a thing as biggest fear? You've been out wandering around with these guys. What are they worried about most?

CANDIOTTI: Well, what's different about Jacksonville is that it is on the waterfront, a 14-mile stretch of the St. John's River, so it's added another layer of concern, a point of entry where people can try to get in.

But the seem to think that they have that covered with incredible patrols up and down the river. Overhead we had an opportunity to fly with some of the Customs and Border Patrol pilots who will be circling the area in and around the stadium.

Also got a look inside the P3 double Eagle, which is a flying air traffic control center making lazy circles in the sky. You've seen those before. So, they'll be able to monitor traffic in the area.

HAYS: Susan, but I know you didn't get those as a souvenir but I bet there's all kinds of very fun souvenirs down there at Super Bowl Sunday.

(CROSSTALK)

CANDIOTTI: All kinds of wild things and my favorite is this. I didn't buy it. I borrowed it from a Philadelphia fan. There it is. Can you identify this?

HAYS: Cheese steak.

CANDIOTTI: If you're from Philly, you can.

HAYS: Oh, yes.

CANDIOTTI: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), only $20 I'm told but they didn't get it here.

HAYS: What a deal. CANDIOTTI: This fan brought it from home.

MALVEAUX: They make them that big.

CROWLEY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or Swiss cheese because, you know...

CANDIOTTI: Does that make you hungry?

MALVEAUX: Well, Susan, how are you going to spend the day today? How are you spending your day?

CANDIOTTI: Well, you know how it is. You never get to see these events oftentimes when you're working them, so hopefully we'll be able to catch it on television and be able to watch naturally how all the security preparations are working out. Naturally, everyone hopes that nothing will happen and, you know, preparation is 90 percent of it. However, if something does, they'll be ready to react to it.

MALVEAUX: Well, Susan we wish you a very safe and enjoyable day. Thank you.

Well stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about you security. We're back on that story after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: An Iraqi woman shared the spotlight at the State of the Union address. What's her story? More when we return.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Safia Taleb al-Suhail, what's her story? She was recognized by the president at the State of the Union speech on Wednesday. An Iraqi human rights activist, Safia proudly displayed her ink-stained finger to show that she voted in last week's Iraq election. In an emotional moment, Safia embraced Janet Norwood, the mother of a Marine killed in Iraq.

SAFIA TALEB AL-SUHAIL: Actually, I couldn't control myself. I know exactly what -- how -- what's the feeling of losing your loved ones. I've also lost my father and I really appreciated what her son and other soldiers did for our country.

ANNOUNCER: Safia's father was killed under Saddam Hussein's regime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYS: Well, thank you my colleagues here in the studio, Suzanne and Candy and, of course, our Susan Candiotti in her cute, red Super Bowl beret today. And thank you for watching ON THE STORY on our new day Sunday. We're glad you joined us and we have to see you back here next week. Don't forget.

Up next on CNN, a Super Bowl preview on "CNN LIVE SUNDAY."

At 11:30 a.m. Eastern, a live "RELIABLE SOURCES" with Thomas Friedman of "The New York Times."

And at 12:00 Noon Eastern, 9:00 a.m. Pacific, "LATE EDITION" with Wolf Blitzer, an interview with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Straight ahead a check on what's making news right now.

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 February 6, 2005 - 10:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Betty Nguyen here at the CNN Center. ON THE STORY is straight ahead. But first, these stories "Now in the News."
Pope John Paul II appeared alert at his hospital window to give his traditional weekly blessing. In a statement read by an aide, the pope said his mission will continue despite health problems. His appearance drew loud cheers outside the hospital and at St. Peter's Square, where he was seen on video screens.

Iran is blasting President Bush for his State of the Union statement that Iran sponsors terrorism. Iran's foreign ministry says the U.S. supports Zionist terrorists and runs military prisons that use torture. Earlier, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice downplayed the possibility that the U.S. might consider invading Iran.

Medical examiners, they are working to determine how three children died in their apartment in Huntsville, Alabama. Their mother, Nathshay Ward, is charged with murder. Police say the woman admits to starving them. And the bodies of her 8, 9 and 11-year-old were found on Friday.

Right now the excitement is building in Jacksonville, Florida, hosting its first Super Bowl. The game pits the Patriots against the Eagles this evening. New England is favored by a touchdown, but reporters covering Philadelphia say the team looks confident and ready to go. It's going to be a good game.

I'm Betty Nguyen. CNN's ON THE STORY begins right now.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's ON THE STORY, where our journalists have the inside word on the stories we covered this week. I'm on the story on the politics behind all those standing ovations for the president's speech Wednesday evening and how first lady Laura Bush is ready for the next four years.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Suzanne Malveaux, on the story of the message the president sent on Iraq and on Social Security.

KATHLEEN HAYS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kathleen Hays, on the story of why both interest rates and the stock market edged back up this week and what we did not hear about Social Security. We'll go to Iraq, where Jane Arraf talks about election day plus one week. We'll get to Rome to talk to Vatican analyst Delia Gallagher about the pope's health. And we'll talk to Susan Candiotti about security around today's Super Bowl.

E-mail us at onthestory@cnn.com.

Now, straight to Suzanne and the State of the Union.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX (voice-over): At the president's State of the Union address, we expected to hear what they call a blueprint of the second- term administration. Reaching out, hoping Americans would get on board with the Social Security reform plan.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now as we see a little gray in the mirror, or a lot of gray, and we watch our children moving into adulthood...

MALVEAUX: More on the U.S. mission in Iraq.

BUSH: And Iraqis must be able to defend their own country.

MALVEAUX: But what we didn't expect is that someone else would steal the president's thunder.

BUSH: We are honored that she is with us tonight.

MALVEAUX: But that's exactly what happened in this special and poignant moment when an Iraqi moment who voted for the first time reached out to an American couple who lost their son who fought in the war.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MALVEAUX: Of course, after the applause, the harder work, fighting a war and building support for his Social Security plan, something he did at end of the week from Fargo, North Dakota, to Tampa, Florida. It was a very busy week for the president.

CROWLEY: But let me -- let me start at the beginning, at the State of the Union and the hug. I admit it. They got me. Usually, you know, they can't get me with these things up there.

How much of that was planned? We know obviously they invited those two women, seated them where they seated them. The hug seemed to me -- please tell me it was spontaneous.

MALVEAUX: Well, you know, it was funny, because immediately people watched that. And there some who thought -- some cynics who thought, wait a minute, you know, perhaps a Bush aid nudged them and said this would be a great picture, this would really look good.

Bottom line is, you know, I mean, it's political stage craft in the sense that, yes, they put the Iraqi woman in the front, they put the couple in the back, but they didn't -- they didn't queue them to say, you know, let's hug, you know, this would make it look good for the president.

But obviously, I mean, when you put them in and position them -- and the box is so important, who they decide -- this was the moment the president and the administration had been looking for. That was that kind of mission accomplished moment, where you have the Iraqis dancing and then you have these two teams, these two people come together.

HAYS: More big ambitions in the State of the Union address. And the president kind of known for doing that. Of course the big ambition now is Social Security reform. But he also seemed to want to clear up a point he made about ending tyranny around the world.

MALVEAUX: You know, that was one of the things, too, that generated a lot of questions. You know, when they talked about Iran and North Korea.

And what was really interesting, it was pretty typical what you heard, when he said, well, we'll continue with our diplomacy. What wasn't typical and what was surprising is how he responded to some of the criticism talking about Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

I mean, these are countries that essentially the United States has worked with, have the worst human rights abuse records in the world, according to the State Department. And people are asking, hey, this is a double standard here. And that's where he decided, I'm going to push them just a little bit, just a little bit.

HAYS: But answer that for -- for everybody. But how powerful is this? To say this little -- throw out this little line in the State of the Union address, is that just to appease the critics, or can we assume then that Condi Rice has some grand plan that's going to be followed up on?

MALVEAUX: Well, you know Condi Rice is in the area. And she's going to be talking to them. And behind the scenes, of course, she is pushing them forward.

I mean, I think when you look at the political stage, the big picture here is obviously not for us, necessarily, but for the international audience. That they want them -- want them to get the point, to get the picture, and say, hey, look, you know, if we're going to push you here -- and it wasn't received very well.

I mean, you heard from a lot of the leadership around -- around the region. And they just thought, well, this is more of the same kind of patronizing, condescending thing we have heard from the administration. Maybe they're going to be more effective behind the scenes.

CROWLEY: But is it -- I mean, wasn't it in some sense also for here? Because the criticism really was, oh, yes, let's see him tell Saudi Arabia to, you know, have a democracy. Let's see him tell Egypt to, you know, get with it and not be imprisoning all of the dissenters.

But -- I mean, so it must have played well here. It just strikes me that that's a -- that was a domestic call.

MALVEAUX: It played well here. I mean, it played much better here than it did overseas.

HAYS: But the -- but the -- you know, the knives are really out on Social Security. This is such a charged debate. Be careful what you say, be careful who you say it to, because every word on Social Security will be held against you.

The president finally gave us some details behind the scenes. The White House gave us more details. He went on the road. How does the White House think it's going so far? Are they getting concerned?

MALVEAUX: They're very concerned. They're actually very concerned about this because I don't think, you know, at this point, they're not as effective as they had hoped they would be.

You see the president in kind of his typical campaign fashion, is on the road. They've clearly got their strategy in place.

If we can win over kind of like the grassroots' folks, as they did in the campaign, and have them put pressure on the Democrats, as you know, because they went to the states, the red states, where the Democrats were somewhat vulnerable on this issue, and said, hey, we're not going for this, then perhaps we can push them along. But they realize they're not even close to coming up with something that people are going to agree on.

They're not even close to coming up with something that Pelosi or Reid would actually sign off on. So, you know, they were intentionally vague in the State of the Union.

CROWLEY: And they've been -- also, they're going to have to take their eye off of the ball several times over the course of the year. It can't just be all Social Security all of the time.

We have got the budget coming up. And you can already hear people screaming about the promised cuts that he talked about.

MALVEAUX: And Kathleen, you know a lot about the figures too. But, I mean, we are talking about $2.5 trillion for 2005. And there are 150 -- I mean, Bush got out in the front and said there's going to be 150 federal programs that are either going to be cut or eliminated. That these are going to be very tough choices.

There are going to be a lot of unhappy people tomorrow when that budget is released. But we have already seen a lot of what's to come, a lot of the indicators for that.

HAYS: And, of course, again, you can see the policies, the debate shaking up, because the liberal side is saying these are going to fall disproportionately on lower-income people because there may be slower rates of growth in education and health care. And then they quickly talk about the Bush tax cut and what it adds.

I wonder when the president's response will be to that.

MALVEAUX: And what was interesting was that some of the things that came up in the State of the Union address that perhaps for one group actually satisfied some of their needs, not the Social Security folks, not the tax reform folks, but really the African-American community. The Congressional Black Caucus met with the president a couple of weeks ago. The NAACP had met with him earlier.

These were two groups that the president did not have a good relationship with on the first term. Didn't want to meet with them because of criticism in the past. He addressed a number of thing that they are concerned, talked about the criminal justice system, talked about AIDS in the African-American community. That was one group that was actually pleased with what the president had to say.

CROWLEY: We'll have more on the Iraqi woman honored at the State of the Union later in the hour in our "What's Her Story?" segment.

I'm back ON THE STORY next about the Democrats. Are they getting rolled this weekend, every week by the president? And my talk with first lady Laura Bush as she begins her second term.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY: My role probably hadn't changed as much as I have changed and just become more comfortable in this job that I have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Candy Crowley is CNN's senior political correspondent. She's been with the network since 1987. The National Press Foundation honored her with the 1998 Dirksen Award for distinguished reporting on Congress. She received the 1997 Joan Shorenstein Barone Award for excellence in journalism for coverage of the Bob Dole presidential campaign.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: That's what Democrats believe, and that's where we stand. And that's what we'll fight for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid with his party's response to President Bush's speech Wednesday. A tall order for Democrats to be effective challengers to President Bush and dig the party out of post-election identity crisis all at the same time.

Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

HAYS: You know, Harry Reid is such a mild mannered, almost soft- spoken kind of guy. But he is now the minority leader in the Senate. And it's interesting how feisty the Democrats are being.

I'm sure the Republicans saying, hey, wait a minute, we won the election. We picked up seats in the house. You guys are blocking -- trying to block confirmations and you're saying, hell no on Social Security. I mean...

CROWLEY: Well, it's what -- I mean, you know, look, when you can't get the podium yourself, you attach yourself to the other guy's podium. And that's what's going on with the confirmations.

They got a chance to vent on Iraq. They got a chance to vent on -- with the Gonzales nomination. They got a chance to go ahead and vent on civil rights. So we're going to hear -- I can't wait until we have other confirmations to get more toward the domestic policy, because they'll be able to vent there.

But, look, a lot of people said the same thing about Tom Daschle. Oh, he's such a nice guy, oh, he's so sweet. And he was tough, he was tough.

But what Harry Reid has going for him right now is the Democrats are still angry about everything. You know, they're in the minority. They lost the White House again when they really think that they should have won it. And they are united.

And they're going to use these platforms to be out there and say, here's what the Democratic Party stands for, because they feel they came out with the election with people going, well, what is the Democratic Party about? And they're listening to their base, which said, you're not tough enough on George Bush. You know, you've got to get out there and you've got to -- so they're very much pleasing their base at this point.

MALVEAUX: And what about Social Security? Because I talked to some of these Democrats and they say, well, we believe the president is being kind of fast and loose with the facts. We're going to come out publicly and slam him, but we're going to do some sort of education campaign to say, look, you know, Social Security can't -- can't go bankrupt essentially.

Do they feel confident in that issue?

CROWLEY: Not particularly, because here is why. How can you beat the bully pulpit?

I mean, here's the president on this tour that gets play every hour on the hour. It's very tough to be a Democrat now and get an education, you know, campaign going, because it's like, who is going out and listen to these guys?

So they are trying to do it in different forums. They can have news conferences. They can be on Capitol Hill and do it. They can do -- they're going to be advertising.

So they will push back. But, you know, I bring up Harold Ford, who's an up and comer in the party, or I'm sure he's further than that actually. I'm sure he would think he's further than that, and he is -- saying we can't just say no.

HAYS: And can you say, as Howard Dean has said, I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for? I admire their administration. I admire their organizational abilities. But is being a group of Bush haters -- and we know there are people out there like that -- going to be enough to lead the American people forward in the direction the Democrats want to go?

CROWLEY: Well, it keeps the money coming in. Because the people who fund the Democratic Party are the die-hards, and they are, in fact, the people who are most annoyed and most aggravated by George Bush's second term.

Howard Dean, as you know, is on a roll again. About to become this week the DNC chairman. This has delighted the Republicans, going, oh, this is great, they're suicidal.

(LAUGHTER)

MALVEAUX: The White House is absolutely delighted.

CROWLEY: Absolutely. I think that they should be just a little tiny bit cautious about this pre-celebration.

First of all, because the DNC does not -- or neither of the parties formulate what the party is about. They raise the money. They get the organization in place. And they keep the base happy.

Well, Howard Dean can do that. I mean, Howard Dean can, you know, bring around him the people that can get them on the Internet and that can, you know, start fund-raising, you know, in new and hipper ways. And the base loves him.

So this is not -- to me, I look at it and I think, well, as a DNC chief, this guy's great. But what the party needs is an attractive possibility for 2008 that can go out there and articulate. That's the person they're waiting for.

MALVEAUX: So, speaking of hipper, though, you had a great interview with the first lady this week. And she's the hipper, younger, fresher version...

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: Well, one really depressing thing she told me -- because I said to her, you know, everybody is talking about how great you looked at inauguration. I mean, what woman wears white when the cameras are on, right? And there she is in her winter white looking terrific.

And I said, "That's so wonderful." And she said, "Well, you know" -- she said, "I've been lifting weights three hours a week for three years now, and it's finally beginning to show."

I thought I want to shoot myself. I said, three years and now it's showing. But she looks great. But, you know, more importantly than that, she's -- she's just different from the six-year-ago Laura Bush, who I felt was the reluctant campaigner's wife. She talks as easily about Social Security and the need for a changes in it as she does about this initiative on boys and teen boys that she now wants to champion. She says herself, I didn't really realize when the president was sworn in the first time the kind of power that this position has.

HAYS: Tell us again your great line from this week about what this -- the role -- how this affects the president to become president or the first lady to become first lady.

CROWLEY: I mean, it really did strike me. And I think if you look back over time, even from Eleanor Roosevelt, that the power that is given to these men as president seems to weigh them down.

We always remark on, oh man, this guy looks 100 years older than he did. I mean, it's just -- that power has a way of weighing them down.

But the power that the women find for themselves seems to give them life. And I think Laura Bush is in that mode now.

She's finally realized that there is power there to be taken and used in a way that she wants to use it to do something. And it just has given her a strength that she didn't have six years ago. I think the same can be said for Hillary Clinton, who was strong going in, but who came out of that White House a powerhouse.

HAYS: Like a lioness.

MALVEAUX: And yet you also had a really great story about just Laura Bush as the mother, you know. Just taking care of the daughters.

CROWLEY: I was remarking how she can -- you know, she can talk about Social Security, she can talk about tax cuts, and those -- and so I said, "It must be great to have your girls around town in Washington." You know, her 20-something twins.

And she said, "Yes." She says, "You know, and just this weekend I was helping Jenna paint the curtain rods for her apartment." I'm thinking, OK, just the idea that she spends the weekend painting the curtain rods. She's still mom.

HAYS: I'm just so -- I am so glad to know there's another mother in America who is under her kid's thumb. You know, like so many of us.

CROWLEY: Exactly. Exactly.

HAYS: Well, another big topic, Iraq, looming over the political debate. We'll go there to ask Jane Arraf why she says post-election Iraq could be even more dangerous than before.

We're back ON THE STORY after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JANE ARRAF, CNN BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF: That was a sea of protesters saying that this election was actually stolen form them. Now, there was surprisingly little violence during the elections themselves, but with the political risks, this post-election Iraq could be even more dangerous.

Welcome back. I'm Jane Arraf, ON THE STORY.

MALVEAUX: Jane, I know that for the president and for the White House, that really was an incredible moment. Almost to see the Iraqis dancing in the streets.

This is something that they wanted and had argued would happen from the very beginning. There was really a sense of vindication. Tell me how much of that was real and how much do you think it was kind of a little bit of exaggeration, perhaps even spin.

ARRAF: You know, there always is a tendency to take those little bits of joy, those little bits of hope and say, OK, this is it, it's working on the political level. But this was really a case where I think for me and for lots of Iraqis this was the first time since the end of major combat, when things started to go wrong, that there really was a feeling that, gosh, maybe this work. It was a joyous day in these elections, in these polling stations.

There were people killed across the country, but not nearly as many as expected. And where we were, we had to go to three different polling stations to actually find workers who had showed up and policemen who had showed up. But when we got to one of the polling sites where people were coming in to vote, I cannot tell you the feeling that was there.

These people were absolutely enraptured. There were old women who had walked for a long time. There were families, there were fathers showing their little girls how they were going to go about voting.

It was almost indescribable the feeling there. So in that sense, for those people that day, that was not exaggerated.

CROWLEY: Jane, so we're a week -- a week since. Does the joy continue? Or are we back to square one?

ARRAF: I think reality is setting in a little bit. Because what we have here -- and we're in this fascinating part of the country, which is the Sunni heartland, in the town where there was huge voter tout.

Now, here, the Shia-backed candidates, the parties backed by the Ayatollah Ali Sistani, have taken the most votes. But there has been quite a political race here.

There was a very strong candidate. The Iraqi Islamic Party, which was Sunni, has done well, partly because the governor of the province, a Sunni himself, was left off the ballot. The Election Commission says by mistake, he says by conspiracy.

And that's why we had those protesters chanting, saying that the election was stolen from them. There are a lot of things to be determined.

What happens in cases like that? What happens in places when the voting is contested? What happens to all of the political fallout?

I mean, you know how obviously -- you all know intimately how complicated American politics is. Imagine it here, where you have a whole new ball game.

HAYS: And what happens to the U.S. military? Apparently they played a pretty significant role during the elections. And a lot of questions now here the United States about an exit strategy.

ARRAF: Well, that's a fascinating thing. A lot of them, a considerable number of them were actually kept on for the elections. They thought they'd be home sooner than this.

At the base where we are, this is Task Force 22 of the 1st Infantry Division. We were with them in Falluja. They fought that battle in Falluja, paving the way for the Marines. They've had a really hard slog here.

They were in Najaf for that battle. They have been here about a year. And now they are two weeks from going home. And you can imagine what that's like.

But while it's happening, there is a new division coming in, new people. And half of those have been through Iraq before. It's their second deployment. Half of them have never been to this country before.

You know, whether they're coming or going, most of these soldiers feel that they will be back here again, that troops are going to here for a long, long time. And you have probably discussed this, but there's a lot of curiosity about whether there's the feeling in the U.S. as well.

MALVEAUX: And Jane, tell us about the security situation. Because there is some concern that perhaps it's even more dangerous now than it was about a week ago or even before the elections?

ARRAF: It's a very odd time right now, I have to tell you. Everyone is waiting for the pin to drop.

The election period itself was less volatile than many had predicted. We were in Baquba, where around that region there were 54 attacks that day.

Now, that sounds like a huge number, but the military took pride in the fact that the Iraqi army came and stayed. The Iraqi police did not run away. And none of the polling stations were overrun on election day. Now, it's been relatively quiet. We ran into a roadside bomb, an improvised explosive device, a couple of days ago. But it has been extraordinarily quiet. Not just here, but in other parts of the country. And no one is quite sure why.

Now, one of the reasons would be that they essentially filled the jails, basically rounding up a lot of people before elections. But still, it's not clear whether this insurgency has, whether the back of the insurgency has been broken, or whether this is just a lull before renewed attacks.

HAYS: Jane, thank you. And of course that's why you will continue to be ON THE STORY to answer that question in coming days. What are you expecting?

ARRAF: What we're expecting probably is continued attempts on the part of the military, anyway, to simultaneously fight the insurgency and have a role. Not an overt role, and this is the tricky part.

The military here in places like this, because there is no one else to do it, does things that involves not just fighting insurgents, but every facet that you can dream of. Meeting tribal sheiks, encouraging municipal governments. With the political situation so volatile, it's going to be very interesting to see how that works out.

We're following a lot of very close political races here, seeing what happens with the Sunni minority, who have felt shut out. We're going to be following this integration of military coming, new people coming in, these people leaving. And everyday is a surprise.

HAYS: And that's why we are always eager to see what you're following for us. Jane Arraf, again, thank you.

And from Iraq, back here to the domestic economy. Straight ahead, a look at jobs right now and retirement ahead.

Coming up, we'll go to Rome and talk with Delia Gallagher about the latest on the health of the pope.

And Susan Candiotti will be on the security story at the Super Bowl.

Plus, a check on what's in the news right now. That's all just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you have a 5- year-old you're already concerned about how you'll pay for college tuition 13 years down the road. If you've got children in their 20s, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter and it should not be a small matter to the United States Congress. (END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYS: President Bush putting a personal spin on his pitch for Social Security changes in his State of the Union. He shared new details, called for suggestions and, at the same time, left blank some key details.

Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

CROWLEY: You know, Kathleen, one thing we all know is that most people are change averse. You know, they like things to stay the same. So, first, what's the argument for doing this?

HAYS: The president's argument is, first of all, that this will give you something you own, something the government can't take away, which seems to apply that the government would.

The government's really never talked about taking Social Security away and, in fact, when he talks about bankruptcy or collapse, we know that that's somewhat inaccurate because the worst that could happen is a cut in people's benefits at some point in time but let's put that to one side.

You own something. The government can't take it away. You get a chance to invest part of your Social Security in the stock market. Right now, if you die, and you are -- you have adult survivors they don't get your Social Security, your dependent kids, your spouse.

But, if a 30-year-old woman whose father died who was collecting Social Security would get none of that. If there were a personal account there and it earned enough that adult child would be able to inherit some of that Social Security.

Those are some of the basic arguments for it. I think one more, I've heard the Libertarian think tanks make, is that people of modest means who might not have a chance to invest in the markets would now have a venue where they could also start learning about investing and saving. Of course there's a lot of people lined up on the other side with other arguments.

MALVEAUX: So, Kathleen, the Bush administration says this is all a part of the philosophical difference between them and the Democrats, pull the government out, have the market interest factors really work for them. So, what are the risks involved here? I mean what, if you decide I'm going to put in for this private account, what do you have to put in to actually get something out so that you're not losing your benefits?

HAYS: Well, first of all, let's everybody realize that part of the deal is here. Once you put money into a personal account you've agreed to accept that. That's what you're going to get. You've given up part of your guaranteed benefit.

Think about benefits, which you'll get in a personal account, but think of a guaranteed benefit. As soon as you take this up to say about a third to a fourth of your Social Security money and put it in the personal account, whatever that return, that account does that's what you're going to get. Again, you've already agreed I'm going to get a smaller benefit in the future, guaranteed benefit.

Right now the experts say you have to make and both sides agree pretty much a three percent real rate of return on your investment to break even. If you do better, some experts say you could probably make about four and a half percent. Then that excess above a certain amount you get to take out. But, if you earn less than that three percent rate of return, you will be short of what you would have had under that guaranteed benefit. This is the choice.

CROWLEY: You get to take out when, wait a minute. The stuff you make above three percent you get to take out.

HAYS: Yes, that's what you get. That's what you get. You have to make three percent to equal what you would have gotten under the guaranteed benefit.

CROWLEY: Right.

HAYS: That's your floor.

CROWLEY: Right.

HAYS: Anything above that, that's what you're more or less given a little calculation here and there.

CROWLEY: With the three percent you'd get your full benefit.

HAYS: Right. You'd get exactly what you would have gotten under the guaranteed benefit.

CROWLEY: From the guarantee. You make one percent above three percent of the market over 15, 20 years, if you come out one percent ahead, four percent ahead that's your money?

HAYS: That's-- but if you come out one percent behind, that's the reduction that you will have relative to what you would have had, had you stayed with the guaranteed benefit that is currently what we call the guaranteed benefit right now.

CROWLEY: Isn't their argument like over a 15 to 20-year period, if you look at the market in 20-year segments you're always ahead?

HAYS: Well, timing is everything. A Goldman Sachs economist this week put out a piece of research where they basically said, you know, if you retired, let's say you've been on this system, if you retired at the peak of the market in early 2000 or you retired at the bottom of the market, say late 2002 or early 2003, just that difference could cut your retirement benefit by about a third.

CROWLEY: But you could be ahead.

HAYS: Well, they basically said no. My understanding is they were -- well, that's a good question. Would you be ahead of what you would have had otherwise. But the thing is, it's hard to explain but if the market does really well for ten years and is flat or does poorly for five years, that can really reduce your benefit.

I don't have all the numbers in front of me. I can't exactly answer that question but the market is risky. That's the bottom line. That's why you get a higher return because it's risky.

MALVEAUX: Is the risk equal for everyone because I know there are some studies and certainly people are talking about the risks to the African American community and, Candy, you actually did an interview about this that because black men in particular die younger, there's a different equation here.

HAYS: I'm going to defer to Candy on this but I want to say quickly too that one thing we have to also remember is on the table. The president's personal accounts do not solve the basic challenge facing Social Security, which is the difference between money being paid in and money going out in the future. I think that's another thing that the Democrats are hammering home very hard because, again, it's part of the choice the American people are going to have to make.

CROWLEY: It's part of the sales pitch of the Bush administration. I think you saw him out there with African Americans telling stories of "I was 20 years old when my father died. My brother was 19. He was in college. He could have used some money. Had he had a personal account he could have had that. As it was, we were too old to get dad's benefits. Mom was too young to get any survivor benefits."

Now you have, both, you know, minority families and white families whose husbands die prior to collecting their Social Security but you have, in fact, women that are working longer in the course of time than their husbands are and, therefore, they take their Social Security money.

So, there's lots of figures out there. Most people say, look, African Americans take a lot out of this system, not just in retirement but in survivor benefits and in dependent things and disability. So, you take your facts and you run with it, right?

HAYS: I have a question, Candy. Do you think -- do you think there's any chance that this even survives? The Democrats seem so doggone against this. Will the American people really get a chance to look at both sides and make a choice? Or, do you think this becomes a case where the Democrats want to make sure President Bush doesn't get any kind of victory on Social Security?

CROWLEY: I'm going to answer it quickly because they've asked me to. I never thought he'd get his tax cuts.

From business to religion and the health of Pope John Paul II, CNN Analyst Delia Gallagher is ON THE STORY after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DELIA GALLAGHER, CNN VATICAN ANALYST: One has to consider also the underlying elements of the pope's strength and his doctors have said many time in the past that he's very strong-willed and strong physically.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CROWLEY: Pope John Paul II from Rome earlier today giving a brief blessing, the first time we've seen him since he went to the hospital Tuesday.

Welcome back. We're ON THE STORY.

Our Vatican Correspondent or our Vatican Analyst Delia Gallagher joins us from Rome. Delia, listening to this, was this reassuring to those who have been monitoring the pope's health over the last couple of days?

GALLAGHER: Yes, absolutely, Candy. I think the important point today is that we saw the pope, so we had a means of confirming what the Vatican has been telling us all along, which is that he's OK. He's getting better.

Now, the condition in which we saw him one is hard pressed to say he looks good. Good is always a relative term for the pope. But he certainly didn't look any worse than before he went into the hospital.

You heard his voice there very muffled, not as strong as usual. You can't really make out the words. He was giving a blessing at the end. But nonetheless, the important point was that we saw him and he looks OK, so that's certainly reassuring considering the alarm bells that went off on Tuesday night.

HAYS: But certainly, Delia, the question of the pope potentially becoming incapacitated and therefore unable to fulfill any of his duties as the head of the world's what one billion Catholics, what is the discussion in Rome now at the Vatican about how to handle that should that come to pass?

GALLAGHER: Well, that's actually one of the big open questions right now in the church. There is no provision for a mentally incapacitated pope. Let's make the point we're not there yet. Everybody has confirmed, and I myself can confirm that the pope is still mentally lucid. He's slower, et cetera, but he's still able to follow arguments.

However, it has raised the question for an eventual mentally incapacitated pope what does the church do? And the short answer is that there is no provision. There is a canon in the church law, the Code of Canon Law, which allows for removing a bishop who is mentally incapacitated. However, that presumes that you can bring that to the pope and he can authorize that removal.

In the case of the pope, however, there's nobody to authorize it, so the question becomes what are the criteria for declaring the pope incapacitated and who is going to do it? So, it's one of the big open questions right now in the church. MALVEAUX: And, Delia, because there are no provisions about that, is that part of the reason why the Vatican really isn't as forthcoming or getting as much information as people would like because perhaps they think there's a fear of panic within the international community that we don't have a plan here?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think that the Vatican is always reticent to give out too much information. We've seen in the last few days journalists asking for more information regarding his health but part of the reason of the Vatican's reticence has to do with their whole philosophy and their relationship to the media.

You know they don't feel that it's their job to talk to the media, 24 hours a day. The papal spokesman of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) said that just on Friday. They feel it's their job just to give a bit of information but they're not too interested in doing PR and the reasons for that partially are political, of course, to keep stability and partially for reasons of privacy about the pope's health.

So, yes, I think that the Vatican doesn't come forth with too much information, although if you want to compare it to other pontificates, of course, nowadays we do have a lot more information to work from and, of course, we have the confirmation that we got to see the pope, so we can see for ourselves what the real state of affairs is.

CROWLEY: Delia let me just take it back a couple steps and ask you what is it that would not get done were the pope incapacitated and there was no one to take his place? I mean I know he's the spiritual leader but what would be the big panic if there was -- if the pope were incapacitated and no one to declare that?

GALLAGHER: Well, that's a good question because really the pope has two jobs. One is to run the Curia, his Vatican offices here and they are responsible for making all kinds of daily decisions.

The other, as you said, is as a spiritual leader and this pope and his pontificate has really chosen the latter. He's chosen to become this worldwide communicator and to travel, et cetera.

So, that's obviously the main thing that would be lacking from this pontificate if the pope were to be mentally incapacitated. The day-to-day running of the Curia could go on. It's been going on for 26 years. They all know what the pope wants, so that could really continue business as usual in a sense.

But, of course, the long term repercussions of a mentally incapacitated pope would probably not be so good for the church and they'd want to do something about that.

HAYS: Delia, is it too early to talk about looking out into the future to succession, who the next pope might be? This pope was the first non-Italian pope in 455 years. Back to an Italian or do you look maybe in new parts of the world?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think you've got to consider in this day and age he's really opened up the College of Cardinals to a huge slew of international cardinals, so that's certainly got to be one consideration.

Also the fact that the Catholic Church is growing in continents such as South America, Africa, and India, so certainly representation from there would be important. But it is still a little bit too early to consider papal succession at this stage. He's still doing OK and will probably be back at the Vatican soon.

MALVEAUX: Delia Gallagher, thank you very much. We'll be watching your reports from Rome and religion.

We're going to make a hard turn to the Super Bowl and security preparations for this evening's game.

Susan Candiotti is back on that story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF JOHN RUTHERFORD, JACKSONVILLE, FL: We've been planning for 18 months. Let's get on the field and do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That is Sheriff John Rutherford and the field he's playing on today Super Bowl XXXIX. If you're talking security, he's the man in charge of it.

Welcome back. I'm Susan Candiotti ON THE STORY in Jacksonville.

HAYS: And behind the scenes, that's what's so interesting. There are going to be, you know, people drinking beer, they're having their snacks. They're watching the ads, not aware that there's a huge, huge security effort to back this thing up. Tell us about that.

CANDIOTTI: A very impressive one. As you heard the sheriff say he's been on the job working on this for 18 months in the planning stages, some very impressive work, as I said, that they have done.

For example, some of the whiz-bang things we've seen they've got a bank of video cameras that are trained in and around the stadium that they can watch throughout the game on monitors. We got to see that in action and it's quite something.

They can zero in on a single seat, if they wanted to, and if any trouble erupts on the field or outside the stadium, beyond it on, for example, bridges, heaven forbid something untoward should happen, for example, a hostage situation, the sheriff says "We'll be able to train our cameras on what's going on and follow it in a helicopter" if they had to.

MALVEAUX: And, Susan, what is it going to be like for the fans? Is it going to be kind of a different experience? Are they going to see anything or feel anything that's different this time around because of the security?

CANDIOTTI: Well, they say that if they're doing their job right you really shouldn't notice the security but, come on, there are going to be the long lines and people are getting more used to that now in this post-9/11 world, extra long lines as you go through security, for example, to enter the stadium.

No more tailgate parties like you used to have from now on. You have to park pretty far off and then you are bussed into the stadium. Things you used to not think twice about taking in, for example, a video camcorder not allowed anymore.

Cell phones you can still take in but those along with PDAs, those personal digital assistants, they're going to giving those a real closer look than they did before. Before they allowed you to take them in and they say, if you do, you're just going to slow down the lines.

CROWLEY: Susan, is there such a thing as biggest fear? You've been out wandering around with these guys. What are they worried about most?

CANDIOTTI: Well, what's different about Jacksonville is that it is on the waterfront, a 14-mile stretch of the St. John's River, so it's added another layer of concern, a point of entry where people can try to get in.

But the seem to think that they have that covered with incredible patrols up and down the river. Overhead we had an opportunity to fly with some of the Customs and Border Patrol pilots who will be circling the area in and around the stadium.

Also got a look inside the P3 double Eagle, which is a flying air traffic control center making lazy circles in the sky. You've seen those before. So, they'll be able to monitor traffic in the area.

HAYS: Susan, but I know you didn't get those as a souvenir but I bet there's all kinds of very fun souvenirs down there at Super Bowl Sunday.

(CROSSTALK)

CANDIOTTI: All kinds of wild things and my favorite is this. I didn't buy it. I borrowed it from a Philadelphia fan. There it is. Can you identify this?

HAYS: Cheese steak.

CANDIOTTI: If you're from Philly, you can.

HAYS: Oh, yes.

CANDIOTTI: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), only $20 I'm told but they didn't get it here.

HAYS: What a deal. CANDIOTTI: This fan brought it from home.

MALVEAUX: They make them that big.

CROWLEY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or Swiss cheese because, you know...

CANDIOTTI: Does that make you hungry?

MALVEAUX: Well, Susan, how are you going to spend the day today? How are you spending your day?

CANDIOTTI: Well, you know how it is. You never get to see these events oftentimes when you're working them, so hopefully we'll be able to catch it on television and be able to watch naturally how all the security preparations are working out. Naturally, everyone hopes that nothing will happen and, you know, preparation is 90 percent of it. However, if something does, they'll be ready to react to it.

MALVEAUX: Well, Susan we wish you a very safe and enjoyable day. Thank you.

Well stay tuned to CNN day and night for the most reliable news about you security. We're back on that story after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: An Iraqi woman shared the spotlight at the State of the Union address. What's her story? More when we return.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Safia Taleb al-Suhail, what's her story? She was recognized by the president at the State of the Union speech on Wednesday. An Iraqi human rights activist, Safia proudly displayed her ink-stained finger to show that she voted in last week's Iraq election. In an emotional moment, Safia embraced Janet Norwood, the mother of a Marine killed in Iraq.

SAFIA TALEB AL-SUHAIL: Actually, I couldn't control myself. I know exactly what -- how -- what's the feeling of losing your loved ones. I've also lost my father and I really appreciated what her son and other soldiers did for our country.

ANNOUNCER: Safia's father was killed under Saddam Hussein's regime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYS: Well, thank you my colleagues here in the studio, Suzanne and Candy and, of course, our Susan Candiotti in her cute, red Super Bowl beret today. And thank you for watching ON THE STORY on our new day Sunday. We're glad you joined us and we have to see you back here next week. Don't forget.

Up next on CNN, a Super Bowl preview on "CNN LIVE SUNDAY."

At 11:30 a.m. Eastern, a live "RELIABLE SOURCES" with Thomas Friedman of "The New York Times."

And at 12:00 Noon Eastern, 9:00 a.m. Pacific, "LATE EDITION" with Wolf Blitzer, an interview with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Straight ahead a check on what's making news right now.

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