Category Archives: Early Show

In an interview with Matt Damon near the end of Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith helped promote the actor's latest film, 'Green Zone,' which attacks the Bush administration over the Iraq war: "What was it like to make a movie like this? Because it's a little – it's – I'm not sure if this is an apt analogy, but it's a little 'Bourne' meets 'Hurt Locker.'"

Smith alluded to Damon's role as Jason Bourne in the action movie series and the Oscar-winning film 'Hurt Locker,' which chronicles bomb defusing teams in Iraq. Smith introduced the pre-recorded interview by touting Damon's latest film as a "new Iraq war thriller."

Lending credibility to the 'Green Zone' screenplay, Smith noted the movie was: "loosely based on a book that was written by a correspondent for the Washington Post, but the characters in it are fictional." Damon explained the premise of the film: "The guy I play is based on a real guy, he's leading a mobile exploitation team. We had these teams follow the Army....exploiting these sites where we thought the WMD were....they start realizing that there aren't any weapons there." Smith added: "Yeah, and he's a true believer." Damon replied: "Oh, absolutely."

While Smith and Damon worked to promote the "based on a true story" line, a trailer for the film shows Damon's character, Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, being targeted for assassination by his U.S. military colleagues and corrupt government officials after not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In the interview, Damon explained: "what we're trying to do is make a big action thriller like the 'Bourne' movies but set it in the real world."

Smith was impressed with Damon being part of a movie with a message: "Some of your last several movies, it seems like the movies have to make a point....are you at a point where 'well, if I'm going to do x or y or z, then a, b and c have got to be movies that make a point? Is there part of that in the decision making process?" The last time Smith talked to Damon was to promote the actor's involvement in a left-wing revisionist documentary on American history based on the late Howard Zinn's liberal tome 'A People's History of the United States.'

Here is a portion of Smith's interview with Damon:

SMITH: Let's talk about 'Green Zone' because it's based – loosely based on a book that was written by a correspondent for the Washington Post, but the characters in it are fictional.

DAMON: Yes. Yeah.

[CLIP FROM 'GREEN ZONE']

DAMON: Jerry, why the f**k do we keep coming up empty on all these sites? There has got to be a reason.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Chief, we're here to do a job and get home safe, that's all. The reasons don't matter.

DAMON: They matter to me.

[END OF CLIP]

DAMON: The guy I play is based on a real guy, he's leading a mobile exploitation team. We had these teams follow the Army and right – you know, right on their heels and – and start exploiting these sites where we thought the WMD were. And so – so I play a guy who, you know, is hitting these sites, you know, as fast as he can and they start realizing that there aren't any weapons there.

SMITH: Yeah, and he's a true believer.

DAMON: Oh, absolutely.

SMITH: What was it like to make a movie like this? Because it's a little – it's – I'm not sure if this is an apt analogy, but it's a little 'Bourne' meets 'Hurt Locker.'

DAMON: Okay. I like those movies.

[LAUGHTER]

SMITH: Okay.

DAMON: Great. Yeah, because what we're trying to do is make a big action thriller like the 'Bourne' movies but set it in the real world.

SMITH: Some of your last several movies, it seems like the movies have to make a point. Is – do you – is there – are you at a point where 'well, if I'm going to do x or y or z, then a, b and c have got to be movies that make a point? Is there part of that in the decision making process?

DAMON: No. I really go kind of movie to movie. There's not a big strategy. I think that's what's helped me the most. I think if I planned it out, it wouldn't work very well.

To shack up or not to shack up?

It seems like every year a new study on the consequences of living together before marriage negates everything that had been said about it the year before. Cohabitation increases divorce - no, wait! It makes your marriage last longer - no! It only lasts longer if you were engaged before you cohabited ... It's a never-ending argument that keeps the presses happily rolling along.

On March 9, CBS' the Early Show joined the fray by inviting Hannah Silegson, author of "A Little Bit Married," to cite yet another "new study" that claims "if you only live with one person before you get married, you'll have a no higher chance of getting divorced."

CBS' Harry Smith introduced Silegson's book as a "cautionary tale," saying that "playing house" could be a "losing game," but the criticism of cohabitating ends there. Silegson and three other pro-cohabiting panelists discussed living together as "the new romantic right of passage."

"You want to try before you buy," Silegson told Smith.

"I think you actually need to move in with each other before you get engaged, before you get married because it's such a big commitment and you want the next 50, 60 years of your life to work out nicely together," said panelist Chris Edmund.

Edmund's soon-to-be cohabiting girlfriend called living together a "trial period before engagement" and  a "bridge to marriage." Silegson agreed with her, citing a new study that says you'll be at no greater risk of divorce if you only live with one person before getting married. This contradicts past studies that found that cohabiting leads down a fateful path to divorce.

Silegson was probably referring to a study conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics that was released last week. It claims that cohabiting has little effect on marriage success - success being defined as "not getting divorced."

But is "not getting divorced" the best measuring stick to determine a successful marriage?

While divorce statistics give the media a nice round number to flash on their screens, separating happy marriages from the unhappy doesn't boil down so easily. Many studies, for example, have shown that, while cohabiting before marriage may not lead to divorce, it also doesn't end with a "happily ever after" either.

A 2005 article published in Psychology Today titled "The Perils of Playing House" found that those who cohabited before getting married had "poorer-quality marriages."

"Those who cohabited first report less satisfaction, more arguing, poorer communication and lower levels of commitment," wrote the author Nancy Wartik.

A compilation of studies gathered by Focus on the Family also report that cohabitation increases the risk of domestic violence for women and physical and sexual abuse for children. A 2005 article co-authored by Scott M. Stanley, author of "The Power of Commitment: A Guide to Active, Lifelong Love," found that couples who lived together before marriage were more likely to cheat, and a 2006 study conducted by the Alabama Policy Institute found that couples who cohabited before tying the knot were more likely to hit or throw things during arguments, considered their relationship more likely to end, and reported higher levels of depression than couples who did not live together before marriage.

How could something that sounds so sensible as a "trial run" be so damaging? There's been a few hypotheses but the most likely is the inertia theory. As Nancy Wartik explained in herPsychology Today article, going from living together to married can happen "almost by accident."

"We move in together, we get comfortable, and pretty soon marriage starts to seem like the path of least resistance. Even if the relationship is only tolerable, the next stage starts to seem inevitable," she wrote. " Because we have different standards for living partners than for life partners, we may end up married to someone we never would have originally considered for the long haul."

Neither Silegson nor any of the panelists during CBS' interview mentioned these possible consequences of cohabitation. Maybe living together doesn't increase the chances of divorce (a new study next year will probably refute everything anyway), but perhaps "not getting divorced" shouldn't determine a marriage's success either.

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show co-host Harry Smith underwent a live colonoscopy in order to raise awareness of colon cancer. Hosting the momentous occasion was CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, who dressed the part, wearing green scrubs, a white lab coat, and a stethoscope around her neck as if she was a medical doctor.

Couric famously taped herself undergoing the same procedure in 2000, while still co-host of NBC's Today, in the wake of her husband, Jay Monahan, dying of colon cancer in 1998.  

In the Early Show segment, Couric stood by Smith's bedside as they discussed the procedure and later dressed in full surgical garb as the colonoscopy was being performed.

Co-host Maggie Rodriguez led the coverage by touting the "Couric effect" of Americans getting colonoscopies in wake of Couric's televised exam and hoped for a similar "Smith effect."

See more photos of Couric playing doctor after the jump.

Couric later referred to her outfit, remarking that she and Smith were "totally playing the part":

She even seemed to be assisting the actual doctor in examining Smith's colon:

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.

At the top of Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith proclaimed: "President Obama makes a tough final push, going on the offensive against health insurance companies. Will it work?" Later, co-host Maggie Rodriguez gushed: "It looked like a campaign rally yesterday with President Obama center-stage taking his fight for health care reform out of Washington and into America's heartland."

White House correspondent Bill Plante followed up Rodriguez's fawning intro by reporting: "It did indeed look like a campaign. I'll tell you, the President is racing hard to get across the finish line with health care reform. He's trying to convince the public to ignore what he calls 'Washington's obsession with keeping score in politics.'" An on-screen headline read: "Obama on the Offensive; Attacks Insurers In Latest Push for Reform."

Plante ignored the Obama administration's constant political score-keeping and instead lamented how despite the President "taking on the pundits and the political establishment...polls show Mr. Obama has an uphill battle." Plante cited a recent Gallup poll showing 49% of Americans oppose ObamaCare, though failed to point out that only 42% of respondents in that poll favored the plan.

On Thursday, the Early Show claimed that ObamaCare was on the "fast-track" to being passed.

Rather than feature any Republican opponents of the legislation in his piece, Plante simply summed up the GOP response this way: "Republicans are calling the President's pitch 'snake oil' and predicting failure." He then added: "Still, Mr. Obama vows to push ahead."

Plante concluded that the "reason for the President's urgent tone" was "the insurance industry is planning to mount a comeback campaign, an ad campaign for about a million dollars, this week."

Following Plante's report, Smith discussed the President's latest push with Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer. Smith noted how Obama's "trying to get public support for this and in our latest CBS News poll, 52% of the public concerned about the economy versus health care. He's got an uphill fight here." Schieffer argued: "I think they would tell you in the White House that this was the President's signature issue. This is what he campaigned on, was getting health care for all Americans." Schieffer added: "I don't question his sincerity. I also think it's – he thinks it's the right thing to do."

Smith then wondered about the amount of support for ObamaCare in Congress: "Does he have the numbers?" Schieffer replied: "No, he does not have the numbers. And one test of how you can always tell when they have the votes is that leaders in the Congress bring it to a vote. I don't think there's anybody who would say that at this point the President has the votes in the House of Representatives to get this passed."

Schieffer went on to highlight the President's tactic of going after health insurance companies: "a very important shift. He suddenly is not so much running against Republicans as he's running against the insurance companies themselves....this is the shift, this is what is different now." Plante made a similar observation in his report: "The new strategy, raise the temperature on insurance companies, and hope audiences, like the one in Pennsylvania Monday, will pressure Congress to pass the bill." In reality, Obama and the Democrats have been employing that failing strategy for months.   

Here is a full transcript of Plante's report:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: And now to health care reform. It looked like a campaign rally yesterday with President Obama center-stage taking his fight for health care reform out of Washington and into America's heartland. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante is at the White House this morning with more on how the President is turning up the heat. Good morning, Bill.

BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Maggie. It did indeed look like a campaign. I'll tell you, the President is racing hard to get across the finish line with health care reform. He's trying to convince the public to ignore what he calls 'Washington's obsession with keeping score in politics.'

BARACK OBAMA: What does it mean for your poll numbers? Is this good for the Democrats or good for the Republicans? Who won the news cycle?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama on the Offensive; Attacks Insurers In Latest Push for Reform]

PLANTE: The President may be taking on the pundits and the political establishment, but polls show Mr. Obama has an uphill battle. 49% of those in a Gallup poll now oppose the Obama health care plan and in a recent CBS News/New York Times poll, the bitter fight left 48% believing that the President has spent too much time on the issue and 52% saying he's spent too little time on the economy and jobs.

JOHN DICKERSON: Everybody who's looking for an explanation of what went wrong is now focusing on the staffers inside the White House. What these stories miss, though, is the fact that it's the President who has kept going forward on health care.

PLANTE: The new strategy, raise the temperature on insurance companies and hope audiences, like the one in Pennsylvania Monday, will pressure Congress to pass the bill.

OBAMA: They're telling their investors this, 'we are in the money, we are going to keep on making big profits even though a lot of folks are going to be put under hardship.'

PLANTE: But Republicans are calling the President's pitch 'snake oil' and predicting failure. Still, Mr. Obama vows to push ahead.

OBAMA: I don't know how passing health care will play politically. But I do know that it's the right thing to do.

PLANTE: There's a reason for the President's urgent tone, time is short. The insurance industry is planning to mount a comeback campaign, an ad campaign for about a million dollars, this week.

Near the end of Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Erica Hill touted a new Parade magazine survey on volunteerism in America: "it indicates America is in the midst of what some are calling a compassion boom." Moments later, the magazine's contributing editor, Emily Listfield, argued: "There's something we call the 'Obama Effect.' People are responding to the President's call to service."

Interestingly, the Parade article made no mention of an "Obama Effect" in explaining why people are volunteering more. Apparently Listfield only felt the need to make that observation when appearing on CBS.

Hill set up Listfield's explanation by noting: "91% in the survey said community service, their community service involvement has gone up over the past 18 months." Hill then asked: "Why are you seeing that increase, and where are you seeing it the most?" A headline on screen read: "Compassion Counts; America's New Volunteering Boom."

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.

When the networks get a story involving food, labeling and health, they know just how to cover it: get reaction from their favorite lefty advocacy group, and paint consumers as defenseless patsies. That's what CBS' "Early Show" and ABC's "Good Morning America" did on March 4.

In an alleged violation of the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA has issued its biggest crackdowns in fifteen years, putting seventeen food manufacturers on notice for what they say are misleading product labels for consumers. The food companies have fifteen days to respond to the charges, either challenging the allegations or offering plans to change their labels.

Both GMA and "Early Show" predictably turned to America's self-appointed food police - the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) - for answers.

The CSPI has been a darling of the mainstream media for years, which have given the lefty organization coverage of its many campaigns against restaurant portions, cereal-box characters, Burger King's "food porn," and food-coloring, among other scourges.

BMI advisor Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan has written that, "CSPI never met a regulation or tax it did not love. How to solve the obesity crisis? Tax soda, ban its sale in schools, mandate that restaurants carry detailed nutrition labels on menus, and sue McDonald's for luring children...there are no good or bad foods, only good or bad diets." 

In GMA's report by Bianna Golodryga, the FDA has taken issue with products without trans-fats that are "misleading" because they don't prominently display other fats contained on the front of the package (although they're listed in the nutritional contents); products containing unauthorized claims such as "healthy" that haven't been vetted by the FDA; juice-blends with added flavors labeled "100% Juice"; and products with beneficial vitamins and minerals which make claims that go beyond "FDA-approved definitions."

"We hope that this is the start of a battle that will lead to a war that will end the deceptive food labeling," Bruce Silverglade, CSPI's Director of Legal Affairs, proclaimed to GMA.

"Right now, you have to practically be a label-detective to get through the hype, and misleading claims, and inaccurate statements on the food package," Silverglade told Michelle Gielan of "Early Show" in another interview.

Golodryga said ABC had "reached out" to the companies involved, but made no more attempt to present their side. ABC and CBS even failed to talk to any FDA officials).  Instead they both turned to the very same person from the same liberal organization, unlabeled as such -  passing Silverglade and the CSPI merely as objective consumer advocates.

Apparently, labeling is only an issue for food makers, not media outlets.

 

Introducing a story on the latest effort pass health care reform on Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez proclaimed: "This morning President Obama is putting health care reform on the fast-track, declaring that it's year-long journey must be completed in Congress quickly."

At the top of the show, co-host Harry Smith had similarly declared: "President Obama says the health care debate is over. He wants a reform bill on his desk in the next few weeks." A Headline on screen read: "Health Care Fast-Track."

White House correspondent Bill Plante reported on the so-called "fast-track" plan: "The President yesterday rejected Republican calls to start over, saying that it is time to make a decision on health care....he made it clear that he's willing to get this done with a legislative maneuver requiring no Republican support." At the end of his report, Plante acknowledged things weren't quite so simple: "this is by no means a done deal....Republicans united in opposition, Democrats wavering because of elections this fall."

Following Plante's report, Rodriguez interviewed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and challenged the notion that Democrats could pass the massive legislation so quickly: "a lot of people think that the President is dreaming if he thinks he's going to get this done as quickly as he hopes. When do you think we will see a bill on the President's desk?"

Sebelius responded by arguing: "I think the urgency...really deals with what's happening to the American people....We need to move ahead." Rodriguez again questioned the ability to push through the controversial bill: "I understand that you think it's urgent, but the fact remains that 52% of Americans don't support this, according to the latest poll. You have no Republican support. Even some Democrats are wavering on this. How will the President get all of the support that he needs to get this done?"

In part, Sebelius replied by attacking the GOP: "Republicans...are perfectly comfortable to let the practice go along that says insurance companies can lock people out if you have a pre-existing condition, or if your kid has a pre-existing condition, you shouldn't be in the insurance pool. And the President and the health reform measure says that's just wrong. We need to change those rules."

Rodriguez returned to her original question and continued to press the HHS secretary: "Let me go back to the beginning and try to get a quick prediction from you. Can you can give me a date or a time frame when you think this will be on the President's desk?"

Here is a full transcript of Plante's report:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: President Obama says the health care debate is over. He wants a reform bill on his desk in the next few weeks. Does he have the votes from fellow Democrats?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Health Care Fast-Track]

7:06AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: This morning President Obama is putting health care reform on the fast track, declaring that it's year-long journey must be completed in Congress quickly. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has the latest this morning. Good morning, Bill.

BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Maggie. The President yesterday rejected Republican calls to start over, saying that it is time to make a decision on health care.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Health Care Battle; President Wants Legislation On Desk In Weeks]

BARACK OBAMA: Not just for the past year, but for decades.

PLANTE: The President's plan includes some Republican ideas like grants for malpractice reform and expansion of health savings accounts. But he made it clear that he's willing to get this done with a legislative maneuver requiring no Republican support.

OBAMA: Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform.

PLANTE: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell promised to make that an issue in November.

MITCH MCCONNELL: The administration and the majority are very arrogant about this.

PLANTE: Political analyst Reid Wilson agrees that the vote could hurt Democrats, but says that what they really need is an end to the health care battle.

REID WILSON [EDITOR, HOTLINE ON CALL]: The bottom line calculation, though, is that they just need to get this thing done and they just need to get it passed and that will be the best possible outcome for this, even though it's still not a very good one.

PLANTE: But this is by no means a done deal. There are a lot of Republicans and Democrats in the House, Republicans united in opposition, Democrats wavering because of elections this fall. The President will go out and start campaigning for this next week. Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Bill Plante at the White House this morning. Thank you, Bill.

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer ranted against Republican Senator Jim Bunning's opposition to a spending bill: "it's unconscionable what has happened here....this is about politics. It is not – it was not about anything of substance." [Audio available here]

Co-host Maggie Rodriguez began the segment by explaining that Bunning had stopped blocking the legislation and asked Schieffer: "Isn't this just another example of why it takes so long to get things done in Congress?" Schieffer agreed, claiming: "it's another example...of why there is so much anger and disillusionment out in the country about Congress."

Schieffer went on to dismiss the Kentucky Senator's concerns over the rising deficit: "[He] claimed he was doing this because he was trying to get the Senate to go along with the Republican principle and that is pay things...before they approve them but this was emergency legislation." In reality, Democrats, not Republicans, just passed pay-as-you-go legislation last week, mandating that all new spending being paid for before passage. As for the "emergency" nature of the bill, on Tuesday's Early Show, CBS White House correspondent Chip Reid claimed it was simply "routine legislation."

Schieffer went on to suggest that the real reason for Bunning blocking the bill was the Senator's personal animosity toward fellow Republicans: "The back story here is Senator Bunning is in a feud with the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell. He wanted McConnell and Republicans to support him in a bid for re-election. They did not do that and he's been seething."

Before moving on to the topic of health care reform, Rodriguez remarked on how "infuriating" Bunning's action was.

At the top of the show, Rodriguez touted President Obama's latest verison of health care reform and wondered: "will the GOP buy into it?" Moments later, co-host Harry Smith claimed that Obama was "seeming to move a little closer to the middle" by being open to incorporate a few token Republican ideas into the massive legislation.    

Rodriguez later asked Schieffer about the President's upcoming proposal: "It seems, Bob, by incorporating these four Republican ideas, that he's reaching out. But the Republicans say these are not real concessions. Who's right here?" Schieffer replied: "He's trying to set himself up in a position that if this fails, he can say 'it's the fault of the Republicans. I did everything I could.'" Rodriguez agreed with that assessment: "Right, they can't say anymore that he didn't try to reach out." An on-screen headline read: "Health Care Compromise; Obama to Unveil Final Reform Proposal."

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez's discussion with Schieffer:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Now to politics. A big day ahead for President Obama as he gets ready to unveil his final proposal for health care reform today. In a letter to congressional leaders, the President said that he was open to several Republican ideas: Undercover investigations of health care providers who are getting federal money, expansion of health savings accounts, providing more grant money to study alternatives to medical malpractice lawsuits, and raising doctor reimbursement for Medicare.

In the meantime, The gridlock has been broken on another issue, a spending bill. The Senate finally passed it last night after it had been blocked for days by Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning and forced about 2,000 federal employees into furloughs. Joining us to talk more about this is Bob Schieffer, CBS chief Washington correspondent and, of course, host of Face the Nation. Good morning, Bob.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Maggie.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Bunning Backs Down; GOP Senator Gives Up Fight Over Unemployment]
                    
RODRIGUEZ: Let's talk quickly about that development overnight. The Senate finally extending these jobless benefits after this one senator had held it up for days. Isn't this just another example of why it takes so long to get things done in Congress?

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think it's another example, Maggie, of why there is so much anger and disillusionment out in the country about Congress and the Senate and about it's inability to get anything done. What you have here is Senator Bunning, who claimed he was doing this because he was trying to get the Senate to go along with the Republican principle, and that is pay things before they happen – before they approve them but this was emergency legislation.

The back story here is Senator Bunning is in a feud with the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell. He wanted McConnell and Republicans to support him in a bid for re-election. They did not do that and he's been seething. And so while the Republicans were trying to move on, Republicans were ready to vote for this, he puts a hold on it and it takes three or four days to get it done. I mean it's – it's unconscionable what has happened here. Now the Senate is finally, as everyone knew they finally would, they finally got this done and now they can go on to other things.

RODRIGUEZ: Like health care-

SCHIEFFER: But this is about politics. It is not – it was not about anything of substance.

RODRIGUEZ: That is infuriating. And now they can move on to things like health care. And President Obama is going to be unveiling his final plan later. It seems, Bob, by incorporating these four Republican ideas, that he's reaching out. But the Republicans say these are not real concessions. Who's right here?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Health Care Compromise; Obama to Unveil Final Reform Proposal]

SCHIEFFER: What the President is trying to do here is to be able to say to the country, 'Listen, I reached out. I did everything I could possibly do to get Republican support and they just wouldn't go along with it.' And now he will try to pass health care on a straight party line vote. That's going to be very complicated. I think at this point he really doesn't have the votes to get that done. But he's trying to set himself up in a position that if this fails, he can say 'it's the fault of the Republicans. I did everything I could.'

RODRIGUEZ: Right, they can't say anymore that he didn't try to reach out. Bob Schieffer. Thank you so much, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: You bet.

RODRIGUEZ: And of course, you can always check out Bob, and you should, every Sunday on Face the Nation right here on CBS.

Reporting on Republican Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning blocking spending legislation over deficit concerns at the top of Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith proclaimed: "Congressional quagmire. Democrats blame one Republican senator for preventing thousands of federal workers from working."

In a later report, White House correspondent Chip Reid continued to assail Bunning: "The White House is pointing its finger at a single Republican senator who they say is standing in the way of federal aid for hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans....he is single-handedly holding up a routine piece of legislation." Rather than address Bunning's spending concerns, Reid declared: "Because of his objection, 2,000 federal transportation workers had to be furloughed without pay. 400,000 Americans risk losing their unemployment benefits over the next seven to ten days. And Medicare fees for doctors suddenly slashed by 21%."

Reid briefly noted: "Bunning wants the Democrats to come up with a way to pay the $10 billion price tag." A couple clips were played of the Kentucky Senator voicing his opposition: "And I'm going to object every time because you won't pay for this....We cannot keep adding to the debt."

Following Reid's report, Smith interviewed Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and wondered if Bunning was really even allowed to oppose the bill: "Does he have a point, does he have a right to stand there in the well of the Senate and say 'you got to pay for this' or do you think he's out of line?" Hoyer pointed out: "Well, under the rules, he obviously is in the Senate, has the ability to do that."

Smith went on to ask Hoyer about a possible scaled down version of health care reform, urging the Congressman to sell it to viewers: "Nancy Pelosi says there will be a smaller version of the health care bill that is going to be moving forward. If there is a single best selling point in it, what is it?" A headline on screen read: "House Dems On The Hot Seat; Obama's New Health Care Proposal Hangs In Balance."

In a follow up, Smith observed that moderate Democrats and Obama adviser Warren Buffett are concerned about cost containment in the health care bill, asking Hoyer: "Is there any chance this moves back a little bit, that there's more agreement before this thing moves – moves forward?"

In his final question to Hoyer, Smith fretted about the political fallout of Democrats passing unpopular legislation: "If you get this passed, are you – are you happy to live with this, this may cost you seats in the end come November." Hoyer replied: "we're prepared to go to the American public because we believe they support the individual elements in the bill."

On Monday's CBS Early Show, White House correspondent Bill Plante reported on the possibility of Democrats using reconciliation to pass a health care reform bill and noted how Republicans used the procedure when they were in the majority: "In the past it has helped the majority party push through some controversial legislation. In 2001, Republicans used it to pass a giant $1.3 trillion tax cut."

A Media Research Center special report conducted from January 20 to March 31 in 2001 found that out of 94 judgements of the size of the Bush tax cuts on ABC, NBC, and CBS, "84 percent...labeled it as 'big' or 'huge' or otherwise portrayed it as large." CBS was one of the worst offenders, with various reporters describing the cuts as large a total of 14 times in that ten-week period. Then-CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather alone used the word "big" 11 times to describe the tax cuts.

Meanwhile, on Monday's Early Show, Plante did not use the "giant" label to describe the massive ObamaCare legislation, simply referring to it as a "sweeping proposal." According to a Heritage Foundation study by James C. Capretta, the total cost of the bill could add up to $2.5 trillion over ten years.

Plante did acknowledge the partisan nature of the reconciliation process, in which legislation is passed with 51 votes in the Senate rather than the customary 60: "Even some Democrats don't think it's the right thing to do. Reconciliation sounds agreeable, like bipartisanship. But in Congress, reconciliation means just the opposite." Later in the report, a clip was played of Republican Senator Tom Coburn describing it as "a thumbing of the nose at the American people." A clip was also played of Democratic Senator Kent Conrad pointing out that reconciliation "was never designed for that kind of significant legislation."  

On Friday, Plante placed the blame for gridlock at Thursday's health care reform summit on Republicans.

Here is a full transcript of Plante's Monday report:

7:14AM

BILL PLANTE: There is one way the President may be able to get health care without Republican support. It's a legislative device called reconciliation. But even some Democrats don't think it's the right thing to do. Reconciliation sounds agreeable, like bipartisanship. But in Congress, reconciliation means just the opposite.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Health Care Reform; Debating Reconciliation]

LARRY SABATO: Reconciliation is a device to short circuit the need for 60 votes, a super majority in the Senate, to pass major legislation.

PLANTE: When it's used in budget bills, they can't be filibustered or amended. In the past it has helped the majority party push through some controversial legislation. In 2001, Republicans used it to pass a giant $1.3 trillion tax cut, a centerpiece of President Bush's economic plan. They used it again in 2003 for a $350 billion tax cut. This time, Democrats are in charge and Republicans say reconciliation is a bad idea.

TOM COBURN: If you use reconciliation on this health care bill as we see today, what you're going to have is a thumbing of the nose at the American people. They don't agree with it. We need to change it.

PLANTE: And even some Democrats warn that reconciliation was never meant for a sweeping proposal like the health care bill.

KENT CONRAD: It was never designed for that kind of significant legislation. It was designed for deficit reduction.

PLANTE: Now, the President is expected to announce as early as Wednesday whether he'll support reconciliation to pass health care. His biggest problem will be getting Democrats on board because the vote would leave many of them very vulnerable in November.

A report on the health care summit on Friday's CBS Early Show featured a clip of President Obama scolding lawmakers for "trading talking points" during the meeting, that was followed by  correspondent Bill Plante pointing a finger at the GOP: "But from their first speaker, Republicans never backed down from their opposition to the Democrats' bill."

Plante noted that "John McCain, the President's opponent In 2008, challenged the process by which the Democrats' bill was produced." After a clip was played of McCain denouncing the lack of change in Washington, Plante touted how "the President shot back," playing a clip of Obama proclaiming "the election is over." Plante also highlighted an exchange in which Obama slammed Senator Lamar Alexander, telling the Tennessee Republican to get his "facts straight."

Oddly, after displaying the President's clearly partisan attacks, Plante concluded: "Democrats emerged from the meeting saying they still want bipartisanship. Republicans said they don't see that happening."

On Thursday's CBS Evening News, White House correspondent Chip Reid described how "exasperated" President Obama was with Republicans, who proved they were the "party of no."

Plante did acknowledge that the summit was ultimately a stalemate: "In the end, it was pretty much a draw. The President at the end seemed to suggest that he would encourage Democrats to pass a health care bill without Republicans, using the legislative tactic known as reconciliation. And then let the voters sort it all out next November."

Following Plante's report, co-host Harry Smith discussed the summit with Face the Nation host Bob schieffer and asked if the Democrats would now "go it alone" on health care reform. Schieffer responded:

I think the Democrats will probably go it alone....go ahead with this process called reconciliation....there is going to be an enormous cost, because Republicans are just going to go crazy about this and I think that they that will vow to tie up the Senate on every other single issue that comes before it this year. The Democrats, by the same token, will be saying, okay, go ahead and try to do that and see what the voters think of that.

Smith followed up by describing Obama's bold gamble: "This is basically the President saying, taking all the chips, putting them in the middle of the table saying 'I'm all in on this deal, we're going to pass this health care the way it is. I will risk my presidency, I will risk the fall elections on this one issue come hell or high water.'" Schieffer agreed: "I think you're right. And he is basically daring the Republicans to do the same thing."

Neither Schieffer nor Smith seemed to notice a just-released Gallup poll that showed that a majority of Americans, 52%, oppose the use of reconciliation, compared to only 39% who approve of the legislative tactic.

After the Democrats regained control of the House in 2006, Nancy Pelosi promised NBC's Brian Williams that she would "drain the swamp" and "turn this Congress into the most honest and open Congress in history." So when news broke that a House Ethics committee found that long time New York Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel accepted corporate money for trips to the Carribean one would think Williams would be all over the story – he wasn't.

On Thursday's NBC Nightly News Williams completely ignored the charges, as did ABC's World News Tonight. Of the three broadcast network evening news shows, only Williams' competitors at CBS Evening News covered the Rangel scandal as Katie Couric reported Rangel "broke House rules," and Nancy Cordes told viewers he could be "censured," but didn't tell them that he was a Democrat.

Williams' NBC News colleague Amy Robach did mention the investigation into Rangel's wrongdoing, the next morning on the Today show, but omitted Rangel's party affiliation in the one and only story aired on the morning show:

AMY ROBACH: And an ethics panel has found that New York Congressman Charles Rangel knowingly accepted Carribean trips from a corporation in violation of House rules. Rangel said he was unaware of the corporate financing and should not be held responsible for mistakes by his staff.

For the record both CBS' The Early Show and ABC's Good Morning America on Friday aired only one anchor brief each on the Rangel story, however they did manage to attach the "D" next to the Congressman's name.

The following are transcripts of the Rangel stories as they were aired on Thursday's CBS Evening News, and Friday's CBS's The Early Show and ABC's Good Morning America:

CBS

Evening News

February 25, 2010

KATIE COURIC: And meanwhile, Nancy, there's breaking news tonight. The Associated Press is quoting a source as saying the House Ethics Committee has found Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, that he broke House rules. Remind everyone what he was being investigated for.

NANCY CORDES: Well this was a longstanding investigation into the way that he filed his taxes, the way that he reported his taxes here in Congress, and some questionable trips that he took. The fact that he's now being, uh, uh, found to have broken some rules could mean that he would be censured; it could mean that he'll just get a slap on the wrist. We don't know yet Katie.

COURIC: Alright, Nancy Cordes, Chip Reid, thank you both so much.

...

CBS

The Early Show

February 26, 2010

CHRIS WRAGGE: In other news now, the House Ethics Committee has accused long-time New York Congressman Charles Rangel of misconduct. The committee found that Rangel accepted corporate money for trips to the Caribbean. Rangel admits his staff knew what was going on, but says he didn't.

CHARLES RANGEL [ON-SCREEN LABEL: (D) NEW YORK]: Common accepts dictates that members of Congress should not be held responsible for what could be the wrongdoing or mistakes or errors of staff unless there's reason to believe that the member knew or should have known.

WRAGGE: Rangel is also being investigated for other possible ethics violations.

...

ABC

Good Morning America

February 26, 2010

JUJU CHANG: One of the most powerful members of Congress has been blamed for violating ethics rules. A House committee has concluded Democrat Charlie Rangel accepted trips to conferences in the Caribbean, financed by corporations. Rangel insists he was unaware of the funding and blames his staff.

Speaking to California Governor Arnold Schwarzengger on Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith noted the success of the tea party movement, but spun it as a negative for the Republican Party: "There are winds of change blowing in the Republican Party. The tea party has met. There's a – it feels like a significant shift to the Right. Can the Republican Party exist without moderates?"

Prior to that, Smith asked if Schwarzenegger had any helpful advice for President Obama: "His approval ratings are dropping. He's under fire from all kinds of quadrants. If you're going to give him some advice as to how to stay his course, what would you tell him?" Schwarzenegger initially replied: "I don't think that...he needs advice from me." He then went on to praise the President's efforts on health care reform: "you have to give him credit for taking the risk. You have to give any leader credit for always going out on a limb and to go and fight for something."

Smith failed to wonder if Democrats could survive without moderates following the announced retirement of Indiana Senator Evan Bayh last week.

At the beginning of the interview, Smith asked about the Governor's efforts to combat obesity: "Can the state of California, or the country for that matter, afford not to act on this?" Schwarzenegger responded by attacking the slick advertising of the food industry: "You have to understand that $1.5 to 1.6 billion a year is being spent by the food industry and by the soda industry on marketing. So they make it, of course, very delicious and very seductive to have those kind of foods."

Here is a portion of the interview:

8:14AM

HARRY SMITH: We appreciate you having this conversation with us about obesity, which everybody cares about. But since we have you in the chair, I know you've agreed to take on some other subjects. And I know you met with President Obama earlier this week. He's been in office 13 months. His approval ratings are dropping. He's under fire from all kinds of quadrants. If you're going to give him some advice as to how to stay his course, what would you tell him?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Well first of all, I don't think that, you know, he needs advice from me. I think that the bottom line is this is a very difficult job today to be a leader because of the world economy being down. No matter where you pick up news papers, it's all the same headlines,: 'this is a disaster, the economy is down, money is not available, the banking system is a problem, people are losing jobs' and all of this stuff, and people are hating their politicians.

Remember, with health care reform, Teddy Roosevelt talked about health care reform in 1912. So that's 100 years ago. And since then, no one was able to do it, and you know, now Obama is another president that is giving it a stab and trying to get it done. It could work. I mean, you have to give him credit for taking the risk. You have to give any leader credit for always going out on a limb and to go and fight for something. It may not work out, but in the end, you've got to try.

SMITH: There are winds of change blowing in the Republican Party. The tea party has met. There's a – it feels like a significant shift to the Right. Can the Republican Party exist without moderates?

SCHWARZENEGGER: I think that there are great leaders in the Republican Party and I think that the key thing is to always, when you're the minority party, that you have good solutions so the people can see what the majority party has to offer and what then the minority party has to offer. And so to me, the most important thing is you always have great solutions, not just say no, but have great solutions and have a whole menu of things of what you would do if you were in power.

SMITH: Governor, thank you so much for your time today. We do appreciate it. We hope we can visit again soon.

At the top of Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith promoted the idea of division within the GOP as he declared: "A controversial vote for brand new Republican Senator Scott Brown, as he sides with Democrats to help push through a jobs bill."

While it's certainly true that some conservatives took real issue with Brown's support of the $15 billion spending bill, Smith clearly saw an opportunity to stir up conflict on the Right: "the senator who broke the Democrats' super majority, Scott Brown, is taking some heat today from conservatives."

Rather than talk to any conservatives about the issue, Smith instead turned to liberal-leaning political analyst John Dickerson and observed that Brown siding with Democrats was a sign of his independence: "It's very interesting, though, because Scott Brown actually showed up at the CPAC meeting, the conservative meeting over the weekend in Washington, and yesterday he was quoted as 'I said I came to Washington to be an independent voice.'" Dickerson replied: "That's right. He said he was going to be independent and he, in fact, voted independently in this case."

Smith wondered if Brown was "ushering in a new era of bipartisanship or is that a punch line?" He asked Dickerson if the move was "a joke" or "real." Dickerson argued: "Well, it's real, but it's quite modest....$15 Billion is five times smaller than the $85 billion original bill which broke down because of partisanship. So they couldn't agree on the whole meal. They went for the appetizer."

Turning to the upcoming health care summit, Smith wondered if there was any chance of bipartisanship: "President Obama unveiled the $950 billion Democratic plan, anyway, to restart the health care negotiations....Does this thing have any shot whatsoever?" Dickerson was doubtful, pointing to the GOP: "Well, it doesn't look like it. When the President announced this plan on Monday, the denunciations came from Republicans immediately and across the board."

At the end of the segment, Smith called for Dickerson's diagnosis: "So as for bipartisanship, how would you rule its health as of this morning?" Dickerson didn't see much hope for recovery: "Well, the heartbeat is faint, it has been recognized on the instruments, but I don't think we're going to have any robust jogging with this bipartisan heart here."  

In part two of her exclusive interview with First Lady Michelle Obama on Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez worried about the toll the presidency takes on Barack Obama: "Your husband is the target of so many of these partisan attacks....He must get frustrated?" Rodriguez later wondered: "Amid all these frustrations, how does he unwind, how does he let that all go?"

Rodriguez asked about Mrs. Obama's reaction to criticism of her husband: "How often do you have to bite your tongue?" The First Lady explained: "You can't go into this if you're thin-skinned or you're worrying about your husband being criticized or you being criticized." Rodriguez remarked, "And criticize they do," and played clips of Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin as examples of the "frustrating partisan attacks" being launched against the President.   

Later, Rodriguez asked about the Obama daughters, Malia and Sasha, and how they deal with the "poisonous environment" of Washington: "Do they not hear the attacks?" Mrs. Obama replied: "Everyone in this country cares about those girls....we have been pleasantly surprised that our children have experienced that kind of good naturedness of this country."

Rodriguez also took time to note how well the First Lady is handling the President's falling poll numbers: "The climate in Washington can be extremely tough these days, with President Obama's approval ratings down to a mere 45%....As the President's approval ratings plummet, Mrs. Obama takes it in stride." Obama argued: "The important thing is for the President to stay focused. Which is what he's doing every single day." After the interview concluded, Rodriguez added: "She said relax, everybody, there's plenty of time...for the President's approval ratings to come back up as things improve. So she's honestly not worried about it."

Co-host Harry Smith was concerned that Rodriguez's interview was not thorough enough: "I'm worrying about the dog. How's that dog doing?" Rodriguez jokingly replied: "Yeah, you know, I forgot to ask how the dog handles the stress....Good question, Harry. And I missed it."

The interview was conducted on Friday and aired in two parts on the Monday and Tuesday broadcasts of the Early Show. On Monday, Rodriguez asked the First Lady about health care reform "being held hostage by partisanship."

Here is a portion of the interview aired on Tuesday:

RODRIGUEZ: A year after moving into the White House, First Lady Michelle Obama sounds like a Washington veteran. Your husband is the target of so many of these partisan attacks. I wonder, how often do you have to bite your tongue?

OBAMA: You know, it's the nature of the job. You know, you don't – you can't go into this if you're thin-skinned or you're worrying about your husband being criticized or you being criticized. It's sort of a part of it.

RODRIGUEZ: And criticize they do.

DICK CHENEY: Barack Obama is a one-term president.

SARAH PALIN: We need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern!

RODRIGUEZ: As the President's approval ratings plummet, Mrs. Obama takes it in stride.

OBAMA: I don't want to say that you become immune to it, but, you know, folks are – you know, folks want jobs. You know, they want to be able to build the life, the American dream, that they had hoped. And when stuff gets tough, people get angry, and they have every right to criticize the people in charge. But the important thing is for the President to stay focused. Which is what he's doing every single day. He's going into the office-

RODRIGUEZ: But he's human.

OBAMA: He's absolutely human.

RODRIGUEZ: He must get frustrated?

OBAMA: You know, everybody gets frustrated at some point in time. I mean, the American people get frustrated. But he – you know, when you're the President of the United States, you can't wallow in your frustration.

RODRIGUEZ: When he gets home after working all day amid all these frustrations, how does he unwind, how does he let that all go?

OBAMA: You know, part of it is making a home a political free zone, you know. And it's probably like home for anyone in this country. We walk in the door, the kids will ask about his day or mine. They're interested for maybe 30 seconds. And then they're focused on their worlds, which we are more than happy to immerse ourselves in.

RODRIGUEZ: Mrs. Obama says 11-year-old Malia and 8-year-old Sasha are their best distraction and their biggest motivation.

OBAMA: He and I both wake up every morning and go to bed every night with their faces on our minds. You know, this is not about us. This is about their future.

RODRIGUEZ: How do you shield them from the sometimes poisonous environment that Washington can be?

OBAMA: You know, I think their age helps. Because they're completely uninterested.

RODRIGUEZ: Do they not hear the attacks?

OBAMA: You know, the one thing that has been very good is that everyone in this country cares about those girls, even if, you know, they're opposed or angry at their father. Folks are kind and decent. I hope that continues. But we have been pleasantly surprised that our children have experienced that kind of good naturedness of this country.

While discussing the Democrats' latest version of health care reform on Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked GOP strategist Ed Rollins: "Are the Republicans better off just saying let the Democrats burn in hell with this, we're going to stay on the sidelines and win the House back this fall?"

The segment also featured disgraced ex-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who Smith earlier asked about an upcoming health care summit: "...this whole notion that the Republicans were saying 'well, we might not show up, now Mitch McConnell over the weekend, the minority head of the Senate, says 'we're going come, but we think the Democrats are arrogant.' Is this doomed from the get-go?" Spitzer proclaimed: "the Democratic Party and the President know they must get something done. The internal discipline within the Democratic Party will be what makes this a success."

Spitzer later argued: "The Republican Party's been the party of no, the party of nihilism. The President should stand up and say 'here's what's good for America. We have the votes, we're willing to do it.'" Smith followed that logic: "So is this then the real test for the President?...To say 'I have control of the people in my party, I can do this thing and it will benefit the American people.' And in the end, push back to everything that's been pushing up against him?" Spitzer replied: "This is the moment when either he says we are leaders, we will get it done, or if they fail this time, then it really is debacle for the Democratic Party."

Near the end of the exchange, Smith finally acknowledged the fact that the American public is opposed to the legislation: "if you sort of listen to the – all of the anger and anxiety out in the country, people say, okay, we do want some sort of health reform....At the same time, don't give us thousand page bills that are un-understandable by human beings on this earth." Spitzer brushed that aside: "the President needs to stand up and say here it is, we've got the votes, we're going to pass it....It can be done. It's going to be tough politically, but this is the moment of truth."

CBS began to aid in the rehabilitation of Eliot Spitzer in the fall of last year, when co-host Maggie Rodriguez interviewed him on the September 19 Early Show to discuss the one-year anniversary of the financial collapse: "President Obama will mark this anniversary with a speech here today on Wall Street. And former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was known as the sheriff of Wall Street before he resigned after being caught in a sex scandal. And Mister Spitzer joins us for an exclusive interview on this anniversary."

In January 11 of this year, Smith brought Spitzer on again to lecture big banks on executive compensation, asking him: "Great Britain is talking about putting enormous taxation on this com -- you know, compensation over a certain level. Would that be an answer?" Spitzer replied: "It is a short-term answer. What we really need to do is redefine what banks do."

Spitzer's most recent Early Show mention occurred on Thursday, when correspondent Kelly Wallace included him in a report on famous adulterers while discussing the upcoming Tiger Woods press conference: "[South Carolina Governor Mark] Sanford, who admitted being unfaithful, didn't have his wife by his side, but other now infamous wrongdoers did, like former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught having sex with prostitutes."

So apparently prominent Democrats caught in sex scandals can at the same time be legitimate political analysts and subjects of scorm on CBS.

Here is a portion of Smith's discussion with Rollins and Spitzer:

SMITH: Let me ask you this former Governor Spitzer, this whole notion that the Republicans were saying 'well, we might not show up, now Mitch McConnell over the weekend, the minority head of the Senate, says 'we're going come, but we think the Democrats are arrogant.'

SPITZER: Right.

SMITH: Is this doomed from the get-go?

SPITZER: Look, I don't think the Thursday event will be terribly useful. I think this will be posturing, it will be choreographed. But here's what's fundamentally different, the Democratic Party and the President know they must get something done. The internal discipline within the Democratic Party will be what makes this a success. And I agree, I think Ed's right, the Republican Party will say no to this, but it's a wonderful idea. He's right about the Republican response. He's wrong on the substance. This is critically needed because the insurance industry is out of control right now.

SMITH: Well, you have, for instance, this one insurance company in California, 700,000 customers, they're going raise rates on some of them by 39%. There's a consensus in the country that this is out of control. Are the Republicans better off just saying let the Democrats burn in hell with this, we're going to stay on the sidelines and win the House back this fall?

ROLLINS: Well, the bottom line – I don't know whether they're going to win the House back, but we'll do much better than we've done before – the bottom line here is that this is a Democrat proposal and they have enough votes if they want to get together and pass it, they can pass it. If they don't, and if they can't get together, then we're not going to have health care.

SPITZER: And I think, again, Ed and I agree, this is a Democratic bill. They should pass it, they should claim it, it will be a huge success. The Republican Party's been the party of no, the party of nihilism. The President should stand up and say 'here's what's good for America. We have the votes, we're willing to do it.'

SMITH: So is this then the real test for the President?

SPITZER: Absolutely.

SMITH: To say 'I have control of the people in my party, I can do this thing and it will benefit the American people.' And in the end, push back to everything that's been pushing up against him?

SPITZER: He – this is the litmus test. This is the moment when either he says we are leaders, we will get it done, or if they fail this time, then it really is debacle for the Democratic Party.

SMITH: On the other hand, if you sort of listen to the – all of the anger and anxiety out in the country, people say, okay, we do want some sort of health reform. We don't want to pay these unbelievable premiums we're being crushed with every year. At the same time, don't give us thousand page bills that are un-understandable by human beings on this earth.

ROLLINS: At the end of the day, someone has to pay for health care, it's very expensive. And by adding burdens to former – to governors, as a former governor – adding more burdens on the Medicaid, where every state's almost bankrupt, is not a good formula. Somehow you bring it down, you've got to bring lawyers to the table, you got to have malpractice reform, you got to have competition by letting it go across state lines and let insurance companies compete. And there hasn't been a willingness to do that yet.

SPITZER: I think what's interesting is the Democratic proposals do encompass a great deal of that and they should and they will. I agree with all that, they will be in the bill, but the President needs to stand up and say here it is, we've got the votes, we're going to pass it. And that's the only way you will then provide insurance and drive costs down. It can be done. It's going to be tough politically, but this is the moment of truth.

In an exclusive interview with First Lady Michelle Obama on Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez fretted over the future of ObamaCare: "Deadlines keep getting missed for passing health care. Obstacles keep mounting....Unfortunately at the moment...health care is being held hostage by partisanship."

Rodriguez introduced the interview by proclaiming that the First Lady: "acknowledges the many hurdles to passing it [health care reform], but insists it will remain a top priority for the President." In her first question to Mrs. Obama, Rodriguez focused on the President's determination to get something passed: "Will your husband ever give up on trying to find a compromise?" After Obama replied that "we can't afford to give up," Rodriguez concluded: "You can't imagine a scenario where he would not finish the job on health care?" Obama declared: "My hope is that the country understands that we need to do this."

Ironically, Rodriguez later focused on political partisanship: "Democrats are losing a lot of legislators, either they're leaving or incumbents are losing. How do you stop the bleeding?...What do you think could help Democrats keep those crucial seats?"

In response, the First Lady argued: "Some of it takes time for people to, you know, believe that jobs are coming back and to feel the improvement that is actually occurring. Because things are getting better. And sometimes people need to feel it before they believe that it's actually working." Rodriguez followed: "What do you think is a reasonable amount of time to ask people to wait?" Obama replied: "Oh, I couldn't tell you....But I do know that it's more than a year."

At the conclusion of that part of the interview, Rodriguez touted how Mrs. Obama: "would help to go campaign for some of those Democratic incumbents who may be in trouble in November. You know, the President has done so unsuccessfully for three of them, but she has an approval rating of 71%, so she might just be who they want on the stump."  

Here is a portion of Rodriguez's exchange with the First Lady:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Deadlines keep getting missed for passing health care. Obstacles keep mounting. Will your husband ever give up on trying to find a compromise?

MICHELLE OBAMA: Yeah, we can't afford to keep – to give up. Not in this country. You know, we're already seeing premiums going up for people who do have insurance and there are still millions of Americans that are under-insured or uninsured.
                
BARACK OBAMA: The single biggest driver of our deficits is health care spending.

RODRIGUEZ: You can't imagine a scenario where he would not finish the job on health care?

MICHELLE OBAMA: My hope is that the country understands that we need to do this, right? This is a 'we' thing. You know, we all have to work together and decide that this is a priority and we're going to make the compromises and changes that need to happen to get health care to everyone.

RODRIGUEZ: Unfortunately at the moment, though, health care is being held hostage by partisanship. I talked to Senator Evan Bayh this week after he quit. He threw his hands up and said 'I can't handle the partisanship, I'm out of here.' Democrats are losing a lot of legislators, either they're leaving or incumbents are losing. How do you stop the bleeding?

OBAMA: You know, these are tough times. When times are tough, it's – it's hard on the people who are in power, both Republicans and Democrats. So, you know, it's the nature of the beast. But we have to say focused.

RODRIGUEZ: What do you think could help Democrats keep those crucial seats?

OBAMA: Some of it takes time. Some of it takes time for people to, you know, believe that jobs are coming back and to feel the improvement that is actually occurring. Because things are getting better. And sometimes people need to feel it before they believe that it's actually working.

RODRIGUEZ: What do you think is a reasonable amount of time to ask people to wait?

OBAMA: Oh, I couldn't tell you. You know, I couldn't even begin to tell you that, you know. I mean, I think it's hard to know what's reasonable. But I do know that it's more than a year.

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith teased an interview with the Vice President: "We got a great chance yesterday to spend some quality time with Vice President Joe Biden. He's got a lot to say on a lot of different topics." During the interview, Smith shilled for the failed stimulus package: "The Vice President says the stimulus created or saved 2 million jobs. Many of them green."

At the top of the show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez announced: "Today is the first anniversary of the economic stimulus package." Smith treated it like a celebration, joking: "Where's the stimulus package cake?" Rodriguez replied: "There should be." Smith began the segment with Biden by citing a Pew Research poll showing only 24% Americans actually think the stimulus plan has improved the economy, but rather that challenge the VP on its failure, he simply asked if taxpayers "got their bang from the buck from the stimulus." That allowed Biden to argue: "Absolutely. But I don't think they realize it....The job creating portions are really loaded at the second half here....they have gotten their money's worth."

Traveling with Biden in Saginaw, Michigan on Tuesday, Smith touted one employer who was helped by the stimulus: "At Fuzzy's Diner, a local businessman, Paul Furlo, told us government-backed loans helped him expand and add hundreds of new employees." No critics of the stimulus were featured in the segment.

On Tuesday's Early Show, retiring Democratic Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, argued that no jobs had been created by the government. After Rodriguez asked about the Senator's future plans, Bayh in part declared: "If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last 6 months." Smith did not bring up that quote in his interview with Biden.

Smith did however move on to political strategy: "Your critics would say the administration made a maybe even fatal miscalculation in the beginning to spend so much time and energy on health care when in fact it really was the economy." Biden replied: "Harry, we had to try to walk and chew gum at the same time."

In a follow up, Smith wondered: "Unemployment hovering around 10. The real unemployment number is probably closer to between 15% and 20%. People don't think you or a lot of other folks in Washington get it. Does the Obama administration get it?" Biden blamed Washington gridlock caused by Republicans: "We get it. We understand why they're angry....It reflects the reality that Washington right now is broken. I don't ever recall a time in my career where to get anything done you needed a super majority, 60 out of 100 senators."

Smith helped emphasize that point as he referenced some earlier bonding between himself and the Vice President: "You said to me at lunch, you said you've never seen it this dysfunctional." Biden lamented: "I've never seen it this dysfunctional. I'm trying to get the other team to cooperate to get in the game here a little bit."

After apparently being finished with the 'tough' questions, Smith gauged the VP's mood: " Are you optimistic or pessimistic?" Biden replied: "It's – you know, optimism is an occupational requirement. And I – but I actually am optimistic." Smith smiled and remarked: "That's an old Joe Bidenism."   

After the taped interview, Rodriguez asked Smith about the effectiveness of the stimulus: "Did you see any evidence, at least in that town in Michigan, that the stimulus is working?" Smith again cited that one man from Saginaw: "...this guy Furlo....has built a 30,000-foot building, hires hundreds of new employees and it is an example – at least you know, from the – what we were shown – of the stimulus working." Rodriguez concluded: "We need more examples like that."

Later in the 8:00AM ET hour Smith played another brief clip of his interview with Biden, focused on the current Vice President's war of words with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who Smith declared: "has for months blasted the Obama administration's approach to fighting terrorism."

Smith asked Biden if he "liked" Cheney, to which Biden replied: "I do like him. I honestly do....he's a really smart guy. He is – he's really patriotic – I just think he's wrong." Smith followed up: "Do you think his criticism is based in his patriotism or in his politics?" Biden claimed: "Look, I never question another man's motive," but then went after Cheney: "I mean it's almost like he forgot he left us a $1.3 trillion debt. There were two wars going on. One that was ignored. One that wasn't going all that well."

Smith added that: "most of his [Cheney's] criticism has been based on the issue of terrorism. He basically says 'we don't feel like you guys are taking it seriously.'" Biden claimed: "Well look, we have made more progress in dismantling the hierarchy of Al Qaeda central and evidence of that is now they're going to lone bombers as the means to get there." The Vice President then made a bizarre distinction: "Am I less worried about an attack? No. I'm worried. Am I less worried about a catastrophic event? Yes." Wouldn't a successful terrorist attack be a "catastrophic event"? Smith didn't think to ask.

After the conclusion of that portion of the interview, Rodriguez observed that Biden and Cheney "just respectfully agree to disagree in so many ways." Smith commented: "I don't know how respectfully." Rodriguez agreed: "You're right, you're right."
 

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith teased an interview with the Vice President: "We got a great chance yesterday to spend some quality time with Vice President Joe Biden. He's got a lot to say on a lot of different topics." During the interview, Smith shilled for the failed stimulus package: "The Vice President says the stimulus created or saved 2 million jobs. Many of them green."

At the top of the show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez announced: "Today is the first anniversary of the economic stimulus package." Smith treated it like a celebration, joking: "Where's the stimulus package cake?" Rodriguez replied: "There should be." Smith began the segment with Biden by citing a Pew Research poll showing only 24% Americans actually think the stimulus plan has improved the economy, but rather that challenge the VP on its failure, he simply asked if taxpayers "got their bang from the buck from the stimulus." That allowed Biden to argue: "Absolutely. But I don't think they realize it....The job creating portions are really loaded at the second half here....they have gotten their money's worth."

Traveling with Biden in Saginaw, Michigan on Tuesday, Smith touted one employer who was helped by the stimulus: "At Fuzzy's Diner, a local businessman, Paul Furlo, told us government-backed loans helped him expand and add hundreds of new employees." No critics of the stimulus were featured in the segment.

On Tuesday's Early Show, retiring Democratic Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, argued that no jobs had been created by the government. After Rodriguez asked about the Senator's future plans, Bayh in part declared: "If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last 6 months." Smith did not bring up that quote in his interview with Biden.

Smith did however move on to political strategy: "Your critics would say the administration made a maybe even fatal miscalculation in the beginning to spend so much time and energy on health care when in fact it really was the economy." Biden replied: "Harry, we had to try to walk and chew gum at the same time."

In a follow up, Smith wondered: "Unemployment hovering around 10. The real unemployment number is probably closer to between 15% and 20%. People don't think you or a lot of other folks in Washington get it. Does the Obama administration get it?" Biden blamed Washington gridlock caused by Republicans: "We get it. We understand why they're angry....It reflects the reality that Washington right now is broken. I don't ever recall a time in my career where to get anything done you needed a super majority, 60 out of 100 senators."

Smith helped emphasize that point as he referenced some earlier bonding between himself and the Vice President: "You said to me at lunch, you said you've never seen it this dysfunctional." Biden lamented: "I've never seen it this dysfunctional. I'm trying to get the other team to cooperate to get in the game here a little bit."

After apparently being finished with the 'tough' questions, Smith gauged the VP's mood: " Are you optimistic or pessimistic?" Biden replied: "It's – you know, optimism is an occupational requirement. And I – but I actually am optimistic." Smith smiled and remarked: "That's an old Joe Bidenism."   

After the taped interview, Rodriguez asked Smith about the effectiveness of the stimulus: "Did you see any evidence, at least in that town in Michigan, that the stimulus is working?" Smith again cited that one man from Saginaw: "...this guy Furlo....has built a 30,000-foot building, hires hundreds of new employees and it is an example – at least you know, from the – what we were shown – of the stimulus working." Rodriguez concluded: "We need more examples like that."

Later in the 8:00AM ET hour Smith played another brief clip of his interview with Biden, focused on the current Vice President's war of words with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who Smith declared: "has for months blasted the Obama administration's approach to fighting terrorism."

Smith asked Biden if he "liked" Cheney, to which Biden replied: "I do like him. I honestly do....he's a really smart guy. He is – he's really patriotic – I just think he's wrong." Smith followed up: "Do you think his criticism is based in his patriotism or in his politics?" Biden claimed: "Look, I never question another man's motive," but then went after Cheney: "I mean it's almost like he forgot he left us a $1.3 trillion debt. There were two wars going on. One that was ignored. One that wasn't going all that well."

CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference begins Feb. 18. Conservative leaders will rally the troops before the mid-term elections in November and discuss the future role of conservatives in politics.

One person who will not be in attendance is Meghan McCain, despite the year-long media attempt to make citizens believe she is somehow representative of conservatives. She tweeted on Feb. 11, "I have no idea where this weird rumor I am speaking at CPAC came from, it isn't true and I will not be attending or speaking."

McCain, the 25-year-old daughter of former Republican presidential nominee John McCain and a writer for The Daily Beast, has taken it upon herself to tell the GOP what needs to be fixed within the party. Because she calls herself a Republican, media outlets have perpetuated the notion that she is also conservative. By doing that, they've pushed a liberal social agenda that directly conflicts with conservative values.

Writer Kathleen Parker, herself no stranger to conservative bashing, praised McCain last spring as "one smart cookie" who "in a matter weeks ... has created a brand, presenting herself as a fresh face of her daddy's party and voice of young conservatives."

Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post and a contributor to MSNBC, suggested last summer that "maybe what the Republican Party is going to have to do is skip a generation and wait for the Meghan McCains to come of age so they can run for office and take over the mantle of the party."

"Hers is a voice of conscience and a voice of the future, what I hope would be the future for the Republican Party," opined Capehart's colleague Eugene Robinson about McCain to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann just last week.

After McCain launched a diatribe against Ann Coulter last March, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow heralded her as "the most notable young Republican in the country."

McCain's whole shtick revolves around two related criticisms of the Republican Party: It is hopelessly old-fashioned (for not accepting same-sex marriage and advocating for abstinence-based sex ed) and should do more to attract young people.

According to McCain, the way to attract young people is for the party to move away from its more conservative beliefs, in particular, those about sexuality.

In McCain, the media has a Republican - a label many believe is synonymous with conservative - to boost the notion that liberal ideas have more support among conservatives than they actually do.  By promoting her, they are actually using her to attack conservatives, much the same way the media long used her father.

This is the young woman who proclaimed on the "Colbert Report" last spring that she was "pro-sex," whose idea of good sex ed reads like a Planned Parenthood mailing, and who told the Log Cabin Republicans that "most of the old-school Republicans are scared s---less" of the future."

But for these comments, and others that attack conservatives (she called Karl Rove "creepy" for following her on Twitter, compared Ann Coulter to a "train wreck" and advised Dick Cheney to "go away"), the mainstream media has hailed her as the "most notable young Republican in the country," "a voice of conscience and a voice of the future," and insisted, as U.S. News and World Report's Bonnie Erbe did, that "she should be the future leader of the party." 

Just last week during a guest-hosting stint on "The View," McCain regaled her co-hosts with her take on the Tea Party movement, again playing the generation gap card.  

"It's innate racism," she claimed of former congressman Tom Tancredo's remark at the recent Tea Party convention regarding civic literacy tests for voting. "I'm sorry, revolutions start with young people, not with 65-year-old people talking about literacy tests and people who can't say the word vote in English."

Old-Fogey Conservatives

McCain regularly declares her "love" for the Republican Party in her Daily Beast column, and claimed in one that "any criticism I give of the Republican Party is out of love, and as someone who is knowledgeable and experienced enough to give constructive criticism."

But that criticism of the Republican Party is also criticism of conservatives.

McCain described herself as "liberal on social issues" to Larry King, during a March 24, 2009 interview with the CNN host. "I consider myself a progressive Republican. I am liberal on social issues. And I think that the party is at a place where social issues shouldn't be the issues that define the party," she explained.

It's not just social issues with which McCain has a problem, but also religion. She told CNN's Roland Martin on April 8, that "a lot of problems the Republicans have come into is because there's too much inclusion of religion and government."

Mainly, her criticisms are that there are extreme people within the Party, that Republicans should eagerly endorse same-sex marriage and that the party doesn't know how to talk about sex.

"If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric," wrote McCain in the April 13 column, "Memo to the GOP: Go Gay."

Since these are topics near and dear to the heart of the liberal media, they've used McCain as a weapon against conservatives within the GOP.

ABC's David Wright used McCain to tout what he apparently saw as more widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage.

"And over the weekend, the daughter of the former Republican standard bearer, Meghan McCain, suggested she is all in favor of [same-sex marriage]," Wright reported on April 21. He included a clip of McCain saying, "I have lots and lots of gay friends. And yes, I am a Republican."

ABC's April 19 "World News Sunday" used the same tactic in a report on same-sex marriage and the GOP that noted McCain's support for gay rights as well as her political affiliation.  

As for sex, McCain feared the Republican Party would become "irrelevant" by being too conservative when it comes to talking about sex.

She claimed that when it comes to educating children about sex, "the GOP continues to struggle with open communication about serious issues most people deal with rationally, and on a regular basis" and that "unless we learn how to integrate that kind of discussion, our party will continue its descent into irrelevance."

Her rationalization read more like a Planned Parenthood mailing then something a conservative would say.

"As a Republican, I am pro-life," she insisted. "But using birth control and having an abortion are not the same at all. Actually, the best way to prevent abortions is to educate people about birth control and make it widely and easily accessible."

Of course, the media love nothing more than a Republican who goes on the attack against conservatives.

At CBS, "Early Show" host Harry Smith used his March 10, 2009, interview with McCain to read aloud part of her diatribe against Coulter.

"Here's one of the things you wrote about Ann Coulter, who's been a guest on this program in the past, we had interesting conversations. ‘I straight up don't understand this woman or her popularity,'" read Smith. "‘I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time. If figureheads like Ann Coulter are turning me off, then they are definitely turning off other members of my generation as well.'"

NBC's Norah O'Donnell labeled McCain "a maverick in her own right" during a March 17, 2009, "Today" report about the diatribe. 

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow hailed McCain last March, shortly after the column about Coulter was published, for "call[ing] out" the "extreme" Republicans:"

"Your outspoken criticism of people like Ann Coulter - there has obviously been a lot of controversy about Rush Limbaugh," began Maddow on March 11. "You think it would be helpful for the Republican Party, for the, sort of, the lack of a better term, this sort of extreme side of it, the extreme conservative part of the Republican Party to get called out by more moderate Republicans. But you really are the only one doing that."

 This set up McCain to make her pitch that the Republican Party was out of touch with young people.

"I'm saying it because I want the Republicans to be in a good place. And I really think we are on the precipice of possibly becoming a party that it's irrelevant to young people ... ," stated McCain. "It's truly possible in the next election unless the right politician and right message. And it starts with the message which I think people are missing, too. And I just don't know how someone yelling and screaming on the news saying anti-Semitic comments could possibly draw someone to that party. I just don't understand the logic in that."

And on the March 24, 2009, "Larry King Live," the host gave McCain the opportunity to explain again that the problem with Republicans is the fact that they don't reach out enough to her generation.

"I consider myself a progressive Republican. I am liberal on social issues. And I think that the party is at a place where social issues shouldn't be the issues that define the party. And I have taken heat, but in fairness to me, I am a different generation than the people that are giving me heat," she proclaimed. "I'm 24 years old. I'm not in my 40s, I'm not in my 50s and older. And I think there's just such a generation gap, that the people that don't understand me, I actually take it as a compliment, that sort of this new young Republican can come forward and make progress and be successful in the ways that this party has currently failed."

 ‘Young Conservative?' No way.

Not everybody is content to sit by and let Meghan McCain push a leftist agenda from within the Republican Party.

Yes, McCain can speak for a younger demographic, but her political experience is limited to helping with her dad's failed presidential campaign. McCain herself has declared she knows little about economics, which is a huge conservative plank in the Republican Party's platform, and, since we know how she stands on social issues, is presumably some of what she likes about the party.

"I didn't take econ in college. I don't completely understand so I'd hate to make a comment one way or the other," she admitted to Maddow in the March 11 interview.

Conservative talk radio host Bill Bennett questioned the wisdom of some of McCain's statements in a discussion on CNN's April 23 "Situation Room" with James Carville, Candy Crowley and Wolf Blitzer about McCain's suggestion that Dick Cheney "go away."

"Meghan McCain is to be listened to, but a guy who was elected to ten terms, twice as vice-president, was secretary of defense isn't, that's a little bit of a stretch," Bennett stated with regard to her comments about Cheney.

Crowley didn't see McCain as being an effective mover within the party. "I think she's been trying to push the Republican Party. She's younger than we tend to think of as people in the Republican Party, but I'm not sure she moves the meter one way or the other."

In her limited experience, McCain believes the logical thing Republicans should do is move left.

She expressed her desire for more "centrism" in her CBS interview, telling Harry Smith, that "it's hard for [her] to defend these icons [like Coulter]" and that she "just wish[es] for more centrist icons in the Republican Party."

"Centrism" was a theme in her columns as well.

"I have always believed that in order for our government to successfully function and move forward, it is important for both parties to embrace centrism," McCain wrote on April 7, 2009.

The true "voice of young conservatives" would not urge anyone to move left on issues. He or she would be finding new ways to make conservative issues relatable to young people.

And the mainstream media wouldn't tell anybody about it.

On Tuesday, both CBS Early Show co-host Maggie Rodriguez and ABC Good Morning America co-host George Stephanopoulos lamented the announced retirement of Democratic Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and proclaimed that his reelection would have been a virtual certainty. Rodriguez described it as "a lock," while Stephanopoulos asserted that it was "almost assured."

In reality, A January 25 Rasmussen poll showed Bayh losing to Republican Congressman Mike Pence, 44% to 47%. While Pence has since decided against running, the poll also showed former Republican Congressman John Stutzman, who has formerly announced his candidacy, getting close at 41% to Bayh's 44%. Numbers like that certainly do not suggest Bayh's reelection was anywhere close to being "a lock."

Both Rodriguez and Stephanopoulos made those comments in interviews with Bayh on their respective shows. Only a brief sound bite of the Senator was featured on NBC's Today on Tuesday.

On Good Morning America, Stephanopoulos almost pleaded with Bayh not to retire, claiming that if "centrists" like him leave, "doesn't that make the problem [of partisanship] worse? Why not stay and fix it?" While Rodriguez did not label Bayh as centrist, she did fret over his decision to retire: "What do you say to critics who say you did leave the Democrats high and dry at a time when they can't afford to be losing anymore seats?"

Later in the Early Show interview, Rodriguez wondered if Bayh was setting up a 2012 White House run: "There is talk, because you said that you are an executive at heart, that you may switch parties and run against President Obama in the next election. Is that a possibility?" While she used the phrase "switch parties" it seemed clear that she was asking if Bayh would start a third party, rather than become a Republican.

Stephanopoulos also asked Bayh about his political ambitions, but not in such a direct way: "You know, some people look at the decision by you and wonder if you're trying to set up a future run for the White House yourself. I mean, we have the graphic from Huffington Post out there saying, is Senator Bayh eyeing a White House run? What's the truth behind that?"

Here is part of the Early Show interview:

RODRIGUEZ: Your announcement came as quite a shock to a lot of people, including your Majority Leader Harry Reid, who didn't find out about it until it was public. And a lot of people are wondering, Senator, why did you blind side your leadership? Are you angry at your party?

BAYH: No, Maggie, I'm not angry at my party, I wish Washington would work better. And I had discussed with Senator Reid as long as a year ago my growing feeling that Congress was not working as well as it should. That there is much to much partisanship and too much ideology, not enough practical progress. And so, you know, with several of my colleagues, including the leadership, I shared that opinion. And you know in the hurly burly of making these announcements sometimes phone calls get delayed and that kind of thing. But what we need to do is to come together as a people and solve the problems facing our country, and unfortunately, Washington is just not doing enough of that these days.  

RODRIGUEZ: Analysts say that you may have essentially handed your seat to the Republicans come November, because you a lock to win reelection, and now the Democrats have to scramble to find someone to run in your place before Friday, which is the deadline. What do you say to critics who say you did leave the Democrats high and dry at a time when they can't afford to be losing anymore seats?

BAYH: Well, those critics, Maggie, must know my – must not know my state very well. Hoosiers are very independent, there are five Republicans running, they're going to have a vigorous primary. I don't know who they're nominee is going to be. And I am highly confident that we will have a candidate for the United States Senate who will be very competitive and have an excellent chance of winning this seat in November.

RODRIGUEZ: You mentioned the word independent. There is talk, because you said that you are an executive at heart, that you may switch parties and run against President Obama in the next election. Is that a possibility?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Bayh's Future; Will He Consider Run Against Obama?]

BAYH: That is absolutely – no possibility whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I talked to the President yesterday and said I was looking forward to working with him over these next 11 months to try and make the progress I know that he so desperately wants. And let me say this Maggie, I think the President – you know, you can disagree with his policies if you want to, but he is making a sincere effort to try and bring the two sides together to try and find some common ground, to try and forge that practical progress that Americans are so yearning for. And I want to help him over the next 11 months to make that kind of progress.

Part of the Good Morning America interview:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, so clear that you are frustrated by the system right now. You say that basically it's broken. But if centrists like you leave, doesn't that make the problem worse? Why not stay and fix it?

BAYH: Well, I thought that Judd Gregg said it well, George. I simply reached the conclusion that I could get more done to help my state and the American people, by doing something in the private sector. Helping to create jobs. Helping to educate children or young people at a college or university. Helping to lead a philanthropy [sic]. Real accomplishments in a real way. Perhaps on a smaller stage, but something meaningful.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's a pretty stunning statement, Senator. You are a senior senator. You would be heading into your third term, victory almost assured. But, you think you can do more in the private sector?

BAYH: George, I really do. Until we can change this town, until we reform Congress, as I've indicated to you and others, there's too much brain-dead partisanship, tactical maneuvering for short term political advantage rather than focusing on the greater good. And also just strident ideology. The extremes of both parties have to be willing to accept compromises from time to time to make some progress because some progress for the American people is better than nothing. And all-too often recently, we've been getting nothing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the big question is how is that going to happen? We were talking on the phone yesterday, you say it's going to take a shock to the system administered by the public. What would that shock be?

BAYH: That shock would be the American people looking at Congress and saying, look. "There's a lot of good people there. But the folks who are so obviously focused on politics and partisanship, vote them out." The people who are just rigidly ideological, unwilling to accept practical solutions somewhere in the middle, vote them out. And change the rules so that the sensible people who remain can actually get the job done. The President, I know, is desperately trying to accomplish this. Congress needs to listen. And the American people need to help with this process.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say that the President's trying to accomplish that. And I know you're on ally of the President. But you also said this shock could come in the next presidential election. Telling me you thought there was a space out there for what you called a saner Ross Perot. Explain what you mean by that?

BAYH: Well, look, first off I do support President Obama. And I am confident that he will be reelected. And I think he's making a sincere effort to try and bring the two parties together. But if frustrations continue to grow, and the American people say a pox on both your houses, then there's some prospect for a third party type movement. I don't believe that will happen, George. I think that ultimately we can make progress in the two-party system. And, look I think the President is making a sincere effort. And I want to help him with that. And I applaud him for that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, some people look at the decision by you and wonder if you're trying to set up a future run for the White House yourself. I mean, we have the graphic from Huffington Post out there saying, is Senator Bayh eyeing a White House run? What's the truth behind that?

BAYH: No truth whatsoever, George. I spoke with the President yesterday. He couldn't have been nicer. I indicated I wanted to help him over the next 11 months. And would do whatever I could to help him with his reelection.

On Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez reported on a 7-year-old boy who tried to hand deliver a get well card to former President Bill Clinton: "When Bill Clinton returned home from the hospital after a heart procedure on Friday, there were lots of reporters waiting, and one second grader named C.J. Williams, who just wanted to get a get well card to him and some candy."

Throughout the fawning segment, a headline on-screen read: "Get Well Soon, Mr. President; 2nd Grader Attempts To Deliver Message to Clinton." However, while the story suggested that C.J. came up with the idea on his own, when Rodriguez asked "Was that your idea, C.J.? Did you want to do it?," the boy replied: "No, Dad." Rodriguez added: "Oh, it was Dad's idea." The father, Chip Williams, was in studio and had explained: "...we thought it would be a good idea to maybe swing by his house and drop off a card, a little get well card."

Both Rodriguez and co-host Harry Smith lamented C.J.'s inability to deliver the card personally, but Rodriguez did inform viewers it was a Snoopy card and read it aloud: "Would a happy little dance make you feel a little better? In that case, maybe I should do a great big happy dance." Smith was in awe: "Wow."

Smith went on to encourage C.J. to read a handwritten portion of the card: "Here, turn it around. Can you read the part that you wrote?" C.J. obliged: "Dear President Clinton. Happy Valentine's Day. I hope you feel better soon. Here is a little heart to make your big heart feel better. Your friend, C.J. Williams." Rodriguez had earlier explained that C.J. had a small heart-shaped box of Skittles for the former president. She concluded the interview by remarking: "That's such a nice gesture and I'm sure he's going to love it."

It was not the first time CBS used children to celebrate Democratic politicians. In May of last year, correspondent Bill Whitaker did a story on a book of school children's letters to President Obama. On the May 4 Evening News, Whitaker showed several of the letters featured and declared it was "A book full of young hopes and dreams."

Here is part of Early Show interview with C.J. Williams:

HARRY SMITH: So you have the card there. Did you pick it – did you guys pick out the card together?

C.J. WILLIAMS: Yeah.

SMITH: Yeah. Can we see – can we look at it? Do you mind if we take a look at it?

CHIP WILLIAMS: Who picked it out, buddy?

C.J.: Me.

CHIP: That's right, C.J. did.

SMITH: Let's see what you got there.

RODRIGUEZ: Let's see.

SMITH: Oh, oh, let's show it to the camera.

RODRIGUEZ: Nice. Snoopy.

SMITH: What does it say?

RODRIGUEZ: Would a happy little dance make you feel a little better?

SMITH: Oh, very nice.

RODRIGUEZ: In that case, maybe I should do a great big happy dance.

SMITH: Wow.

CHIP: You want to read it C.J.?

SMITH: Here, turn it around. Can you read the part that you wrote?

CHIP: Maybe President Clinton's watching.

SMITH: Yeah, you never know.

CHIP: You want to read it to him, go ahead.

C.J.: Dear President Clinton. Happy Valentine's Day. I hope you feel better soon. Here is a little heart to make your big heart feel better. Your friend, C.J. Williams.

RODRIGUEZ: That's great, C.J.

SMITH: How cute is that?

RODRIGUEZ: So how are you going to get it to him now, do you have another plan?

CHIP: What do you think?

C.J.: Yeah. When we walk around in the city, me and dad are going to find his office and try to give it to him there.

SMITH: It's right up on 125th street. You can't miss it.

CHIP: And if not, we've put together a little letter that we're going to put in the mail tomorrow for him.

SMITH: Oh, very good.

RODRIGUEZ: Oh, great. That's such a nice gesture and I'm sure he's going to love it. Thanks, C.J. Thanks, Chip.

On Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith wondered if there was any credibility to Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the Christmas Day bomber: "...the point that he seems to be trying to make...that this administration, the Obama administration, is not taking terrorism seriously enough. Is this theater or is there a real point to be made?"

Smith directed that question to former Bush advisor Dan Bartlett, who observed: "...it's very salient going into this midterm election and I think the Republicans like the fact that the former Vice President's out there slugging away." Smith also spoke with former Democratic Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr. and incredulously asked: "Can an actual argument be made, though...that the Obama administration is weak on terrorism?" Ford argued: "It's hard to....under President Obama and Vice President Biden, great strides are being made all across the globe."

Ford went on to attack Cheney for daring to voice objections to Obama's handling of terrorism: "Why would Dick Cheney suggest to the country and suggest to the world that the President Obama and Vice President Biden administration are weak on terrorism?...other than to be – play cheap politics at this moment?"

Picking up on Ford's accusation against Cheney, Smith turned to Bartlett and tried to dismiss recent Obama administration failures: "Here's the question, is whether or not there's a terrorism trial held in New York City or not, whether or not a defendant has been read his Miranda rights, does this actually get to the heart of this war on terrorism?" Bartlett replied: "...with this current attorney general, Eric Holder, there's a real concern, that is valid in my opinion, that the approach taken is one in which it's taking valuable tools off of the battlefield in order to protect our country."

Bartlett continued: "...in this fight, with a guy getting on a plane and trying to attack Americans, there should have been a different process followed." Smith couldn't help but interject some Democratic Party talking points in reply: "Well, I'm not going to get into the particulars because we go back, it was exactly – almost exactly what happened with Richard Reid."

Smith went back to Ford, asking: "...the Vice President [Cheney] – his point seems to be philosophically you're not taking it seriously and no one would have known better about not being able to connect the dots than the prior administration. Should he – should the Obama administration be at least listening to the tone of that?" Ford replied: "I don't question Vice President Cheney's desire to protect the country. What I do question is his judgment in criticizing this president and vice president."

Here is a full transcript of Smith's discussion with Bartlett and Ford:

HARRY SMITH: Joining me now from Austin, Texas, former Bush adviser and CBS News political consultant Dan Bartlett and here in the studio, former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr., who is chair of the Democratic Leadership Council. Good morning to you both.

HAROLD FORD JR.: Good morning.

DAN BARTLETT: Good morning, gentlemen.

SMITH: Let us talk about Dick Cheney and the point that he seems to be trying to make, Dan, is that this administration, the Obama administration, is not taking terrorism seriously enough. Is this theater or is there a real point to be made?

BARTLETT: Well, I think the irony here is that you can have a weekend where both sides battle it out, the current vice president, the former vice president, and both sides can take away, credibly, a victory. And I think it really is a reflection of our politics where both sides, the base of the Democratic Party can be cheering on Joe Biden and the base of the Republican Party can be cheering on Dick Cheney. And I think it kind of shows that the issue of national security, everybody kind of thought it was going to recede with the economy and the new administration coming in, but with the Massachusetts election in which Scott Brown and a lot of those people feel like the issue of terrorism really was what moved a lot of the independent votes at the end, it's very salient going into this midterm election and I think the Republicans like the fact that the former Vice President's out there slugging away.

SMITH: Can an actual argument be made, though, Harold Ford, that the Obama administration is weak on terrorism?

FORD: It's hard to. Good to see Dan and I appreciate his comments this morning, but the reality is under Obama – under President Obama and Vice President Biden, great strides are being made all across the globe. 12 of the top 20 Al Qaeda operatives, the top ones, have been found, captured, if not killed. To the progress that we're making not only on the ground in Afghanistan with the surge, but there's in doubt there's some building on some of the things, the successes of the previous administration. And as much as Dan may be accurate in saying that Democrats can take away a little, Republicans can take away a little, why have the argument? Why would Dick Cheney suggest to the country and suggest to the world that the President Obama and Vice President Biden administration are weak on terrorism? We have a challenge in Afghanistan. We just heard President Haass on the Council [on Foreign Relations] talk about some of the progress in Iran where the focus should be internally there. Why would Dick Cheney inject other than to be – play cheap politics at this moment?

SMITH: Because, Dan, here's – here's the question, is whether or not there's a terrorism trial held in New York City or not, whether or not a defendant has been read his Miranda rights, does this actually get to the heart of this war on terrorism?

BARTLETT: Well, I do think it's important for Republicans not to question the intention of Vice President Joe Biden, or more importantly, President Obama, when it comes to fighting the war. I think everybody recognizes that everybody's doing everything they can in their own interpretation of protecting the country. The fundamental difference is the approach and the philosophy in which you follow. And I think particularly with this current attorney general, Eric Holder, there's a real concern, that is valid in my opinion, that the approach taken is one in which it's taking valuable tools off of the battlefield in order to protect our country. It's not to say that every way we did it previously has always been right, but it's important to make sure that we have all the best tools on the table. That we stay on offense. That's not to say there's not going to be areas of agreement like there was in Afghanistan, but in this fight, with a guy getting on a plane and trying to attack Americans, there should have been a different process followed. And so there can be differences-

SMITH: Well, I'm not going to get into the particulars because we go back, it was exactly – almost exactly what happened with Richard Reid, but let's move forward to the sense that does the Vice President – his point seems to be philosophically you're not taking it seriously and no one would have known better about not being able to connect the dots than the prior administration. Should he – should the Obama administration be at least listening to the tone of that?

FORD: I'm sure they're listening to it all, but I would not – I would not term it as philosophical differences, I'd just call it temperamental differences. The approach that Vice President Biden and President Obama have is different in that regard. I don't question Vice President Cheney's desire to protect the country. What I do question is his judgment in criticizing this president and vice president.

SMITH: Running or not running?

FORD: Haven't made a decision yet, but if I do, I'll let you know.

SMITH: First?

BARTLETT: I won't weigh in.

SMITH: Not weighing in. And we got a lot to talk about, Texas politics, too. Dan, at another time, I hope.

BARTLETT: Absolutely.

FORD: Good to see you, Dan.

SMITH: Harold Ford, thank you both very much for being here.

FORD: Thank you for having me.

BARTLETT: Good to see you, Harold.

On Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith wondered if there was any credibility to Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the Christmas Day bomber: "...the point that he seems to be trying to make...that this administration, the Obama administration, is not taking terrorism seriously enough. Is this theater or is there a real point to be made?"

Smith directed that question to former Bush advisor Dan Bartlett, who observed: "...it's very salient going into this midterm election and I think the Republicans like the fact that the former Vice President's out there slugging away." Smith also spoke with former Democratic Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr. and incredulously asked: "Can an actual argument be made, though...that the Obama administration is weak on terrorism?" Ford argued: "It's hard to....under President Obama and Vice President Biden, great strides are being made all across the globe."

Ford went on to attack Cheney for daring to voice objections to Obama's handling of terrorism: "Why would Dick Cheney suggest to the country and suggest to the world that the President Obama and Vice President Biden administration are weak on terrorism?...other than to be – play cheap politics at this moment?"

Picking up on Ford's accusation against Cheney, Smith turned to Bartlett and tried to dismiss recent Obama administration failures: "Here's the question, is whether or not there's a terrorism trial held in New York City or not, whether or not a defendant has been read his Miranda rights, does this actually get to the heart of this war on terrorism?" Bartlett replied: "...with this current attorney general, Eric Holder, there's a real concern, that is valid in my opinion, that the approach taken is one in which it's taking valuable tools off of the battlefield in order to protect our country."

Bartlett continued: "...in this fight, with a guy getting on a plane and trying to attack Americans, there should have been a different process followed." Smith couldn't help but interject some Democratic Party talking points in reply: "Well, I'm not going to get into the particulars because we go back, it was exactly – almost exactly what happened with Richard Reid."

Smith went back to Ford, asking: "...the Vice President [Cheney] – his point seems to be philosophically you're not taking it seriously and no one would have known better about not being able to connect the dots than the prior administration. Should he – should the Obama administration be at least listening to the tone of that?" Ford replied: "I don't question Vice President Cheney's desire to protect the country. What I do question is his judgment in criticizing this president and vice president."

Here is a full transcript of Smith's discussion with Bartlett and Ford:

HARRY SMITH: Joining me now from Austin, Texas, former Bush adviser and CBS News political consultant Dan Bartlett and here in the studio, former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford Jr., who is chair of the Democratic Leadership Council. Good morning to you both.

HAROLD FORD JR.: Good morning.

DAN BARTLETT: Good morning, gentlemen.

SMITH: Let us talk about Dick Cheney and the point that he seems to be trying to make, Dan, is that this administration, the Obama administration, is not taking terrorism seriously enough. Is this theater or is there a real point to be made?

BARTLETT: Well, I think the irony here is that you can have a weekend where both sides battle it out, the current vice president, the former vice president, and both sides can take away, credibly, a victory. And I think it really is a reflection of our politics where both sides, the base of the Democratic Party can be cheering on Joe Biden and the base of the Republican Party can be cheering on Dick Cheney. And I think it kind of shows that the issue of national security, everybody kind of thought it was going to recede with the economy and the new administration coming in, but with the Massachusetts election in which Scott Brown and a lot of those people feel like the issue of terrorism really was what moved a lot of the independent votes at the end, it's very salient going into this midterm election and I think the Republicans like the fact that the former Vice President's out there slugging away.

SMITH: Can an actual argument be made, though, Harold Ford, that the Obama administration is weak on terrorism?

FORD: It's hard to. Good to see Dan and I appreciate his comments this morning, but the reality is under Obama – under President Obama and Vice President Biden, great strides are being made all across the globe. 12 of the top 20 Al Qaeda operatives, the top ones, have been found, captured, if not killed. To the progress that we're making not only on the ground in Afghanistan with the surge, but there's in doubt there's some building on some of the things, the successes of the previous administration. And as much as Dan may be accurate in saying that Democrats can take away a little, Republicans can take away a little, why have the argument? Why would Dick Cheney suggest to the country and suggest to the world that the President Obama and Vice President Biden administration are weak on terrorism? We have a challenge in Afghanistan. We just heard President Haass on the Council [on Foreign Relations] talk about some of the progress in Iran where the focus should be internally there. Why would Dick Cheney inject other than to be – play cheap politics at this moment?

SMITH: Because, Dan, here's – here's the question, is whether or not there's a terrorism trial held in New York City or not, whether or not a defendant has been read his Miranda rights, does this actually get to the heart of this war on terrorism?

BARTLETT: Well, I do think it's important for Republicans not to question the intention of Vice President Joe Biden, or more importantly, President Obama, when it comes to fighting the war. I think everybody recognizes that everybody's doing everything they can in their own interpretation of protecting the country. The fundamental difference is the approach and the philosophy in which you follow. And I think particularly with this current attorney general, Eric Holder, there's a real concern, that is valid in my opinion, that the approach taken is one in which it's taking valuable tools off of the battlefield in order to protect our country. It's not to say that every way we did it previously has always been right, but it's important to make sure that we have all the best tools on the table. That we stay on offense. That's not to say there's not going to be areas of agreement like there was in Afghanistan, but in this fight, with a guy getting on a plane and trying to attack Americans, there should have been a different process followed. And so there can be differences-

SMITH: Well, I'm not going to get into the particulars because we go back, it was exactly – almost exactly what happened with Richard Reid, but let's move forward to the sense that does the Vice President – his point seems to be philosophically you're not taking it seriously and no one would have known better about not being able to connect the dots than the prior administration. Should he – should the Obama administration be at least listening to the tone of that?

FORD: I'm sure they're listening to it all, but I would not – I would not term it as philosophical differences, I'd just call it temperamental differences. The approach that Vice President Biden and President Obama have is different in that regard. I don't question Vice President Cheney's desire to protect the country. What I do question is his judgment in criticizing this president and vice president.

SMITH: Running or not running?

FORD: Haven't made a decision yet, but if I do, I'll let you know.

SMITH: First?

BARTLETT: I won't weigh in.

SMITH: Not weighing in. And we got a lot to talk about, Texas politics, too. Dan, at another time, I hope.

BARTLETT: Absolutely.

FORD: Good to see you, Dan.

SMITH: Harold Ford, thank you both very much for being here.

FORD: Thank you for having me.

BARTLETT: Good to see you, Harold.

Touting the latest CBS News/New York Times poll on Friday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer concluded that Americans were upset with President Obama and Congress simply over the influence of "special interest groups," without mentioning massive government spending or ObamaCare as other possible reasons.

After reporting that 70% of Americans were "dissatisfied or angry about the way things are going in Washington," Smith focused on the poll question about special interests: "8 in 10 say Congress is more interested in serving the needs of special interest groups rather than the people they represent." Schieffer explained: "In order to raise that money you've got to sign off on so many special interest groups before you get to Washington that it's very difficult to compromise once you do get here."

However, neither Smith nor Schieffer brought up the part of the poll that showed the desire by a majority of Americans for smaller government: "59% of Americans think the government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals....56% would choose a smaller government providing fewer services over a bigger government providing more services, up from 48% last spring and the highest percentage in more than a decade."

While Smith noted that Obama's 46% approval rating, he managed to find a "glimmer of hope" in the poll data: "The President has a 62% approval in terms of his effort to do – work bipartisan – in a bipartisan manner, while the poll says only 29% believe the Republicans are." Schieffer remarked that Obama "is winning that part of the battle" but largely dismissed the importance of the finding: "...when he has the kind of disapproval ratings that he has, he really has nothing to really be very happy about when he goes to bed at night."

On Thursday's CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric focused on a part of the poll that found that most Americans think President Obama's "priority is serving the people," rather than his declining approval rating.

Here is a full transcript of the Friday's Early Show segment:

HARRY SMITH: There's bad news for just about everybody in Washington in the latest CBS News/ New York Times poll 70% of Americans are dissatisfied or angry about the way things are going in Washington. President Obama's job approval rating is at 46%, matching his all-time low, and his disapproval rating is up to 45%. Congress however, did even worse, it is 75% disapproval rating, matches its all-time high. Let's go to CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Bob, good morning.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning. Well, they're going to be down there with the news media here if they keep going in that direction, Harry.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Angry Americans; CBS News Poll: Growing Frustration With Obama & Gov't]

SMITH: You're the only one with better numbers, pal. Tell you what, here's one of the-

SCHIEFFER: Probably not much better.
    
SMITH: Here's one of the interesting inside numbers, 8 in 10 say Congress is more interested in serving the needs of special interest groups rather than the people they represent. And almost everybody wants everybody in Congress gone.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think – I think that just reflects reality. You know, you can't get elected to Congress anymore, Harry, unless you can raise enormous sums of money. In order to raise that money you've got to sign off on so many special interest groups before you get to Washington that it's very difficult to compromise once you do get here. So I think that reflects reality, people are beginning to understand that that's what's going on here and they don't like it at all.

You know, voters will put up with a certain amount of anything, even a certain level of corruption, if you will, if things are going well. If they're putting money in the bank, if they've got savings, if they're kids are going to good schools and so on and so forth. But when things are going bad, when you have all of these people out of work like they are, that's when they start to get frustrated.   

SMITH: And even if they're not out of work, they're afraid they will be out of work. I want to go to another number, on bipartisanship, this may be the one sort of glimmer of hope in all of this, the President has a 62% approval in terms of his effort to do – work bipartisan – in a bipartisan manner, while the poll says only 29% believe the Republicans are.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think clearly in the back and forth that's going on right now, the President is winning that part of the battle. But even having said that, when he has the kind of disapproval ratings that he has, he really has nothing to really be very happy about when he goes to bed at night. But he does seem to be doing a little better than the Republicans are at this point.

SMITH: Overall, is there a way the people in Washington – do they hear this? Do they know this? Are they – when they get up in the morning, are they aware of the widespread dissatisfaction across the country?

SCHIEFFER: I think they are aware of that, Harry, but again, you go back to this thing that they had to sign off with so many special interests before they get here it's very difficult for them to compromise once they get here, without selling out the people that they got the money for to get here. So they're hearing general public dissatisfaction, but they're still trying to hue the line and do what the people who contributed to their campaign sent them to Washington to do. It's a sad observation, but unfortunately I think it's true.

SMITH: You have to get copies of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and send them all out, have them watch it. Bob Schieffer, we'll be watching you on Face the Nation this Sunday morning on CBS. Thank you so much for getting up early for us and helping us out this morning. Do appreciate it, sir.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Harry.

SMITH: Alright.

SCHIEFFER: We're going to talk – Harry, by the way, we're going to talk to the Vice President, Joe Biden, Sunday.

SMITH: We'll look forward to that. 

While discussing Sarah Palin’s Saturday Tea Party Convention speech with political analyst John Dickerson on Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez remarked: “She was really scrutinized because she wrote those notes on her hand during her speech....I want to show real quick....boy, are her critics having fun with that one.”

As Rodriguez mentioned the incident, a headline on screen read: “Helping Hand? Palin Seen Glancing At Notes On Palm.” Dickerson was forgiving: “Well, we all face a little difficulty getting our words together in public moments,” but added: “I think this will be the kind of thing the Democrats will use to pick at her, you know, the notion is that basically she doesn’t have the capabilities to be president.” Dickerson concluded: “I don’t think in the long term, though, this is – will cause her too much trouble.”

While Rodriguez made sure to point out Palin’s gaffe to viewers, during an interview last February, Rodriguez glossed over an obvious gaffe made by Vice President Joe Biden.

On the February 25, 2009 Early Show, Rodriguez asked about the transparency of the newly passed stimulus bill, Biden explained: “We’re going to put every bit of this transparently up on a website.” When Rodriguez later asked for the name of the site, a confused Biden replied: “You know I’m embarrassed, you know the website number. I – you know I should have it in front of me and I don’t. I’m – I’m – I’m actually embarrassed.” Rodriguez attempted to let him off the hook: “Alright. I’m going to call your office directly to and get it later.” Biden finally found the website name: “Well, excuse me, you know, it is – it is recovery.gov.”

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez’s discussion with Dickerson:

7:12AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us now from Washington, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson. Good morning, John.

JOHN DICKERSON: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: President Obama bringing in the Republicans to hammer out health care reform. Could this really work? Is it realistic to think that they could meet in the middle?

DICKERSON: Well, it’s – it’s not that realistic after what we’ve seen in Washington. This is a bit of a show. But it’s an effort for the President to revive health care reform, which has been stalled a little bit. This is a moment where he can talk about this on a public stage again and maybe build a case against Republicans if health care doesn’t pass. He can he say, look, we tried and they just didn’t have any solutions.
                
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: I want to talk about someone who could potentially challenge the President in the next election, Sarah Palin. Let me play for you a bit of what she said at the Tea Party Convention this weekend and then afterwards in an interview.

SARAH PALIN: The Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda, it’s going to leave us less secure, more in debt, and more under the thumb of big government. And that is out of touch and is out of date.

CHRIS WALLACE: Why wouldn’t you run for president?

PALIN: I would, I would if I believe that that is the right thing to do for our country and for the Palin family. Certainly, I would do so.

WALLACE: You're basically saying you will consider it.

PALIN: I think that it would be absurd to not consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country.

RODRIGUEZ: Why doesn’t she just say ‘I’m running in 2012'?

JOHN DICKERSON: Well, because she may still decide not to run. And it’s always better to kind of keep your options open and if she said she were running, then everything she says raises to a higher level. There’s a little bit more scrutiny. She’s being scrutinized plenty enough already, but it would raise things up a little bit more. Now she gets to sort of have it all ways.

RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, and she was really scrutinized because she wrote those notes on her hand during her speech. I don’t know if our viewers saw that. I want to show real quick, she had energy, budget, tax, and some other notes on her hand. And people immediately criticized her saying that she new her speech like the back of her hand. Do you think that’s a fair criticism?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Helping Hand? Palin Seen Glancing At Notes On Palm]

DICKERSON: Well, we all face a little difficulty getting our words together in public moments. I think this will be the kind of thing the Democrats will use to pick at her, you know, the notion is that basically she doesn’t have the capabilities to be president. And, you know, this is a way to bedevil her. I don’t think in the long term, though, this is – will cause her too much trouble.

RODRIGUEZ: But, boy, are her critics having fun with that one. John Dickerson. Thank you so much, John.

On Thursday’s CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric lamented the impact ClimateGate and other recent scandals involving fraudulent global warming data have had on the climate change debate: “Experts insist the overall conclusion remains the same, that climate change is real, but...such errors provide ammunition to skeptics.”

In a report that followed, correspondent Mark Phillips cited accusations of data tampering against Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann, but explained: “An academic board today cleared Mann, saying his science holds up, but the damage may have already been done.” Phillips went on to detail other data errors, including a false United Nations climate panel report on melting Himalayan glaciers and the ClimateGate scandal at Britain’s East Anglia University.

Phillips observed how the “series of gaffes by climate change scientists,” has created “a frustrating time for those who believe the basic science in global warming remains true.” A clip was then played of Imperial College London climatologist Brian Hoskins fretting: “it appears the whole edifice has been undermined by these couple of bricks that are flaking a bit.”

Phillips concluded his report by explaining the real problem facing global warming advocates: “The scientists may still believe they’re winning the scientific argument, but they’re in danger of losing the public relations war.”    

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

6:47PM TEASE:

KATIE COURIC: When we come back, new doubts about climate change thanks to some sloppy work by scientists.

6:50PM SEGMENT:

KATIE COURIC: The U.N.’s climate chief admitted today scientists made mistakes in a major study of melting glaciers in the Himalayas. Experts insist the overall conclusion remains the same, that climate change is real, but as Mark Phillips tells us, such errors provide ammunition to skeptics.

MARK PHILLIPS: You know you’re in trouble when you’re being spoofed on YouTube.

PARODY SONG: Making up data the old hard way, fudging the numbers day by day.

PHILLIPS: The subject of the spoof is Michael Mann of Penn State University, who is accused of tampering with climate data to produce his famous hockey stick graph, which shows that the rise in manmade greenhouse gases corresponds to a rise in world temperatures. An academic board today cleared Mann, saying his science holds up, but the damage may have already been done.

SONG: Hide the decline.

PHILLIPS: The biggest splash these days in the global warming argument may not be caused by the world’s melting glaciers. It may be caused by a series of gaffes by climate change scientists. The latest one involves temperature data from weather stations in China used in global warming calculations. The problem is that where weather stations are matters. One located in the city will give a consistently higher temperature reading than one out in the country. The allegation is that the researchers used Chinese data when they didn’t really know where their weather stations were. It’s just a small part, they say, of a worldwide database, but it’s the little mistakes that matter. Mistakes like the line in the last report by the U.N. panel on climate change, which claimed glaciers in the Himalayas might disappear by the year 2035. The panel had to admit the claim was wrong and the climate change skeptics jumped in.

PATRICK MICHAELS [SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE]: Any scientist that read that 2035 figure just laughed because they knew it couldn’t be true. There’s no doubt the trust in the U.N. panel has been undermined.

PHILLIPS: Trust was already undermined by the series of leaked e-mails at Britain’s University of East Anglia, one of the world’s big climate science centers, would seem to show that inconvenient facts were being hidden. It’s a frustrating time for those who believe the basic science in global warming remains true.

BRIAN HOSKINS [PROFESSOR, IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON]: I am concerned that it appears the whole edifice has been undermined by these couple of bricks that are flaking a bit.

PHILLIPS: And that’s a danger, in your view?

HOSKINS: It is a danger. Oh, I totally agree.

PHILLIPS: The scientists may still believe they’re winning the scientific argument, but they’re in danger of losing the public relations war. Mark Phillips, CBS News, London.

In an interview with Florida Governor Charlie Crist on Thursday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez turned to the hotly contested Senate race: “your opponent in the primary, fellow Republican Marco Rubio, and you...are in a dead heat in this race. Critics say that it’s because he is a true conservative and you are...a RINO, a ‘Republican In Name Only.’ How do you respond to that criticism?”

As Rodriguez spoke, the latest Quinnipiac University poll of the primary appeared on screen, showing Rubio with 47% among Republican voters and Crist with 44%. Crist defended his conservative credentials: “Well, if I’m a RINO, then so is Ronald Reagan.” At the same, time he seemed to attack conservative Rubio for being an “ideologue”: “...we do things a little differently here in Florida, we actually work together to get things done for the people. And I think that’s exactly what the American people want. They don’t want bickering and some ideologue on one end or the other to sort of be a standard bearer.”

While Rodriguez mentioned conservative criticism of Crist, she did not bring up the Governor’s well known hug with President Obama last year and staunch support for the stimulus package. In contrast, back in 2006, CBS correspondent Trish Regan labeled Democratic Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman’s embrace with President Bush as an “infamous kiss.” On the August 8 Early Show she touted how Lieberman’s left-wing primary challenger “Ned Lamont has used this now infamous kiss to his advantage on campaign buttons and television ads, suggesting Lieberman is just too cozy with the President.” Apparently CBS isn’t interested in Crist being “cozy” with Obama.

Rodriguez followed up: “So why do you think this race is so tight and why is he so close?” Crist dodged the question: “200 days from the race...Let’s see what it is when we get to game day.”

Thursday’s Early Show was on location in Miami, Florida, ahead of the CBS broadcast of the Superbowl there on Sunday. It is interesting to note that while Rodriguez, a Cuban-American Miami native, interviewed Crist, no time was given to fellow Miami Cuban-American Rubio. Rodriguez promoted her Cuban-American heritage throughout the show, including a profile of Cuban-American singer Gloria Estefan, who did a live performance.

Here is a transcript Rodriguez’s exchange with Crist:

7:05AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: If we can be serious and talk politics for a minute, you’re running for the U.S. Senate in one of the hottest, if not the hottest, races in the country.

CHARLIE CRIST: Oh, it’s the hottest.

RODRIGUEZ: It is the hottest. As you know, it’s getting a ton of press because your opponent in the primary, fellow Republican Marco Rubio, and you, at least according to one significant poll, are in a dead heat in this race. Critics say that it’s because he is a true conservative and you are – you’ve heard this – a RINO, a ‘Republican In Name Only.’ How do you respond to that criticism?

[ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC: Quinnipiac University Poll; Rubio 47%, Crist 44%]

CRIST: Well, if I’m a RINO, then so is Ronald Reagan. I mean, I’m a less taxing, less spending, less government, more freedom kind of guy and I just take a pragmatic common sense approach to government. And if that’s not what the people want, they’ll let me know. But I’m confident that it is, I really am. And you know, we do things a little differently here in Florida, we actually work together to get things done for the people. And I think that’s exactly what the American people want. They don’t want bickering and some ideologue on one end or the other to sort of be a standard bearer. They want people who care about them first and foremost and do what it takes to get better education, better schools, you know, better quality of life, protect the environment, reduce the amount of taxes and just use common sense.

RODRIGUEZ: So why do you think this race is so tight and why is he so close?

CRIST: Well, I think that, you know, we’re what? 200 days from the race.

RODRIGUEZ: It’s in August, yeah.

CRIST: Let’s see what it is when we get to game day.

In the 8:30AM ET half hour on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez teased an upcoming animal segment: “...we have some visitors to the studio of the animal variety. Some of them are cute and cuddly....But they’re all in trouble due to climate change and you’re going to see these animals from the San Diego Zoo and hear about their precarious situation ahead this morning.”

Rodriguez later introduced the segment by declaring that “climate change is affecting some of the world’s most beautiful animals.” She spoke with senior animal keeper at the San Diego Zoo, Rick Schwartz, who brought out the first guest, an arctic fox. Rodriguez asked him: “How is this animal in danger now?” Schwartz explained:

Well, the problem that we’re having up in the north, mainly with the polar bears. There’s not enough ice forming up there, so the time for them to hunt for their food is being diminished.... If the polar bears can’t hunt and bring food out in the winter time for the arctic fox, we’re going to see them probably –  either their numbers decreasing also or possibly moving south and interfering with other species that would rely on the foods that they would be using.

Rodriguez remarked that Schwartz provided an “important education” to viewers. A headline on-screen read: “Critters & Climate Change; How Global Warming Is Affecting Animals.”

NBC’s Today had an almost identical animal segment on December 16 of last year, also citing the arctic fox as the latest victim of global warming.

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

8:30AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Ahead in this half hour, we have some visitors to the studio of the animal variety. Some of them are cute and cuddly. Maybe not that one. But they’re all in trouble due to climate change and you’re going to see these animals from the San Diego Zoo and hear about their precarious situation ahead this morning.

8:33AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: The world famous San Diego Zoo has a new exhibit showing us how climate change is affecting some of the world’s most beautiful animals. Senior keeper Rick Schwartz has brought some of the cute critters this morning with us. Hi Rick, good morning.

RICK SCHWARTZ: Good morning. Thanks for having us.

RODRIGUEZ Good morning, Mr. Fox or Miss Fox.

SCHWARTZ: This is Miss Fox.

RODRIGUEZ: Miss Fox.

SCHWARTZ: This is Tundra.

RODRIGUEZ: She’s an arctic fox, right?

SCHWARTZ: Yeah, she’s a 5-year-old arctic fox. And-

RODRIGUEZ: She’s shivering.

SCHWARTZ: Yeah, she’s a little nervous with all the lights and everything, but she’s also comfortable in the arms like this. This is not, absolutely, you know, something that would be a pet by any means, but something that is an animal that’s been hand raised and worked with by professionals.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Critters & Climate Change; How Global Warming Is Affecting Animals]

RODRIGUEZ: This is an animal that thrives in frigid temperatures, hence the name.

SCHWARTZ: Yes.

RODRIGUEZ: How is this animal in danger now?

SCHWARTZ: Well, the problem that we’re having up in the north, mainly with the polar bears. There’s not enough ice forming up there, so the time for them to hunt for their food is being diminished. The arctic fox can rely on other food sources during the summer months, but during the winter months, they follow polar bears around. Anybody who’s seen any footage of polar bears in the wild, we always see arctic foxes chasing after them to get all the scraps, basically the leftover food. So there’s a very important relationship there with that. If the polar bears can’t hunt and bring food out in the winter time for the arctic fox, we’re going to see them probably –  either their numbers decreasing also or possibly moving south and interfering with other species that would rely on the foods that they would be using.

RODRIGUEZ: Right, right.

SCHWARTZ: So everything is connected. And it’s kind of an interesting effect that’s occurring up there.

RODRIGUEZ: Important education. Alright. Thank you so much.

In the 8:30AM ET half hour on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez teased an upcoming animal segment: “...we have some visitors to the studio of the animal variety. Some of them are cute and cuddly....But they’re all in trouble due to climate change and you’re going to see these animals from the San Diego Zoo and hear about their precarious situation ahead this morning.”

Rodriguez later introduced the segment by declaring that “climate change is affecting some of the world’s most beautiful animals.” She spoke with senior animal keeper at the San Diego Zoo, Rick Schwartz, who brought out the first guest, an arctic fox. Rodriguez asked him: “How is this animal in danger now?” Schwartz explained:

Well, the problem that we’re having up in the north, mainly with the polar bears. There’s not enough ice forming up there, so the time for them to hunt for their food is being diminished.... If the polar bears can’t hunt and bring food out in the winter time for the arctic fox, we’re going to see them probably –  either their numbers decreasing also or possibly moving south and interfering with other species that would rely on the foods that they would be using.

Rodriguez remarked that Schwartz provided an “important education” to viewers. A headline on-screen read: “Critters & Climate Change; How Global Warming Is Affecting Animals.”

NBC’s Today had an almost identical animal segment on December 16 of last year, also citing the arctic fox as the latest victim of global warming.

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

8:30AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Ahead in this half hour, we have some visitors to the studio of the animal variety. Some of them are cute and cuddly. Maybe not that one. But they’re all in trouble due to climate change and you’re going to see these animals from the San Diego Zoo and hear about their precarious situation ahead this morning.

8:33AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: The world famous San Diego Zoo has a new exhibit showing us how climate change is affecting some of the world’s most beautiful animals. Senior keeper Rick Schwartz has brought some of the cute critters this morning with us. Hi Rick, good morning.

RICK SCHWARTZ: Good morning. Thanks for having us.

RODRIGUEZ Good morning, Mr. Fox or Miss Fox.

SCHWARTZ: This is Miss Fox.

RODRIGUEZ: Miss Fox.

SCHWARTZ: This is Tundra.

RODRIGUEZ: She’s an arctic fox, right?

SCHWARTZ: Yeah, she’s a 5-year-old arctic fox. And-

RODRIGUEZ: She’s shivering.

SCHWARTZ: Yeah, she’s a little nervous with all the lights and everything, but she’s also comfortable in the arms like this. This is not, absolutely, you know, something that would be a pet by any means, but something that is an animal that’s been hand raised and worked with by professionals.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Critters & Climate Change; How Global Warming Is Affecting Animals]

RODRIGUEZ: This is an animal that thrives in frigid temperatures, hence the name.

SCHWARTZ: Yes.

RODRIGUEZ: How is this animal in danger now?

SCHWARTZ: Well, the problem that we’re having up in the north, mainly with the polar bears. There’s not enough ice forming up there, so the time for them to hunt for their food is being diminished. The arctic fox can rely on other food sources during the summer months, but during the winter months, they follow polar bears around. Anybody who’s seen any footage of polar bears in the wild, we always see arctic foxes chasing after them to get all the scraps, basically the leftover food. So there’s a very important relationship there with that. If the polar bears can’t hunt and bring food out in the winter time for the arctic fox, we’re going to see them probably –  either their numbers decreasing also or possibly moving south and interfering with other species that would rely on the foods that they would be using.

RODRIGUEZ: Right, right.

SCHWARTZ: So everything is connected. And it’s kind of an interesting effect that’s occurring up there.

RODRIGUEZ: Important education. Alright. Thank you so much.

Quoting from the film A Few Good Men, on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked openly gay Army Lieutenant Dan Choi if the U.S. military was prepared for the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy to be overturned by the Obama administration: “Older members of the military are not very interested in seeing this policy changed at all....Do you think the military can handle the truth?”

The policy, created by Bill Clinton’s administration in 1993, allows homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they do not publically come out. Choi, who is facing discharge from the Army for doing just that, replied to Smith’s movie reference: “Well, I think that there are some people in the military that might have grown up in a different era, and they have fear, obviously, with the change they might think that it’s too difficult for them....Don’t assume that because you might be uncomfortable or certain people might be uncomfortable that that translates to unprofessional or lack of discipline.”

Smith began the segment by proclaiming “the beginning of the end” of the policy as Defense Secretary Robert Gates began to reexamine it. A headline on-screen read: “Do Ask, Do Tell? Pentagon Plan To Be Unveiled Today.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: The beginning of the end for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’? Defense Secretary Gates announces plans today that could end the ban of gays serving openly in the military. We’ll talk to an Army lieutenant who is fighting to keep his job.

7:06AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: The military’s controversial ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy could be phased out. At a Senate hearing today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates will unveil plans that could mark the beginning of the end of the policy that bans gays from serving openly in the military. He will also reportedly announce that third party outings will no longer be grounds for dismissal. Joining us now from Washington is Lieutenant Dan Choi, who currently faces discharge for publicly announcing he’s gay. Lieutenant, good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Do Ask, Do Tell? Pentagon Plan To Be Unveiled Today]

DAN CHOI: Hey, good morning, Harry.

SMITH: You’re a graduate of the U.S. military academy at West Point. Did you – were you aware of your own sexual orientation when you were at West Point?

CHOI: I was. At my very first day at West Point, I learned that the honor code says a cadet will not lie and will not tolerate those who lie. They didn’t say that a cadet who was gay could lie, whereas straight cadets didn’t have to lie. I think that when somebody makes a decision to join the military, they don’t join the military because they’re gay or they’re straight or to be more straight or to be more gay. They do it because they believe in the values of our country, that it’s worth protecting, and that’s the reason why I joined.

SMITH: You came out publicly. Why was that such a dangerous thing to do?

CHOI: Well, I don’t think it’s a dangerous thing to do. I think it’s a very healthy thing for people to be able to tell the truth and to come to terms with who they are. I think it’s a sign of maturity. For me, I started a love relationship right when I got back from Iraq. I finally understood what everybody meant when they said a committed relationship, maturity and growth, and sacrifice and love. I finally understood that. It made me a better person. It made me understand my soldiers when they said that they fell in love. It made me understand romance novels or some of the things that people sing about in pop culture. It made me a better officer. And it made me a better person. So why should I hide that? Why should I lie about that?

SMITH: It’s interesting, because you look at the polls, older members of the military are not very interested in seeing this policy changed at all. Younger members of the military seem to – it doesn’t seem to matter to them that much. Here’s the interesting question. You talked about telling the truth. Do you think the military can handle the truth?

CHOI: Well, I think that there are some people in the military that might have grown up in a different era, and they have fear, obviously, with the change they might think that it’s too difficult for them. But my message to anybody in the military or anybody who’s waking up and realizing that this might be a little bit scary for them, don’t bet against our military. Don’t assume that because you might be uncomfortable or certain people might be uncomfortable that that translates to unprofessional or lack of discipline. Our soldiers are the best in the world and we look all around the world and we see even in Israel and all of our allies in NATO, they have no problem with this. And I think we’re just as good, we can show leadership and we’re disciplined and there's no reason to discount our soldiers that are serving.

SMITH: Lieutenant Choi, we thank you for your time this morning.

CHOI: Thanks, Harry. Have a good day.

SMITH: You bet.

On Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith introduced a bizarre story designed to show how desperate the situation is for people lacking health insurance: “A California woman has launched a unique online search for a husband. Not for love, but for health care.”

Earlier, co-host Maggie Rodriguez teased the story by proclaiming: “I don’t know if you would think it’s sad or if you would think it’s admirable –  but it’s definitely a position no one wants to be in. It’s an extreme to get health insurance.”

Correspondent Randall Pinkston later reported on the situation:

45-year-old Terri Carlson says she does not care what you look like, she will marry you, but only if you have good health insurance....She is divorced and has one year left under cobra health coverage, but after that, she will have nothing to help pay for numerous doctors’ appointments and dozens of medications....[she] suffers from a rare genetic disorder....And because of her disorder, insurance companies have denied her coverage.

Following Pinkston’s report, Smith interviewed Carlson in studio and asked about her inability to get coverage: “And your pre-existing condition really requires you to see doctors, to have medications, et cetera, et cetera. There is – you have no court of appeals in terms of where to go to get – to get health care.” Carlson replied: “I’ve looked, I’ve searched, there is absolutely, you know, no stone that I’ve left unturned. And there are no other options for me.”

Carlson mentioned some of the email responses she’s gotten since posting a series of videos YouTube looking for a mate with good health care insurance: “I had people e-mailing me saying ‘we want another one, we want to see.’ And then they said, you know, ‘you being – you were hired by the Democratic Party,’” Smith sarcastically interjected: “Oh, people think you’re part of a conspiracy?....The vast left-wing conspiracy at it again.”

Carlson denied the accusation: “I’m just like every other middle American that’s suffering with a pre-existing condition and caught in the middle.” Of course she then added: “And if that makes me the poster child for President Obama, I’m happy to do it.” Carlson again expressed her support for Obama near the end of the interview: “I’ve been a Republican my whole life, you know. And so when I voted for a Democrat, President Obama, for the first time I’ve ever voted Dem – you know, for a Democrat. So this isn’t about anything that’s a political agenda.”

Here is a full transcript of Smith’s interview with Carlson:

8:12AM

SMITH: And Terri Carlson joins us now live in the studio. Good morning.

CARLSON: Good morning.

SMITH: You can’t wipe the smile off your face. This has been quite an adventure, hasn’t it?

CARLSON: It has been.

SMITH: Let’s talk about the tough reality here. You have a pre-existing condition. And in this day and time, if you’re trying to get insurance, you are out of luck, period, right?

CARLSON: Forget about it, yeah. You forget about it, there’s no chance to get it.

SMITH: Zero chance.

CARLSON: Zero.

SMITH: And your pre-existing condition really requires you to see doctors, to have medications, et cetera, et cetera. There is – you have no court of appeals in terms of where to go to get – to get health care.

CARLSON: I’ve – I’ve uncovered nothing. I’ve looked, I’ve searched, there is absolutely, you know, no stone that I’ve left unturned. And there are no other options for me.

SMITH: Wow. So you come up with this idea and you go on YouTube. What has the reaction been like?

CARLSON: Well, the last one went on last Sunday and after the first one hit, I had a few people e-mailing me and then people forwarded it to their friends. And then I had people e-mailing me saying ‘we want another one, we want to see.’ And then they said, you know, ‘you being – you were hired by the Democratic Party,’ you know, that I was-

SMITH: You think – oh, people think you’re part of a conspiracy?

CARLSON: They do. They do. They think I’m part of a conspiracy.

SMITH: The vast left-wing conspiracy at it again.

CARLSON: Exactly, yeah. And, you know, I’m just like every other middle American that’s suffering with a pre-existing condition and caught in the middle. And if that makes me the poster child for President Obama, I’m happy to do it.

SMITH: Would you take any of these – because I’m sure you’re a very attractive person, you have a great sense of humor, you certainly have gotten serious offers from this, I bet.

CARLSON: Oh, I’ve had about 3,000.

SMITH: [Laughter] Would you consider – I mean, people talk about they will marry for love, they will marry for money. Would you seriously consider marrying for health care coverage?

CARLSON: I will do whatever I have to do to save my life.

SMITH: And so that-

CARLSON: And that would include that.

SMITH: Wow.

CARLSON: And I will go through all those e-mails.

SMITH: You have children who are in their 20s.

CARLSON: Yes.

SMITH: What do they think of this?

CARLSON: They’re very supportive. They’re worried about me, too. They’re worried. You know, I want to be here for them, this is not just about me. It’s thousands of e-mails that I have in my inbox and from my website now, people asking me to be the voice for them, the person – you know, the people that are caught in the middle. I mean, I’ve heard some tragic stories. This is for them, too. If they did a poll on my inbox about health care reform, 99% of Americans would want health care reform if they just looked at my inbox.

SMITH: You must have watched all of this very carefully then as health care reform was sort of moving through the Congress. And how about the notion of if they had just tried to do certain pieces at a time, as opposed to the whole thing, including making it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to pre-existing conditions?

CARLSON: You know, when you’re in my position, you just want them to do something. I would have taken anything. You know, of course I want them to do something. I mean, I feel a little bit – you know, I might want to mention, I’ve been a Republican my whole life, you know. And so when I voted for a Democrat, President Obama, for the first time I’ve ever voted Dem – you know, for a Democrat. So this isn’t about anything that’s a political agenda other than the fact I’m a person that has a condition, and I’m a mother, I’m like every other person that can’t get health care and I want to live for my children and see grandchildren.

SMITH: Right. You have to do us a favor. If this turns into a marriage proposal, you have to let us know about it, alright?

CARLSON: Absolutely. Be right there.

SMITH: Alright, Terri, thanks very much for joining us.

CARLSON: You’re very welcome.

SMITH: Do appreciate it.

At the top of Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith declared: “President Obama meets with GOP leaders as he tries to tackle the growing employment problem. Will it be a monologue or a dialogue?” White House correspondent Bill Plante later reported: “The President is also reaching out to Republicans today, speaking to the GOP House retreat. But it could be a tough crowd.”

In Plante’s report, only brief a clip of Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner was played, making Republicans seem unwilling to negotiate: “We’re not going to vote for things that we believe will hurt our country.” Plante concluded: “And the Republicans have already signaled that the President’s new temporary tax cut for small businesses is not where they’re going to find that common ground. So it may be a tough crowd indeed.” The brief Early Show segment made no mention of legitimate Republican criticism of President Obama’s own stubborn partisanship.

In contrast, on ABC’s Good Morning America, while correspondent Jon Karl referred to the House GOP as a “skeptical” and “hostile” audience, he also took the time to highlight Republican efforts to reach out to the administration: “Most Republicans in Congress doubt the President really wants to hear their ideas....Longtime Republican Frank Wolf says he’s written the White House several ideas on Homeland Security.” Karl asked Wolf about the letter: “So, you present these ideas to the White House and what happens?” Wolf replied: “Nothing. It’s like writing a letter to somebody and nobody ever answers.”

Karl later noted: “As for Congressman Wolf and those letters, we asked the White House about that. And we're told he will get responses in the coming days.”

Though NBC’s Today made little mention of the upcoming meeting between President Obama and the GOP, co-host Matt Lauer did ask Meet the Press host David Gregory about it: “What’s gonna be colder, the weather here in New York or the temperature in that room in Baltimore?” Gregory voiced Republican criticisms: “You know, a lot of Republicans were not that impressed with the President’s speech. They felt that it was partisan, that it was really sharp-edged, and there were a lot of sharp edges in that speech, but the President will show up....he’s gonna have some tax cut ideas that Republicans will actually like. We’ll see where it goes from there, though.”
 

Of the three morning shows on Thursday, only NBC’s Today show skipped any mention of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s Republican response to the President’s State of the Union address. Both ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS’s Early Show gave McDonnell’s rebuttal at least minor attention.

On the Early Show, Chip Reid explained, "Virginia's newly inaugurated governor Bob McDonnell gave the Republican response. He echoed the sentiment of many in his party who believe big government is not the solution." Reid then featured a clip of McDonnell calling for limited government.

ABC co-host George Stephanopoulos only referenced McDonnell as an intro to a question for former Governor Mitt Romney: "Jobs. That's the President's number one priority. In the Republican response last night, Governor McDonnell said the same thing."

Today co-host Meredith Vieira did talk to Jeb Bush, but ignored McDonnell. In a 8am news brief, Ann Curry vaguely offered, "In rebuttal, Republicans said the nation cannot afford the President’s agenda."

Speaking of the President, NBC’s Chuck Todd did offer this spin about Obama reaching out: "The President did his best to offer Republicans something to stand up and cheer about, talking about all the tax cuts he implemented." After a clip of the President saying, "We cut taxes," Todd announced, "That didn’t do it."

The three morning shows on Thursday reacted to Barack Obama’s State of the Union address by highlighting the risk Republicans run in continuing to oppose the President’s agenda. On NBC’s Today, Meredith Vieira fretted to Joe Biden, "What risk do the Republicans run by continuing to say no, by being the party of no?" NBC put the happiest spin on the speech, featuring a graphic that trumpeted, "‘Never More Hopeful’: Obama’s Renewed Message of Hope for America."

Chuck Todd cooed, "The President took pains to talk about hope at a time when so many Americans seemed to have so little." On the Early Show, Maggie Rodriguez pressed Senator John McCain on GOP accommodation. She wondered if "we are going to hear" more yes answers and fewer no replies from the Republicans. The co-host then chided McCain, "But will you compromise?"

In an amusing moment on Today, Vieira asked Biden what Americans could expect for the economy in the new year. He replied, "Well, I say, they’re going to start to see unemployment grow this spring." Vieira quickly jumped in and corrected, "You mean employment?" [Audio available here.]

All three morning shows focused on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s visible disagreement to being chastised by the President for overturning some campaign finance laws. Good Morning America co-host Robin Roberts asked Vice President Biden, "Did the President go too far? Did he cross the line?"

On NBC, Todd simply noted that Alito could be seen onscreen "silently voicing apparent disagreement." Chip Reid on CBS described Obama’s criticism to the judges in front of him as an "unusual move."

However, none of the morning shows really explained the inaccurate nature of Obama’s comments on the Supreme Court ruling. The Washington Post’s Laurie Kellman on Thursday explained [Emphasis added]:

The president had taken the unusual step of publicly scolding the high court, with some of its members in robes seated before him in the House. "With all due deference to the separation of powers," he said, the court last week "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections."

...

Obama said corporations can "spend without limit in our elections." However, corporations and unions are still prohibited from contributing directly to politicians.

On Good Morning America, Roberts focused on the placement of health care in the speech. Noting that Obama didn’t talk about it for 30 minutes, she worried, "Does that send a different message that health care reform’s going to take a backseat?"On Today, Vieira complained that it took "33 minutes" for the topic to be raised.

Previewing the State of the Union on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith spoke with former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who claimed the GOP “made a decision a year ago that they weren’t going to cooperate on anything.” Smith replied: “I don’t think you can say what you just said and look at what happened with health care, especially in the last month, and be honest about it.”

Dunn, who just recently stepped down as communications director to the Obama White House, disregarded Smith’s challenge:

Harry, I disagree with that, mostly because I was working at the White House for most of this time. And I saw how many meetings with Republicans, how many attempts to reach out, how much time was spent listening to their concerns. An entire summer spent giving a lot of room to a bipartisan process which ultimately Republicans walked away from, even as their leaders from day one announced that they were going to kill health care no matter what was in the bill.

Earlier in the broadcast, Smith asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the possibility of working with Republicans in the year ahead: “You’re losing the super majority in the Senate. Do you have a sense that Republicans want to work with this president in this year to come?”

In part, Gibbs replied: “We don’t have 60 votes in the Senate anymore, which means the Republican Party is now responsible for helping to govern this country.” Smith pressed him on that statement: “you said now they’re responsible. Were they not partly responsible before, when you had a super majority?” Gibbs added: “When Democrats had 60 votes and Republicans required 60 votes for virtually everything that they wanted to pass, they didn’t have to play a role in that 60 votes. Democrats now have 59 votes. So if Republicans are going to insist on 60 votes for everything, they’ve got to be partners in this.”

Immediately following his interview with Gibbs, Smith talked to Republican Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, wondering: “Do you, as a Republican, feel like you were cut out of the process in the last couple of months?” Alexander agreed with that assessment: “Yes, is the answer to that. I mean, for 25 consecutive days the Democrats met. They wrote their health care bill in secret....We were completely cut out of the health care debate.”

Smith went on to skeptically ask Alexander about the proposed spending freeze by the administration: “Some people suggest that’s like putting a band-aid on somebody who’s bleeding to death. Is that – does that seem real to you? Or does that just look prophylactic?” Alexander replied: “Well, a band-aid’s a start. But it’s 17% of the budget and it’s not the real problem. I mean, the real problem is the automatic entitlement spending and that’s what the President needs to address.”

During his exchange with Dunn, Smith also spoke with Republican strategist Kevin Madden and wondered if the President would scale back his agenda: “Is this White House chagrined? Have they learned a lesson through this past year? In terms of ‘well alright, we’ve got our super-majority. We’re going to shove health care through no matter Hell or high water.’ Have they taken a step back and said, ‘you know what? Maybe we need to recalibrate’?” Madden observed: “I think the initial answer after the results from Massachusetts was no. But I there’s a sense of dawning awareness on this White House that their political prospects are tied to again, reaching out to America and unifying it again....Washington looks very divided, it looks very dysfunctional.” That comment from Madden sent Dunn into her rant.

Previewing the State of the Union on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith spoke with former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who claimed the GOP “made a decision a year ago that they weren’t going to cooperate on anything.” Smith replied: “I don’t think you can say what you just said and look at what happened with health care, especially in the last month, and be honest about it.”

Dunn, who just recently stepped down as communications director to the Obama White House, disregarded Smith’s challenge:

Harry, I disagree with that, mostly because I was working at the White House for most of this time. And I saw how many meetings with Republicans, how many attempts to reach out, how much time was spent listening to their concerns. An entire summer spent giving a lot of room to a bipartisan process which ultimately Republicans walked away from, even as their leaders from day one announced that they were going to kill health care no matter what was in the bill.

Earlier in the broadcast, Smith asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the possibility of working with Republicans in the year ahead: “You’re losing the super majority in the Senate. Do you have a sense that Republicans want to work with this president in this year to come?”

In part, Gibbs replied: “We don’t have 60 votes in the Senate anymore, which means the Republican Party is now responsible for helping to govern this country.” Smith pressed him on that statement: “you said now they’re responsible. Were they not partly responsible before, when you had a super majority?” Gibbs added: “When Democrats had 60 votes and Republicans required 60 votes for virtually everything that they wanted to pass, they didn’t have to play a role in that 60 votes. Democrats now have 59 votes. So if Republicans are going to insist on 60 votes for everything, they’ve got to be partners in this.”

Immediately following his interview with Gibbs, Smith talked to Republican Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, wondering: “Do you, as a Republican, feel like you were cut out of the process in the last couple of months?” Alexander agreed with that assessment: “Yes, is the answer to that. I mean, for 25 consecutive days the Democrats met. They wrote their health care bill in secret....We were completely cut out of the health care debate.”

Smith went on to skeptically ask Alexander about the proposed spending freeze by the administration: “Some people suggest that’s like putting a band-aid on somebody who’s bleeding to death. Is that – does that seem real to you? Or does that just look prophylactic?” Alexander replied: “Well, a band-aid’s a start. But it’s 17% of the budget and it’s not the real problem. I mean, the real problem is the automatic entitlement spending and that’s what the President needs to address.”

During his exchange with Dunn, Smith also spoke with Republican strategist Kevin Madden and wondered if the President would scale back his agenda: “Is this White House chagrined? Have they learned a lesson through this past year? In terms of ‘well alright, we’ve got our super-majority. We’re going to shove health care through no matter Hell or high water.’ Have they taken a step back and said, ‘you know what? Maybe we need to recalibrate’?” Madden observed: “I think the initial answer after the results from Massachusetts was no. But I there’s a sense of dawning awareness on this White House that their political prospects are tied to again, reaching out to America and unifying it again....Washington looks very divided, it looks very dysfunctional.” That comment from Madden sent Dunn into her rant.

Previewing the State of the Union on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith spoke with former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who claimed the GOP “made a decision a year ago that they weren’t going to cooperate on anything.” Smith replied: “I don’t think you can say what you just said and look at what happened with health care, especially in the last month, and be honest about it.”

Dunn, who just recently stepped down as communications director to the Obama White House, disregarded Smith’s challenge:

Harry, I disagree with that, mostly because I was working at the White House for most of this time. And I saw how many meetings with Republicans, how many attempts to reach out, how much time was spent listening to their concerns. An entire summer spent giving a lot of room to a bipartisan process which ultimately Republicans walked away from, even as their leaders from day one announced that they were going to kill health care no matter what was in the bill.

Earlier in the broadcast, Smith asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the possibility of working with Republicans in the year ahead: “You’re losing the super majority in the Senate. Do you have a sense that Republicans want to work with this president in this year to come?”

In part, Gibbs replied: “We don’t have 60 votes in the Senate anymore, which means the Republican Party is now responsible for helping to govern this country.” Smith pressed him on that statement: “you said now they’re responsible. Were they not partly responsible before, when you had a super majority?” Gibbs added: “When Democrats had 60 votes and Republicans required 60 votes for virtually everything that they wanted to pass, they didn’t have to play a role in that 60 votes. Democrats now have 59 votes. So if Republicans are going to insist on 60 votes for everything, they’ve got to be partners in this.”

Immediately following his interview with Gibbs, Smith talked to Republican Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, wondering: “Do you, as a Republican, feel like you were cut out of the process in the last couple of months?” Alexander agreed with that assessment: “Yes, is the answer to that. I mean, for 25 consecutive days the Democrats met. They wrote their health care bill in secret....We were completely cut out of the health care debate.”

Smith went on to skeptically ask Alexander about the proposed spending freeze by the administration: “Some people suggest that’s like putting a band-aid on somebody who’s bleeding to death. Is that – does that seem real to you? Or does that just look prophylactic?” Alexander replied: “Well, a band-aid’s a start. But it’s 17% of the budget and it’s not the real problem. I mean, the real problem is the automatic entitlement spending and that’s what the President needs to address.”

During his exchange with Dunn, Smith also spoke with Republican strategist Kevin Madden and wondered if the President would scale back his agenda: “Is this White House chagrined? Have they learned a lesson through this past year? In terms of ‘well alright, we’ve got our super-majority. We’re going to shove health care through no matter Hell or high water.’ Have they taken a step back and said, ‘you know what? Maybe we need to recalibrate’?” Madden observed: “I think the initial answer after the results from Massachusetts was no. But I there’s a sense of dawning awareness on this White House that their political prospects are tied to again, reaching out to America and unifying it again....Washington looks very divided, it looks very dysfunctional.” That comment from Madden sent Dunn into her rant.

Previewing the State of the Union on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith spoke with former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who claimed the GOP “made a decision a year ago that they weren’t going to cooperate on anything.” Smith replied: “I don’t think you can say what you just said and look at what happened with health care, especially in the last month, and be honest about it.”

Dunn, who just recently stepped down as communications director to the Obama White House, disregarded Smith’s challenge:

Harry, I disagree with that, mostly because I was working at the White House for most of this time. And I saw how many meetings with Republicans, how many attempts to reach out, how much time was spent listening to their concerns. An entire summer spent giving a lot of room to a bipartisan process which ultimately Republicans walked away from, even as their leaders from day one announced that they were going to kill health care no matter what was in the bill.

Earlier in the broadcast, Smith asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the possibility of working with Republicans in the year ahead: “You’re losing the super majority in the Senate. Do you have a sense that Republicans want to work with this president in this year to come?”

In part, Gibbs replied: “We don’t have 60 votes in the Senate anymore, which means the Republican Party is now responsible for helping to govern this country.” Smith pressed him on that statement: “you said now they’re responsible. Were they not partly responsible before, when you had a super majority?” Gibbs added: “When Democrats had 60 votes and Republicans required 60 votes for virtually everything that they wanted to pass, they didn’t have to play a role in that 60 votes. Democrats now have 59 votes. So if Republicans are going to insist on 60 votes for everything, they’ve got to be partners in this.”

Immediately following his interview with Gibbs, Smith talked to Republican Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, wondering: “Do you, as a Republican, feel like you were cut out of the process in the last couple of months?” Alexander agreed with that assessment: “Yes, is the answer to that. I mean, for 25 consecutive days the Democrats met. They wrote their health care bill in secret....We were completely cut out of the health care debate.”

Smith went on to skeptically ask Alexander about the proposed spending freeze by the administration: “Some people suggest that’s like putting a band-aid on somebody who’s bleeding to death. Is that – does that seem real to you? Or does that just look prophylactic?” Alexander replied: “Well, a band-aid’s a start. But it’s 17% of the budget and it’s not the real problem. I mean, the real problem is the automatic entitlement spending and that’s what the President needs to address.”

During his exchange with Dunn, Smith also spoke with Republican strategist Kevin Madden and wondered if the President would scale back his agenda: “Is this White House chagrined? Have they learned a lesson through this past year? In terms of ‘well alright, we’ve got our super-majority. We’re going to shove health care through no matter Hell or high water.’ Have they taken a step back and said, ‘you know what? Maybe we need to recalibrate’?” Madden observed: “I think the initial answer after the results from Massachusetts was no. But I there’s a sense of dawning awareness on this White House that their political prospects are tied to again, reaching out to America and unifying it again....Washington looks very divided, it looks very dysfunctional.” That comment from Madden sent Dunn into her rant.

All three morning shows on Wednesday highlighted the revelation that a conservative activist had been arrested in connection to an attempt to tamper with the phones of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. Despite jumping on the "Louisiana Watergate" story only 17 hours after it was first reported, the networks took five days to file full reports on the same James O’Keefe and his undercover footage exposing corruption at ACORN.

On ABC’s Good Morning America, reporter Pierre Thomas recounted O’Keefe’s previous expose, charitably describing ACORN as "an advocacy group which helps the poor." On NBC’s Today, Pete Williams found sinister motives in right-wing outrage at the organization. He sneered, "Because ACORN helped register thousands of low income voters, Republicans pounced." (Could the illegal activities and voter fraud associated with the group have been another reason for GOP attacks?)

Both Today and Good Morning America, though, at least managed to use the liberal label when describing ACORN and the videos showing employees attempting to help him obtain money for a prostitution ring. However, in an anchor brief, Early Show’s Erica Hill only referred to the group as "the community organizing group, ACORN."

In his special report Omitting for Obama, the MRC’s Tim Graham described the media’s limited coverage of the scandal:

While the video aired heavily on Fox News, the networks evening news shows stayed silent for six days, until after both houses of Congress moved to deny the group’s millions of dollars in federal funding. Eventually, ABC and CBS aired only one full story. NBC aired three.

ABC broke the network blackout on Saturday morning, September 12, with a brief anchor update from Ron Claiborne about the Census Bureau cutting its "ties to the community group ACORN for the 2010 Census."

CBS did the first full story, on the September 15 Evening News. Correspondent Cynthia Bowers strongly brought the ACORN side of the story: "ACORN says the workers caught on tape were fired, but contends the videos were illegally obtained, doctored and deceptive, and is threatening legal action against the undercover filmmakers posing as the couple." NBC’s Lisa Myers picked up the story on Today the next morning. While Myers used the conservative label five times in her report to describe ACORN’s critics, like CBS’s Bowers, she never described the community organization as liberal.

And, yet, just 17 hours after it was reported O’Keefe and three others had been arrested at Landrieu’s New Orleans office, ABC’s Thomas hyperbolically announced, "This morning, some Democrats are calling this case the Louisiana Watergate." NBC’s Pete Williams ironically referred to O’Keefe as a "media sensation." (He may have been one on Fox News, but the networks certainly had no interest in making O'Keefe a "sensation.")

The detached, out-of-touch response by journalists to the original scandal was summed up best by World News anchor Charles Gibson. Appearing on a radio station in Chicago on September 15, five days after the story broke, he was asked to comment on the lack of coverage. Gibson responded by laughing and then gave this bewildered reply: "I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning. "

A transcript of Wednesday’s Good Morning America’s coverage of the phone tapping story, which aired at 7:12am EST, follows:

JUJU CHANG: Well, we begin with accusations of political espionage. Four, young conservatives have been arrested in Louisiana in connection with a phone scheme targeting Senate Democrat Mary Landrieu. Among the suspects, the filmmaker behind an expose on the liberal group ACORN. Our Pierre Thomas is following the investigation. Good morning, Pierre.

ABC GRAPHIC: Louisiana’s Watergate? Phone Scheme at Senator’s Office

PIERRE THOMAS: Hi, Juju. This morning, some Democrats are calling this case the Louisiana Watergate.

JAMES O’KEEFE: Sex is kind of like dancing, right?

UNIDENTIFIED ACORN EMPLOYEE: Yeah.

THOMAS: Seen here in this undercover video, disguised as a pimp with his prostitute, James O'Keefe appears to enlist support for his illegal enterprise from employees of ACORN, an advocacy group which helps the poor.

SECOND UNIDENTIFIED ACORN EMPLOYEE: Let me make sure there’s a code for it, okay?

O’KEEFE: A code for prostitution?

THOMAS: The sting set off a firestorm of controversy and led to a congressional vote cutting off federal money for the organization. O’Keefe recently received an award for his investigation and he promised more.

O’KEEFE: So, this is not 15 minutes of fame. This is no joke. We are called to do this and we are going to devote our lives to doing it.

THOMAS: But, now, O'Keefe's undercover work has left him in the sights of the FBI. Authorities claim on Monday, O’Keefe posed as a visitor in senator Mary Landrieu's New Orleans office, wheel two associates impersonated employees of a telephone company. Complete with tool belts and hard hats.

JIM LETTEN (U.S. attorney, Eastern District of Louisiana): They were asking a number of probing questions. And that certainly, you know, triggered some suspicion.

THOMAS: They are now charged with sneaking into a federal building under false pretenses And trying to tamper with the Senator's phone. They could face up to ten years in prison. The senator called the incident, "unsettling." And said she wanted to know their motives and purpose. O'Keefe's attorney declined comment. It's unclear, Juju, whether this was an innocent prank gone too far or something far more sinister.

CHANG: Thanks, Pierre. Serious allegations. Thanks for the update.

At the top of Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez highlighted the latest attempt at populism by the Obama administration: “President Obama calls for a big spending freeze and focuses on plans to help the struggling middle class, but does he have the political support he needs?”

Moments later, co-host Harry Smith introduced the story with a similar declaration: “President Obama will try and calm voter anger during tomorrow’s State of the Union address. He’ll announce plans to cut the growing federal deficit and help the struggling middle class.” Writing for the Heritage Foundation blog, The Foundry, Alison Fraser pointed out the problem with Obama’s supposed “spending freeze”: “If it applies to last year’s supercharged spending on stimulus steroids baseline, it’s no freeze at all, but a locking in of spending that was supposed to be temporary.”

Freezing government spending at its current record-high level would do nothing to “cut the growing federal deficit” as Smith asserted. White House correspondent Bill Plante pushed the same argument in a report that followed: “...the President has been busy for several days spreading his message of fiscal responsibility....in an effort to show that the federal government has to manage its budget by making choices, just as families must, the President is calling for a freeze on non-security spending for the next three fiscal years.”

While Plante acknowledged the political difficulty in passing such a proposal, his report featured no critics of the plan to explain how little spending would actually be frozen.

After Plante’s report, Rodriguez discussed the issue with Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer, who did make some mention of the insignificance of the spending freeze: “...the payoff in budget savings would be small relative to the deficit. The estimated $250 billion in savings – $250 Billion – over ten years would be less than 3% of the roughly $9 trillion – $9 trillion – in new debt that will accrue over the next ten years.”

Despite that fact, Schieffer still thought it was a good move: “I think it’s probably good politics for the President to announce this, that he’s going to put this freeze in.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: President Obama calls for a big spending freeze and focuses on plans to help the struggling middle class, but does he have the political support he needs? We’ll bring you the latest from the White House.
    
7:01AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: We want to start in Washington, where President Obama will try and calm voter anger during tomorrow’s State of the Union address. He’ll announce plans to cut the growing federal deficit and help the struggling middle class. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has more. Good morning, Bill.

BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Harry. The State of the Union address isn’t until tomorrow, of course, but the President has been busy for several days spreading his message of fiscal responsibility and the message that he understands the frustrations of middle class Americans.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama’s Big Freeze; Plans Spending Freeze, Focuses On Middle Class]

BARACK OBAMA: The middle class has been under assault for a long time.

PLANTE: Standing with Vice President Biden, Mr. Obama unveiled proposals by the task force on middle class families. Including an increase in the child care tax credit, to 35% from 20%, for families making under $85,000 a year. An increase of $1.6 billion to help working parents pay for child care, covering 235,000 more kids. A cap on college loan repayments at 10% of the borrower’s income over basic needs. Adding $100 million to help people care for elderly parents. And requiring employers who don’t offer 401(k) plans to offer direct deposit IRAs.

OBAMA: Hopefully some of these steps will re-establish some of the security that’s slipped away in recent years.
        
PLANTE: And in an effort to show that the federal government has to manage its budget by making choices, just as families must, the President is calling for a freeze on nonsecurity spending for the next three fiscal years. That could be difficult to get through Congress because it would mean cutting the pet projects of some members. But economist Elizabeth Sawhill says that may not matter.

ISABEL SAWHILL [THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION]: If the Congress, and Republicans in particular, vote them down, that’s for the public to decide how they like that in some upcoming election.

PLANTE: But the main issue, of course, is still jobs and that’s likely to be the issue in November. One solution or partial solution, writing in today’s New York Times, Senators Orrin Hatch and Charles Schumer, Republican and Democrat, are proposing that people who are newly hired pay no Social Security tax – [cough] pardon me – for the rest of this year if they were previously unemployed. So, Maggie.

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: We’ll see. Bill Plante, thank you, Bill. Let’s bring in CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Good morning, Bob.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Bob, if we look at the President’s approval rating, the recent election of the Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts, clearly Americans are trying to send the President a message. Is this response enough, do you think?

SCHIEFFER: I was thinking about this, it’s almost like somebody goes to the doctor for a hearing test and the President is saying, ‘look, I hear you, I hear you. My hearing is okay.’ And I think what you’re going to see this State of the Union message geared to is that theme, the President, the White House, sort of in the Bill Clinton way, shares the pain of those out there that are worried about deficits.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama’s New Message; Spending Freeze Coupled With Focus On Middle Class]

You know, Maggie, the interesting thing to me about this freeze on all programs except the entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and also government spending, is how little of the deficit – how little of the federal budget it covers. I thought there was one paragraph in the New York Times story of this, this morning, that really kind of summed it up. It said the payoff in budget savings would be small relative to the deficit. The estimated $250 billion in savings – $250 Billion – over ten years would be less than 3% of the roughly $9 trillion – $9 trillion – in new debt that will accrue over the next ten years. That shows you just how massive these sums are that we’re talking about.

I think it’s probably good politics for the President to announce this, that he’s going to put this freeze in. Whether he can get it passed in an election year, when all of these people that are running for re-election in the Congress are out there with their political survival at stake, I think is another matter. He may get a freeze in some of these programs, I think it’s going to be very difficult for him to get a freeze in all of them that he’s talking about.

RODRIGUEZ: Because if – because voters are paying attention and the economy is clearly the number one issue, not necessarily health care anymore.

SCHIEFFER: Yes. I think that is absolutely correct. But, you know, everybody wants to cut the deficit. Everybody wants to cut spending. They don’t want to cut the spending of their pet programs. And that’s where the rubber will hit the road on all this. And speaking of health care, Maggie-

RODRIGUEZ: Well, but if they don’t Bob, then won’t Democrats pay for that in the midterm election?

SCHIEFFER: Well, they may or they may not. If they don’t get those programs that the folks back in the home district are worried about and the ones they want, they may take it out on the Congressman. They may penalize them for cutting spending rather than trying to save money. And speaking of health care, I think we’re not going to hear about health care. I think you’re going to hear a lot about health care in the State of the Union message, but I don’t think you’re going to see any significant proposal brought to the Congress to vote on for a while yet.

RODRIGUEZ: That is a major shift. Bob Schieffer in Washington. Thanks Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you so much, Maggie.
                        
RODRIGUEZ: You’re welcome.

Speaking to former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean on Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith repeated standard liberal talking points as he urged Republicans and Democrats to quickly pass some form of health care reform: “...to help the 40 some million that don’t have insurance or the vast majority of other folks who are one medical catastrophe away from bankruptcy.”

Dean replied by lamenting how: “The President’s tried awfully hard to get even one Republican to support this.” He added: “They believe if they obstruct this agenda that they can benefit from it and I think that’s wrong for the country, but the Republicans have always been great at opposition, never very good at leadership.”

Prior to warning of disaster if health care reform does not pass, Smith asked Dean about the fate of the current legislation: “Should they [Democrats] start over from scratch or should they go and find what’s salvageable?” Dean responded: “I’d run it through the reconciliation program. You know, the Republicans are using this as a tactic to kill health care to embarrass the President. That’s not the right thing to do for America....we can’t get the whole thing, but I think we can get some good stuff done before the election.”

Smith began the interview by bluntly wondering: “Is health care dead?” Dean replied: “I don’t think so. I think the American people want health care reform....[they] really do want us to do something about this.”

Here is a full transcript of the interview:

HARRY SMITH: Also in Washington this morning is Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dr. Dean, how are you this morning?

HOWARD DEAN: I’m very well, thank you.

SMITH: Is health care dead?

DEAN: I don’t think so. I think the American people want health care reform. What they didn’t want was something that was written by the insurance industries. And you know, it was – this is a very Washington-centered proposal that finally came over to the House. And so I think they’ll try again, put something in there that the American people want. The American people really do want us to do something about this.

SMITH: The last time we talked, you said they should start over. Should they start over from scratch or should they go and find what’s salvageable? Say, for instance, making it illegal for insurances to deny protection to people with pre-existing conditions?

DEAN: Well, you just heard John Boehner, the minority leader, say that they weren’t going to vote for anything that we proposed. I would go back and do that, though. And I’d run it through the reconciliation program. You know, the Republicans are using this as a tactic to kill health care to embarrass the President. That’s not the right thing to do for America. America does need some real insurance reforms. You could simply expand the Medicare program that everybody knows to people who are over 55 instead of 65. The House and the Senate passed very good expansions in Medicaid, which helps young people, for example, and hard working people who can’t – work for people with no insurance. Those are the kinds of things that you can do. And we can run those through reconciliation. The chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate has already said he’d be willing to look at some things in the budget bill. I think we can get some decent – we can’t get the whole thing, but I think we can get some good stuff done before the election.

SMITH: Am I being Pollyanna to think that after all of this effort was put into this and now it doesn’t seem to be working, that both sides could sit down together and say ‘what do we really have in common?’ and work together to form something that might be palatable to – to help the 40 some million that don’t have insurance or the vast majority of other folks who are one medical catastrophe away from bankruptcy?

DEAN: Well, I always think that’s worth trying. The President’s tried awfully hard to get even one Republican to support this. They believe if they obstruct this agenda that they can benefit from it and I think that’s wrong for the country, but the Republicans have always been great at opposition, never very good at leadership. And so if we can work with the Republicans, we’d sure like to, but we’ve had our hand out for six months and they’ve had no interest. I think we just need to get this done for the American people.

SMITH: Dr. Howard Dean, Governor Dean, thank you very much for your time this morning. Do appreciate it, sir.

DEAN: Thank you.

Appearing on Thursday’s CBS Early Show, Politico.com White House reporter Nia-Malika Henderson argued to co-host Harry Smith that Senator-elect Scott Brown’s humorous remark that his daughters were “available” during his Tuesday night victory speech showed that: “this might be a senator who is gaffe-prone, who has to kind of walk back from remarks that he – that he makes.”

However, Henderson followed that statement by concluding that Brown’s style could make him a “hero for at least folks in the tea bag movement and grassroots folks because he says what’s on his mind.” Smith agreed: “Yeah, a breath of fresh air, as it were.”

Earlier in the segment, Smith admitted he did not see the controversy in the comments: “I’m not seeing sort of what was so horrible about it. And it feels like to me there’s a real sort of nice warm familiarity between the new senator and his daughters.” He then added: “But I guess it’s had other kinds of ramifications and there’s some blow back on this.”

read more

On Thursday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith introduced a segment on the future of ObamaCare in the wake of Scott Brown becoming the 41st Republican senator: “Democrats are trying to figure out their next move after Tuesday’s stunning loss of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. The big question continues to be what will it mean for President Obama’s agenda? Especially health care reform.”

In the report that followed, White House correspondent Chip Reid described how: “The President says he still wants Congress to move forward with reform, but in an orderly way.” Citing political analyst and executive editor of The Hotline, John Mercurio, Reid declared that: “not passing health care would be devastating for Democrats.” Mercurio added: “I think without that, they satisfy no one and they discourage a lot of their base voters from turning out in November.”

Following Reid’s report, Smith conducted an exclusive interview with Senator John McCain, asking: “Is health care...as the Democrats understand it right now, is it dead?” The headline on-screen read: “Capitol Hill Chaos; GOP Victory Could Halt Health Care Reform.”

read more

Speaking to political analyst John Dickerson on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show about Republican Scott Brown winning the Massachusetts Senate race, co-host Maggie Rodriguez lamented: “When it comes to health care, I think it’s so ironic that the late Ted Kennedy’s passion was health care. He dedicated his career to it. And the man who will replace him could be the one to derail it.”

Rodriguez wondered: “Do you think that’ll happen? Do you think that Senator Brown will be seated in time to vote no?” Dickerson replied: “I think so. It looks like there’s not any appetite to try and rush something through quickly. Health care is already unpopular in Massachusetts and across the country. It’s a very tricky thing indeed to take an unpopular bill and then sort of sneak it in through this back door way. So that’s politically too painful.”

Interestingly, Rodriguez’s concern over Kennedy’s health care legacy was almost identical to a question NBC’s Meredith Vieira asked Senator-elect Brown on Wednesday’s Today: “...you plan to do whatever you can to derail what Ted Kennedy called, called ‘the cause of his lifetime,’ which is health care reform?”

In addition to fretting over the future of ObamaCare, Rodriguez repeated the Democratic talking point that Brown’s victory was not a referendum on the unpopular legislation: “The economy is weak, unemployment is officially at 10%, the health care debate rages on. Do you think all of those factors, and not just health care, contributed to this upset?” Dickerson agreed: “That’s right. There was a soup here.”

In a report just prior to Rodriguez’s discussion with Dickerson, White House correspondent Bill Plante pushed the same liberal line: “Top officials here still insist that Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts was a referendum on the economy and not on health care.” During that report, an on-screen headline read: “Hanging In The Balance; GOP Win Could Derail Obama Health Care Plan”

Following Rodriguez’s discussion with Dickerson, fill-in co-host Jeff Glor spoke with former Obama campaign advisor David Plouffe about the Massachusetts election. Plouffe downplayed the loss: “Well, it was clear for the last few days we were going to have a potentially tough outcome last night. Obviously it’s disappointing.” He then took a shot at Democratic candidate Martha Coakley: “I think even a mediocre campaign up there probably would have been successful.” And actually complimented Brown: “...let’s give credit to senator-elect Brown, he ran a great campaign.”

At the top of the broadcast, correspondent Nancy Cordes reported on Democratic Party infighting over the loss:

And it’s already being called one of the biggest political upsets in U.S. history. It fundamentally changes the power dynamic in Washington. Republicans are celebrating. Democrats are turning on each other....The blame game has already started. ‘She ran a really bad campaign and they didn’t ask us for help until it was too late,’ carped one White House official. Coakley campaign workers shot back that it was gridlock in Washington souring voters on Democrats.

The Early Show had no Republicans on to discuss Brown’s historic victory.

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez’s discussion with Dickerson:

7:06AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Let’s talk more about this – what this means. In Washington, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson is standing by. John, good morning.

JOHN DICKERSON: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: The economy is weak, unemployment is officially at 10%, the health care debate rages on. Do you think all of those factors, and not just health care, contributed to this upset?

DICKERSON: That’s right. There was a soup here and the problem for the President and for Democrats in Washington is lots of Democrats are taking different lessons from different parts of this. What they know is there’s an unfocused anger out there and they may all be the victim of it and the problem with everybody taking their own interpretations of this is that with – it’s very hard to get everybody to move in one direction. So the White House is going to try and get the story straight first before they can get everybody to support a way forward.

RODRIGUEZ: But when it comes to health care, I think it’s so ironic that the late Ted Kennedy’s passion was health care. He dedicated his career to it. And the man who will replace him could be the one to derail it. Do you think that’ll happen? Do you think that Senator Brown will be seated in time to vote no?

DICKERSON: I think so. It looks like there’s not any appetite to try and rush something through quickly. Health care is already unpopular in Massachusetts and across the country. It’s a very tricky thing indeed to take an unpopular bill and then sort of sneak it in through this back door way. So that’s politically too painful. The leading least bad option, as far as Democrats are concerned at the moment, is this notion of passing the Senate bill through the House without any of these big changes they’ve been wrangling over for the last several weeks. But last night Democrats were saying that’s just not something they can stomach. So it’s very hard to see how they go forward here.

RODRIGUEZ: Because some Democrats have to be worried about what this victory means in terms of the midterm election. Do you think we’ll start to see some of them distance themselves, not only from health care, but from President Obama?

DICKERSON: Well, yes. Or just go their own way. Everybody’s looking over their shoulder now because of this idea that if in a blue state like Massachusetts independent voters, who are very unhappy about the economy, who see health care perhaps as a distraction from that crucial issue of jobs, if that unfocused anger can fall on somebody’s head, then you’re sort of on your own. And another thing that candidates are trying to figure out here is what role the President plays. He made one visit to stump for Martha Coakley. And you know, he can’t pull it out in a single visit. But he’s been talking about health care for months, he’s been talking about the economy for months, and hasn’t been able to change those minds. For a Democrat up in 2010, that means they don’t have a lot of political cover from their president.

RODRIGUEZ: Potentially huge implications for the President. John Dickerson, thank you.

DICKERSON: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ: You’re welcome.

Appearing on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele criticized potential Democratic efforts to delay seating Republican Scott Brown as the Senator from Massachusetts as “unseemly,” but co-host Maggie Rodriguez replied: “Is that fair? Because wouldn’t your party do the exact same thing?”

Rodriguez went on to argue: “Isn’t it true that when the GOP had the majority and the Democrats would filibuster something, you know, you didn’t like that....They’re trying to keep you from doing the same thing to them that you did when you were – had the majority.” Steele began to reply: “You’re mixing an apple and an orange here.” Rodriguez interrupted: “No, no, I’m really not.”

Steele explained: “To filibuster on an issue is not the same as seating a member in the United States Senate regardless of what’s going on in the Senate. There is a process that unfolds....[Democrats] made it very clear that [they] will obstruct this process...will change the rules in order for [them] to get [their] way in the Senate.” A shocked Rodriguez asked: “So you’re implying that they would do something illegal?” Steele replied: “I’m not – illegal is left for lawyers to decide. What I’m saying is that there is a process.”  

Rodriguez elaborated on her unfair comparison: “And just so you understand what I’m saying, I was just saying that parties – as your party also has shown – will do whatever they can to get their agenda passed because obviously it’s in their best interests and in the best interests of the voters.”

At the top of the interview, Rodriguez described a Republican victory in Massachusetts as the end of health care in America: “I know that in your idea of a perfect scenario, Senator Brown, the Republican, would win, take his seat, and cast the one no vote that would derail health care. But the Democrats are trying to get this passed before he’s seated, even if he does win. Does that concern you? That a victory for Brown does not necessarily mean a defeat for health care?” Throughout the segment, a headline on screen read: “Decision Day; GOP Win Could Doom Obama’s Health Care Reform.”

On Monday’s broadcast, Rodriguez declared that it would be “interesting” to see if Democrats could delay Brown’s swearing in if he won the election.

Following the interview with Steele on Tuesday, Rodriguez spoke with former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and pressed him on efforts to force through ObamaCare: “Nancy Pelosi said yesterday, quote, ‘we will have health care one way or another.’ Is this really how you want this to go down, even though technically it may not be illegal, it’s still sort of unsavory because you’re forcing it through?”

An overly optimistic McAuliffe argued: “Martha Coakley will bring about the change that people want in Massachusetts....people want health care. President Obama ran for president of the United States promising Americans that those 48 million people who don’t have health coverage would get it.” Rodriguez replied: “Terry, if people want health care, why is a Republican so close to taking this seat and this state for the first time since 1972?”

Rodriguez actually brought Steele back on to have the last word: “I’ve been shaking my head because Terry’s great on the talking points....people are sending us a sound signal. Now either they’re going to get the message or they won’t. Come this November, we’re going play hard and fight for every seat in the Congress and every seat for governors around the country on the idea that it’s about time we listen to the people instead of the people having to do what Washington tells them they want to do.”

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez’s interview with Steele:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Michael Steele is chairman of the Republican National Committee and he joins me in studio to talk about this. You’re all smiles today, Michael. Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Decision Day; GOP Win Could Doom Obama’s Health Care Reform]
            
MICHAEL STEELE: Yeah, it’s a good day. I mean I think it’s been a fascinating process to watch unfold. I mean a year ago the landscape politically was very different than we see it today. And as we go into this election, what I’m excited about is that the American people have begun to take charge in these elections and the outcome. In the past it’s kind of been formulaic, you know, it’s a Boston, Massachusetts Senate race, ‘oh, it’s a Kennedy, okay, no problem.’

RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, a Democrat’s going to win. It was-

STEELE: Yeah, a Democrat’s-

RODRIGUEZ: -understood.

STEELE: Understood. Not so much today. And I think that’s the exciting part about all of this.

RODRIGUEZ: I know that in your idea of a perfect scenario, Senator Brown, the Republican, would win, take his seat, and cast the one no vote that would derail health care. But the Democrats are trying to get this passed before he’s seated, even if he does win. Does that concern you?

STEELE: It does concern me-

RODRIGUEZ: That a victory for Brown does not necessarily mean a defeat for health care?

STEELE: Well, it says a lot about the agenda here and it says a lot about the way the Democrat leadership in Washington views the voters out there. They really don’t care. ‘We’re going to do this whether you want it or not and you’re just going to live with it.’ And so the idea that, you know, you’ll have an election, a special election, to fill a seat and that individual’s elected and if it’s not of the party you want it to be, him to be, then you’re going to go ram through the process or change the rules, that, again, is an unseemly thing for them to do in Washington. But so typical of what we’ve seen over the past year.

RODRIGUEZ: Wait a minute, but is that fair? Because wouldn’t your party do the exact same thing? Isn’t it true that when the GOP had the majority and the Democrats would filibuster something, you know, you didn’t like that. They’re trying to keep you-

STEELE: I mean a filibuster – a filibuster-

RODRIGUEZ: Wait, wait, no, no.

STEELE: Look, Maggie, the filibuster over-

RODRIGUEZ: They’re trying to keep you from doing the same thing to them that you did-

STEELE: No, no, no-

RODRIGUEZ: -when you were – had the majority.

STEELE: You’re mixing an apple and an orange here.

RODRIGUEZ: No, no, I’m really not.

STEELE: To filibuster on an issue is not the same as seating a member in the United States Senate regardless of what’s going on in the Senate. There is a process that unfolds. The secretary of state does what they need to do, the Senate does what it needs to do. And the fact that they’ve already made it very clear that ‘we will obstruct this process, that we will change the rules in order for us to get our way in the Senate,’ to me, is not what the voters are going to – to the polls about.

RODRIGUEZ: So you’re implying that they would do something illegal?

STEELE: I’m not – illegal is left for lawyers to decide. What I’m saying is that there is a process. And when you have Congressman Wiener and others saying that ‘our job will be to delay and obstruct this process, or to speed it up, if we can do that,’ to me, goes counter to what the voters in Massachusetts are expecting. They’re expecting today they will elect a United States senator and when they – they expect that senator to be seated in a timely fashion and if that doesn’t happen, then it’s going to be a lot of weight on the Democrats’ head in Washington.

RODRIGUEZ: I understand what your saying. And just so you understand what I’m saying, I was just saying that parties – as your party also has shown – will do whatever they can to get their agenda passed because obviously it’s in their best interests and in the best interests of the voters.

STEELE: Oh, that’s very true, but there’s some things that have a natural process to them. As we saw when Ted Kennedy took – won this seat the first time, they seated him in one day. Mrs. Tsongas just recently came into Congress for her husband’s seat, two days. So now you have them saying, ‘well, we could do this in about three or four weeks.’ I mean, that’s the point.

RODRIGUEZ: Okay, you’re saying double standard when it’s convenient.

STEELE: Double standard. But you kind of expect that from the Democrats at this point, you know.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Michael Steele, thank you very much.

STEELE: Thank you.

While concluding a story on the Massachusetts Senate race on Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez acknowledged the possibility that Republican Scott Brown could win the long held Democratic seat but wondered: “It’ll be interesting to see if Brown, the Republican, wins, if the Democrats can defer his swearing in and get health care passed. We will watch that.”

At the top of the show, Rodriguez teased the story: “In Massachusetts it’s more than just a Senate race, it’s a battle that could end President Obama’s fight for health care reform.” Correspondent Nancy Cordes followed up with a report that also focused on the impact the race would have on health care: “The President was here campaigning yesterday for the Democrat. And no wonder, if she loses, it will be a major blow to his ability to get his agenda passed.”

Cordes observed how affective Brown’s opposition to ObamaCare has been: “Coakley’s Republican challenger...has made stopping the health care reform bill a signature issue. A message that seems to be resonating with voters.” She then fretted: “If Coakley loses this race, Democrats will lose their supermajority in the Senate. Meaning they won’t be able to pass Democratic priorities like health care reform unless they can convince a few Republicans to vote with them.”

Rodriguez asked Cordes what was to blame for the Democrats potentially losing the seat: “Is the consensus that this is more – Scott Brown’s rise – is more about a feeling of going against President Obama or is it an attack on how Coakley has run her campaign?” Cordes focused on Coakley’s weak campaign: “There’s a sense here that the Coakley campaign sort of took this race for granted after she sailed to victory in the primary because they didn’t properly read the political winds blowing in the country, didn’t think that those winds would blow into Massachusetts. Didn’t see the current dissatisfaction over health care reform.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: In Massachusetts it’s more than just a Senate race, it’s a battle that could end President Obama’s fight for health care reform. We’ll tell you why Republicans are smelling victory.         

7:08AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Right now to the hotly contested race in Massachusetts for the Senate seat left vacant by the late Ted Kennedy. The special election is tomorrow. This is key to the President’s battle for health care reform. And it is a sprint to the finish for both candidates. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is in Cambridge, Massachusetts with the latest. Nancy, good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning to you, Maggie, from snowy Massachusetts. Where it seems like the entire political world has congregated. Both sides are pulling out all the stops for this close race. The President was here campaigning yesterday for the Democrat. And no wonder, if she loses, it will be a major blow to his ability to get his agenda passed.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Race For Kennedy’s Seat; Obama Campaigns As GOP Hopes For Upset]

BARACK OBAMA: And I am here to tell you that the person for that job is your attorney general, Martha Coakley.

CORDES: Up until just a few weeks ago, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley was considered a shoo-in. After all, the seat she’s seeking has been in Democratic hands since 1962. But a spade of recent polls, including a new Suffolk University survey, show her losing to Republican opponent Scott Brown by a few points. Democrats decided late last week to send in the President. Coakley’s Republican challenger, Scott Brown, has made stopping the health care reform bill a signature issue. A message that seems to be resonating with voters.

SCOTT BROWN: Come Tuesday, we are going send a thunder clap around the country to let people know not only here in Massachusetts, but the people in Washington, that they’re tired and we’re tired of business as usual in Washington.

CORDES: If Coakley loses this race, Democrats will lose their supermajority in the Senate. Meaning they won’t be able to pass Democratic priorities like health care reform unless they can convince a few Republicans to vote with them.

JON KELLER [POLITICAL ANALYST, WBZ-TV]: It would be just the latest in a series of really eyebrow-rasing indications that the public is tiring of the show they’re seeing  in Washington.

CORDES: Many political analysts expect this race to hinge on turnout. Statewide, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one. But 51% consider themselves independent and they are the ones, Maggie, who will decide this race.

RODRIGUEZ: Nancy, I think it’s important to point out that Republicans haven’t won a Senate seat in that state since 1972. Is the consensus that this is more – Scott Brown’s rise – is more about a feeling of going against President Obama or is it an attack on how Coakley has run her campaign?

CORDES: Well, I think those two are related. There’s a sense here that the Coakley campaign sort of took this race for granted after she sailed to victory in the primary because they didn’t properly read the political winds blowing in the country, didn’t think that those winds would blow into Massachusetts. Didn’t see the current dissatisfaction over health care reform. And so they ran a kind of laid back campaign where she didn’t hold a lot of events, she didn’t run a lot of ads. At the same time that Brown was coming on strong, blanketing the airwaves, and holding events everywhere.

RODRIGUEZ: It’ll be interesting to see if Brown, the Republican, wins, if the Democrats can defer his swearing in and get health care passed. We will watch that. Nancy, thank you.

On Friday’s CBS Early Show, People magazine editor Betsy Gleick discussed the latest issue, featuring an interview with Barack and Michelle Obama on their one-year anniversary in the White House, declaring: “I think the headline is that they are feeling optimistic that the country is back on track, and that they do feel that there are still some, obviously, huge challenges ahead.”  

Co-host Harry Smith added his own insight into President Obama: “...sometimes when you’re not talking to him, in particular, about the news events of the day, he says a lot about himself and what his experience has been like and he talked a lot about being in the bubble.” Gleick agreed: “Absolutely. I mean, one of the most touching parts of the interview is that he just talked about the loneliness of the job and some of the loneliness he embraces, he realizes that he has big decisions that he alone needs to make. But he misses being out among regular people.”

Smith was also in awe of new photos of the first couple: “These pictures also that accompany the piece are just stunning... these may be among the best pictures, I think, we’ve seen of the two of them.” Gleick replied: “They’re beautiful, I agree.”

As photos of the Obamas appeared on screen, Smith wondered: “What do you think the pictures say about what they’re like?” Gleick gushed: “Well, they really are genuinely affectionate with one another....They’re comfortable. They have sort of taken to life in the White House.” Smith added: “Starting to wear it a little bit more.”

At the top of the segment, Smith noted that “First Lady Michelle Obama’s 46th birthday is Sunday” and near the end of the discussion with Gleick he pointed out a few of her favorite things that he had in studio: “We know she likes french fries. This is a real life, honest to goodness, deep dish pizza from Chicago, from UNO’s on Ohio Street. And a copy of ‘Do The Right Thing,’ Spike Lee’s ‘Do The Right Thing,’ which was the movie they saw on their first date, I guess.”

Smith concluded: “We’ll look forward to seeing the piece in People magazine.”

While the Early Show made room for President Obama’s one year anniversary and the First Lady’s favorite foods, the broadcast completely ignored the tightening Massachusetts Senate race for the seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. A Suffolk University poll released on Friday had Republican Scott Brown leading Democrat Martha Coakley 50% to 46%.  

Here is a full transcript of the Obama story:

8:38AM

HARRY SMITH: First Lady Michelle Obama’s 46th birthday is Sunday, just a few days before President Obama marks the first anniversary of his inauguration, and People magazine sat down with the first couple to talk about the past year. And People’s executive editor, Betsy Gleick, is here to tell us all about it. Good morning.

BETSY GLEICK: Hi, Harry.

SMITH: What a revelatory interview. If there’s a headline from this, what do you feel it would be?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: A Year In The White House; Obamas On Personal Life & First Lady’s B-Day]

GLEICK: I think the headline is that they are feeling optimistic that the country is back on track, and that they do feel that there are still some, obviously, huge challenges ahead.

SMITH: Yeah, what’s interesting to me, because sometimes when you’re not talking to him, in particular, about the news events of the day, he says a lot about himself and what his experience has been like and he talked a lot about being in the bubble.

GLEICK: Absolutely. I mean, one of the most touching parts of the interview is that he just talked about the loneliness of the job and some of the loneliness he embraces, he realizes that he has big decisions that he alone needs to make. But he misses being out among regular people.

SMITH: Yeah. These pictures also that accompany the piece are just stunning. I’m looking at them now. And these may be among the best pictures, I think, we’ve seen of the two of them.

GLEICK: They’re beautiful, I agree.

SMITH: Yeah. What do you think the pictures say about what they’re like?

GLEICK: Well, they really are genuinely affectionate with one another. And I think the pictures show that. They’re comfortable. They have sort of taken to life in the White House. Their children have taken to life in the White House. And they are – they are relaxing into the job. Not relaxing. I mean, it’s a difficult job, but they are comfortable.

SMITH: Starting to wear it a little bit more.

GLEICK: Absolutely.

SMITH: The part of the interview were they’re talking about the kids and observing the kids when they got to meet the Pope and them trying as best they can to make life as normal as possible. But it’s not.

GLEICK: That’s right. They’re adorable anecdotes about Sasha and Malia and just the fact that the girls are starting to feel like it’s home.

SMITH: And how is the garden?

GLEICK: The garden has produced pounds and pounds of food.

SMITH: Thousands of pounds, it turns out.

GLEICK: Yes, yes.        

SMITH: And it seems to me that if there is one takeaway about Michelle Obama from this first year, it really is this thing about eating better and – and about being able to sustain yourself in some ways.

GLEICK: That’s right. And she tells us we’re going to be hearing a lot more this year from her about childhood obesity and healthy eating for families.

SMITH: Yeah. We have some things out here, it’s Michelle’s birthday this weekend. We know she likes french fries. This is a real life, honest to goodness, deep dish pizza from Chicago, from UNO’s on Ohio Street. And a copy of ‘Do The Right Thing,’ Spike Lee’s ‘Do The Right Thing,’ which was the movie they saw on their first date, I guess.

GLEICK: That’s right, yes.

SMITH: There you go. Betsy Gleick, thanks for stopping by this morning.

GLEICK: Absolutely.

SMITH: We’ll look forward to seeing the piece in People magazine.

While speculating that Tonight Show host Conan O’Brien may move to Fox in the wake of NBC shaking up its late night schedule, on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez referred to Sarah Palin becoming a contributor for Fox News: “Sarah Palin his sidekick? Because she’s on Fox now, too.”

Co-host Harry Smith couldn’t resist getting in a shot of his own as he replied that Palin could “lead the band” for O’Brien’s Fox late night show. Of course if O’Brien made the move, he would be on the Fox broadcast channel, not Fox News.

Earlier, co-host Russ Mitchell reported Palin’s Fox News debut on Tuesday’s O’Reilly Factor: “Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made her debut on Fox News last night. She appeared as a news analyst with Bill O’Reilly, who asked her about the controversy she attracts.”

On Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith followed President Obama’s lead by wondering if it was time to move on from the Harry Reid racial controversy, as he asked Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez and Democrat Dee Dee Myers: “Is the Reid story over and should it be?”

Sanchez rejected the notion that the story, which just broke over weekend, was over: “I think it’s just the beginning. It’s actually compounding....you look at his declining poll numbers in his state, declining support for health care reform, and overall his ineffectiveness in leadership.” Predictably, Myers took the opposite view: “Yeah, it’s pretty much over and it should be. Senator Reid has apologized....African-American leaders across the country have been largely supportive, including the President....he has been an effective leader. He’s gotten health care further than any Senate Majority Leader in 50 years.”

In a prior report, correspondent Nancy Cordes declared: “...the President needs Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid working at full steam if he wants to pass a health care bill quickly....that’s one of the reasons that he’s giving the leader some very high profile defense.” A clip was played of Obama arguing: “This is a good man who has always been on the right side of history....for people to try to make hay out of that makes absolutely no sense.”

At the top of the segment, Smith reported the latest CBS News poll, showing Obama’s approval rating continuing to fall: “We start this morning with some bad poll numbers for President Obama. A new CBS News poll says 46% of Americans approve of how the President is doing his job. It is the first time on the CBS poll that his approval ratings have dropped below 50%.”

Smith later asked Sanchez and Myers about the poll numbers: “...this recession is this president’s recession and the recovery, if and, or when it happen, he’ll be able to take credit for that, too. 46% in a year, that’s a pretty precipitous drop. Is there anything...this president can do to change that number?” Myers admitted: “You’re right, this is no longer seen as President Bush’s economy. It’s now President Obama’s economy. And he needs to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs.”

Smith turned to Sanchez, adding: “...are Republicans chomping at the bit... are they salivating looking at a number like this one year after this president has taken office?” Sanchez replied: “...voters gave the President the benefit of the doubt in putting forward economic policies that would get the economy moving. He’s proven that those were poor choices....It’s very alarming and people are showing it in the polls.”

At the end of the segment, Smith asked about Sarah Palin becoming a Fox News contributor and the impact on her political career. Sanchez observed: “ I think she’s actually taking a page out of the Ronald Reagan play book. It’s something he did in 1976 to 1980. He had a radio show....It’s a good platform and could lead her down the road to 2012.” Myers agreed: “...it keeps her in front of the public, particularly a Republican base that already loves her. Gives her a chance to flesh out positions and stay visible.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: President Obama accepts Senator Reid’s apology, but he’s got his own problems. For the first time the President’s approval rating has dipped below 50%, we’ll have the latest CBS News poll.
                
7:00AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: We start this morning with some bad poll numbers for President Obama. A new CBS News poll says 46% of Americans approve of how the President is doing his job. It is the first time on the CBS poll that his approval ratings have dropped below 50%. And the President is still dealing with fallout from Senator Harry Reid’s comments. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is in Washington with more. Nancy, Good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Harry. And the President needs Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid working at full steam if he wants to pass a health care bill quickly and try to bring those numbers back up. That’s one of the reasons that he’s giving the leader some very high profile defense.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Reid Ruckus; Obama Accepts Senator’s Apology]

BARACK OBAMA: This is a good man who has always been on the right side of history.

CORDES: President Obama made it clear he’s standing by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

OBAMA: For him to have used some in-artful language in trying to praise me and for people to try to make hay out of that makes absolutely no sense.

CORDES: A host of African-American leaders have rallied to Reid’s defense, as well, arguing that despite his poor choice of words, Reid was unfortunately correct when he told the authors of the new book ‘Game Change’ back in 2008 that Barack Obama had a real shot at the presidency because he was a, quote, ‘light-skinned African-American with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.’

HARRY REID: I’ve apologized to the President, I’ve apologized to everyone within the sound of my voice that could I have used a better choice of words.

CORDES: Reid likely won’t bow to Republican demands that he relinquish his leadership post. Not with the White House and Democratic establishment standing firmly in his corner as they try to turn the focus back to health care reform. Reid, who is 70 years old, is a former boxer. He always describes himself as a fighter and he says that he has apologized now and he just wants to move on. He also says he’s not going to back down from a tough re-election fight in Nevada, where he is currently trailing badly. Harry.

SMITH: Nancy Cordes in Washington this morning, thank you. Joining us also from Washington, Democratic strategist Dee Dee Myers and Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez. Good morning to you both.

DEE DEE MYERS: Good morning.

LESLIE SANCHEZ: Good morning.

SMITH: Let me start with you, Leslie. Is the Reid story over and should it be?

SANCHEZ: Not at all. I think it’s just the beginning. It’s actually compounding. Now look – you look at his declining poll numbers in his state, declining support for health care reform, and overall his ineffectiveness in leadership. Yes, they’re moving forward with health care reform, but overall, it’s dismantling in terms of the public – the public support of these efforts. I think it’s nothing but a signal-

SMITH: Dee Dee Myers, let me ask you the same question. Is the Reid story over and should be?.

MYERS: Yeah, it’s pretty much over and it should be. Senator Reid has apologized. I think it’s important, even in Washington, to sometimes apply some context here. African-American leaders across the country have been largely supportive, including the President. Most importantly, the President. Senator Reid – his approval rating is – from the NAACP for example over many years, is 100%. He’s somebody who’s been on the right side of the major issues of concern to the civil rights movement. He’s not going anywhere. He is in a tough re-election at home, though, unrelated to these comments. But he has been an effective leader. He’s gotten health care further than any Senate Majority Leader in 50 years. So we’ll see what happens.

SMITH: Let’s talk about these poll numbers then. First, Dee Dee, whether or not he likes it, this recession is this president’s recession and the recovery, if and, or when it happen, he’ll be able to take credit for that, too. 46% in a year, that’s a pretty precipitous drop. Is there anything, Dee Dee, this president can do to change that number?

MYERS: Well, it is a precipitous drop and obviously unsettling to the White House. I think what the President needs to do, and what he’s trying to do, is finish health care and move on to a greater focus on the economy. It’s very hard to for any president to stay popular when the unemployment is at 10%, that’s just a fact of life. You’re right, this is no longer seen as President Bush’s economy. It’s now President Obama’s economy. And he needs to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs.

SMITH: Leslie, do – are Republicans chomping at the bit, are they just – are they salivating looking at a number like this one year after this president has taken office?

SANCHEZ: Let’s be fair about this. Republicans, like all Americans, are concerned about getting this economy back on track. A lot – voters gave the President the benefit of the doubt in putting forward economic policies that would get the economy moving. He’s proven that those were poor choices. I think you’re seeing poor support with health care reform, poor support with his increased spending, the increases in deficits. It’s very alarming and people are showing it in the polls. But overall, I think the sentiment is frustration with Washington and let’s move forward with policies that spark the economy.

SMITH: Alright Leslie, very quickly, Sarah Palin takes a job at Fox. Does this mean she’s not going to run for president or does this mean she’s going to use Fox as a platform to run for – a launching pad to run for president?

SANCHEZ: It’s more of the latter, I think she’s actually taking a page out of the Ronald Reagan play book. It’s something he did in 1976 to 1980. He had a radio show. She’ll have tremendous support, a lot of primary Republican voters watch Fox News. And she’s going to be able to hopefully put together some cogent ideas on domestic policy issues, foreign policy. It’s a good platform and could lead her down the road to 2012.

SMITH: And Dee Dee, your opinion, very quickly?

MYERS: I totally agree with Leslie. She’s keeping her options open. I don’t think this means she’s in or out of the presidential race, but it keeps her in front of the public, particularly a Republican base that already loves her. Gives her a chance to flesh out positions and stay visible.

SMITH: Alright, Dee Dee, thank you so much. Leslie, do appreciate it. Have a good morning, guys.

MYERS: Thanks, you too.

SANCHEZ: Thank you.

While discussing Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview with former McCain campaign adviser Steve Schmidt on Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer about the claim that Palin knew little of modern history: “Schmidt, last week tells 60 Minutes that she didn’t know anything....that included World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War.”

Rodriguez wondered if such allegations about Palin’s “supposed lack of knowledge” would be a future political liability, to which Schieffer replied: “You know, my take on Sarah Palin has always been she will never again seek public office....[she] resigned the governorship of Alaska and I think it would be very, very difficult for her in any primary that comes up, the first thing a candidate against her is going to say, ‘well, how long do you intend to stay if you get elected? If elected, do you promise to quit if the going gets tough?’”

In a report that preceded Rodriguez’s discussion with Schieffer, correspondent Nancy Cordes detailed charges outlined in the new book ‘Game Change,’ about the 2008 campaign, including how “...there was friction on the Democratic ticket, too. ‘How many times is Biden going to say something stupid?’ an angry Mr. Obama reportedly asked campaign staff over one of his running mate’s legendary gaffes.” For some reason, Rodriguez did not ask Schieffer about this challenge to the Vice President’s intelligence.

Rodriguez did ask Schieffer about another revelation in the book, the comments made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that candidate Obama would do well in the 2008 campaign because he was “light skinned” and lacked a “Negro dialect.” While Rodriguez initially described the comments as a “political bombshell,” she later asked Schieffer about Republican calls for Reid to step down from his leadership position: “Is it safe to say that no matter how much noise the Republicans make, as long as the Democrats need Harry Reid to push health care reform, need him in that seat, that nothing’s going to come of this?” Schieffer agreed: “I think that’s probably right, Maggie.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: A new book has detonated a political bombshell. What Senate majority leader Harry Reid said about President Obama and why Republicans are demanding Reid step down.

7:01AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: First this morning, some Republicans calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to resign after questionable comments Reid made about President Obama were disclosed in a bombshell new book. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes has the latest. Good morning, Nancy.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Maggie. That’s right, Republican leaders argue there’s a double standard going on here, that if any of them had uttered the racial remark now attributed to Harry Reid, Democrats would be calling for their heads. The book quotes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as saying in 2008 that then Senator Obama had a real shot at the White House because he was a ‘light-skinned’ African-American, quote, ‘with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.’ After the quote was made public Saturday, Leader Reid apologized to a number of black leaders, including the President, who released a statement saying, quote, ‘I accepted Harry’s apology without question. The book is closed.’ Not for Republican leaders, who say Reid should resign from his leadership post.

MICHAEL STEELE: When Democrats get caught saying racist things, you know, an apology is enough.

CORDES: Reid’s comment is only one bombshell in ‘Game Change,’ a new book about the 2008 election and its aftermath. The authors also claim that when President Obama asked Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state, she warned him her famous husband might make trouble. And they claim John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, had second thoughts right from the start. Quote, ‘If I’d known everything I know now, I would not have done this,’ she said. On last night’s 60 Minutes, McCain’s campaign manager confirmed there was extension on the trail.

ANDERSON COOPER: You apparently said ‘she doesn’t know anything.’

STEVE SCHMIDT: In the immediate aftermath of her selection, it was clear to us that we had a lot of work to do.

CORDES: The authors contend there was friction on the Democratic ticket, too. ‘How many times is Biden going to say something stupid?’ an angry Mr. Obama reportedly asked campaign staff over one of his running mate’s legendary gaffes. The White House insists that the amount of conflict in the book between these two men was overblown, but they do concede that the relationship between President Obama and Vice President Biden is much better now, much stronger now, than it was on the campaign trail. Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: CBS’s Nancy Cordes. Thank you, Nancy. Joining us now is Bob Schieffer, chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation. Bob, good morning.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Let’s start with Harry Reid’s comments. He has apologized for them. The President has accepted. The Democrats are rallying behind him. Is it safe to say that no matter how much noise the Republicans make, as long as the Democrats need Harry Reid to push health care reform, need him in that seat, that nothing’s going to come of this?

SCHIEFFER: I think that’s probably right, Maggie. And just for the reasons that you have cited. We were told yesterday that this is different than the time when Trent Lott, the Republican leader of the Senate, said that the country would have been better off, basically, had Strom Thurmond, a segregationist, been elected president. Trent Lott at that point was having a lot of problems with the White House and with his own party. And the White House just sort of threw him over the side, abandoned him. He had to step down. This time you have a White House that does need Harry Reid right now. So I think that Reid will survive as the Democratic leader in the Senate. However, this is going to make it much harder for him to be reelected out in Nevada, where he is already in very bad trouble. He’s running about 10 points behind every Republican that has announced they’re going to run. So I think this is more trouble for Harry Reid than it is for the White House at this point.

RODRIGUEZ: What about Sarah Palin’s political future? This book takes more shots at her and her supposed lack of knowledge. We heard former campaign manager for the McCain campaign, Steve Schmidt, last week tells 60 Minutes that she didn’t know anything. This book goes further, claiming that that included World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War. Does this affect her politically you think?

SCHIEFFER: You know, my take on Sarah Palin has always been she will never again seek public office. This is someone, Maggie, who resigned the governorship of Alaska and I think it would be very, very difficult for her in any primary that comes up, the first thing a candidate against her is going to say, ‘well, how long do you intend to stay if you get elected? If elected, do you promise to quit if the going gets tough?’ I think Sarah Palin is very popular with the right side of the Republican Party. I think she can raise a lot of money for them. I think you’re going to see her on the lecture circuit, but I have never thought that she would be a viable candidate again. This is my opinion, clearly labeled, but I just don’t think she has a future a as a candidate. As a fund-raiser, as a celebrity, yes, but as a candidate, I really don’t think this really makes that much difference.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Bob Schieffer, I could talk to you forever. Unfortunately, we’re out of time. Thanks for talking with us.
SCHIEFFER: Well, thank you, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Okay.

On Friday, the CBS Early Show promoted President Obama’s stronger anti-terror language as correspondent Chip Reid proclaimed: “The President accepted responsibility for the attack. He said the buck stops with him. He also adopted his toughest tone yet, stressing that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda.”

Reid later cited security improvements made under the Bush administration to minimize the failures of the Obama administration: “Security expert Edward Alden says despite the Christmas day attack, U.S. intelligence has improved dramatically over the past decade.” Alden explained: “This is a difficult job and I think that we are much better placed now, by a long shot, than we were before 9/11.”

Reid concluded his report by describing Obama’s relief at being able to move on to other topics: “After two weeks of dealing with terrorism, almost around the clock, today, the President hopes to shift the focus, he’ll be giving a statement on what he’s doing to create jobs.”

Prior to Reid’s report, correspondent Dean Reynolds detailed the criminal proceedings against the would-be underwear bomber: “The 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab faces a six count indictment....It is a pretty strong case according to former prosecutors.”

Reynolds noted that: “...there are legal issues, too, should Abdulmutallab be tried in a criminal court or go before a military tribunal?” A clip was played of Wayne State University Law School professor Peter Henning arguing: “Because of the type of conduct that was involved here and where it happened, that this is where the regular courts, the regular federal courts should take over. And pursue the case.” No opposing point of view was offered.

Following both reports, co-host Harry Smith spoke with former National Intelligence Director under President Bush, John Negroponte. Negroponte gave a positive assessment of the Obama administration’s handling of the attempted terrorist attack: “I think it was good that he dealt with this so quickly, that they came up with this preliminary report so fast and that they’ve taken responsibility. I think as was suggested by one of the earlier speakers, he’s certainly moving comfortably into his commander in chief role. And so I think they’ve handled this situation well.”

Smith wondered how much really could have been done to stop the attack: “So much has been said since Christmas day about connecting the dots. The President said it again yesterday. You have lived in the reality of this business. Should we think that those dots were connectible?” Negroponte replied: “...these were fragmentary pieces of information. If we did not have the entire narrative of some kind of a plot as we have had in other instances where we disrupted these serious attacks. So it’s a judgment call.”

Here is a full transcript of the Negroponte interview:

7:08AM

HARRY SMITH: Ambassador John Negroponte served as Director of National Intelligence under President George W. Bush and he joins us this morning from Washington. Mr. Ambassador, good morning.

JOHN NEGROPONTE: Good morning.

SMITH: Give me your reaction to the President’s comments yesterday.

NEGROPONTE: Well, I think it was good that he dealt with this so quickly, that they came up with this preliminary report so fast and that they’ve taken responsibility. I think as was suggested by one of the earlier speakers, he’s certainly moving comfortably into his commander in chief role. And so I think they’ve handled this situation well. Clearly something went seriously wrong in not getting this individual on the watch list that would have prevented him from getting on that aircraft.

SMITH: So much has been said since Christmas day about connecting the dots. The President said it again yesterday. You have lived in the reality of this business. Should we think that those dots were connectible?

NEGROPONTE: That’s a really great question. And I still – you know, I’m thinking hard about that one because they talk about it might have prevented him – this plot from unfolding. It could have disrupted it. But these were fragmentary pieces of information. If we did not have the entire narrative of some kind of a plot as we have had in other instances where we disrupted these serious attacks.

SMITH: Let me ask-

NEGROPONTE: So it’s a judgment call.

SMITH: Yeah. Some – there is criticism that this entire mechanism or series of mechanisms that are supposed to deal with this are just too big, that the bureaucracy that is – has been empowered with dealing with this, there’s just too much of it. Is there any validity to that?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I don’t know. There’s 28 different databases. At least there were when I was director of National Intelligence, pouring information into that counterterrorism center. They’ve only got a total of 600 people, 300 of them are analysts. I don’t think that’s really out of line when you’re talking about an intelligence community of 100,000 people. Let’s not forget the traveling public is a very large public. They’re literally millions of people and hundreds of thousands of flights taking place all the time. So it’s a big – it’s a big problem and it requires a fairly big solution.

SMITH: But in your final analysis, you feel like this administration is at least heading in the right direction?

NEGROPONTE: Oh, absolutely. And I agree with those who are saying that we are safer than we were before 9/11. This is a question of tweaking the system. We dodged a bullet obviously. It was a near miss. But I think the President is taking appropriate, prompt, and corrective action.
            
SMITH: Mr. Ambassador, we thank you for your time this morning. Good to see you, thank you.

NEGROPONTE: Thank you, Harry.

Friday’s CBS Early Show previewed an upcoming "60 Minutes" interview with former McCain campaign adviser Steve Schmidt as co-host Harry Smith declared: “John McCain’s former top adviser comes out swinging and tells "60 minutes" Sarah Palin often struggled with straight talk.” A clip was played of Schmidt claiming “there were numerous instances” when Palin “said things that were not accurate.”

Co-host Maggie Rodriguez later teased the interview by describing how Schmidt “gets tough on Sarah Palin” and referred to it as “explosive.” While introducing a brief preview clip of the interview, set to air on Sunday’s "60 Minutes", Rodriguez proclaimed: “the blunt-talking political strategist who ran John McCain’s presidential campaign, is going rogue, speaking out for the first time since the election....And when it comes to Sarah Palin, he’s not holding back.”

In the featured clip, Schmidt attacked Palin’s credibility and lamented how “...the campaign had to deal with and that opened the door to criticism that she was being untruthful and inaccurate.” He added: “And I think that that is something that continues to this day.” A headline on-screen read: “Going Rogue; Fmr. McCain Adviser Slams Palin on '60 Minutes'”

Guest "60 Minutes" correspondent, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, conducted the interview and asked Schmidt if the criticism was “fair.” After Schmidt argued it was, Cooper helped further the anti-Palin rhetoric: “After an ethics investigation of Palin, when the Alaska legislature issued a report, Schmidt says she mis-characterized that report.” Schimdt claimed: “She went out and said that, you know, this report completely exonerates me and, in fact, it didn’t....It was provably, demonstrably untrue.” Cooper noted: “And Schmidt said it just kept happening.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:
 
HARRY SMITH: John McCain’s former top adviser comes out swinging and tells "60 minutes" Sarah Palin often struggled with straight talk.

STEVE SCHMIDT: There were numerous instances that she said things that were – that were not accurate.

SMITH: We’ll have more from the controversial new interview.

7:16AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Still ahead this morning, a top John McCain adviser gets tough on Sarah Palin. We’re going to tell you what he has to say in an explosive "60 Minutes" interview.

7:20AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Steve Schmidt, the blunt-talking political strategist who ran John McCain’s presidential campaign, is going rogue, speaking out for the first time since the election in an interview on this Sunday’s "60 Minutes." And when it comes to Sarah Palin, he’s not holding back.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Going Rogue; Fmr. McCain Adviser Slams Palin on 60 Minutes]

STEVE SCHMIDT: There were numerous instances that she said things that were – that were not accurate, that ultimately the campaign had to deal with and that opened the door to criticism that she was being untruthful and inaccurate. And I think that that is something that continues to this day.

ANDERSON COOPER: And do you think that’s fair criticism?

SCHMIDT: I think it’s fair criticism.

COOPER: After an ethics investigation of Palin, when the Alaska legislature issued a report, Schmidt says she mis-characterized that report.

SCHMIDT: She went out and said that, you know, this report completely exonerates me and, in fact, it didn’t. You know, it’s the equivalent of saying down is up and up is down. It was provably, demonstrably untrue.

COOPER: And Schmidt said it just kept happening.

SCHMIDT: Stuff like the Alaska Independence Party that her husband had been a member of for seven years. She wanted to put out a statement saying that he was not a member of it. He was a member of it.

RODRIGUEZ: You can see the full interview on "60 Minutes" this Sunday night right here on CBS.

For CBS News viewers following the first week of the Israeli military’s war against Hamas in Gaza, which news shows began reporting the morning of Saturday, December 27, 2008, one could easily have gotten the impression that Israel was starving the people of Gaza by barring food entry as part of its blockade, as the network’s newscasts – The Early Show and the CBS Evening News – not only ignored news of aid shipments being allowed to cross Israel’s border into the Gaza Strip – which did receive a little attention from evening and morning newscasts on the other broadcast and news networks – but CBS also ran reports about the Israeli military blocking food and other aid into the territory. On the December 29 Evening News, correspondent Sheila MacVicar claimed: "But the violence was not one-sided. Israel carried out targeted killings, and more importantly, for the people of Gaza, imposed and tightened an economic blockade that cut off supplies of food, medicine and even electricity." During the second week of the war, on the January 7 The Early Show, correspondent Richard Roth even gave the impression that aid had not been allowed into Gaza in weeks as he reported on the humanitarian ceasefire: "Trucks full of food, water, medical supplies and fuel started moving after waiting for weeks on Israel's side of the Gaza border."

On the December 30 The Early Show, anchor Jeff Glor reported on former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney’s presence on a ship attempting to deliver supplies to Gaza which was "rammed" by the Israeli military. Glor notably misidentified McKinney as if she were a current member of Congress – which could arguably give her more credibility – and did not inform viewers of Israel’s account of the incident or of McKinney’s controversial history, which includes links to anti-Semitic figures. Glor: "A relief ship carrying a Georgia Congressman, Cynthia McKinney, clashed with the Israeli navy this morning. The aid boat carrying activists and medical supplies destined for Gaza was reportedly rammed by an Israeli gunship. There were no casualties." For more on McKinney’s controversial history, see: "CBS Highlights Cynthia McKinney’s Gaza Adventure, Ignores Her Extremism and Anti-Semitic Connections."

On the January 1 CBS Evening News, correspondent Mark Phillips even took out of context an Israeli statement that "there is no humanitarian crisis" in Gaza and paired it with images of suffering Palestinian children, as if to blatantly embarrass the Israelis and make it appear that they were in denial of or indifferent to civilians who had been injured. After showing a clip of Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni talking about keeping "pressure on the extremists like Hamas," which she made during her trip to France, Phillips continued: "But the pressure is not just being felt by Hamas extremists. However well they are aimed, the bombs kill and injure the innocents as well." Pairing a voiceover of himself with heartwrenching clips of Palestinian children who were either injured or who had terrified facial expressions, Phillips concluded: "Israel says there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza."

But the Israeli contention that "there is no humanitarian crisis" in Gaza, presumably taken from Livni’s words, was not a statement that was directed at civilian injuries, but instead was referring to the amount of humanitarian aid the Israeli military had allowed into Gaza, as she was rejecting international calls for a truce to deliver more aid, according to a January 2 article in the Washington Post. The article, titled "Senior Hamas Leader Killed; Israelis Stand Ready to Invade Gaza by Land," by Griff Witte, reads: "Speaking in Paris after meetings with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Livni said there is no humanitarian reason for a cease-fire. ‘There is no humanitarian crisis in the strip, and therefore there is no need for a humanitarian truce,’ she said. ‘Israel has been supplying comprehensive humanitarian aid to the strip.’" So, even while using a quote from an Israeli official who was referring to the aid that had already been delivered into Gaza, the CBS correspondent still managed not to inform viewers about the existence of this aid.

More elaboration on the January 1 story by Mark Phillips can be found at "CBS Paints Israelis as in Denial of Civilian Suffering, Ignores Aid Shipments."

CBS did not report on any shipments of aid into the Gaza Strip until the Friday, January 2, CBS Evening News, nearly a full week after the campaign in Gaza began on Saturday, December 27. And even on the January 2 Evening News, substitute host Jeff Glor only vaguely informed viewers that "Israel is letting aid in, but the only thing not in short supply is misery."

CBS did not report on the entry of humanitarian aid again until the January 7 ceasefire. As previously noted, on the January 7 The Early Show, correspondent Richard Roth gave the impression that aid had not entered Gaza in weeks: "Trucks full of food, water, medical supplies and fuel started moving after waiting for weeks on Israel's side of the Gaza border."

On the January 6 Evening News, Katie Couric previewed the upcoming ceasefire: "Late today Israel agreed to set up a humanitarian corridor so urgently needed supplies of food and medicine can be brought in." On January 7, the Evening News and The Early Show both informed viewers of the humanitarian corridor that resulted from the ceasefire agreement.

By contrast, while airing complaints that not enough aid was getting through or that people were afraid to leave their homes to collect supplies during the airstrikes, each of the other networks did at least run a few reports during the first week informing its viewers of aid shipments traveling into Gaza. ABC’s World News on December 26 noted the entry of supplies into Gaza before the war even began, although the report could have given the impression that food had been among the supplies not into Gaza since the previous year. On the December 26 World News, substitute anchor David Muir reported: "Israel opened its border to allow food and medicine into the Gaza Strip, despite a barrage of rockets fired by Palestinian militants there in recent days. The crossings into Gaza have been largely closed since Hamas militants seized control of the coastal strip there last year. Israel agreed yesterday to allow the shipments to avoid a humanitarian crisis."

On the December 26, 2008, World News with Charles Gibson, substitute anchor David Muir reported: "And in the Middle East tonight, Israel opened its border to allow food and medicine into the Gaza strip, despite a barrage of rockets fired by Palestinian militants there in recent days. The crossings into Gaza have been largely closed since Hamas militants seized control of the coastal strip there last year. Israel agreed yesterday to allow the shipments to avoid a humanitarian crisis."

On the December 30, 2008, World News with Charles Gibson, ABC’s Miguel Marquez reported: "One glimmer of hope today, Israel allowed in some medical aid, and generators."

On the December 31, 2008, Good Morning America, ABC’s Bianna Golodryga reported: "But Israel is allowing over 100 trucks full of aid into Gaza today. And the deal is in the works to move seriously wounded Palestinians to Israeli hospitals."

And also on the December 31 Good Morning America, ABC’s Simon McGregor-Wood reported: "Israel will send in more aid today, as they have been doing. Generators and hospital supplies crossing into Gaza on Tuesday. ... Israeli officials say they're only interested in a sustainable cease-fire. And in the meantime, they're doing everything they can to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. They're letting injured Palestinian patients out, and for the first time, letting aid from the Gulf state of Qatar back in to Gaza."

McGregor-Wood reported again later: "In Gaza, life is becoming more difficult. This was a line for bread. But Israel denies it is causing the humanitarian crisis. Today, it let 93 trucks of aid in, and, in front of the cameras, this injured Palestinian out."

On the January 3, 2009, Good Morning America, ABC’s Miguel Marquez: "For people on this tiny strip of land, it is misery. The UN reports despite Israel allowing some aid through, it is not enough. Eighty of the people here are dependent on aid. Food is short, hospitals overrun, electricity, mostly shut down, water running low, and sewage systems not functioning."

On the January 4, 2009, This Week on ABC, as he was interviewed by host George Stephanopoulos, Israeli President Shimon Peres notably contradicted claims of a scarcity of food. Peres: "Even today, by the way, one of the passages is open because there is no shortage of basic needs in Gaza. We take care that medical equipment and food and fuel will arrive to Gaza, even today."

On the December 28, 2008, Sunday Today show, NBC’s Martin Fletcher noted: "The Israelis also pointing out that they are allowing some humanitarian assistance into the Gaza Strip and saying that yesterday's casualties – 270 Palestinians killed, the biggest total in nearly 40 years of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians – of those 270, at least 180 were Hamas policemen."

On the December 30, 2008, NBC Nightly News, Fletcher: "At the minimum, European leaders are demanding a humanitarian aid corridor be open to Gaza, and Israel today allowed 100 trucks to cross, carrying food and medicine, some small relief for the people of Gaza."

On the January 1, 2009, NBC Nightly News, Fletcher: "Inside Gaza, one and a half million people short of everything. But Israel says it's allowed in more than 350 trucks of humanitarian aid into Gaza since the fighting began ... But in the hospitals, doctors say it's a disaster. They're out of beds, out of medicines and cannot cope with the wounded."

On the January 3, 2009, Saturday Today, NBC’s Tom Aspell: "Israel is allowing some supplies to enter Gaza, about 90 truckloads a day. But Gaza's 1.5 million people are short of food, clean water and medical supplies."

On the January 5, 2009, Today show, Fletcher: "Despite the heavy fighting today, Israel allowed a convoy of trucks carrying humanitarian aid to cross into Gaza – a gesture – while thousands more Israeli troops are waiting on the border."

On the December 29, CBS Evening News, correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported: "Since 2005, Hamas militants and their allies have launched more than 6,000 rockets at Israeli targets. Ten people have been killed. As candidate Barack Obama discovered when he toured the frequently hit Israeli town of Sderot last summer, however crudely ineffective the attacks, people did live in fear. ... But the violence was not one-sided. Israel carried out targeted killings, and more importantly, for the people of Gaza, imposed and tightened an economic blockade that cut off supplies of food, medicine and even electricity. The theory was that would encourage Palestinians to reject Hamas. That didn't work. Unwilling to talk to Hamas with Israeli elections coming soon, with no serious prospects for peace, Israel did what it has done before and vows to continue.

On the December 30, The Early Show on CBS, Jeff Glor reported: "A relief ship carrying a Georgia Congressman Cynthia McKinney clashed with the Israeli navy this morning. The aid boat carrying activists and medical supplies destined for Gaza was reportedly rammed by an Israeli gunship. There were no casualties."

On the January 2, 2009, CBS Evening News, substitute anchor Jeff Glor reported for the first time on his network that aid was being allowed into Gaza: "And Gazans continue to struggle to survive both the bombs and the shortages of everything. Israel is letting aid in, but the only thing not in short supply is misery. Some are escaping Gaza's horrors. The Israelis have allowed several bus loads of foreigners to leave the prison that the strip has become. They're the foreign-born wives and children of Gazan men. And they're leaving their husbands and fathers behind to who knows what fate."

On the January 5, 2009, CBS Evening News, Mark Phillips aired complaints of not having enough food and water:

MARK PHILLIPS: For the third night in a row, the fighting is furious, the combat closer than it's been until now as Israeli troops have begun pushing into the heavily populated areas where Hamas fighters wait. The Israelis have continued the relentless air and artillery pounding that has traumatized Gaza's population, raised the civilian death toll and led to increasingly louder calls from around the world for the offensive to stop. The voices from within Gaza have become more desperate.

SAMEN HABEEB, GAZA RESIDENT: We don't have enough food. We don't have enough water. And as you hear, more bombings, and I can see the dust now over my house from the window. This night will be very hot.

On the January 6, 2009, The Early Show on CBS, Russ Mitchell reported: "For Palestinian civilians, water and medical supplies are running out fast. More than 500 Palestinians have been killed in the fighting thus far."

On the January 6, 2009, CBS Evening News, Katie Couric reported on the impending "humanitarian corridor"agreement: "Meanwhile, street battles continue inside Gaza, but late today Israel agreed to set up a humanitarian corridor so urgently needed supplies of food and medicine can be brought in. UN officials say more than 600 Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli offensive, half of them civilians."

During the 7:00 a.m. hour of the January 7 The Early Show, CBS anchor Julie Chen announced: "Both Israel and Hamas say they will stop military operations in Gaza this morning for three hours to allow humanitarian supplies to be delivered."

Correspondent Richard Roth then delivered his report in which viewers could have gotten the impression that food had not been allowed into Gaza in weeks. Roth: "The announcement came first from the Israelis, who say that for a few hours each day now, its military will hold fire in a preannounced part of Gaza to allow the establishment of a so-called humanitarian corridor for aid. Trucks full of food, water, medical supplies and fuel started moving after waiting for weeks on Israel's side of the Gaza border. ... Outrage over the Israeli shelling of a UN school in Gaza where hundreds of Palestinians had taken refuge may have helped motivate the humanitarian gesture. Israel says it was returning fire from Hamas militants inside the school compound, but the death of more than 40 people and pictures of the horrific aftermath clearly added to the sense of urgency. ..."

After Roth’s report came an interview by phone with Norwegian Doctor Mads Gilbert from the main hospital in Gaza, without informing viewers of his pro-9/11, anti-Israel views which should have raised suspicions about whether he was reliable witness.

On the January 7, 2009, CBS Evening News Katie Couric teased the show: "Tonight, a brief pause in the war in Gaza to get humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians. As the fighting resumes, pressure builds on Israel to make the truce permanent." Couric later added: "The fighting stopped in Gaza today – for a few hours, anyway – and now there's a new push for a permanent cease-fire. ... During today's three-hour truce, truckloads of food and medicine were sent in."

On the January 9, 2009, CBS Evening News, Mark Phillips, without informing viewers of the blockade’s importance in preventing Iran or Syria from supplying weapons to Hamas, the CBS correspondent seemed to imply that Hamas leaders were actually concerned about the welfare of the civilian population as he referred to Hamas wanting an end to the Israeli blockade "strangling" Gaza right before adding that "the innocent suffer." Phillips: "Israel is not only demanding the rocket fire stop, but that Hamas be kept from re-arming itself. And Hamas keeps fighting because it wants the Israeli blockade that is strangling Gaza lifted. And the innocent suffer. Allegations, some of them supported by UN officials in Gaza, continue to be made of Israeli targeting of civilians. This woman told CBS News 20 members of her family were herded into a house by the Israelis, that her husband was shot, and that tank fire badly injured her children. The Israelis deny these accounts."

The day before the war began, during the 9:00 a.m. hour of CNN Newsroom on December 26, 2008, correspondent Alina Cho reported: "And for the first time in ten days, Israel has opened three border crossings with Gaza. About 80 trucks were expected to cross into Gaza. They're hauling goods including fuel and cooking gas. Officials say the decision to open the crossings came after requests from international aid groups in Egypt. Now whether the crossings remain open will be a daily decision."

When CNN’s The Situation Room reported on the ship collision, substitute anchor Suzanne Malveaux did at least describe McKinney as "controversial" as she introduced the story on the December 30 show, and cited the time she slapped a Capitol Hill police officer. Malveaux: "A controversial political figure here in the U.S. is rocking the boat again in connection with the crisis in Gaza now. Many people remember former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in a dustup in which she allegedly slapped a Capitol Hill police officer. But McKinney's public career has been packed with attention-grabbing moments, including this new one. "

But on the December 30, American Morning, CNN anchor John Roberts and correspondent Karl Penhaul – who was on the ship, the SS Dignity, which McKinney was on – sounded sympathetic to the ship’s effort to run the blockade. Since the vessel was damaged, Roberts asked if there was any chance someone else would be willing to "take up the charge" and "try to get those medical supplies in":

KARL PENHAUL: Now from what we've seen from the repeated airstrikes in Gaza, any medical aid at this stage is critical. And not only is the Dignity trying to ferry in three tons of medical aid, but we have a surgeon on board. We also have members of the Cypriot Parliament. It has a children's doctor from the London's Great Ormond Street on board. We have other doctors on board. These are clearly qualified medical personnel and with much needed aid at a time when the humanitarian plight of the Gaza people is extreme in the wake of these successive Israeli airstrikes.

JOHN ROBERTS: Karl, taking a look at the damage to the superstructure there on the bridge of the Dignity, it's not going anywhere for a while. Is there anybody else there on the port city of Tyre who's willing to take up the charge to go back out there on the seas and try to get those medical supplies in, or is the word there now that it's just too dangerous with those Israeli patrol boats running around? And as you have described, it would appear all too ready to challenge any vessels that come into the area.

For more on CNN’s reporting of Cynthia McKinney’s attempt to run the blockade of Gaza, see: "CBS Highlights Cynthia McKinney’s Gaza Adventure, Ignores Extremism & Anti-Semitic Connections."

During the 6:00 a.m. hour of the December 31, 2008, American Morning on CNN, correspondent Hancocks reported: " But at this point, Israel still not opening up those borders, and certainly not opening up the borders to allow much humanitarian assistance in either. Some of the borders are being opened for a little bit of time, but it's a drop in the ocean, according to these aid agencies, the amount of medical supplies and food and water that is getting in to Gaza. Those figures you were just mentioning from the Palestinian medical sources, we now have up to 390 killed and 1,900 injured. You can imagine the state of the hospitals without enough medical supplies.

During the 7:00 a.m. hour of the December 31, 2008, American Morning, CNN anchor Christine Romans reported: "Israel says it won't stop its air attacks against Gaza despite a French proposal for a humanitarian truce. A spokesman for the Israeli government says that they need, quote, sustainable solution and not a Band-Aid that will just kick the can down the road. A spokesman for Hamas says the violence needs to stop and humanitarian aid should be allowed into Gaza before any political solution can be discussed."

During the 1:00 p.m. hour of CNN Newsroom on December 31, 2008, anchor Fredricka Whitfield reported: "While there is no ceasefire, Israel says it will let 2000 tons of food and supplies into Gaza today. The U.N. plans to take in supplies tomorrow. A U.N. worker says there's no fuel or electricity in the territory right now."

During the 4:00 p.m. hour of the January 5, 2009, The Situation Room on CNN, correspondent Christiane Amanpour reported: "Obviously, very, very dire need also for humanitarian aid and more medical supplies. There's deep concern about the lack of water, the lack of medical supplies. And the numbers of bodies, dead and injured, are piling up at the hospitals there."

During the 7:00 a.m. hour of the January 6, American Morning on CNN, anchor John Roberts reported: "The Red Cross is saying the situation in Gaza is dire. A full-blown humanitarian crisis. We heard from one of the U.N. relief workers in Gaza City a few minutes ago here on the most news in the morning that it's literally impossible to get aid to people on the ground there. The Israelis are allowing it to cross the border. The Red Cross is able to get it into their hands, but getting it into those areas is extraordinarily difficult, because Gaza City is one of most densely populated places on earth. There's about 500,000 people living in that city proper, 1.4 million in the greater metropolitan area. And it would be like if the lower part of Manhattan were being targeted, just trying to get relief supplies into these areas with all of the bombs falling and with the ground assault going on as well.

On the January 6, 2009, American Morning on CNN, anchor Kieren Chetry reported: "The conflict sparking calls for Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza. Right now, the International Red Cross says the situation there is a full-blown humanitarian crisis."

During the 7:00 a.m. hour on the January 7, 2009, American Morning on CNN, anchor Kiran Chetry reported: "Israel has stopped its offensive in Gaza for three hours this morning to move to allow humanitarian aid into the area. The Red Cross says Gaza is suffering a full blown humanitarian crisis."

During the 8:00 a.m. hour on the January 7, 2009, American Morning on CNN, anchor Chetry reported: "Israel has temporarily stopped its attacks in Gaza to allow much-needed humanitarian aid into Gaza. CNN's Christiane Amanpour has the latest for us on this as they're calling it the humanitarian corridor trying to allow some of the supplies, including fuel, to get in."

Correspondent Christiane Amanpour continued: "But it's clearly in response to the deep distress of the civilians and the citizens in Gaza have been under with cuts in electricity, lack of water, fuel, food, and not being able to actually go to distribution centers. Remember, Gaza is a strip of land that it is about 80 percent dependent on hand-outs. So this is being severely impacted during this now 12-day military operation."

On the December 27, 2008, Fox Report, substitute anchor Jami Kolbe reported: "The Gaza Strip borders Western Israel and Egypt. Those two countries have virtually sealed off Gaza from the rest of the world, only allowing in humanitarian aid. The goal is to punish Hamas, which controls Gaza, but critics say the blockades have harmed everyone in Gaza, leading innocent civilians to suffer. Hamas responded to the blockades by firing dozens of rockets into Israel this week. The rockets land randomly, sending Israelis scrambling for cover, and making no distinction between military and civilian targets there. At least one person died in the latest round of launches from Hamas."

On the December 28, 2008, Fox Report, correspondent Mike Tobin reported: "Hospitals in Gaza are now overwhelmed and running out of supplies. Aid trucks with medical supplies came in from Israel. They came up from Egypt. Iran sent planeloads of aid to Sinai with the intention of bringing it up through the Egyptian border into Gaza."

On the December 29, 2008, Fox and Friends, correspondent David Lee Miller reported: "The situation, though, in the south does remain tense. Israel has said it is trying to allow, though, humanitarian supplies into Gaza despite the ongoing conflict."

On the December 30, 2008, Fox and Friends, correspondent David Lee Miller reported: "The prime minister has said that they are going to treat Hamas with an iron fist, but that, he also said that, as for the people of Gaza, they are going to be treated with silk gloves. Today some 100 trucks – shipments of food and humanitarian supplies – are being allowed into Gaza. The situation there very dire, we are told. The hospitals are simply overwhelmed."

On the January 2, 2009, Fox Report, anchor Trace Gallagher announced: "Israel allowing trucks carrying relief supplies into Gaza today, and it says it’s now sending out warnings before some bombings to try to avoid civilian casualties."

Later on the same show, correspondent Wendell Goler relayed that the White House had doubts about the U.N.’s characterization of Gaza’s humanitarian situation: "The President is urging Israelis to limit civilian casualties, but his aides aren’t sure they believe the U.N.’s warnings of a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. They do believe that Hamas is to blame for repeatedly violating previous ceasefires."

On the January 6, 2009, Fox and Friends, anchor Gretchen Carlson reported during a news brief: "The government in Tel Aviv now stepping up efforts to deliver humanitarian aid. This video was just released by the Israeli embassy in Washington, shows trucks being loaded for the delivery over to Gaza." The story was repeated twice during the three-hour show.

CBS medical correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton didn't appear quite so eager this morning to promote contraceptive for teens to parents in the second part of a two-part segment about teens and sex. In fact, to parents, she claimed, "We say medically the longer you wait [to have sex] the better, but again the job of a women's health specialist and adolescent gynecologist is to make sure that we protect the teenager's health and maintain it in the safest way possible for as long as possible."

Yet yesterday, CBS' "The Early Show" aired clips of Ashton promoting contraceptive over abstinence to teens, even though abstinence is one sure-fire way to protect and maintain a teen's health.  

"Usually, if not always, I tell my patients that they should use two forms of contraception for birth control," Ashton told a group of teen girls, at least one of whom was only 13. "Something like the Pill, which is highly effective, and condoms all the time. And what about the birth control pill? What do you guys know about that?...Did you know the Pill could be one of the medications used to treat acne?"

Ashton used the two-part segment to promote her new book, "The Body Scoop for Girls."

Yesterday's segment focused on Ashton's conversation with a group of teen girls while this morning's segment featured a conversation between Ashton, co-host Maggie Rodriguez and the girls' mothers.

Mercy Baez, a 14-year-old girl, told Ashton that "almost every teenager already has sex by seventh to eighth grade," a fact that made Rodriguez claim, "I'm sure that some of the mothers, like me, their jaw's dropped."

While it is shocking to hear of girls as young as 12 and 13 engaging in sexual activity, neither Rodriguez nor Ashton asked the mothers' their thoughts on it. They instead focused on the fact that most of the girls in the conversation did not fully understand the purpose of a gynecologist and that they were not taught about the dangers of date-rape or sexual assault.

Another surprising moment came near the end of this morning's segments when the mothers' claimed they were not surprised to hear that their daughters told Ashton they didn't have any role models.

"I'm not surprised about that because she has to be her own person," replied Claudette Yahn, the mother of 14-year-old Madeline.

"I love that," stated Ashton.

Ashton could have reminded the mothers about the important role they play in their daughters' attitudes about sexual activity. A 2002 study found that for eighth-and ninth-grade teens, those "who reported having a close relationship with their mothers were more likely to delay the onset of sexual intercourse."

Yet reminding teens that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective means of protection against pregnancy and STDs, and reminding parents that they do influence their teens' choices, runs against the prevailing liberal thought that teens simply cannot control themselves.

While the Democratic Mayor of Baltimore, Shelia Dixon, resigned on Wednesday amid a criminal scandal, the evening news programs on NBC, ABC, and CBS all failed to mention the political downfall.

On Thursday, all three network morning shows offered news briefs on the resignation, however, all forgot to note that Dixon was a Democrat.

On NBC’s Today, co-host Ann Curry mentioned: “Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon announced her resignation on Wednesday after she was convicted of embezzlement.  She also agreed to plead guilty to perjury in a deal reached with prosecutors.”

On ABC’s Good Morning America, co-host Juju Chang explained: “Baltimore’s mayor is resigning as part of a plea deal. Prosecutors say Sheila Dixon failed to disclose thousands of dollars in gifts from an ex-boyfriend who got tax breaks from the city. She was also convicted of stealing gift cards to donated to the needy.”

Similarly, CBS Early Show co-host Russ Mitchell also failed to revealed Dixon’s party affiliation: “Baltimore, Maryland Mayor Sheila Dixon announced her registrat – or resignation rather, after pleading guilty to perjury. Under a plea bargain, Dixon will receive probation at her sentencing in February. In a separate case last month, Dixon was convicted on a misdemeanor charge of stealing gift cards intended for needy families.” 

Speaking to Virginia Governor Democratic Party Chairman Tim Kaine on Thursday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez pointed out a potential dire situation for Democrats in the 2010 midterm election: “Your party stands to lose a lot in the fall. Its 60 vote majority in the Senate, dozens of seats in the House, as well as Governor seats across the country.”

An on-screen headline posed the question: “Democrats in Trouble?” Rodriguez summed up the circumstances under which Democrats could do well in the fall: “...two things have to happen. One, the economy has to improve, and, two, health care has to not only pass, but show that it’s working.” She assumed that health care passing would be a good thing for Democrats and failed to ask Kaine about the lack of openness in the legislative process.

Rodriguez asked for Kaine’s assessment of the situation. Unsurprisingly, the DNC chair was optimistic about his party’s chances: “I think both are going to happen....I think the passage of historic health care and continued improvement of the economy is going to actually surprise some people in November in terms of how Democrats do.”

After Kaine outlined that rosy hypothetical situation, Rodriguez challenged him: “You have 11 months to accomplish two pretty ambitious goals. If it doesn’t happen, Governor, should the Gov – should the President take responsibility for this?” Kaine suddenly didn’t feel like making anymore predictions: “I’m not going go into the hypotheticals because like you say, we’ve got a 11 months where-” Rodriguez pressed him: “Well, but it hasn’t happened yet....So you have to consider that it may not happen.”

Kaine claimed: “I think it has happened on the economy....job loss numbers have been dramatically reduced. And we’re seeing a lot of positive signs in the manufacturing sector, returns of consumer confidence....we are going to get health care done, there’s immediate benefits in the health care bill for all Americans.”

Later, Kaine went so far as to suggest that 2010 would be a good year for Democrats: “...while two Democratic senators are going to retire, six Republicans are retiring. Ten Democratic House members are retiring, but 14 Republicans. Two Democratic governors, but four Republicans. The retirements are really on the other side.” He conveniently left out Illinois Senator Roland Burris and Delaware Senator Ted Kaufman, both place holders for the respective seats of President Obama and Vice President Biden, who will not be running for reelection.

Kaine concluded the Republicans were the ones really in trouble: “And no surprise, there’s a huge corrosive civil war within the Republican Party that we see playing out all over the country that I think is going to continue to be a factor that will work in our favor in 2010.” Rodriguez simply replied: “We shall see.”   

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:14AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: On Wednesday, two senior Senate Democrats announced that they will retire after this year as well as a prominent western governor. So is this a bad sign for the Democrats? Let’s ask Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Good morning, Governor Kaine.

TIM KAINE: Good morning, Maggie. Good to be with you.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Democrats in Trouble? DNC Chair on Possible Lost Seats]

RODRIGUEZ: Good to be with you as well. Your party stands to lose a lot in the fall. Its 60 vote majority in the Senate, dozens of seats in the House, as well as Governor seats across the country. And the consensus seems to be that to stop that from happening, two things have to happen. One, the economy has to improve, and, two, health care has to not only pass, but show that it’s working. Do you agree with that and do you think that can happen?

KAINE: I do agree with you, Maggie, and I think both are going to happen. I think the President is about to achieve a victory with the passage of a comprehensive health reform bill that has alluded every Democratic president since Harry Truman and I think that will create a real tail wind for the President and the party when that happens, we expect, in the next six weeks or so.

And then second, you’re right, the economy does have to improve, but what we’ve seen is a president who came into office when the economy was in free fall, losing 800,000 jobs a month, $10 trillion in wealth destroyed in 2008. The President, by bold action with the recovery, has stopped that, we’re starting to see some positive signs. You know, we got to see more, we’ve got more work to do, but I think the passage of historic health care and continued improvement of the economy is going to actually surprise some people in November in terms of how Democrats do.

RODRIGUEZ: You have 11 months to accomplish two pretty ambitious goals. If it doesn’t happen, Governor, should the Gov – should the President take responsibility for this?

KAINE: Well, you know, I’m not going go into the hypotheticals because like you say, we’ve got a 11 months where-

RODRIGUEZ: Well, but it hasn’t happened yet.

KAINE: Well it hasn’t – well, wait a minute-

RODRIGUEZ: So you have to consider that it may not happen.

KAINE: I think it has happened on the economy. We – again, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when the President took office and what we’ve seen is those job loss numbers have been dramatically reduced. And we’re seeing a lot of positive signs in the manufacturing sector, returns of consumer confidence. Again, we’re not where we want to be yet. But I think that the two, you know, conditions you layout are very strong ones.

The President, we are going to get health care done, there’s immediate benefits in the health care bill for all Americans. Ending of insurance company abuses like, you know, pre-existing conditions or rescission of your policy if you get sick. Parents can keep kids on their policy until they’re 27, instead of 21. Seniors will get help with prescription drugs.

So while these retirements, you know, are ones that have – certainly happening on the same day, it’s a surprise – one of the things that I noted as I took a look at the landscape yesterday is, you know, while two Democratic senators are going to retire, six Republicans are retiring. Ten Democratic House members are retiring, but 14 Republicans. Two Democratic governors, but four Republicans. The retirements are really on the other side. And no surprise, there’s a huge corrosive civil war within the Republican Party that we see playing out all over the country that I think is going to continue to be a factor that will work in our favor in 2010.

RODRIGUEZ: We shall see. Governor Tim Kaine, thank you very much.

KAINE: Absolutely.

Teenagers don't need to ask their friends anymore about sex. Now they can just turn to CBS' medical correspondent, Dr. Jennifer Ashton.

On Jan. 6, Dr. Ashton met with a group of teenage girls on CBS' "Early Show" to advertise her new book "The Body Scoop for Girls" - a book that anchor Maggie Rodriguez said "parents of daughters really appreciate." But most parents that watched this segment were probably more shocked than appreciative.

When Dr. Ashton met with the group of girls, she asked them, "Did any of your parents ever come to you guys and say, ‘We expect that you don't have sex until fill-in-the-blank age' .... 18, 19, 20, whatever?"

Not a single girl said yes, but 14-year-old Mercy Baez spoke up and said, "In this generation, ya know, almost every teenager already has sex by seventh to eighth grade ... and so, it's like, if you haven't had sex already, then you're the weird one and you stand out because you haven't."

If Ashton had any reaction to that statement, it was edited from the tape. Instead, she answered this question from 13-year-old Pam Segall: "What type of contraception do you think is the most effective?"

"Usually, if not always, I tell my patients that they should use two forms of contraception for birth control," Dr. Ashton began. "Something like the pill, which is highly effective, and condoms all the time. And what about the birth control pill? What do you guys know about that? ... Did you know the pill could be one of the medications used to treat acne?"

So a medical professional told 13-year-old and 14-year-old girls on national television that the pill is not only "highly effective" (which, translated into teen language equates to "I will never get pregnant") but it can also fight acne. What's to lose?

But after the panel discussion, when questioned by anchor Maggie Rodriguez, Ashton sang a different tune, and talked about the importance of discussing abstinence.

"I'm sure that some of the mothers, like me," Rodriguez said, "their jaw's dropped when that one girl Mercy said that most girls are having sex in seventh and eighth grade. We both have daughters. Should I just accept this as a fact or continue to be in denial that my kid's not going to be one of them?"

"Well, you shouldn't accept it,"  Ashton conceded, "and we should try everything we can to change it ... But, statistically, one out of five 15 year olds has had vaginal intercourse ... And the name of the game here is getting out ahead of the ball before that happens so that you're educating your daughter about why they want to delay premature sexual behavior. It's important for their health. It's important for their social and psychological well-being. And they need to hear that. They need to hear that from their parents, and they need to hear that from a doctor."

Let's hope the girls on the panel did hear that from Dr. Ashton and that in the interests of time it was thoughtlessly edited from the segment. But for thousands of other girls watching it on television, all they heard was: "The pill's a sure bet and it makes you look great, too."

Tomorrow Dr. Ashton will be meeting with the mothers of these teens to hear "their thoughts about my chat with their daughters." That should prove to be just as interesting.

Speaking with Republican New York Congressman Peter King on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez declared: “Congressman, here you are a Republican talking about everything that’s wrong and everything that went wrong....Tom Kean, who was the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission said quote, ‘we should dismiss the partisan bickering over the security failures over this issue.”

Rodriguez went on to place the blame for partisanship on the Republican side of the aisle as she asked: “Do you agree and do you say to your colleagues let’s try to support the President here and get to the bottom of the real issue?”  King replied: “I have never made one partisan statement on terrorism since that day....I will give the President credit when I think he’s right. But on the other hand, when mistakes are being made, I think it’s my obligation to speak out because this issue is so vital to all Americans.”

Rodriguez began the interview by suggesting someone in the Obama administration take the fall for the nearly successful terrorist attack on Christmas Day: “Do you think that somebody does need to be held specifically accountable so that there’s a message sent here that there are consequences to a failure of this magnitude?” King agreed: “Yes. This was more than a stumble. This was really a glaring error.”

King went to criticize the administration for continuing to push for closing Guantanamo and the for only recently deciding not to send some prisoners to Yemen: “...sending terrorists back to countries from Guantanamo. I think closing Guantanamo was a big mistake but to be even considering sending terrorists back to Yemen the way he was until just yesterday-”

Rodriguez interrupted to defend Obama: “Well, he said he won’t anymore, exactly.” King pointed out: “...for the last year at least Yemen has become a center in the war against terrorism and yet, again, just three days ago, his Homeland Security adviser said they’re going to continue to send people back. So it seems to me that the President is like a day or two behind on all of this.

Here is a full transcript of the interview:

7:07AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us now is Republican Congressman Peter King, he is the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee. Good morning, Congressman King.

PETER KING: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: We just heard Mr. McDonough say that everybody at that meeting yesterday is taking responsibility for this failure and upping their game now after the stumble. Do you think that’s enough or do you think that we should have been upping our game before? Do you think that somebody does need to be held specifically accountable so that there’s a message sent here that there are consequences to a failure of this magnitude?

KING: Yes. This was more than a stumble. This was really a glaring error. And you know, I understand mistakes can be made. But this was such a glaring one. For instance, when you have the Nigerian banker walk into the American embassy and in effect turn his own son in and have no action taken on that and as recently as this past Sunday having the President’s chief adviser John Brennan say that was not a smoking gun. So I don’t think they’ve learned the lessons from this.

And as far as accountability and Mr. McDonough, who I have great respect for, but he’s saying it won’t be the usual Washington blame game. Anyone who read the papers last week saw every one of those federal agencies involved, CIA, DNI, NCT, all of them, pointing fingers at one another. And there is a, I believe, a great doubt in unity in the intelligence community. I mean, for the last six or seven months there’s been a real breakdown between the DNI and the CIA for instance. The President has to resolve that. And also, I think he has to take some firm steps here, not just sound tough.

But I think he should first of all declare Abdulmutallab to be an enemy combatant, not put him in the criminal system where he gets Miranda rights and he should also end this whole – any sending terrorists back to countries from Guantanamo. I think closing Guantanamo was a big mistake but to be even considering sending terrorists back to Yemen the way he was until just yesterday-

RODRIGUEZ: Well, he said he won’t anymore, exactly.

KING: Yeah, but he – why – I mean, for the last year at least Yemen has become a center in the war against terrorism and yet, again, just three days ago, his Homeland Security adviser said they’re going to continue to send people back. So it seems to me that the President is like a day or two behind on all of this.

RODRIGUEZ: Congressman, here you are a Republican talking about everything that’s wrong and everything that went wrong. I want to read to you from today’s New York Times, Tom Kean, who was the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission said quote, ‘we should dismiss the partisan bickering over the security failures over this issue. Both parties have presided over security failures and successes.’ Do you agree and do you say to your colleagues let’s try to support the President here and get to the bottom of the real issue?

KING: Yeah, Maggie, I lost many friends and neighbors on September 11th. I have never made one partisan statement on terrorism since that day. And let me just say, I’ve given the President credit. I think he’s doing the right thing in Yemen. I think he’s doing the right thing in Afghanistan. I think he’s doing the right thing in extending the Patriot Act. I just think there are disconnects in his policy, that’s what I’m being critical of.

Now I strongly supported President Bush. But no one was more critical of the administration when they went into the deal with Dubai Ports, which I thought threatened our security, or when they cut back on aid to New York City.

This isn’t partisan. Others may be partisan, I’m not. I will give the President credit when I think he’s right. But on the other hand, when mistakes are being made, I think it’s my obligation to speak out because this issue is so vital to all Americans, especially anyone who comes from New York.

RODRIGUEZ: It is vital. No one will disagree with that. Congressman Peter King, thank you so much.

KING: Thank you, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: You’re welcome.

Speaking with Republican New York Congressman Peter King on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez declared: “Congressman, here you are a Republican talking about everything that’s wrong and everything that went wrong....Tom Kean, who was the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission said quote, ‘we should dismiss the partisan bickering over the security failures over this issue.”

Rodriguez went on to place the blame for partisanship on the Republican side of the aisle as she asked: “Do you agree and do you say to your colleagues let’s try to support the President here and get to the bottom of the real issue?”  King replied: “I have never made one partisan statement on terrorism since that day....I will give the President credit when I think he’s right. But on the other hand, when mistakes are being made, I think it’s my obligation to speak out because this issue is so vital to all Americans.”

Rodriguez began the interview by suggesting someone in the Obama administration take the fall for the nearly successful terrorist attack on Christmas Day: “Do you think that somebody does need to be held specifically accountable so that there’s a message sent here that there are consequences to a failure of this magnitude?” King agreed: “Yes. This was more than a stumble. This was really a glaring error.”

King went to criticize the administration for continuing to push for closing Guantanamo and the for only recently deciding not to send some prisoners to Yemen: “...sending terrorists back to countries from Guantanamo. I think closing Guantanamo was a big mistake but to be even considering sending terrorists back to Yemen the way he was until just yesterday-”

Rodriguez interrupted to defend Obama: “Well, he said he won’t anymore, exactly.” King pointed out: “...for the last year at least Yemen has become a center in the war against terrorism and yet, again, just three days ago, his Homeland Security adviser said they’re going to continue to send people back. So it seems to me that the President is like a day or two behind on all of this.

Here is a full transcript of the interview:

7:07AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us now is Republican Congressman Peter King, he is the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee. Good morning, Congressman King.

PETER KING: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: We just heard Mr. McDonough say that everybody at that meeting yesterday is taking responsibility for this failure and upping their game now after the stumble. Do you think that’s enough or do you think that we should have been upping our game before? Do you think that somebody does need to be held specifically accountable so that there’s a message sent here that there are consequences to a failure of this magnitude?

KING: Yes. This was more than a stumble. This was really a glaring error. And you know, I understand mistakes can be made. But this was such a glaring one. For instance, when you have the Nigerian banker walk into the American embassy and in effect turn his own son in and have no action taken on that and as recently as this past Sunday having the President’s chief adviser John Brennan say that was not a smoking gun. So I don’t think they’ve learned the lessons from this.

And as far as accountability and Mr. McDonough, who I have great respect for, but he’s saying it won’t be the usual Washington blame game. Anyone who read the papers last week saw every one of those federal agencies involved, CIA, DNI, NCT, all of them, pointing fingers at one another. And there is a, I believe, a great doubt in unity in the intelligence community. I mean, for the last six or seven months there’s been a real breakdown between the DNI and the CIA for instance. The President has to resolve that. And also, I think he has to take some firm steps here, not just sound tough.

But I think he should first of all declare Abdulmutallab to be an enemy combatant, not put him in the criminal system where he gets Miranda rights and he should also end this whole – any sending terrorists back to countries from Guantanamo. I think closing Guantanamo was a big mistake but to be even considering sending terrorists back to Yemen the way he was until just yesterday-

RODRIGUEZ: Well, he said he won’t anymore, exactly.

KING: Yeah, but he – why – I mean, for the last year at least Yemen has become a center in the war against terrorism and yet, again, just three days ago, his Homeland Security adviser said they’re going to continue to send people back. So it seems to me that the President is like a day or two behind on all of this.

RODRIGUEZ: Congressman, here you are a Republican talking about everything that’s wrong and everything that went wrong. I want to read to you from today’s New York Times, Tom Kean, who was the co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission said quote, ‘we should dismiss the partisan bickering over the security failures over this issue. Both parties have presided over security failures and successes.’ Do you agree and do you say to your colleagues let’s try to support the President here and get to the bottom of the real issue?

KING: Yeah, Maggie, I lost many friends and neighbors on September 11th. I have never made one partisan statement on terrorism since that day. And let me just say, I’ve given the President credit. I think he’s doing the right thing in Yemen. I think he’s doing the right thing in Afghanistan. I think he’s doing the right thing in extending the Patriot Act. I just think there are disconnects in his policy, that’s what I’m being critical of.

Now I strongly supported President Bush. But no one was more critical of the administration when they went into the deal with Dubai Ports, which I thought threatened our security, or when they cut back on aid to New York City.

This isn’t partisan. Others may be partisan, I’m not. I will give the President credit when I think he’s right. But on the other hand, when mistakes are being made, I think it’s my obligation to speak out because this issue is so vital to all Americans, especially anyone who comes from New York.

RODRIGUEZ: It is vital. No one will disagree with that. Congressman Peter King, thank you so much.

KING: Thank you, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: You’re welcome.

On the December 30, 2008, The Early Show, anchor Jeff Glor reported on former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney’s presence on a ship attempting to violate the Israeli blockade by delivering supplies to Gaza as the ship was "rammed" by the Israeli military. Glor notably misidentified McKinney as if she were a current member of Congress – which could appear to make her have more credibility – and did not inform viewers of Israel’s account of the incident or of McKinney’s controversial history, which includes links to anti-Semitic figures. Glor: "A relief ship carrying a Georgia Congressman, Cynthia McKinney, clashed with the Israeli navy this morning. The aid boat carrying activists and medical supplies destined for Gaza was reportedly rammed by an Israeli gunship. There were no casualties."

On the same day’s Special Report with Brit Hume on FNC, anchor Jim Angle reported on the boat collision during the show’s regular "Political Grapevine" segment, and passed on the Israeli response: "But an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman says the naval vessel made physical contact only after the supply ship failed to respond to repeated radio transmissions."

While Angle did not bring up McKinney’s controversial past, the FNC show has a long history of updating its viewers on the former Democratic Congresswoman’s fringe activities and connections. When she was a member of Congress, McKinney had a history of accepting campaign contributions from anti-Semitic and pro-terrorist individuals, and when she lost the Democratic primary for reelection in 2006, members of her entourage were caught on tape making racist and anti-Semitic slurs during a scuffle. Additionally, McKinney has a history of giving credibility to bizarre conspiracy theories. In October 2008 she spoke publicly of her belief that the Defense Department murdered thousands of prisoners and used the confusion of Hurricane Katrina to dispose of the bodies in Louisiana swamps. And in 2002, she advanced the theory that President Bush deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen so he could benefit financially from the resulting increase in defense spending.

When CNN’s The Situation Room reported on the ship collision, substitute anchor Suzanne Malveaux did at least describe McKinney as "controversial" as she introduced the story on the December 30 show, and cited the time she slapped a Capitol Hill police officer. Malveaux: "A controversial political figure here in the U.S. is rocking the boat again in connection with the crisis in Gaza now. Many people remember former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in a dustup in which she allegedly slapped a Capitol Hill police officer. But McKinney's public career has been packed with attention-grabbing moments, including this new one. "

But on the December 30, American Morning, CNN anchor John Roberts and correspondent Karl Penhaul – who was on the ship, the SS Dignity, which McKinney was on – sounded sympathetic to the ship’s effort to run the blockade. Since the vessel was damaged, Roberts asked if there was any chance someone else would be willing to "take up the charge" and "try to get those medical supplies in":

KARL PENHAUL: Now from what we've seen from the repeated airstrikes in Gaza, any medical aid at this stage is critical. And not only is the Dignity trying to ferry in three tons of medical aid, but we have a surgeon on board. We also have members of the Cypriot Parliament. It has a children's doctor from the London's Great Ormond Street on board. We have other doctors on board. These are clearly qualified medical personnel and with much needed aid at a time when the humanitarian plight of the Gaza people is extreme in the wake of these successive Israeli airstrikes.

JOHN ROBERTS: Karl, taking a look at the damage to the superstructure there on the bridge of the Dignity, it's not going anywhere for a while. Is there anybody else there on the port city of Tyre who's willing to take up the charge to go back out there on the seas and try to get those medical supplies in, or is the word there now that it's just too dangerous with those Israeli patrol boats running around? And as you have described, it would appear all too ready to challenge any vessels that come into the area.

Later that day, when Penhaul appeared on The Situation Room, he relayed the Israeli military’s contention that the collision was an "accident," but also charged that those aboard the Dignity did not "buy" the Israeli explanation. Penhaul: "Later, the Israeli Defense Forces said it was an accident. They say they warned the Dignity and ordered it to turn back, a statement nobody aboard the Dignity buys."

Below is a compilation of CBS, CNN and FNC coverage of the boat collision from December 30, 2008, along with FNC’s history of reporting on McKinney’s controversial activities and connections:

On the December 30, The Early Show on CBS, Jeff Glor reported: "A relief ship carrying a Georgia Congressman Cynthia McKinney clashed with the Israeli navy this morning. The aid boat carrying activists and medical supplies destined for Gaza was reportedly rammed by an Israeli gunship. There were no casualties."

On the December 30, American Morning, CNN’s Karl Penhaul, who was aboard the SS Dignity, checked in during the 7:00 a.m. hour:

CHRISTINE ROMANS: This morning, as Gaza's hospitals struggle to cope with the injured, volunteers trying to deliver medical aid were turned back after their boat, Dignity, collided with an Israeli warship. These are live pictures here of that boat, the Dignity, right there. Israel says the boat was attempting to defy the blockade of Gaza. Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and CNN's Karl Penhaul were aboard the Dignity at the time of the accident.

VOICE OF KARL PENHAUL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The boat though while still in international waters, has been rammed by Israeli patrol boats. The boat, our vessel, has been damaged. There's been some damage to a roof section and to glass windows around the steering area, and the captain says that the vessel is taking on a small amount of water.

ROMANS: The ship is now heading to Lebanon. Israel says the collision was an accident.

...

JOHN ROBERTS: Eighteen minutes now after the hour, new video just in to CNN of the SS Dignity docking in Tyre in southern Lebanon after colliding with an Israeli warship earlier in the day. Volunteers on board the boat, including former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, were trying to deliver medical aid to Gaza, but Israel says the boat was attempting to defy a blockade and turned the ship back. There was some damage to the super structure of the boat. Apparently it was taking on a little bit of water so they ran for Tyre, which is that southern port city in Lebanon. In addition to former Georgia congresswoman and former presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, being on board, CNN's own Karl Penhaul was also on the Dignity. He joins us now live on the phone. Karl, I take it everybody on board is okay. What exactly happened out there in the Mediterranean? Sounds like we're having some problems here with Karl. Sometimes there's a little bit of delay. Karl, it's John Roberts. Can you hear me?

KARL PENHAUL: Yes. There's a lot of confusion going on here. And as you can imagine, with this confusion, one can barely hear you. But I'll sum up what happened, in fact. We're now limping into port in the city of Tyre in Lebanon, at this after at night time hours. While we're out in the Mediterranean, heavy seas, it was the dark of night and Israeli patrol boats approach the Dignity as it made its way through international waters towards Gaza. While the boat was still in international waters, Israeli patrol boats shot at the Dignity for the better part of a half hour, and then after that without any warning, the one Israeli patrol boat rammed the front section of the Dignity. That caused part of the roof to peel back. Windows were shattered and there was also a hole in the hull, and the boat began taking on some water. The captain of the vessel put out a mayday signal as the only people in the area at the time though were the Israeli boats. Now, there was no trial communication from the Israeli patrol boat to the crew of the Dignity, but after the ramming into them, the patrol boat sent a signal accusing the Dignity of being involved in terrorist activities and said if it could not turn back from its current course, that it would open fire on the Dignity.

ROBERTS: Karl, I know you said it's difficult for you to hear me and I hope you can now. Some reports that I've read in the Israeli press suggest that the Israeli warship accidentally hit the Dignity. The reports are that the Dignity was trying to outmaneuver the ship and the two collided. What can you tell me about the veracity of those reports and also where was the Dignity trying to dock in the Gaza strip to deliver those medical supplies?

PENHAUL: The Dignity was headed for dock when the incident took place. It was very clearly in international waters. The crew and members of the 3,000 movement reject any suggestion that this was accidental. And certainly from my vantage point, I find it very hard to believe that this was an accident because those patrol boats are very sophisticated, very maneuverable, very fast and they've been shattering the Dignity on all sides front and back and from side to side for the previous half an hour. And in the words of the captain, the Dignity was lit up like a Christmas tree. All its lights were on. And at the same time, at least one of the Israeli patrol boats had saw lights saying the Dignity at all times. So it's difficult to see at what point those Israeli patrol boats really didn't know where the Dignity was and simply slammed into it. For all intents and purposes, from where we were sitting, it certainly looked like this was an intentional ramming incident with no prior warnings, an incident that took place in international waters.

ROBERTS: Karl, as we mentioned, the Dignity was trying to ferry medical supplies into Gaza. How great is the need from your vantage point, your understanding of the situation for those medical supplies to get into Gaza city?

PENHAUL: Now from what we've seen from the repeated airstrikes in Gaza, any medical aid at this stage is critical. And not only is the Dignity trying to ferry in three tons of medical aid, but we have a surgeon on board. We also have members of the Cypriot Parliament. It has a children's doctor from the London's Great Ormond Street onboard. We have other doctors onboard. These are clearly qualified medical personnel and with much needed aid at a time when the humanitarian plight of the Gaza people is extreme in the wake of these successive Israeli airstrikes.

ROBERTS: Karl, taking a look at the damage to the superstructure there on the bridge of the Dignity, it's not going anywhere for a while. Is there anybody else there on the port city of Tyre who's willing to take up the charge to go back out there on the seas and try to get those medical supplies in, or is the word there now that it's just too dangerous with those Israeli patrol boats running around? And as you have described, it would appear all too ready to challenge any vessels that come into the area.

PENHAUL: It is obviously a very dangerous situation. With this action, the Israelis have clearly demonstrated that they will physically try and stop any vessel trying to get through territorial waters into Gaza, and they've also shown through that incident that they're prepared to try and stop those vessels heading towards Gaza, even though they are in international waters. These boats are not equipped to go toe-to-toe with the Israeli military. This was not a military effort by the Free Gaza Movement. It is a movement in solidarity with the Gazan people. They describe themselves, they describe themselves as the solidarity movement. They say we are not an aide organization, this is not a charity. Yes, it was a non-violent political protest. So nevertheless, they didn't expect it to end with an Israeli patrol boat ramming the front section of their boat. And according to the captain onboard, if the construction of this vessel had been different, then ending would have been dramatically different. As I say, minutes after the Dignity was rammed, the captain put out a mayday call, and members of the crew came to the section where the passengers were treated and equipped us with life jackets and said they were about to launch the life raft. It came that close to us all deploying into the life raft. But when the captain made a quick check, he realized that he could manage to pump the water out of the vessel without us having to abandon ship in what would have been a very icy, icy trip into the Mediterranean.

ROBERTS: Karl, we're obviously glad that it came out the way it did, but an incredibly dangerous situation there. The apparent ramming of this 66-foot pleasure craft, the Dignity, by an Israeli warship. Karl Penhaul onboard at the time along with former Georgia Congresswoman and presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney. And as Karl said earlier, the Israeli warship issued a warning after it struck the Dignity, that if the ship, if the boat did not turn around and head back into Lebanese waters, that it would open fire on it. So obviously a very, very dangerous situation out there in international waters, as Karl was pointing out, off of the coast of Israel.

On December 30, CNN’s The Situation Room reported on the story during each of its three hours. From the 4:00 p.m. hour:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX: A controversial political figure here in the U.S. is rocking the boat again in connection with the crisis in Gaza now. Many people remember former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in a dustup in which she allegedly slapped a Capitol Hill police officer. But McKinney's public career has been packed with attention-grabbing moments, including this new one. Our CNN's Brooke Baldwin is following the story. And this had to do with McKinney's role in a shipment of humanitarian aid to Gaza. What do we know about that?

BROOKE BALDWIN: We are learning a few new details, Suzanne, first, the fact that Cynthia McKinney secured a seat on that ship, the SS Dignity, because someone else backed out. In fact, she sent this e-mail to her friends just yesterday, alerting them of her mission, or, as she referred to it, as a humanitarian undertaking. Cynthia McKinney taking center stage, this time on a humanitarian mission.

FORMER REP. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY (D-GA): Our mission was a peaceful mission to deliver medical supplies. And our mission was thwarted by the Israelis, the aggressiveness of the Israeli military.

BALDWIN: McKinney was on board the ship, the SS Dignity, owned by the Free Gaza Movement, a Palestinian-rights organization based in Northern California. It had set sail Monday from Cyprus to deliver three tons of medical supplies to war-torn Gaza. The group's co-founder, Paul Laurdee, said he invited McKinney on the mission after some of the original passengers had canceled. Laurdee says McKinney was a supporter of the group for years and wanted to take the trip a year ago, but couldn't. Most remember her infamous incident at the U.S. Capitol two years ago, when a police officer accused her of slapping him. Weeks later, the former six-term controversial congresswoman from Georgia sparred with CNN's Soledad O'Brien.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: Forgive me for interrupting you, but I believe we-

MCKINNEY: No, but you shouldn't interrupt me, Soledad.

BALDWIN: Two years later, McKinney ran for U.S. President on the Green Party ticket. While that was always a long shot, McKinney may have better luck drawing attention to the current crisis in Gaza.

MCKINNEY: I would like to ask President-elect Obama to say something, please, about the humanitarian crisis that is being experienced right now by the people of Gaza.

BALDWIN: Now, McKinney's parents declined to speak to CNN today, saying that their daughter, Suzanne, should be speaking for herself. McKinney might be bound for Gaza in another two days, as the group plans to attempt their mission in a new ship once again.

During the 5:00 p.m. hour of The Situation Room, anchor Malveaux spoke with correspondent Penhaul:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX: Well, you're about to witness something dramatic. A group of actors, medical personnel and a former U.S. congresswoman were aboard a small vessel which tried to get through the Israeli blockade at Gaza. Well, they ran into some serious trouble, a collision with an Israeli patrol boat. The damaged aid boat managed to limp into port in Lebanon. Our CNN's Karl Penhaul was on board, and he joins us live from Beirut. Tell us what happened, Karl.

KARL PENHAUL: Suzanne, it was a trip that so easily could have ended in tragedy. The Israelis say it was an accident. But from where I was sitting, it looked very deliberate.

PENHAUL: It was a mercy mission to the wounded and dying of Gaza -- tons of medical aid, doctors and peace activists from the Free Gaza Solidarity Movement aboard motor yacht the Dignity. As usual, it would involve defying an Israeli travel ban and running a possible blockade.

ELIZA ERNSHIRE, FREE GAZA ORGANIZER: I think there's a complacency that happens in the West. It's something that we have to fight against.

PENHAUL: The last aid loaded aboard and a crewman's warning.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And if you are boarded and are going to be arrested, you're going to talk about this on the way yourselves, I would really suggest, do not struggle against these people. They are professionals.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: End the siege. End the occupation.

PENHAUL: A veteran Free Gaza activist hugs first time passenger, former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bye-bye.

PENHAUL: From the deck, last goodbyes, a V for victory sign. Around 10 hours pass amid rolling seas. Then a spotlight shines out from one of two Israeli patrol boats. The Dignity is still in international waters. They shadow us for half an hour, then, with no prior radio warning, according to the captain, one of the patrol boats rams the Dignity. The boats that have been following us now for some time, one of them has rammed this vessel. It rammed it in the front. That caused the glass to splinter, part of the roof to peel back, a very dramatic moment. The captain is now saying that this boat is starting to take on water.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: They're coming down in the water and get the right back draft.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: We're trying to explore our options, whether we might try and head toward Lebanon. But the boat is in distress.

PENHAUL: Later, the Israeli Defense Forces said it was an accident. They say they warned The Dignity and ordered it to turn back, a statement nobody aboard the Dignity buys.

FORMER REP. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY (D-GA): I wouldn't call it accosting. I would call it ramming. Let's just call it as it is.

PENHAUL: From dockside in Southern Lebanon, the scale of the damage to the hull and wheel house is apparent. It was a lucky escape.

CAPTAIN DENNIS HEALEY, THE DIGNITY: It could have ended with people drowning. If they'd have hit us more square on, you know, we could have gone down in minutes.

PENHAUL: Free Gaza activists are unbowed.

ERNSHIRE: We're desperate to get back in and to find a way to get this aid and more aid into Gaza and to mobilize the international community and governments of the world to stop this brutality that Israel is practicing against the people of Gaza.

PENHAUL: But for now, the Dignity is going nowhere -- too battered to set sail.

PENHAUL: Tonight, those three tons of medical supplies are still sitting on the Dignity down in the port of Tyre. They're desperately needed in the Gaza Strip. And what members of the Free Gaza Movement say is that they will continue to try and get that aid through. They say silence and inaction is complicity.

During the 6:00 p.m. hour of the December 30, The Situation Room, correspondent Brooke Baldwin returned to gave a similar account of the story that she had given during the 4:00 p.m. hour:

SUZANNE MALVEAUX: And she's raised controversy at home. Now a former congresswoman is raising eyebrows for her ties to the Gaza crisis. Cynthia McKinney talks about being on that aid ship that had a close encounter with the Israeli navy.

...

MALVEAUX: A controversial political figure here in the U.S. is raising some eyebrows in connection with the crisis in Gaza. Many people remember former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney for a dustup in which she allegedly slapped a Capitol Hill police officer. Well, now it turns out that McKinney was on board a ship that was rammed by an Israeli patrol boat while trying to deliver humanitarian aid. Our CNN's Brooke Baldwin is following the story -- and, Brooke, what was McKinney doing aboard the ship?

BROOKE BALDWIN: Suzanne, Cynthia McKinney told CNN she was there on a peaceful mission. But we did a little digging and found out that she secured that seat on the S.S. Dignity because someone else backed out. And she sent this e-mail, I've got a copy of the e-mail that she sent to her friends just yesterday, alerting them that she would be heading to Gaza, alerting them of her mission, or, as she referred to it, as a humanitarian undertaking. Cynthia McKinney taking center stage, this time on a humanitarian mission.

FORMER REP. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY (D-GA): Our mission was a peaceful mission to deliver medical supplies. And our mission was thwarted by the Israelis, the aggressiveness of the Israeli military.

BALDWIN: McKinney was on board a ship, the SS Dignity, owned by the Free Gaza Movement, a Palestinian-rights organization based in Northern California. It had set sail Monday from Cyprus to deliver three tons of medical supplies to war-torn Gaza. The group's co-founder, Paul Larudee, says he invited McKinney on the mission after some of the original passengers had canceled. Larudee said McKinney was a supporter of the group for years and wanted to take the trip a year ago, but couldn't. Most remember her infamous incident at the U.S. Capitol two years ago, when a police officer accused her of slapping him. Weeks later, the former six-term controversial congresswoman from Georgia sparred with CNN's Soledad O'Brien.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: Congresswoman, and forgive me for interrupting you-

MCKINNEY: We have 250-

O'BRIEN: But I believe we can't have this-

MCKINNEY: No, but you shouldn't interrupt me, Soledad.

O'BRIEN: Well, until-

BALDWIN: Two years later, McKinney ran for U.S. president on the Green Party ticket. While that was always a long shot, McKinney may have better luck drawing attention to the current crisis in Gaza.

MCKINNEY: I would like to ask President-Elect Obama just to, to say something, please, about the humanitarian crisis that is being experienced right now by the people of Gaza.

BALDWIN: McKinney's parents declined to speak to CNN today, saying their daughter should speak for herself. We also found out McKinney might be bound for Gaza in another two days, as the group plans to attempt their mission in a new ship once again.

On the December 30, 2008, Special Report with Brit Hume, anchor Jim Angle reported: "And, finally, the military blockade imposed by the Israeli Defense Force was not enough to deter former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney from trying to deliver aid to Gaza. McKinney was among 16 activists aboard a supply boat that collided with an Israeli naval ship off the Gaza coast. As a result, the supply ship was forced to dock at a Lebanese port. The former Green Party presidential candidate said in a TV interview, quote ‘Our boat was rammed three times, twice in the front and one on the side. Our mission was thwarted by the aggressiveness of the Israeli army.’ But an Israeli foreign ministry spokesmen says the naval vessel made physical contact only after the supply ship failed to respond to repeated radio transmissions."

On the October 2, 2008, Special Report with Brit Hume, host Hume gave attention to McKinney’s belief in a bizarre conspiracy theory about the Defense Department. Hume: "She says the U.S. government systematically killed thousands of people during Hurricane Katrina. McKinney was speaking at Oakland's Laney College during a conference Sunday on reforming the justice system. She said that after Katrina a woman called her explaining ‘Her son's charge by the Department of Defense was to process 5,000 bodies that had received a single bullet wound to the head. The bodies were dumped into the swamp in Louisiana. This is true. I suspect that these were prisoners.’"

On the March 5, 2008, Special Report, while reporting McKinney’s plan to run for President in 2008 on the Green Party ticket, FNC correspondent Jonathan Serrie reported: "For nearly a decade, McKinney's outspoken style rallied liberal voters in suburban Atlanta's heavily Democratic DeKalb County. But many thought she went too far during her fifth consecutive term when she accused President Bush of ignoring advanced warnings of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in order to profit from the resulting military build-up. ... She also faced mounting criticism for accepting campaign donations from people and groups allegedly expressing support for Islamic terrorism.

Serrie also recounted: "McKinney's exit from Georgia politics was less than graceful, with her supporters and bodyguards yelling racial and anti-Semitic statements at the media."

On the August 14, 2006, Special Report, FNC’s Jim Angle reported: "Georgia Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is condemning what she calls "some unfortunate remarks" including anti-Semitic slurs made by her supporters after her loss to challenger Hank Johnson last week. But she claims the men who made them were not formally associated with the campaign. McKinney calls the men ‘errant individuals at and near my campaign office,’ but neglects to mention that the men were part of a security detail that escorted McKinney in and out of the office that night."

On the August 10, 2006, Special Report, substitute anchor Chris Wallace reported: "The anti-Defamation League has condemned McKinney's entourage for anti-Semitic remarks in a scuffle with the media on Tuesday night including blaming Zionists for the loss and telling a Fox News producer who happens to be Jewish to ‘Put on your yarmulke and celebrate.’"

On the August 9, 2006, Special Report, correspondent Brian Wilson reported:

BRIAN WILSON: As she arrived to acknowledge the drubbing she had taken in the polls, her security guards, members of the new Black Panthers, scuffled with reporters. ... Some in McKinney's angry entourage referred to white reporters as crackers and her opponent as uncle Tom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You got what you damn want. You got your uncle Tom, now go put the cameras on him.

WILSON: And some comments were anti-Semitic in nature.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You ain't in Israel. This ain't no Lebanese people, back all up.

WILSON: Inside, Mckinney thanked supporters and sang along to a recording of an anti-war song by the artist Fake.

REP. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY (D-GA): Minimum wage with a baby on the way, let me tell you about hard work.

WILSON: Afterwards, outside, more scuffling with the press. It got so rough that police were called in. Anti-Semitic invectives were hurled yet again in the direction of a Fox News producer who is Jewish.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm going to pray for you, child. I'm going to pray for you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Israel, Zionists, you put your yarmulke on and celebrate.

On the September 11, 2002, Special Report, anchor Hume reported: "Not only did Cynthia McKinney, famous for her suggestion that President Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks, lose her House seat in a Democratic primary a couple of weeks ago, but her father has now lost his long-held seat in the state legislature as well. Billy McKinney, famous for his fiery and racially-charged defenses of his daughter, was beaten in a primary runoff by political newcomer John Noel, who is white. Said the elder McKinney of his defeat, quote, ‘They did not turn out for me. They wanted a Klansman, a son of the Confederacy.’ When his daughter lost, by the way, McKinney said she had been beaten by, quote, ‘J-E-W-S.’"

On the August 21, 2002, Special Report, correspondent Serrie reported: "During the campaign, McKinney took heat for comments she made implying President Bush ignored terrorist warnings before 9/11 and her acceptance of donations from groups expressing sympathy for Islamic terrorists. ... The Congresswoman's father, long-time Georgia legislator Billy McKinney, whose own reelection campaign is now in a run-off, fanned the flames before the primary when he accused his daughter's opponent of being bought by Jews. He later claimed he was referring to the Pro-Israel lobby when pressed by a Fox News producer.

On the August 19, 2002, Special Report, correspondent Serrie reported: "McKinney has many loyal followers in her suburban Atlanta district, but much of her support comes from out of state, from controversial figures like Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan."

On the August 12, 2002, Special Report, correspondent Orlando Salinas reported: "In the wake of 9/11, some critics believe McKinney went too far by refusing to give up campaign contributions from Muslims, hiring a campaign coordinator with close ties to the Nation of Islam, and accusing President Bush of ignoring warnings of the terrorist attacks in order to reap profits from the resulting military buildup..."

It is also noteworthy that on Fox News Sunday on August 4, 2002, anchor Tony Snow reported: "Representative Cynthia McKinney, who has accused President Bush of deliberately refusing to prevent the September 11 attacks because it will be good for his friend's businesses, now has some explaining to do herself. McKinney received a flood of donations September 11 from some controversial contributors. They included Abdul Rahim Al-Alamoodi, who has openly supported Hamas and Hezbollah, six men under federal investigation for terrorist ties, and a professor jailed for refusing to answer questions about a Hamas money-laundering operation. A McKinney aide says the contributions were collected several days earlier at a fund-raiser, but federal election law stipulates that candidates post donations the day of their arrival."

On the April 26, 2002, Special Report, anchor Tony Snow reported: "Even though her Congressional Black Caucus colleagues have distanced themselves from Cynthia McKinney, because of comments about September 11, the Georgia Democrat hasn't backed down from controversial assertions that the White House failed to send warnings about the terrorist attacks. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have denounced her statements, yet her comments seem to have struck a chord with some. Her re-election campaign is flush with contributions."

Correspondent Serrie then reported: "But in the wake of 9/11, some critics believe that McKinney may have gone too far, refusing to give up campaign contributions from militant Islamic sympathizers and insinuating on a radio show that President Bush ignored warnings of the terrorist attacks, in order to reap profits from the resulting military buildup."

On the April 12, 2002, Special Report correspondent Serrie reported:

JONATHAN SERRIE: In a recent interview with a Berkeley, California radio station, the Democratic Congresswoman suggests the President helped his father, who sits on the board of a defense contracting firm.

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: Where are the brakes on transparency and corruption that I see happening as a result of the fact that the President's father stands to make money off the very requests that the president has made?

During the same shows "Fox All Stars" segment, anchor Snow brought up her conspiracy theory accusation against President Bush. Snow: "Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, had some interesting things to say about President Bush, actually about September 11th. Let's show you a couple. First, this is, by the way, was in a radio interview. ‘I'm not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9/11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. For example, it is known,’ she continues, ‘that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle Group had, at the time of the attacks, joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which have soared since September 11.’"

Diabetic or not, you might want to have a dose of insulin handy while watching this morning's video clip. The Early Show's review of the past year was one sicky-sweet adoration—in overtly religious terms—of Barack Obama.

Harry Smith set the tone with his opening comments:

"Politics, and patriotism and the presidency: it is the place where the secular and the religious merge. One of the sacraments of our national religion is the inauguration.  So it was that as many as two million pilgrims made their way to Washington and the Mall to witness this most sacred event."

Back to the studio for the personal testimonies of the emotional Early Show crew . . .

SMITH: As profound a moment as I have ever experienced [inaudible].

RUSS MITCHELL: [Turning to Debbye Turner Bell] I hope you don't mind me saying this: you got emotional just watching this.

DEBBYE TURNER BELL: Yeah, I was able to go as a citizen; I didn't have to work that day. Many of my family came to town.  I'm getting emotional just thinking about it. I come from parents who in many cases had to go to segregated schools. My father integrated the university that I eventually attended. So, it's hard to separate the emotion.

MITCHELL: And as I was [inaudible] I thought of the same thing: my parents, the things they went through, things my grandparents, and yet that day, then that day, and yet that today here was an African-American being sworn in as President of the United States.

Even the pallid Dave Price got into the spirit, saying something that brought Lourdes to mind.

DAVE PRICE: You were sitting in that crowd, and you looked around and you saw people who had made it in wheelchairs and walkers on this bitter cold day: the young, the old, every race and creed and sexual orientation there.  And on that day, you felt this overwhelming sense of hope and promise, and I think it didn't matter what party you were a member of, it was the fact that this is a day when America came together --

TURNER BELL: Yes, yes.

PRICE: And celebrated something historic.

SMITH: On the other hand, it didn't last long.

TURNER BELL: The honeymoon was short.

PRICE: Politics takes over.

Damn those sacrilegious Republicans!

But seriously, can anyone imagine that these people, who admit to finding it difficult to "separate the emotion" are capable of fair-'n-balanced coverage of this president?

Note: as if that weren't enough, the next segment was devoted to the story of an adoring photographer who followed Obama throughout the campaign and has produced a photo book imaginatively entitled: "Yes, We Can".
 

On Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Russ Mitchell introduced a report on difficulties President Obama is having with left-wing: “President Obama is facing a growing backlash from liberal supporters on the issue of health care reform.” White House correspondent Bill Plante described the: “...anger really among the President’s former grass roots supporters on the Left.”

After citing former Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean’s opposition to the health care bill, Plante turned to other liberal critics: “Christopher Hayes, editor of the left-leaning magazine The Nation, says President Obama has betrayed the promises of his campaign.” Hayes argued: “What made the campaign so great was that it engendered a feeling of empowerment, that it felt like power was being distributed downwards, right? And that is something that you’re seeing the opposite of in this legislative battle.”

Plante even cited left-wing commenters on President Obama’s Facebook page: “Jamie writes ‘I had so much hope, but I feel like I’m invisible to a man I worked so hard to elect.’ While Melanie warns ‘if this White House doesn’t change, I won’t vote for you again.’” Plante concluded: “And that’s exactly the problem. It may mean that all of that enthusiasm that was generated in 2008 won’t be there either to push Congress or to reelect the President.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:05AM

RUSS MITCHELL: Meanwhile, President Obama is facing a growing backlash from liberal supporters on the issue of health care reform. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has more on that. Bill, good morning.

BILL PLANTE: That’s right, Russ. Good morning. The intense horse trading over the health care bill has meant some increased, increased, really, you know – anger really among the President’s former grass roots supporters on the Left. Former President Bill Clinton weighed in, trying to help President Obama with the dissent, urging Democrats to back the bill. ‘Does this bill read exactly how I would write it? No. Does it contain everything everyone wants? Of course not. But America can’t afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.’ But other leading Democrats disagree. Former Democratic National Chair Howard Dean says he wouldn’t vote for it, writing in the Washington Post, ‘I know health reform when I see it and there isn’t much left in the Senate bill.’ Christopher Hayes, editor of the left-leaning magazine The Nation, says President Obama has betrayed the promises of his campaign.

CHRISTOPHER HAYES: What made the campaign so great was that it engendered a feeling of empowerment, that it felt like power was being distributed downwards, right? And that is something that you’re seeing the opposite of in this legislative battle.

PLANTE: That’s the sentiment echoed on the President’s Facebook page. Jamie writes ‘I had so much hope, but I feel like I’m invisible to a man I worked so hard to elect.’ While Melanie warns ‘if this White House doesn’t change, I won’t vote for you again.’ And that’s exactly the problem. It may mean that all of that enthusiasm that was generated in 2008 won’t be there either to push Congress or to reelect the President. Russ.

MITCHELL: Bill Plante at the White House. Thank you very much.

All three morning shows on Friday skipped Senator Al Franken’s disrespectful snub of Joe Lieberman during a health care debate. Good Morning America, bizarrely, played video of the incident over a news brief, but never once mentioned what happened. While presiding over debate in the Senate on Thursday, Franken cut off Lieberman and then denied him an opportunity to finish his remarks.

A surprised Lieberman responded, "Really?" And yet, GMA, CBS’s Early Show and NBC’s Today all ignored the exchange. As ABC news anchor Juju Chang read a generalized report on health care, video from the dust-up can clearly be seen. (See above video.) Chang noted, "Nebraska hold out, Democrat Ben Nelson says changes to abortion funding limits were not strict enough. And he's doubting a deal can be reached."

The contentious remarks began when Franken interrupted, "The Senator has spoken for 10 minutes...In my capacity as the senator from Minnesota, I object." John McCain came to the defense of longtime friend: "I’ve been around for 20 some years, first time I’ve ever seen a member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks...I’ll tell you, I’ve never seen a member denied an extra minute or so, as the chair just did."

Considering that news outlets usually like dramatic video, not reporting the event is odd, to say the least. Unless, of course, the intent is to rescue Franken and the Democrats from embarrassment.

A transcript of the GMA news brief, which aired at 8:02am EST on December 18, follows:

JUJU CHANG: And the President is running into frustration on another big issue, health care reform. Democrats still don't have the 60 votes needed to pass their reform bill. Nebraska hold out, Democrat Ben Nelson says changes to abortion funding limits were not strict enough. And he's doubting a deal can be reached.

Earlier this week, NewsBusters Editor at Large Brent Baker noted how the broadcast networks seemed oblivious to communist protesters outside the Copenhagen global warming summit.

But the Red-friendly red meat slogans are not just being tossed about by violent demonstrators outside the conference. Today NewsBusters sister site CNSNews.com noted how dissent-oppressing, private-land seizing dictators Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe yesterday denounced capitalism and praised socialism to a warm and receptive crowd at the Copenhagen climate change summit.

Of course neither ABC's "Good Morning America" nor CBS's "Early Show" or NBC's "Today" addressed that this morning in their brief updates on Copenhagen.

Reports CNS News International Editor Patrick Goodenough:

To save the planet from global warming, [Hugo Chavez] said, the system itself must be changed.

“I have been reading some of the slogans painted in the streets [outside the conference venue],” he said. “One said, ‘Don’t change the climate, change the system.’ And I bring that on board for us – let’s not change the climate, let’s change the system. And as a consequence, we will begin to save the planet. Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.”
 
Chavez also linked the climate change issue to the global economic situation. “If the climate was a capitalist bank, they would have saved it, the rich governments,” he said.
 
Venezuela is the world’s fifth-biggest exporter of crude oil. Environmentalists say the burning of fossil fuels is a principal source of increases in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, which they blame for global warming.
 
Television footage of Chavez’ address showed delegates applauding some of his remarks, particularly those on capitalism, with some standing and clapping.

For his part, Mugabe, whose dictatorship has ground his country's economy into the dirt, lamented that there are no "sanctions" against countries that don't meet Kyoto Protocol carbon targets, much like the sanctions that are levied on human rights offenders, namely Zimbabwe:

“When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it’s we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere who gasp and sink and eventually die,” he said.
 
“Why is the guilty north not showing the same fundamentalist spirit it exhibits in our developing countries on human rights matters on this more menacing threat of climate change?”
 
Mugabe, who faces sanctions by Western governments for human rights abuses at home, asked why developed nations not cooperating with the existing global climate treaty – the U.S. by implication – were not being punished.
 
“Where are the sanctions for offenders?” he asked. “When we spit at the Kyoto Protocol by seeking to retreat from its dictates, or simply refusing to accede to it, are we not undermining the rule of global law?”

Another leftist head of state, Evo Morales -- who seized an opponent's ranch shortly after winning reelection as president of Bolivia -- was quoted in today's Washington Post calling for an end to "the slavery of Mother Earth" by "capitalist countries." Of course, that came at the tail end of an article in the printe edition* entitled "Signs of hope emerge at climate conference: Obama's Friday visit expected to be pivotal."

*The headline in the digital edition reads "At Copenhagen, both rich and developing nations offer concessions."

At the top of Thursday’s CBS Early Show, correspondent Nancy Cordes excitedly proclaimed that Senate Democrats “are tantalizingly close” to passing a health care bill and derided Republicans for trying to “thwart” the legislation using “stall tactics.”  

Cordes reported on the urgency of Democratic efforts to get 60 votes in the Senate: “Leaders are trying to craft a compromise that everyone can live with and soon...to pass a bill by the holidays, they must file the bill by this Saturday.” She lamented that “...they could get thwarted by Republican stall tactics....[who] suddenly demanded that clerks read a 767 page health care amendment out loud on the Senate floor.”

After explaining that “Senate business got tied up for three hours,” Cordes declared: “Democrats were predictably outraged.” She concluded her report: “And that’s the kind of stunt that Republicans would happily pull again if it will slow down the Democrats’ goal of getting this bill passed.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: As Senate Democrats try to secure enough votes to pass health care reform, Republicans try to run out the clock.

DICK DURBIN [READING TWEET FROM SEN. JIM DEMINT]: If Reid won’t slow down this debate, we’ll do it for him.

SMITH: We’ll go to Capitol Hill and get the latest.

7:03AM SEGMENT:

RUSS MITCHELL: Back in this country, Senate Democratic leaders are working to push a watered down version of health care reform through Congress. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is at her post on Capitol Hill with more on that. Nancy, good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Russ. They are tantalizingly close now. There is now just one Republican – or Democrat, rather – holdout, that’s Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. Democratic leaders are frantically negotiating with Nelson who would provide their crucial 60th vote. Nelson, who wants the bill to include a ban on abortion coverage for any woman who gets a tax credit to buy insurance.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Reform On The Ropes; Clock Ticks Down On Health Care Overhaul]

MARK MCCLELLAN [THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION]: This is a big issue, it’s a complex issue. Since it’s all Democratic support, there is essentially no room for losing any votes.

CORDES: Leaders are trying to craft a compromise that everyone can live with and soon. Because Senate rules dictate that if they want to pass a bill by the holidays, they must file the bill by this Saturday. And even then, they could get thwarted by Republican stall tactics.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN [SENATE CLERK]: The provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the council.

CORDES: Yesterday, Republicans suddenly demanded that clerks read a 767 page health care amendment out loud on the Senate floor.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN [SENATE CLERK]: For purposes of this subsection, a service shall be considered to have been provided-

CORDES: Senate business got tied up for three hours until Senator Bernie Sanders just pulled his amendment. Democrats were predictably outraged.

DICK DURBIN [SENATOR, D-ILLINOIS]: I have in my hand a smoking tweet from Senator Joe DeMint. ‘If Reid won’t slow down this debate, we’ll do it for him.’

CORDES: And that’s the kind of stunt that Republicans would happily pull again if it will slow down the Democrats’ goal of getting this bill passed, now before any of their members can change their minds. And before the calendar reads 2010. Which is an election year, Russ, when many members’ minds will be elsewhere.

MITCHELL: Exactly. Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill. Thank you very much.

In an interview to be aired on the CBS "Early Show" Wednesday, Nobel Laureate Al Gore read his global warming poem to Harry Smith.

Even worse, the 23-year CBS veteran journalist, almost like a teenybopper swooning as she approaches a rock star for an autograph, actually asked the former Vice President to read it to him.

When the Global Warmingist-in-Chief was done, Smith said breathlessly, "Wow. I'm so glad you read that...I'm happy to hear it in your voice."

Readers are cautioned to stow liquids and flammables at a safe distance before proceeding (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Story Balloon):

HARRY SMITH, HOST: You've written plenty of words before, but to the best of my knowledge, I'm not sure I've ever seen you write a poem before. Is that true?

AL GORE: That's true. Yeah.

SMITH: So, just for us, if you don't mind, would you, would you read the poem?

GORE: Sure. You want me to tell you what it's about?

SMITH: Please.

GORE: The impacts of the climate crisis really do not make up the focus of "Our Choice." "Our Choice" is about the solutions to the climate crisis. But in a brief summary of the impacts and what their implications are, rather than go into them in detail, I just, kind of did some brushstrokes, and don't claim to be a poet. It's just how it came out.

One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve

Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly

Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebration

Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups

Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung

The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools

SMITH: Wow. I'm so glad you read that. I was, really, I'm very happy...

GORE: Thanks for asking me.

SMITH: I'm happy to hear it in your voice.

GORE: Well, thank you.

Readers are advised that Gore is WAY too busy to discuss climate change with John Stossel, and is WAY too busy to answer questions about ClimateGate.

However, he's NEVER too busy to read poetry to journalists.

Hey -- a Nobel Laureate has to have priorities, right? 

At the top of Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith enthusiastically proclaimed: “A frustrated President Obama gets set to read the riot act to the heads of America’s top banks.” Minutes later, Smith claimed it would be a “tough day for America’s biggest bankers” as the President planned to admonish them over executive compensation and lending practices at a White House meeting.  

White House correspondent Bill Plante followed with a report on the meeting: “...the bankers are likely to get an earful when they meet with the President later today and he previewed some of his frustrations over their bonuses and over their reluctance to make loans on 60 Minutes.” Plante referred to an interview the Obama gave to 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft Sunday night, but none of the Early Show coverage mentioned the numerous parts of that interview in which Kroft grilled the President on topics ranging from Afghanistan to health care reform.  

During Plante’s report, the headline on-screen read: “Obama to Wall Street: Buck Up; Meets With Bank Heads to Change Behavior.” A clip of Obama on 60 Minutes was played: “They’re still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks. Well, let’s see. You guys are drawing down $10 - $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it’s gone through in decades. And you guys caused the problem.”

Plante did get a business perspective on the topic: “...some Wall Street analysts say the banks aren’t lending because they don’t believe the recession is really over.” Jim Awad, managing director Zephyr Management, explained: “Banks are being conservative because they had a near death experience, they had a one-time bailout that they know can never be replicated, they want to ensure that they have capital so they can say ‘never ever again will we be in that position.’”

Before letting Plante go, Smith asked: “Bill, besides talking to Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes last night, the President talked to Oprah Winfrey, as well, and she asked him to give himself a grade for the year. What did he say?” Plante reported: “because he’s gotten a plan for Afghanistan and he’s moving troops out of Iraq, he gives himself a B-. But he says if he succeeds in getting health care passed, then it goes to – he gave himself a B+, I’m sorry, then it goes to A-. It’s kind of like an open book test.” Smith added: “Sounded like that. And who knows how the curve works.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: A frustrated President Obama gets set to read the riot act to the heads of America’s top banks.

BARACK OBAMA: The people on Wall Street still don’t get it. They don’t get it.

SMITH: We’ll preview today’s big meeting and hear more from the President’s interview on 60 Minutes.

7:01AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: First, this could be a tough day for America’s biggest bankers. They are scheduled to meet with President Obama today and CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has a preview. Good morning, Bill.

BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Harry. That’s right, the bankers are likely to get an earful when they meet with the President later today and he previewed some of his frustrations over their bonuses and over their reluctance to make loans on 60 Minutes.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama to Wall Street: Buck Up; Meets With Bank Heads to Change Behavior]

BARACK OBAMA: I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of, you know, fat cat bankers on Wall Street.

PLANTE: The President told Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes the banks who paid back their government loan in order to payout big bonuses don’t get it.

OBAMA: They’re still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks. Well, let’s see. You guys are drawing down $10 - $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it’s gone through in decades. And you guys caused the problem. And we’ve got 10% unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?

PLANTE: So today, says presidential economic adviser Larry Summers, the officers of the 12 biggest banks will get this message from the President.

LARRY SUMMERS: They wouldn’t be where they are today and they certainly wouldn’t be paying the bonuses they’re paying today if their government hadn’t taken extraordinary actions.

PLANTE: Summers predicts that the job market will begin to improve by the spring, but some Wall Street analysts say the banks aren’t lending because they don’t believe the recession is really over.

JIM AWAD [MANAGING DIRECTOR, ZEPHYR MANAGEMENT]: Banks are being conservative because they had a near death experience, they had a one-time bailout that they know can never be replicated, they want to ensure that they have capital so they can say ‘never ever again will we be in that position.’

PLANTE: And there’s late word this morning that Citigroup, one of those banks, is paying back $20 billion today to the government or announcing it. They sill, however, are in a position where the taxpayers own 34% of the company. Harry.

SMITH: Bill, besides talking to Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes last night, the President talked to Oprah Winfrey, as well, and she asked him to give himself a grade for the year. What did he say?

PLANTE: Well, that was interesting. He gave himself this grade, he said because he’s gotten a plan for Afghanistan and he’s moving troops out of Iraq, he gives himself a B-. But he says if he succeeds in getting health care passed, then it goes to – he gave himself a B+, I’m sorry, then it goes to A-. It’s kind of like an open book test.

SMITH: Sounded like that. And who knows how the curve works. Alright, Bill Plante at the White House this morning. Thank you.

In an interview with actor Matt Damon on Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith discussed the star’s role in a liberal documentary on American history: “‘The People Speak,’ based on one of Damon’s favorite books, ‘A People’s History of The United States’....examine’s America’s founding and expansion from the perspective of the revolutionaries, rebels, and rarely heard voices of dissent.”

Damon described the left-wing revisionism as “an honest look at – at where we’ve come from and the idea that all of these changes have been struggled for by everyday people.” Smith also spoke with the book’s author Howard Zinn and wondered: “Does it seem like this is an extra good time to be making a version of this book into a movie?” Zinn replied: “we want this history to speak to our present situation. What is our present situation? War. So in many ways the film, I think, speaks to things that are going on now.”

On Wednesday, Zinn proclaimed his anti-war views on NBC’s Today: “I believe the best way to support the troops is to bring them home. You’re not supporting them when you’re keeping them there and for not a good reason.”

During the Early Show interview, Smith noted how “Damon has known Howard Zinn since childhood” and asked the actor when he first read the book. Damon replied: “I started reading passages from it in 1980 actually. I remember when we got the book and for Columbus Day I took in – the first chapter is about Columbus and I took it in and was allowed to read parts of that to the class, actually, at the age of ten.”

One such passage on page four of that chapter:

Now, from his base on Haiti, Columbus sent expedition after expedition into the interior. They found no gold fields, but had to fill up the ships returning to Spain with some kind of dividend. In the year 1495, they went on a great slave raid, rounded up fifteen hundred Arawak men, women, and children, and put them in pens guarded by Spaniards and dogs, then picked the five hundred best specimens to load onto ships. Of those five hundred, two hundred died en route. The rest arrived alive in Spain and were put up for sale by the archdeacon of the town., who reproted that, although the slaves were “naked as the day they were born,” they showed “no more embarrassment than animals.” Columbus later wrote: “Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.”

But too many of the slaves died in captivity. And so Columbus, desperate to pay back dividends to those who had invested, had to make good his promise to fill his ships with gold. In the province of Cicao on Haiti, where he and his men imagined huge gold fields to exist, they ordered all persons fourteen years or older to collect a certain quantity of gold every three months. When they brough it, they were given copper tokens to hang around their necks. Indians found without a copper token had their hands cut off and bled to death.

The Indians had been given an impossible task. The only gold around was bits of dust gathered from streams. So they fled, were hunted down with dogs, and were killed. Trying to put together an army of resistance, the Arawaks faced Spaniards who had armor, muskets, swords, horses. When the Spaniards took prisoners, they hanged them or burned them to death. Among the Arawaks, mass suicides began, with cassava poison. Infants were killed to save them from the Spaniards. In two years, through murder, mutilation, and suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians on Haiti were dead.

While the Zinn includes a bibliography for each chapter in the book, there are no footnotes featured for any specific citations or claims.  

Here is a full transcript of the Early Show segment:

8:29AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Also, more of my conversation with Matt Damon this morning. We talked about Invictus yesterday. We’re going to talk about a special project he has done with some really interesting folk for the History Channel. We’ll have that conversation in just a couple of minutes.

8:38AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: Yesterday we showed you my interview with Matt Damon about his new film Invictus. We also talked about another new project that stems from one of his passions, American history. He and fellow actor Josh Brolin appear in a documentary ‘The People Speak,’ based on one of Damon’s favorite books, ‘A People’s History of The United States.’ Howard Zinn has taught history for most of his life. Rarely has he produced a lesson quite like this.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The People Speak; Matt Damon’s Historic Documentary]

HOWARD ZINN: I wrote ‘A People’s History of The United States’-

SMITH: Matt Damon has known Howard Zinn since childhood. When did you read it?

MATT DAMON: I started reading passages from it in 1980 actually. I remember when we got the book and for Columbus Day I took in – the first chapter is about Columbus and I took it in and was allowed to read parts of that to the class, actually, at the age of ten.

SMITH: At the age of ten?

DAMON: Yeah.

[CLIP FROM ‘GOOD WILL HUNTING’]

ROBIN WILLIAMS: What about the one’s on the top shelf? You read those?

SMITH: The actor references Zinn’s best seller in the Academy Award winning film ‘Good Will Hunting.’

[CLIP CONTINUES]

DAMON: If you want to read a real history book, read Howard Zinn’s ‘A People’s History of The United States.’

SMITH: First published in 1980, ‘A People’s History of The United States’ examine’s America’s founding and expansion from the perspective of the revolutionaries, rebels, and rarely heard voices of dissent.

DAMON: It’s just an honest look at – at where we’ve come from and the idea that all of these changes have been struggled for by everyday people. And that that’s a good thing. That being an America means participating.

SMITH: After Zinn’s book sold a million copies, his publisher wanted to commemorate the achievement.

HOWARD ZINN: I asked him ‘how do you propose to do it?’ Well, we’ll do it at 92nd Street. Why in New York? Because it’s the usual venue for events. And we’ll have some historians on the stage. And I said, ‘please, not that.’

SMITH: Zinn had a better idea.

ZINN: It happened I knew some actors and I thought, yeah, let’s have some actors read historical documents.

MORGAN FREEMAN: Your shout for liberty and equality, hollow mockery.

DAMON: If you’re reading about Frederick Douglas, I mean, wouldn’t you want Morgan Freeman reading the actual – what Frederick Douglas wrote?

BROLIN: When you see these live readings and you see the people react to the live readings.

KERRY WASHINGTON [ACTRESS, ‘THE PEOPLE SPEAK’]: Where did your Christ come from? He came from God and a woman. Men didn’t have nothing to do with it.

SMITH: As the format evolved, an idea for a film began to take shape.

DAMON: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

SMITH: Was there fighting about who was going to get to read what – what part?

DAMON: No, on the contrary, there’s so many things to be read that there – you know, that the big problem is cutting it into – into one film.

JOSH BROLIN: I want to be there when they talk about honor and justice and making the world safe for democracy.

SMITH: In all, 96 hours of historical prose performed by today’s biggest stars was condensed to produce ‘The People Speak,’ which will air on the History Channel.

SMITH: Does it seem like this is an extra good time to be making a version of this book into a movie?

ZINN: Yeah. You know, we say at the beginning, you know, we want this history to speak to our present situation. What is our present situation? War. So in many ways the film, I think, speaks to things that are going on now.

SMITH: ‘The People Speak’ airs this Sunday on the History Channel.

While interviewing former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Wedneday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez questioned his support for a plan by Senate Democrats to expand Medicare coverage: “...the criticism is that Medicare as it stands doesn’t work because the payments don’t cover the plan. Are we just not creating a bigger problem if we have to insure more people under Medicare?”

Dean praised the idea as a good alternative to the public option: “Medicare is a very, very effective program. It’s a government-run single payer program. Everybody over 65 is in it and it works very well....This isn’t perfect and the coverage is not broad enough, in my view, but I do think this is a positive step forward.”

Rodriguez began the interview by pointing out that Dean had previously been adamant about the public option being part of any health care legislation: “...back in August when we talked about this. You said ‘you can’t have reform without the public option.’ But as you know this plan, devised by these ten senators does not include it. So do you oppose it?” Dean replied: “Actually, not at all. Medicare is a public program, and it’s a single payer run by the government....I judge all these plans by whether they move things forward or move things backward. This move things forwards.”

Rodriguez then followed up by wondering: “So are you saying this is just the public option by another name?” Dean argued: “What I’m saying is it is a public program that people over 55 are allowed to buy in to and it makes sense because you don’t have to reinvent another bureaucracy to do it....I think this is still real reform.”

In her final question to Dean, Rodriguez noted the division between Democrats in the Senate and the House over the public option: “What do you do with the fact that the House has a completely different bill on the table which does include a public option. Can this go forward?” Dean brushed aside that concern: “Yes, there’s no reason you can’t have both and there’ll be some kind of reasonable compromise....the most important thing that we’re looking at, is expansion of care. And we’ve got it in the Senate bill.”

After concluding the interview, Rodriguez remarked to fellow co-host Harry Smith: “Last time we spoke he [Dean] also predicted that the President would be signing the bill this month. So we’ll see what happens.”

Prior to the interview, Rodriguez introduced a report on the Senate deal: “Yesterday Senators rejected a plan that would have prevented government subsidized insurance plans from paying for abortions and this morning there’s word that Senate Democrats have come to an agreement on the controversial public option, at least a few of them.” In the report that followed, correspondent Nancy Cordes went so far as to declare: “That’s right, the contentious public option appears, at least in the Senate, to be dead.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: After days of secret meetings, Senate Democrats have hammered out a health care compromise. But will it get enough votes? We’ll ask former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean.        

7:05AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Now we move to the heated debate in the Senate over health care reform. Yesterday Senators rejected a plan that would have prevented government subsidized insurance plans from paying for abortions and this morning there’s word that Senate Democrats have come to an agreement on the controversial public option, at least a few of them. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is on Capitol Hill with the latest. Nancy, good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Maggie, good morning to you. That’s right, the contentious public option appears, at least in the Senate, to be dead. Democrats simply didn’t have the votes but they’ve been working overtime these past few days to try to come up with a way to cover uninsured Americans without it. And last night Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said they had hit on a solution.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Health Care Compromise; Senate Dems Reach Agreement]

HARRY REID: We have a broad agreement.

CORDES: The Democratic leader wouldn’t say what he and his colleagues had settled on. But the five liberal Democrats and five moderates, who have been behind closed doors all week, have consistently mentioned two prime alternatives to a public option. First, a new national insurance plan to be administered by the government but involving private insurers. The government would negotiate to get the best rates the way it does for federal employees. Second, expanding Medicare, allowing some Americans 55 and older to buy in to the same coverage seniors get.

JONATHAN COHN [THE NEW REPUBLIC]: Medicare is already so big that adding a few million people to it probably won’t change the market as much as creating a whole new public option.

CORDES: The 11th hour ideas are drawing fire from the GOP.

MITCH MCCONNELL [SENATE MINORITY LEADER]: Americans would much rather we get it right than scurry around, throwing together untested last-minute experiments in order to get 60 votes before Christmas.

CORDES: Democrats do still need to figure out how these alternatives would work and how much they would cost. But if the public option actually is dead here in the Senate, that is going to set up a showdown with the House, where liberals are much more committed to keeping it. Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: Right, and their bill still includes it. Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill. Thank you, Nancy. Let’s get reaction now from a leading supporter of the public option, former Vermont Governor and former Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean. Governor Dean, good morning.

HOWARD DEAN: Good morning. How are you?

RODRIGUEZ: I’m well, thank you. I’d like to read back a quote, something that you told me back in August when we talked about this. You said ‘you can’t have reform without the public option.’ But as you know this plan, devised by these ten senators does not include it. So do you oppose it?

DEAN: Actually, not at all. Medicare is a public program, and it’s a single payer run by the government. So, you know, this is – this is – I judge all these plans by whether they move things forward or move things backward. This move things forwards. We should have used Medicare in the first-

RODRIGUEZ: So are you saying this is just the public option by another name?

DEAN: What I’m saying is it is a public program that people over 55 are allowed to buy in to and it makes sense because you don’t have to reinvent another bureaucracy to do it. This is what should have been done in the first place, this kind of thing. So I think this is still real reform. Whether we – whatever we call it is irrelevant. Is it going to work? Yes it is. Now, of course, the House coverage is much broader and that’s very good, and there had to be some things given up here to do this. But I think this puts-

RODRIGUEZ: But I’m sorry, let me-

DEAN: This puts us on the right track.

RODRIGUEZ: Let me just interrupt you and say that a lot of people would disagree with you that it would work because the criticism is that Medicare as it stands doesn’t work because the payments don’t cover the plan. Are we just not creating a bigger problem if we have to insure more people under Medicare?

DEAN: No, not at all. Medicare is a very, very effective program. It’s a government-run single payer program. Everybody over 65 is in it and it works very well. These expenses are going to be adjusted later on. There’s not much cost control in this bill on either side. And that’s going to happen later on. It’s already starting to happen in the states. Massachusetts, for example, has proposed ending fee-for-service medicine. This is a good step forward. This isn’t perfect and the coverage is not broad enough, in my view, but I do think this is a positive step forward. I think using Medicare makes much more sense than reinventing a different bureaucracy.

RODRIGUEZ: What do you do with the fact that the House has a completely different bill on the table which does include a public option. Can this go forward?

DEAN: Yes, there’s no reason you can’t have both and there’ll be some kind of reasonable compromise, maybe. And I hope whatever they do, the compromise involves expansion of care. That’s the most important thing that we’re looking at, is expansion of care. And we’ve got it in the Senate bill and it’s using the Medicare as the substrate and that’s an important advance.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Howard Dean, thank you so much for your time, as always.

DEAN: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright. Last time we spoke he also predicted that the President would be signing the bill this month. So we’ll see what happens.

While interviewing Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith referred to recent comments by Senator Harry Reid: “[He] said Republicans are on the wrong side of history when it comes to this health care bill and very soberly...compared those who opposed health care to those who opposed civil rights legislation....How would you respond to that?”

Steele fired back: “Well, you know, it was not a sober moment for Harry Reid at all. It was an ignorant moment for Harry Reid.” Steele continued: “ I’m kind of sick and tired of, you know, the Left and Democrats in this country, when they get into trouble and don’t get their way...they play that race card, that slavery card, that civil rights card.” Smith didn’t even mention Reid’s further comparison of Republicans to those who resisted ending slavery.

Steele called on Reid to apologize: “...it was an ignorant comment. Harry needs to go to the well of the Senate, take it back, and apologize for offending the sensibilities of the American people on something so important.”

During the 10AM ET hour on MSNBC on Tuesday, anchor Contessa Brewer reported on Steele’s Early Show appearance: “Head of the RNC, Michael Steele, stepping up pressure on Senator Harry Reid. He wants Reid to apologize for comparing Republican opponents of health care reform to those who resisted an end to slavery.” After playing back-to-back clips of Reid and Steele, Brewer added: “Reid’s spokesman says Steele’s remarks amount to feigned outrage.”

On the Early Show, Smith waited until the last question to get Steele’s reaction to Reid’s controversial comments, the rest of the interview focused on President Obama’s jobs plan. Smith began by asking: “What do you think of this idea, though, of using – because this T.A.R.P. money was used to bail out some of these bigger financial institutions, many of them are paying them off, paying them back with interest. What do you think of using that idea as a jobs stimulus?” Steele criticized the Obama administration for “just sort of jerking from one thing to the next with respect to the underlying issue that this administration came into office talking about it would solve....So, you know, another speech, you know, another summit.”

Smith followed up: “What do you think the biggest obstacle is to job creation?” Steele argued: “Well, the biggest obstacle is what you see in this health care bill, quite frankly....I don’t know how you’re going to create incentives for small businesses on the one hand when you’re putting regulatory burdens and tax burdens on them on the other.”

Here is a full transcript of the interview:

7:09AM

HARRY SMITH: Joining us now is chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. Good morning, Michael.

MICHAEL STEELE: Hey, good morning. Hey look, tell Bill my pockets are empty, so I can’t help him out there either, so.

SMITH: What do you think of this idea, though, of using – because this T.A.R.P. money was used to bail out some of these bigger financial institutions, many of them are paying them off, paying them back with interest. What do you think of using that idea as a jobs stimulus?

STEELE: Well, you know, I think it’s fine if you’re going to give it – give the $200 billion directly to small businesses and there are a number of ways in which that can happen. You know, but for me, the broader point is here we are in almost month 12 of this administration and we’re just now beginning to have a serious conversation about job creation. And just sort of jerking from one thing to the next with respect to the underlying issue that this administration came into office talking about it would solve. And that is job creation, unemployment rates, and what to do with small businesses. So, you know, another speech, you know, another summit. This is not rocket science. I mean, the bottom line is that wealth generation in this country comes from small business owners. They employ close to 70% of the work –  nation’s workforce. So why aren’t we focused on them in January as opposed to December?

SMITH: What do you-

STEELE: Maybe our unemployment situation would look a little bit different today.

SMITH: What do you think the biggest obstacle is to job creation?

STEELE: Well, the biggest obstacle is what you see in this health care bill, quite frankly. I mean, you’re talking about the impact directly on small business owners through more regulation, more taxes, and other burdens that are embedded into this health care bill that’s not being put out on the table. Small businesses – and this is why the Chamber [of Commerce] got in trouble, because they looked at the bill, they paid attention, saw the impact on its member, and they know the impact it’s going to have on small businesses. And I don’t know how you’re going to create incentives for small businesses on the one hand when you’re putting regulatory burdens and tax burdens on them on the other.

SMITH: Did you see this news, though, this morning that the public option may, in fact, be dead and that what the Democrats will really try to do is expand the reach of Medicare?

STEELE: Well, you know, I – here we go again. The public option was dead sometime over the summer and it came back like Frankenstein’s monster and it’s now dead again. And I think the reality of it is, look, you’ve got the liberals in Congress who’ve made it very clear, no public option, no vote. And so I don’t see how – how they get through this process without the public option in there if the President wants this bill passed before the end of the year. Which we hope it doesn’t happen.

SMITH: Very quickly, Harry Reid said Republicans are on the wrong side of history when it comes to this health care bill and very soberly yesterday he compared those who opposed health care to those who opposed civil rights legislation and other important acts throughout – throughout history. How would you respond to that?

STEELE: Well, you know, it was not a sober moment for Harry Reid at all. It was an ignorant moment for Harry Reid. In fact, you know, I’m kind of sick and tired of, you know, the Left and Democrats in this country, when they get into trouble and don’t get their way, and their backs are up against the wall on legislation or whatever it is they’re trying to do, they go to that card, they play that race card, that slavery card, that civil rights card. And this has nothing to do with – with health care. If you disagree – if you have a philosophical or political, or you know, business disagreement with this administration, or Harry Reid, on health care, it has nothing to do with the historic roots of slavery. So it was an ignorant comment. Harry needs to go to the well of the Senate, take it back and apologize for offending the sensibilities of the American people on something so important.

SMITH: Michael Steele, we thank you for your time this morning, sir.

STEELE: Alrighty.

SMITH: Alright, take care.

While it has been documented that CNN's Howard Kurtz chided his own news network for ignoring the recently-revealed scandal involving Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus nominating his girlfriend for a U.S. attorney position -- after the CNN anchor had monitored CNN on Saturday -- it turns out that on Sunday morning, even before Kurtz's Reliable Sources show had begun, CNN had already started to pay more attention to the scandal than the news network had on Saturday, but -- while one may argue the story deserves even more attention -- CNN Sunday Morning actually devoted somewhat more time to the story than the other morning newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC, and even FNC.

Baucus was also directly labeled as a Democrat by CNN Sunday Morning co-anchors T.J. Holmes and Betty Nguyen, which the two had done in the previous day's story on CNN Saturday Morning. The Baucus scandal was mentioned several other times during the day on CNN NewsRoom, each time with Baucus clearly identified as a Democrat.

Neither ABC's Good Morning America, nor FNC's Fox and Friends directly labeled Baucus as a Democrat during the weekend, although on Fox and Friends Sunday Baucus's party could be indirectly inferred because the story involved criticism from RNC chairman Michael Steele.

Below is a roundup of how the Baucus scandal story was reported on morning and evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FNC, on Saturday and Sunday:

On ABC, Good Morning America on both Saturday and Sunday mentioned the story once each day, but not Baucus's party affiliation. ABC's World News was preempted on Saturday, and there was no mention on the Sunday edition.

On CBS, Saturday's The Early Show mentioned Baucus with his party affiliation, while Saturday's CBS Evening News -- which was preempted in most places -- did not mention Baucus's party.

On NBC, Saturday's Today show and the same day's NBC Nightly News mentioned the scandal, in both cases identifying Baucus as a Democrat.

For CNN, a Nexis search finds only one mention of the scandal on Saturday, but several others at various times on Sunday. CNN Saturday Morning spent about a minute on the story without mentioning that Baucus is a Democrat. But on Sunday, as the story was mentioned several times -- not only on CNN Sunday Morning but also on CNN NewsRoom at various hours -- in nearly all cases Baucus was identified as a Democrat.

On FNC, Fox and Friends Saturday mentioned the story twice without relaying party affiliation, and Fox and Friends Sunday mentioned the scandal without directly identifying Baucus as a Democrat, although one might infer his party affiliation because the story involved RNC chairman Michael Steele criticizing the Montana Senator. There was no mention on FNC's Fox Report.

#From ABC's December 5 Good Morning America at 7:06 a.m.:

JOHN BERMAN: Senator Max Baucus of Montana had already begun an affair with his current girlfriend when he nominated her for U.S. attorney in March. She later withdrew her name from consideration and works in the Justice Department.

#From ABC's December 6 Good Morning America at 8:09 a.m.:

JOHN BERMAN: Montana Senator Max Baucus is defending his decision to recommend his girlfriend for U.S. attorney. Baucus says Melodee Haines is a highly qualified prosecutor who conducted more than 100 jury trials. And the Senator says he appointed a third-party reviewer to oversee the process. Of course, that reviewer was also a Baucus campaign contributor. Haines’ nomination was later withdrawn.

#From CBS's December 5 The Early Show on CBS at 9:34 a.m.:

SETH DOANE: And Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus was romantically involved with a former staffer when he recommended her earlier this year to become the next U.S. attorney for Montana. That’s according to a spokesperson for the Montana Democrat. His girlfriend Mellody Haines was his former state office director. She has since withdrawn her name from consideration.

#From the December 5 CBS Evening News, based on the Nexis transcript:

JEFF GLOR: Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus has confirmed a news report tonight that he was romantically involved with a former staffer who he recommended for U.S. attorney`s job in Montana last year. A spokesman says Melodee Haines withdrew her name from a list of three finalists submitted to the White House, after she and Baucus decided to move in together.

#From NBC's December 5 Today show at 7:18 a.m.:

TAMRON HALL: And Democratic Senator Max Baucus was romantically involved with a former staffer when he recommended her to become the next U.S. attorney for Montana. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee recommended Mellody Haines and two others to the White House as potential nominees. The two began their relationship in the summer of 2008 after Baucus separated from his wife. Haines later withdrew her name from consideration.

#From the December 5 NBC Nightly News at 6:32 p.m. at the end of a report on the health care debate:

MIKE VIQUEIRA: And, Lester, one of the Democratic leaders in that health care debate – you saw him in that piece – Max Baucus of Montana, under an ethical cloud tonight after it turns out that he nominated his girlfriend who used to work for him in his U.S. Senate office to be the top U.S. prosecutor in his home state of Montana. Baucus was besieged outside the Senate chamber today by reporters. He says that Melodee Haines, his girlfriend, is highly qualified, but now Republicans are calling for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation.

From the December 5 CNN Saturday Morning News at 6:43 a.m.:

T.J. HOLMES: Something, a player, a name that a lot of people might not know a whole lot about from a state that most people don’t know a whole lot about, but he’s been important in the health care debate.

BETTY NGUYEN: Definitely.

HOLMES: Senator Max Baucus, out of Montana, he’s a key player on a Senate committee that’s been putting together some health care legislation. Well, news coming out that he actually nominated his current girlfriend for a U.S. attorney position, while the two were involved. Now they’re both divorced here, so that’s not an issue and not accused of breaking up each other marriages.

NGUYEN: Yes, there was no affair or anything like that at all.

HOLMES: Nothing like that.

NGUYEN: The question lies in the fact, should he have been able to screen the applicants, she being one of them, and go ahead and nominate her for the position?

HOLMES: Of course, she did not. They decided that once the process moved along and they had gotten more involved in their relationship that she should withdrawal her name. So she didn't get the position. She now works at the Justice Department. But it’s raising just a few questions about what you should be able to do, a person in power, as far as trying to have influence, or nominate someone you’re romantically involved with.

NGUYEN: And should it have gone even that far? Because she was down to what, like, three applicants?

HOLMES: The final three.

NGUYEN: Yeah, the final three applicants, so let us know what you think about that. You can go to our Facebook and Twitter sites, as well as our CNN blog. You can reach out to us several ways. We do want to hear from you. We will be reading your responses today, so hit us up and let us know what you think.

#From the December 6 CNN Sunday Morning 6:00 a.m. hour:

T.J. HOLMES: And Senator Baucus' office confirms that indeed he recommended his girlfriend for a U.S. attorney post. But the Montana Democrat says Melodee Haines withdrew her name as the two became closer. Baucus says they weren't having an affair because both were separated from their spouses at the time. They've since both gotten divorces. Baucus is a key figure in the health care debate. He is the chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Republican National Committee chairman, meanwhile, Michael Steele, he wants an ethics investigation.

#From the December 6 CNN Sunday Morning 8:00 a.m. hour:

BETTY NGUYEN: Senator Max Baucus' office confirms that he has -- or had recommended his girlfriend for a U.S. attorney post. But the Montana Democrat says Melodee Haines withdrew her name as the two became closer. Baucus says they weren't having an affair because both were separated from their spouses. Baucus is a key figure in the health care debate. Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, wants an ethics investigation.
...
 
NGUYEN: Well, you know, talking about health care, Senator Max Baucus -- I mean, he's one of the main players in that, but he's also getting some press for something else that he's been involved in. And that being a recommendation of his girlfriend to a U.S. attorney position, and that's causing a lot of eyebrows to be raised.

JOHN KING: It is causing a lot of eyebrows. The chairman of the Republican National Committee says there needs to be an ethics investigation here of Senator Max Baucus. He's a huge player in the health care debate. He's the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

And, essentially, what happened was a woman who worked for him in his Montana office, they later had a romantic relationship, and he had put her up, one of two candidates for the federal prosecutor jobs out there, U.S. attorney's jobs. Now, they later withdrew her name, and he says in part because they decided, if she got the job, they didn't want to live 2,000 miles apart. She now lives in Washington, D.C., with the Senator. They have a relationship. He says it's a very romantic, healthy relationship.

But many are saying, "Wait a minute, Senator, why didn't the red flag go up, why did you recommend not only a former staffer but a former staffer with whom you now have a romantic relationship. How could you possibly recommend her for this job? The Senator says he believes he did nothing wrong, that he was very open about the relationship. Her name has now been withdrawn, so she will not be that federal prosecutor. But there are some people asking questions about this. And the Senator came out and talked to reporters about it yesterday. And he said, take a peek at it, take a look at it, you know, and I think everything's fine, and we have a great relationship now, and he says a "non-issue." We'll see how this one goes forward.

HOLMES: Well, you've got everything going on today, I'm sure it's today on the show, Afghanistan, health care, jobs, boyfriend/girlfriend, all that stuff I know you'll be talking about on State of the Union.

#From the December 6 CNN NewsRoom 4:00 p.m. hour:

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD: The Senate finance chairman could find himself in the middle of an ethics investigation. Democrat Max Baucus is coming under fire for recommending his girlfriend for a U.S. attorney position in his home state of Montana. The woman later withdrew her name. Baucus says the move was an open and fair process. Republicans are calling for an investigation.

#From the December 6 CNN NewsRoom 6:00 p.m. hour:

DON LEMON: The Senate Finance Committee chairman could find himself in the middle of an ethics investigation. Democrat Max Baucus is coming under fire for recommending his girlfriend for a U.S. attorney position in his home state of Montana. The woman, Melodee Haines, later withdrew her name. Baucus says the move was an open and fair process and Haines's name was one of six submitted. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is calling for an investigation.

#From the December 5 CNN NewsRoom 7:00 p.m. hour:

DON LEMON: The Senate Finance Committee Chairman could find himself in the middle of an ethics investigation. Democrat Max Baucus is coming under fire for recommending his girlfriend for a U.S. attorney position in his home state of Montana. The woman, Melodee Haines, later withdrew her name. Baucus says the move was an open and fair process and Haines's name was one of six submitted. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is calling for an investigation.

#From the December 5 Fox and Friends Saturday, aired at 7:10 a.m. and repeated at 9:04 a.m.:

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Senator Max Baucus coming clean this morning after revelations that he was involved with his girlfriend when he nominated her for U.S. attorney in Montana. A spokesman for Baucus says he and Melodee Haines first began dating in 2008, and Baucus nominated her in March of that year. Haines withdrew her name from the nomination process when the couple decided to live together in Washington.

#From the December 6 Fox and Friends Sunday at 9:04 a.m.:

ALISYN CAMEROTA: The chairman of the Republican National Committee is calling for an ethics investigation into Senator Max Baucus. Michael Steele says the Senate should look into why Baucus recommended his girlfriend for a state job. Baucus admits he nominated Melodee Haines for a U.S. attorney post in Montana, but he defends the move saying she was qualified. Haines withdrew her name from.the process this year when the couple decided to live together in Washington, D.C.

On Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez pressed Republican Senator Lamar Alexander on the GOP’s opposition to ObamaCare: “...there’s been a lot of criticism that Republicans have done nothing but oppose this bill, nothing to help pass it, just try to kill it....have you done more than say ‘no, no, no, no, no’?”

At the top of the show, Rodriguez described a weekend visit by President Obama to Capitol Hill: “A rare closed-door rally on Capitol Hill over the weekend as President Obama calls on Democrats to close ranks and pass health care reform.” Rodriguez later suggested that Republicans “were not invited to the meeting yesterday” based on their criticism of the legislation. Senator Alexander responded: “Well that’s really an amazing statement. I mean, the President was elected on the idea of open meetings.”

Rodriguez also spoke with Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill but tried not to be too tough as she asked the Senator about the Presidential visit: “There were four holdouts yesterday before your meeting with the President. Did he succeed in changing any minds?” McCaskill declared: “Well, I think we’re getting there. Failure’s not an option.”

Rodriguez went on to wonder about McCaskill's thoughts on pro-life amendments to the health care proposal: “Will you support a bill that does not include abortion funding?” That gave McCaskill the opportunity to claim: “What this amendment does is goes further. It actually says you can’t use private money in a private market for any kind of health services related to abortions. And, frankly, I think that goes too far.”

After dismissing Republicans as obstructionist in her exchange with Senator Alexander, Rodriguez decided to give Senator McCaskill the final word, asking: “Whether Republicans support it or not, which clearly they don’t and won’t in this current form, do you think this will happen and before the deadline of Christmas?” McCaskill followed Rodriguez’s lead: “I wish the Republicans would quit being the party of no and come together with us.”

In a news brief later in the show, co-host Russ Mitchell depicted the Republican opposition as an obstacle to reform: “Yesterday during an unusual Sunday session, Democratic senators got a pep talk from the President....But there are other road blocks.” After playing clips of Alexander and McCaskill, Mitchell declared: “As he left Sunday’s meeting with Democrats, the President said they are going to get it done.”

Here is a full transcript of the interview segment:

7:03AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Now let’s hear from both sides of this debate. Joining us this morning are Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Democratic Senator-

LAMAR ALEXANDER: Good morning.

RODRIGUEZ: Good morning to you sir. Claire McCaskill of Missouri joins us, as well. Good morning, Senator McCaskill.

CLAIRE MCCASKILL: Good morning.

RODRIGUEZ: I’d like to begin with you. There were four holdouts yesterday before your meeting with the President. Did he succeed in changing any minds?

MCCASKILL: Well, I think we’re getting there. Failure’s not an option. The American people are tired of having to go in their pocket every year for higher and higher health costs. This is about saving money, this is about saving lives, and it’s about saving Medicare. So we’ve got to get this done and I’m optimistic it’s going to happen.

RODRIGUEZ: We know that at least Senator Nelson was not convinced, at least not where abortion funding is concerned, and he’s planning to go introduce a ban on that today. Will you support a bill that does not include abortion funding?

MCCASKILL: Well, let’s be clear. The bill as is it stands does continue the current law which says no federal money can be used to fund abortions. What this amendment does is goes further. It actually says you can’t use private money in a private market for any kind of health services related to abortions. And, frankly, I think that goes too far. So I think the majority of the Senate will oppose this amendment and leave the current law in place, no federal money for abortion services.

RODRIGUEZ: Senator Alexander, your response to that claim?

ALEXANDER: Well, my response to the whole interview is this. The biggest problem is that the Democrats are using Medicare as a piggy bank for – to pay for a big new government program, they’re using grandma’s Medicare to pay for insurance for someone else at a time when the Medicare trustees have said the program’s about to go broke. So instead of lowering premiums, as the Senator said, it allows premiums to increase, it raises taxes, it cuts Medicare, transferred big expenses to Missouri and Tennessee and other states, and it does nothing to reduce the cost of health care, which is what we need to do.

RODRIGUEZ: There have been – there’s been a lot of criticism that Republicans have done nothing but oppose this bill, nothing to help pass it, just try to kill it. What is your response to that? They say that’s why you were not invited to the meeting yesterday.

ALEXANDER: Well that’s really an amazing statement. I mean, the President was elected on the idea of open meetings. What Republicans have said from the beginning is if you’re waiting for us to wheel a wheelbarrow full of 2,000 page bills in, you’re not going to see it. But-

RODRIGUEZ: But have you done more than say ‘no, no, no, no, no’?

ALEXANDER: But we have done it every single day. We said we should set a goal reducing costs and we should go step by step toward that goal in ways that we can agree on in a bipartisan way. For example, small business health insurance plans, allowing people to buy insurance across state lines to create competition, allowing – reducing the amount of junk lawsuits against doctors, which is not even mentioned in the bill. I think the American people are scared to death of us trying to change the whole medical system all at once when, in fact, we could go step by step in the right direction, reduce cost, re-earn their trust.

RODRIGUEZ: Let me go back to Senator McCaskill. Whether Republicans support it or not, which clearly they don’t and won’t in this current form, do you think this will happen and before the deadline of Christmas?

MCCASKILL: First of all, the experts at Medicare say this bill as it stands today will lengthen the life of Medicare for at least five years. And all we’re cutting here are the level of profits of the insurance companies. Coincidentally, the Republican Party is continuing to do every amendment that will help the profits of those corporate insurance companies. That’s part of the problem here. We don’t have an open and competitive market for people who are trying to fight these insurance companies for their health care. So I think we – I think there is enough of us that know doing nothing is simply not an option. It’s one the American people can’t afford. I wish the Republicans would quit being the party of no and come together with us. There’s a lot in this bill that they wrote. They don’t acknowledge that now, but there’s a lot of Republican amendments that were put in this bill in committee. Let’s start working together. That’s what the American people want us to do.

RODRIGUEZ: Senator McCaskill, Senator Alexander, we have to leave it there. I’m sure the debate will continue. Thank you so much.

ALEXANDER: Thank you.

MCCASKILL: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ: You’re welcome.

NBC's Anne Thompson, on Monday's Today, covered the Climategate story only to essentially dismiss it in a nothing-to-see here, move along fashion. CBS's The Early Show had a brief mention of it, and ABC's Good Morning America did nothing. Thompson, reporting live from Copenhagen, opened her piece declaring that delegates determined "this could be their last best chance to deal with the consequences of climate change," but then added "overshadowing all of this is a scandal involving some stolen e-mails that has skeptics, once again, questioning the whole idea of global warming." 

Thompson went on to air criticism from Professor Ian Plimer, of the University of Adelaide who charged, "There's data being massaged," but then devoted the rest of her piece to confirming the existence of climate change, even allowing a Penn State scientist, who appeared in the e-mail exchange, to defend the use of the term "trick," by a colleague as he claimed: "What the person meant was it was a clever approach to the problem."

After that soundbite Thompson quickly returned to her more familiar role of advancing the global warming propaganda as she segued: "But does this controversy change the science? A team of explorers will present findings on Arctic ice melt in Copenhagen, findings that have nothing to do with the e-mails." After airing two more talking heads who warned of the dangers of climate change Thompson concluded:

Now, beyond just the lack of summer sea ice, scientists also point to some other things happening around the planet. The increased melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, earlier springs...and all of those things, are certain things that are happening, that they say it doesn't matter what's in those e-mails, the Earth is changing.

As for the rest of Copenhagen coverage on Today NBC's Chuck Todd mentioned Barack Obama will be visiting the conference but didn't mention Climategate. Today co-anchor Ann Curry had two news briefs, one at 8am when she noted, "A top United Nations' scientist defended evidence that humans are heating up the planet with potentially disastrous effects," but did not mention the reason he had to defend the stance. And by 9am half hour the whole Climategate controversy was forgotten as Curry avoided the topic as she passed along: "Diplomats from nearly 200 countries are working on a deal to reduce greenhouse gasses and helped poor nations adapt to climate change."

Over on CBS' The Early Show, Russ Mitchell in a 7am brief hailed: "What is billed as the most important climate change conference in history opened this morning in Copenhagen, Denmark," and Richard Roth only touched on the controversy at the very tail end of his report during the 8am half hour:

The conference goal is to get worldwide agreement on a time table for substantial cuts in carbon emissions and to have rich nations agree to pay to help poor ones deal with the costs of climate change. In a policy shift from the Bush administration, the U.S. will pledge itself to 17 percent cuts in carbon emissions over the next decade. But it would take congressional approval to seal the deal and the issue's contentious. It's also shadowed by some new skepticism about a climate crisis, fueled by stolen e-mails from a university here in Britain which suggest some scientists may have manipulated data to bolster their case supporting manmade global warming.

However even that was more than what ABC's Good Morning America did as they ignored the Climategate story altogether in two Chris Cuomo briefs. Cuomo, during the 9am half hour, however did find time to admonish the delegates from the left as he pointed out their hypocrisy: "Even though it's a summit on climate change, 1200 limos have been ordered to carry VIPs to Copenhagen. None of them hybrids. And, 140 private jets are expected at the airport. They're not good for the environment."

The following is the full Thompson piece as it was aired on the December 7 Today show:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: And now to a big summit on climate change, getting under way today in Denmark. Representatives from more than 190 nations are in attendance, and next week President Obama will be there as well. NBC's chief environmental affairs correspondent, Anne Thompson is in Copenhagen. Anne, good morning.

[On screen headline: "Climategate, Stolen E-Mails And The Science Of Global Warming."]

ANNE THOMPSON: Good morning, Meredith. President Obama is coming for the end of that conference and he will join about 109 other heads of state. But today, as the conference opened, the delegates here heard that this could be their last best chance to deal with the consequences of climate change. But overshadowing all of this is a scandal involving some stolen emails that has skeptics, once again, questioning the whole idea of global warming.

Climate science is ripe for political theater. The cabinet of Nepal meeting at the foot of Mount Everest, where the glaciers in the Himalayas are shrinking. The Maldives cabinet meeting underwater, to show what could happen to this island nation if sea levels rise. Even Hollywood has gotten into the act.

(Clip of movie 2012 shown)

THOMPSON: Now in Britain, a different kind of show. A scandal called Climategate. It involves a series of e-mails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the university of East Anglia, a leading climate science institute, igniting a war of words.

PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER, UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE: Underpinned by the "F" word, fraud.

PROFESSOR MICHAEL MANN, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY: What they've done is to engage in this smear campaign.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: A shocking revelation.

THOMPSON: Those long skeptical of the science of global warming say the language in the e-mails suggests these scientists manipulated their findings.

PALMER: It just confirmed what a lot of scientists thought. That things are not right. That there's data being massaged, there is complete obstruction.

THOMPSON: Penn State scientist Michael Mann, who features in the e-mails, said the word "trick" in one exchange does not refer to deception, but rather an accepted data technique.

MANN: It was all clearly labeled in the paper. There was nothing secret about it. What, what the person meant was it was a clever approach to the problem.

THOMPSON: Despite such explanations, both universities are investigating, as will the United Nations. Its scientists used the data to help conclude man is behind global warming. But does this controversy change the science? A team of explorers will present findings on Arctic ice melt in Copenhagen, findings that have nothing to do with the e-mails.

PEN HADOW, CATLIN POLAR SURVEY: The data we supplied supported the emerging consensus that we're looking at 80 percent loss of sea ice cover in the Arctic ocean over the next 10 years or so, in the summer times. The face of our planet is changing.

THOMPSON: Such changes are why the Netherlands, which has battled the sea for centuries, is now building floating houses on its coast-

MARC VAN OMMEN, ABC AKENBOUW, NETHERLANDS: People living on the water in a home that will rise with the water fluctuation as well. So they should be pretty safe.

THOMPSON: -to prepare for the impact of climate change. Now, beyond just the lack of summer sea ice, scientists also point to some other things happening around the planet. The increased melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, earlier springs-

(Interrupted by background noise)

-and I'm sorry I've been disturbed by the siren. And, and all of those things, are certain things that are happening, that they say it doesn't matter what's in those e-mails, the Earth is changing. Meredith?

VIEIRA: Yeah but the controversy will certainly continue. Anne Thompson, thank you so much.

On Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer about all the problems facing President Obama: “it was Afghanistan, now it’s jobs...healthcare....Do you remember a time when a president had as many irons – critical irons – in the fire, as this one seems to have right now?” Schieffer replied: “Oh, I suppose during the dark days of World War II.”  

Schieffer went on to lament that “...as we approach this Christmas season it doesn’t look like there’s going to be very much under the tree for this administration.” He referred to high unemployment numbers as a source of Obama’s difficulty: “...there just isn’t anymore money that the government has, even to try to stimulate this economy....people are out of work and that is what’s driving so much of this discontent right now.”

Smith changed the subject by asking Schieffer’s about the White House state dinner security breach: “...there’s this other sideshow with these White House party crashers....Is this a tempest in a tea pot or does this – or does this continue to fester and grow?” Schieffer responded: “no, I don’t think it’s a tempest in a tea pot.” He then called for the imprisonment of the couple involved: “I think the government ought to prosecute these people. And if that means sending them to jail, so be it....I hope the government continues to prosecute this and if it requires – if these people go to jail, that’ll be just fine with me, frankly.”

Schieffer justified that reaction by claiming a White House state dinner is one of the highest forms of patriotism, rather than a glorified cocktail party: “...this is also sort of an insult to the American people. State dinners are part of the symbols of our – of our democracy, like the White House itself, like the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, and when people are making fun of those things, when they’re doing what these people did, that’s an insult to all of us.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

HARRY SMITH: Want to turn now to CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Bob, good morning.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Harry.

SMITH: So earlier this week it was Afghanistan, now it’s jobs. There’s the small matter of healthcare that is still brewing on several burners on the White House stove. Do you remember a time when a president had as many irons – critical irons – in the fire, as this one seems to have right now?         

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Help Wanted; Obama Hits The Road To Talk Jobs]

SCHIEFFER: Oh, I suppose during the dark days of World War II, Harry, but my heavens, I mean as we approach this Christmas season it doesn’t look like there’s going to be very much under the tree for this administration. I mean, you saw this jobs fair yesterday. But as the President talked to people during this jobs fair, he was saying, you know, in the end, it’s going to be up to private enterprise to find the jobs to get us out of this. That’s another way of saying there just isn’t anymore money that the government has, even to try to stimulate this economy.     

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama’s Full Plate; Dealing With Economy, Afghanistan & Health Care]

Later today I think you’re going to hear the unemployment figures come out, where going to be in double digits again. The President’s going out of Washington to try to get in touch with what’s happening on the jobs front. Well, the fact is, he knows what’s going on, on the jobs front, people are out of work and that is what’s driving so much of this discontent right now. But where does this go? I mean, we now have this trillion dollar deficit this year, we’re one trillion dollars in hock to the Chinese government as far as the national debt. These are not very good times right now for this administration or for the country.

SMITH: We want to talk about who you’ve got on the show on Sunday in a second, but in the meantime, there’s this other sideshow with these White House party crashers. They denied – did not end up going to the hearing they were called to, that they got invited to yesterday. And there’s this other then of wanting Desiree Rogers to come and testify. Is this a tempest in a tea pot or does this – or does this continue to fester and grow?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Secret Service Shelvings; Agents Put On Leave After Salahi Slip Up]         

SCHIEFFER: It – no, I don’t think it’s a tempest in a tea pot because – and here’s why, Harry, I think the government ought to prosecute these people. And if that means sending them to jail, so be it. This is not only, you know, a security issue, people being able to get into the White House and get up close to the President, and who knows where that – that kind of thing goes. But this is also sort of an insult to the American people. State dinners are part of the symbols of our – of our democracy, like the White House itself, like the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, and when people are making fun of those things, when they’re doing what these people did, that’s an insult to all of us. And I hope the government continues to prosecute this and if it requires – if these people go to jail, that’ll be just fine with me, frankly.

SMITH: Bob Schieffer, thank you so much, we will look forward-

SCHIEFFER: Strong letter to follow.

[LAUGHTER]

SMITH: Yeah, hold back next time, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Alright.

SMITH: A reminder that you want to watch Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation on Sunday, he will be interviewing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

While ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today questioned Obama White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett on the breach of security at last week’s state dinner, her appearance was conspicuously absent from the CBS Early Show on Thursday. The CBS morning show has made a consistent effort to downplay the administration’s role in party crashing scandal.

On Good Morning America, co-host Robin Roberts wondered why White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers would not be testifying before Congress on the issue: “But, first, I want to ask you about the congressional hearing today. And ask you why isn't the social secretary, Desiree Rogers, testifying today before Congress?....you know that leaves people thinking, Valerie, that there’s something more.”

Similarly, on Today, co-host Meredith Vieira asked Jarrett: “White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers. She was the point person for that event. She is the one who failed to assign aides to vet guests at those checkpoints. She’s the one who named herself a guest instead of a staffer, and yet, she is not being investigated. The Secret Service is, but not her. Do you think she should be investigated?”

However, the Early Show segment on the controversy did not feature an interview with Jarrett and put the main focus on the couple who snuck into the White House event, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, as co-host Harry Smith proclaimed: “Surprise. The White House party crashers will not show up at another high profile event today. The congressional hearing where they were asked to testify. We'll hear why they are now so shy.”

In the report that followed, correspondent Bill Plante explained: “...the Salahis are declining another 15 minutes of fame. They won’t appear voluntarily before Congress. But the chairman of the Homeland Security committee says he may subpoena them.” Plante did briefly mention Rogers refusal to testify near the end of the brief story: “Also not testifying today, White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers, administration lawyers say it’s a separation of powers issue.” Plante then acknowledged: “And in fact, that’s a bit of a dodge, too. In the past, White House staff members have testified before Congress” he added, “The White House just wishes this whole thing would go away.” Apparently CBS has a similar wish.

While ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today questioned Obama White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett on the breach of security at last week’s state dinner, her appearance was conspicuously absent from the CBS Early Show on Thursday. The CBS morning show has made a consistent effort to downplay the administration’s role in party crashing scandal.

On Good Morning America, co-host Robin Roberts wondered why White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers would not be testifying before Congress on the issue: “But, first, I want to ask you about the congressional hearing today. And ask you why isn't the social secretary, Desiree Rogers, testifying today before Congress?....you know that leaves people thinking, Valerie, that there’s something more.”

Similarly, on Today, co-host Meredith Vieira asked Jarrett: “White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers. She was the point person for that event. She is the one who failed to assign aides to vet guests at those checkpoints. She’s the one who named herself a guest instead of a staffer, and yet, she is not being investigated. The Secret Service is, but not her. Do you think she should be investigated?”

However, the Early Show segment on the controversy did not feature an interview with Jarrett and put the main focus on the couple who snuck into the White House event, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, as co-host Harry Smith proclaimed: “Surprise. The White House party crashers will not show up at another high profile event today. The congressional hearing where they were asked to testify. We'll hear why they are now so shy.”

In the report that followed, correspondent Bill Plante explained: “...the Salahis are declining another 15 minutes of fame. They won’t appear voluntarily before Congress. But the chairman of the Homeland Security committee says he may subpoena them.” Plante did briefly mention Rogers refusal to testify near the end of the brief story: “Also not testifying today, White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers, administration lawyers say it’s a separation of powers issue.” Plante then acknowledged: “And in fact, that’s a bit of a dodge, too. In the past, White House staff members have testified before Congress” he added, “The White House just wishes this whole thing would go away.” Apparently CBS has a similar wish.

On Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, correspondent Bianca Solorzano reported on the couple who snuck into the White House state dinner, but avoided fully explaining the role a Pentagon official played in the scandal. She claimed emails between Pentagon liaison Michele Jones and Michaele and Tareq Salahi: “actually undermine their claims that they were invited...”

Solorzano quoted one email in which Jones told the Salahis that “it doesn’t seem likely” she could get them an invitation to the event and that she “then left the Salahi’s a voice mail before the dinner, saying they did not get an invitation.”

However, Solorzano failed to cite later emails in which Jones reacted to the Salahis getting into the dinner. After getting home from the White House gala, Tareq Salahi sent an email thanking Jones for her help: “Hi Michele, You are an Angel!....it worked out at the end. We ended up going to the gate to check in at 6:30pm just to check, in case it got approved since we didn’t know, and our name was indeed on the list! ☺ We are very grateful and God bless you.” Jones replied back: “Tareq, You are most welcome! I here the smile in your email and am delighted that you and Michaele had a wonderful time.”

In contrast to the Early Show, on Wednesday, both NBC’s Today and ABC’s Good Morning America detailed those final emails and the White House explanation of why Jones seemed completely unsurprised that the Salahis gain entrance to the dinner without a formal invitation.

On Today, correspondent Savannah Guthrie reported:

...at the end of the night, Mr. Salahi e-mailed Michele Jones, a message suggesting the couple showed up unsure of whether they were really invited. Quote "Hi, Michele, you are an angel! My cell phone battery died early this evening, so I just got your message now, but obviously, it worked out at the end. We ended up going to the gate to just check, in case it got approved, since we didn't know, and our name was indeed on the list. We can't wait to see you and catch up and share memories of a true lifetime." Michele Jones responded the next afternoon saying, quote "Tareq, you are most welcome! I hear the smile in your e-mail and am delighted that you and Michaele had a wonderful time."

Well, the White House says Michele Jones responded that way to be polite and because she simply assumed that they must have gotten tickets some other way, knowing that she hadn't been able to secure state dinner tickets. Michele Jones on Monday evening released a statement and here's a portion of it. Quote, "I specifically stated that they did not have tickets and in fact that I did not have the authority to authorize attendance, admittance or access to any part of the evening's activities. Even though I informed them of this, they still decided to come." And White House officials say the bottom line doesn't change here, Jones never said they had tickets, but there's no question, those e-mails show she did try to help.

On Good Morning America, correspondent Pierre Thomas similarly explained:

In an E-mail sent at 1:03am after the event, the Salahis say they never got the phone message. “But, obviously, it worked out at the end. We ended up going to the gate to check in at 6:30pm to just check [sic] in case it got approved, since we didn't know. Our name was, indeed, on the list.” The White House and Secret Service say the Salahis were never on any list, that the Secret Service made a mistake in letting them in. The next afternoon, Michele Jones seems happy the Salahis got into the dinner, noting she “was delighted” they “had a wonderful time.” By a source familiar with the exchange says that Jones was simply expressing happiness that somebody got the Salahis in. She said she had nothing to do with it. And now, is not so friendly with the Salahis.

An excerpt of Solorzano’s report on the Early Show:

Before they ever made their grand entrance, the White House says there’s an e-mail trail that shows they were never invited. The Salahis have been in contact with Michele Jones, a Pentagon-based White House liaison. The day before the state dinner, Jones e-mailed Tareq Salahi that she was still trying, ‘but it doesn’t seem likely.’ At 8:46AM the day of the dinner, Jones wrote ‘I will call or e-mail as soon as I get word one way or another.’ Jones then left the Salahi’s a voice mail before the dinner, saying they did not get an invitation.

The Salahis say they didn’t get that message until after the dinner because of a dead cell phone battery. In the meantime, yesterday the Salahis were seen in Georgetown attending a photo shoot believed to be with the other cast members of the upcoming cable TV show ‘The Real Housewives of D.C..’ Bravo says Michaele Salahi hasn’t been officially cast on the show and that there’s still several months of filming before a final decision is made. So just how much did Bravo and the show’s production company know about the Salahi’s invitation to the White House state dinner? Bravo had filmed the couple around town as they got ready for the event and even asked its sister network NBC for access to the tape of the Salahi’s arriving at the dinner. The couple did appear on NBC yesterday, but refused to answer specific questions. Bravo maintains that it believed the Salahis were on the guest list. The cable network also said ‘the Salahis informed the production company that they were invited guests. Producers had no reason to believe otherwise.’

On Monday, the Early Show worked placed little blame on the Obama White House for the controversy.

Imagine if you will that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was accused of taking gift cards donated to her office for redistribution to needy constituents and using them instead for a personal spending spree.

The media firestorm would swirl uncontrollably, of course, and certainly you couldn't fault the media for reporting on the ensuing criminal trial.

Well, this sort of this has happened, only to the Democratic mayor of Baltimore Sheila Dixon who was convicted yesterday on a misdemeanor charge of embezzling, yet the coverage from the broadcast networks has been non-existent until the trial's conclusion.

A search of "Sheila Dixon" among ABC, CBS, and NBC news transcripts catalogued on Nexis from January 1, 2007 to December 2, 2009 yielded only three hits. None of the stories were about Dixon's trial, and one, an April 30, 2008 "Nightline" story on predatory mortgage lending, cast Dixon in a favorable light as a champion of citizens who have been exploited by mortgage lenders.

Granted, Dixon is only a city mayor, and that may explain some of the lack of coverage, but when ABC did its part to portray her as a champion of the working poor, it's telling that there was no follow up from that network until today.

The December 2 editions of ABC's "Good Morning America" and CBS's "The Early Show"  both briefly noted Dixon's conviction during news roundups from the anchor desk, while, of course, failing to note her party affiliation.  NBC's "Today" however, failed to even mention the story (transcripts below courtesy of NB's Scott Whitlock and Kyle Drennen, respectively):

ABC

"Good Morning America"

12/02/09

7:17 a.m. EST

CHRIS CUOMO, anchor: One buyer of electronic goods is the mayor of Baltimore. Problem is, she was buying them with gift cards intended for the city’s poor children. Sheila Dixon was convicted of stealing the cards to buy hundreds of dollars worth of items at Best Buy and Target.

<<<<<<<<<<

CBS

"The Early Show"

12/02/09

8:31 a.m. EST

RUSS MITCHELL, anchor: In Baltimore, Mayor Sheila Dixon says she will fight a conviction that could force her from office. Dixon was found guilty of taking $630 in gift cards intended for the city’s poor and using them to buy electronics. She was acquitted of three other charges.

Photo credit: Angelina Perna for the Baltimore Sun. 

Original photo caption:  Mayor Sheila Dixon and her lead attorney, Arnold M. Weiner, face the media after her conviction on a single charge of taking gift cards intended for the city's poor.

Monday’s CBS Early Show featured two stories on the security breach at last week’s White House state dinner, but each made only scant reference to Obama administration officials being partly to blame. Instead, both segments faulted the couple themselves, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, as well as the Secret Service.

In the first story, White House correspondent Bill Plante placed blame squarely on the Salahis, referring to them as “notorious” and “probably delighted with the attention.” Plante even noted how “some members of Congress are calling for charges to be brought against the Salahis.”

Only near the end of the report did Plante make any mention of the White House staff being responsible: “The Secret Service has admitted it made mistakes, but several people who attended Wednesday night’s dinner suggest the agency shouldn’t shoulder all the blame. Because the White House was also at fault.” Washington Post reporter Amy Argetsinger explained: “Procedure would have dictated that someone from the social office should have been at the door. These are the people who recognize the people on the guest list.”

Later in the show, co-host Harry Smith interviewed former Secret Service Deputy Director Bruce Bowen about the breach and wondered: “From the perspective of the times we live in and the almost omnipresent threat to the White House, this kind of a breach, how – is it explainable and is it excusable?” The headline on screen used the same label Plante had used to describe the Salahis: “White House Party Crashers; Latest On DC’s Most Notorious Duo.”

Smith did point out the fault of the White House as well: “And under normal circumstances for an event like this is there not also supposed to be somebody from the social office of the White House?” Bowen replied: “Yes, there is.” Smith continued without elaborating on the social office failure: “And in this case, there apparently was not. So if people come in and present themselves and say ‘we’re supposed to get inside,’ what do you think went wrong then?”

Bowen acknowledged blame for the Secret Service: “I think there was an initial breakdown at a check-point that was manned by a Secret Service uniform division officers. The Secret Service recognized the short coming and has admitted their fault. And most importantly, they have sought to rectify this immediately.” He went on to defend their protection: “...the important thing to remember is that the President or any of our other protectees were never in any danger by virtue of those other layers of security....the Secret Service has vetted over 7 million people in the recent past, during the campaign, and has acted almost flawlessly.”

The first question in a poll conducted by CBS’s 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair magazine asked Americans to nominate a fifth face for Mt. Rushmore and included Barack Obama among the contenders. While President Kennedy took the lead with 29%, Obama came in fourth with 16%, just behind Franklin Roosevelt at 18% and Ronald Reagan at 20%.

On Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-hosts Harry Smith and Maggie Rodriguez discussed the poll with CBSNews.com’s Cali Carlin and Vanity Fair’s Michael Hogan. Smith thought the Rushmore question was “terrific” and guessed that “it’s got to be between Kennedy and FDR.” Rodriguez made the same prediction: “if you know anything about history, you’d have to do FDR because he served four terms. But I think given our current population, most people probably said Kennedy.” Neither of them suggested Republican choices Reagan or Eisenhower would earn such a place of honor.

Carlin confirmed those guesses: “You’re right, it is JFK. People want to further that Camelot feeling and they would add him.” She then added: “But about 16% wanted our current president, Barack Obama, even though he hasn’t even served a full year in office. He got fourth place.” Rodriguez observed: “That’s unbelievable. Maybe just because of the historic significance of him being African American.” Carlin expressed skepticism: “Yeah, it could be a little premature though, maybe like that Nobel Prize.”

When the previous edition of the poll came out in September, it featured a question asking women who they would like to switch lives with for a week. First Lady Michelle Obama was listed among the choices. While discussing the poll on the September 28 Early Show, Rodriguez enthusiastically answered that question: “Hands down, Michelle Obama.”

On Monday, Rodriguez went on to ask Hogan about another poll result that found that only 26% of Americans could explain the ‘public option’ in current health care legislation. Hogan explained: “Only 26% of people were confident they could explain it. 66% said no, they can’t explain it. So a little bit of a problem there for something we’re all supposed to be debating, that there’s this lack of understanding.”

Rodriguez followed up: “...is there a nut shell definition that you like to give people of the public option?” Hogan offered one: “It’s a government-run health plan that is supposed to compete with the private insurers to establish affordable rates for health insurance.” Smith liked that rather optimistic definition: “...we have a ding-ding-ding that we sometimes use for right answers...I think you actually did deserve a ding-ding-ding.”

The final poll question discussed during the Early Show segment was one about which music Americans would not want to listen to a “painfully high volumes.” Carlin explained the inspiration for the question: “And this actually spawns from a serious question, though, because there’s reports that detainees at Guantanamo had to listen to music at painfully high volumes. And the musicians want to if their’s were – was used.” Smith added that those musicians “want to sue.”  

NewsBusters’ Noel Sheppard earlier reported that the poll also found that radio host Rush Limbaugh was considered to be the most influential conservative in America.

Here is a portion of the Early Show segment:

HARRY SMITH: The CBS News magazine 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair magazine are out with a brand new poll, taking the pulse of America on all sorts of interesting matters. And here with the results are Cali Carlin of CBSNews.com and Michael Hogan, executive editor for Vanity Fair online. Good morning.

CALI CARLIN: Good morning.

MICHAEL HOGAN: Morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Pulse of America; New 60 Minutes & Vanity Fair Survey]

SMITH: So we have a bunch of interesting questions that you polled to get answers to. Maggie is back on the couch with us now. I want to start with this very first one, which I think is terrific, which is who would be the next face to put on Mt. Rushmore?

CARLIN: We gave Americans seven options for this hypothetical fifth slot on the South Dakota sculpture, including our current President, Barack Obama, as well as FDR, JFK, Ronald Reagan, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, and Lyndon Johnson. So what do you guys think?

SMITH: So – go ahead, do you want to guess first?

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Well, I think if you know anything about history, you’d have to do FDR because he served four terms. But I think given our current population, most people probably said Kennedy.

SMITH: It’s – I’ve got to believe it’s got to be between Kennedy and FDR. Because I’m just trying to guess – out-guess the poll.

CARLIN: What Americans would think. You’re right, it is JFK. People want to further that Camelot feeling and they would add him. But surprise – and Ronald Reagan got second place, so he was the highest of the Republicans. But about 16% wanted our current president, Barack Obama, even though he hasn’t even served a full year in office. He got fourth place.

[ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC: Kennedy 29%; Reagan 20%; Roosevelt 18%; Obama 16%; Eisenhower 6%; Jackson 2%; Johnson 0%]

RODRIGUEZ: That’s unbelievable. Maybe just because of the historic significance of him being African American. Right? Maybe.

CARLIN: Yeah, it could be a little premature though, maybe like that Nobel Prize.    

[LAUGHTER]

RODRIGUEZ: Ooo, Cali, going for it. Alright, number two, let’s bring in Michael here, you asked people about the two words we now hear constantly, ‘public option.’ And you asked if people can actually explain what the public option is. Can they?

HOGAN: That’s right, yeah, it was a yes or no question. Yes, they can, but not that many. Only 26% of people were confident they could explain it. 66% said no, they can’t explain it. So a little bit of a problem there for something we’re all supposed to be debating, that there’s this lack of understanding.

RODRIGUEZ: So is there a – like if you’re at party and you want to impress your friends, is there a nut shell definition that you like to give people of the public option?

HOGAN: Yeah, I think so. It’s – I mean, in a nutshell, it’s pretty simple. It’s a government-run health plan that is supposed to compete with the private insurers to establish affordable rates for health insurance. Now, we’ll see if it passes or not and we’ll see if it has those qualities when it does pass.

RODRIGUEZ: And a lot of people say there’s a lot more to it, but, yes, that is a nut shell definition.
    
SMITH: We should have given – we have a ding-ding-ding that we sometimes use for right answers.

CALI: Does he deserves it?

SMITH: I think you actually did deserve a ding-ding-ding.

If there is an entertainment trend ripe for satire, it is the begging-for-attention smut routines at nationally televised music awards shows. How low can these "artists" go? Sadly, there is always another frontier. "American Idol" runner-up Adam Lambert was the latest offender at the November 22 American Music Awards on ABC, with a routine complete with S&M bondage slaves, deep male-on-male kissing, and simulated fellatio on stage.

All in front of millions upon millions of impressionable youngsters. It was another in-your-face Janet Jackson moment.

There’s only one thing that makes this funny. It’s the idea that somehow none of this was planned, that it was just a spontaneous eruption. ABC was embarrassed enough by Lambert to cancel a planned performance on "Good Morning America." If they expected cheers for that, they’re sadly mistaken. ABC clearly wanted to avoid making its news division question the entertainment division’s horrendous decision-making.

Every piece of evidence we have suggests ABC and Lambert knew exactly what they were going to do. Lambert told MTV to expect something really sexy. "I was looking for a certain sensuality," he explained about choosing his dancers, and said the S&M wardrobe was "amazing." MTV reported it would feature the sensibility of his music video for the song he performed: "Adam Lambert is fully embracing the S&M lyrics featured in his single. Greased up dancers are dolled up in leather, dog collars, nipple clamps (zoinks!) and platform boots."

The rough-sex lyrics of the song ABC approved for national consumption are very clear: "I’ma hold ya down until you’re amazed / Give it to ya ’til your screaming my name." And this: "Baby I’m in control /Take the pain / Take the pleasure / I’m the master of both."

For their part, ABC repeatedly told viewers to stick around for Lambert’s routine. They scheduled it at the very end of show so they could suggest it was irresponsible for parents if their children caught this porny show right before the late news.

It is clearly offensive to watch ABC and Dick Clark Productions now play dumb in their official statement: "Due to the live nature of the show we did not expect the impromptu moment in question," they jointly declared after the edited West Coast version. There was no "impromptu moment" that was in question. It was the entire disgusting performance, approved and promoted by ABC and Dick Clark Productions.

CBS News jumped in to promote Lambert where ABC left off. How dumb did Adam Lambert think America was? Let’s survey his comical answers.

1. Did you have any idea your performance at the AMA’s would ignite this firestorm? Lambert said: "No clue. No clue at all."

2. Did you plan those sexually charged moves in the rehearsal? Lambert: "Those kind of came from more of a impromptu place. No, those were not rehearsed."

3. This was the best question from CBS interviewer Maggie Rodriguez: Now that you have had time to think about the children, your child fans, do you feel that you need to apologize to them? Lambert’s absolutely classic answer: "I think it’s up to the parents to – to discern what their child’s watching on television."

4. Rodriguez followed up: "Well, but they had no idea they were about to see something like that on network TV." That’s where Lambert started sounding like a lawyer: "Well, you know – and you know, just to play Devil’s advocate with you, Lady Gaga smashing whiskey bottles. Janet Jackson grabbing a male dancer’s crotch. Eminem talked about how Slim Shady has ‘17 rapes under his belt.’ There’s a lot of very adult material on the AMA’s this year and I know I wasn’t the only one. I’m not using that as an excuse and I don’t have any – I didn’t take any offense with those performers’ choices, I’m just saying I think it’s up to a parent to watch the television. It was almost 11:00 at night. If they’re concerned with certain material maybe TiVo it and preview it before you’re small child is watching it."

Oh, shut up. Rodriguez summed up Lambert’s lack of regret:

5. So you don’t feel that it’s your responsibility to issue an apology? Lambert unfurled what could be a motto for the entertainment world in general: "I’m not a babysitter. I’m a performer."

So we can blame Lambert, we can blame ABC, and for starting this all, we can blame Fox and "American Idol." They took up Lambert and made him a gender-bending crusader for gay liberation in entertainment. Sexual politics trumped his screechy (and let’s face it, lack of) talent.

Lambert’s honesty about his absolute, leather-bound mission to offend came out at the CBS interview’s end. He was asked if he had to do it over again, what would he do differently? "I would sing it a little bit better."

At the top of Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez teased an appearance by singer Adam Lambert on the show and addressed his raunchy performance at the American Music Awards on Sunday: “And is he the new Elvis? Or did he simply just go too far? American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert is here to set the record straight after his controversial performance at the AMA’s.”

As the show opened, co-host Harry Smith echoed Rodriguez, seeming to dismiss Lambert’s open mouth kiss with another man and simulated oral sex on stage at the awards show, as just breaking new barriers: “Those of us of a certain age, who were actually alive when Elvis first performed on Ed Sullivan so many years ago. There was so much controversy about him performing, they actually had to shoot him from the waist up....Because of the hips shaking and people didn’t want to – wanted to make sure that their children weren’t harmed by what was happening there. So maybe there’s some similarities to all of this.”

Near the end of the 7:00AM ET half hour, Rodriguez noted the supportive crowd for Lambert outside the Early Show studio: “The Early Show, only the Early Show has what they want this morning, Adam Lambert performing live for the first time since the AMA’s. He’s also here, everybody, to answer questions about that controversial performance, which this crowd seems to overwhelmingly support.” Smith turned to Lambert and wondered: “When you walk out – it’s what 7:20 something in the morning, and you see hundreds and hundreds of people here in support of you, what do you think?” Lambert replied: “Thank you guys so much. I say thank you, thank you very much, yeah. Long live Rock and Roll.”

In an interview with Lambert at the top of the 7:30 half hour, Rodriguez asked: “Did you have any idea your performance at the AMA’s would ignite this fire storm?” Lambert claimed: “No clue. No clue at all. You know, I was really looking forward to it. I worked really hard with my dancers and my band for about two weeks putting that together. And I admit I did get carried away, but I don’t see anything wrong with it.”

After Lambert’s performance at the AMA’s, ABC, which broadcasted the awards show, cancelled Lambert’s Wednesday performance on Good Morning America. CBS then jumped at the opportunity to have on the controversial performer.

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez’s interview with Lambert:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: And is he the new Elvis? Or did he simply just go too far? American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert is here to set the record straight after his controversial performance at the AMA’s.        

7:00AM TEASE:

RODRIGUEZ: Good morning from New York City, this is Fifth Avenue and 59th Street, where for hours now all through the night people have been lining up by the hundreds hoping for a front row seat to a much anticipated interview and performance by Adam Lambert. Welcome to the Early Show on this Thursday [Wednesday] everyone. I’m Maggie Rodriguez with Harry Smith. And we are ready this morning, the stage is set behind us for that performance this morning by Adam Lambert, the first since his controversial performance at the American Music Awards. He is here in our green room, ready also, to take questions about that performance that has raised so many eyebrows. There he is with his band. Adam, good morning.

ADAM LAMBERT: Hey, good morning.

RODRIGUEZ: You ready to set the record straight?

LAMBERT: I will, yeah.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright. We’re here to talk to Adam and hear him perform a little later this morning.

HARRY SMITH: Those of us of a certain age, who were actually alive when Elvis first performed on Ed Sullivan so many years ago. There was so much controversy about him performing, they actually had to shoot him from the waist up.

RODRIGUEZ: Because of the hips shaking.

SMITH: Because of the hips shaking and people didn’t want to – wanted to make sure that their children weren’t harmed by what was happening there. So maybe there’s some similarities to all of this.

7:12AM TEASE:
    
SMITH: And American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert with us live this morning.

CBS ANNOUNCER: His controversial act stunned America. Now American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert is ready to talk. The interview and a special live performance coming up on the Early Show.

7:23AM TEASE:

[FOOTAGE OF SIGN IN CROWD THAT READS: “CBS Can Handle What Adam’s About To Do”]
    
[HARRY SMITH LAUGHS AT SIGN]

RODRIGUEZ: The Early Show, only the Early Show has what they want this morning, Adam Lambert performing live for the first time since the AMA’s. He’s also here, everybody, to answer questions about that controversial performance, which this crowd seems to overwhelmingly support, Harry.

SMITH: Seems to.

RODRIGUEZ: But there’s also a lot of criticism.

SMITH: When you walk out – it’s what 7:20 something in the morning, and you see hundreds and hundreds of people here in support of you, what do you think?

LAMBERT: Thank you guys so much. I say thank you, thank you very much, yeah. Long live Rock and Roll.

[SMITH LAUGHS]

RODRIGUEZ: We’ll hear from Adam, ahead this morning on the Early Show.
    
7:30AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: Tell you what – we’ve been doing a little survey around the crowd, people have come from as far away as Tokyo, from South Africa. We have people, I think, from almost every state in the union who have made it a mission to be here to see Adam Lambert.

[CROWD CHEERS]

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: They want to see his live performance, his first since the American Music Awards. And they want to hear him talk about it. As we know, he’s no stranger to controversy. Back when he was on American Idol, he frequently pushed the envelope and took some heat for it. But during the American Music Awards this Sunday, he did it again. But some people say this time he went way too far.

Until now, Adam Lambert was best known as the runner-up from American Idol, but now the openly gay artist is making headlines for his erotic performance at this week’s American Music Awards. Particularly these two moments that shocked even young fans used to over-the-top performances.

[BLURRED FOOTAGE OF LAMBERT ON STAGE]

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL [ADAM LAMBERT FAN]: He’s out of control.

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL B [ADAM LAMBERT FAN]: He’s different.

RODRIGUEZ: But Lambert says it wasn’t crazy and he wasn’t trying to upset viewers. Quote, ‘My goal was to promote freedom of expression and artistic freedom.‘ It's the latest in a string of pop music controversies, like Madonna and Britney’s famous lip lock at the 2003 MTV Music Video Awards. And now a backlash has emerged against both Lambert and ABC, which had to edit the performance for the West Coast. After the broadcast, ABC reportedly received more than 1,500 angry phone calls.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Under Fire; Lambert Defends Controversial AMA Performance]

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Well, certainly between the hours of 6 and 10pm is not the time to break open alleged barriers with regards to homophobia.

RODRIGUEZ: But industry insiders maintain that Lambert’s risque performance is par for the course in pop music, where breaking the rules often leads to long-lasting careers.

BRIAN HIATT [ASSOCIATE EDITOR, ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE]: This is a long way from Elvis’ hips, but it’s a similar sort of reaction. I think what seems to push buttons a little more is in the context of him being openly gay.

[FOOTAGE OF LAMBERT’S PERFORMANCE]

RODRIGUEZ: What does Adam Lambert think about all the controversy? Let’s ask him. Good morning, Adam.

ADAM LAMBERT: Good morning.

RODRIGUEZ: Did you have any idea your performance at the AMA’s would ignite this fire storm?

LAMBERT: No clue. No clue at all. You know, I was really looking forward to it. I worked really hard with my dancers and my band for about two weeks putting that together. And I admit I did get carried away, but I don’t see anything wrong with it. I do see how people got offended and that was not my intention. My intention was just to interpret the lyrics of my song and have a good time up there.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Straight Talk; Adam Lambert Answers Critics]

RODRIGUEZ: Did you plan, when you were rehearsing, did you include those sexually charged moves in the rehearsal?

LAMBERT: Those kind of came from more of a impromptu place. No, those were not rehearsed. So, you know, I think ABC was taken a little by surprise. And that wasn’t my intention. I wasn’t being sneaky. It just – it got the most of me, I guess.

RODRIGUEZ: I think that people take issue with the fact that it – that it did happen on network television, where a lot of families were watching. As you know, you have tons of fans, especially children, who have followed you since Idol. Can you imagine their parents sitting down with them to watch the AMA’s and without warning, there you are, kissing another guy, simulating oral sex. Can you understand why they would be upset?

LAMBERT: Yeah, I suppose I can understand why they’re upset. And, you know, honestly, I – it didn’t cross my mind, children. It was almost 11:00, I didn’t – you know, it was a night time show, I was there in the audience full of mostly adults. And sometimes I forget, ‘oh, there’s a camera on.’ You know, I’m – I come from the theater. And I’m programmed to kind of look at who’s in the live audience and that’s kind of where I come from. And so I was looking out in the crowd and saw some of my favorite pop stars and thought, I want to do – I want to let loose. And it just kind of – it got the best of me. And I had a – I had a great time, unfortunately, there were people upset, but I think there were also people that really enjoyed it. So like Idol, I guess I have a tendency to divide people. Apples and oranges, you either like it or you don’t.

RODRIGUEZ: Now that you have had time to think about the children, your child fans, do you – do you feel that you need to apologize to them?

LAMBERT: I think it’s up to the parents to – to discern what their child’s watching on television.

RODRIGUEZ: Well, but they had no idea they were about to see something like that on network TV.

LAMBERT: Well, you know – and you know, just to play Devil’s advocate with you, Lady Gaga smashing whiskey bottles. Janet Jackson grabbing a male dancer’s crotch. Eminem talked about how Slim Shady has ‘17 rapes under his belt.’ There’s a lot of very adult material on the AMA’s this year and I know I wasn’t the only one. I’m not using that as an excuse and I don’t have any – I didn’t take any offense with those performers’ choices, I’m just saying I think it’s up to a parent to watch the television. It was almost 11:00 at night. If they’re concerned with certain material maybe Tivo it and preview it before you’re small child is watching it.

RODRIGUEZ: So you don’t feel that it’s your responsibility to – to issue an apology?

LAMBERT: I’m not a babysitter. I’m a performer.

RODRIGUEZ: Do you think – because I know in the previous days you’ve said there’s a double standard when it comes to male performers. Why do you feel that way?

LAMBERT: I believe there’s a double standard. I think that if it had been a female pop performer doing the moves that were – that were on the stage, I don’t think there’d be nearly as much of an outrage at all. Like I said, there were other performers doing risque – I mean Janet Jackson crotch grab. I haven’t heard one peep about that.

RODRIGUEZ: Do you think it’s because you’re male or do you think it’s because you’re gay?

LAMBERT: Both. I think it’s a double whammy. I think it’s because I’m a gay male and I think people haven’t seen that before.

RODRIGUEZ: But I don’t think people have said specifically they were upset about the fact that you were – that you’re gay or that you were kissing a guy. Again, it was-

LAMBERT: I think some people were upset that I kissed a guy.

RODRIGUEZ: The venue is what I’ve heard the most. Is that not what you’ve heard?

LAMBERT: The what?

RODRIGUEZ: The venue, the fact that you did it at that time and on network TV.

LAMBERT: Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. Yeah, I mean, again, when I got up on stage, I don’t think about things like ‘oh, this is network television, what time is it, what children were watching?’ I just was in the moment, I just – you know.

RODRIGUEZ: If you had it to do over, would you do anything differently?

LAMBERT: I would sing it a little bit better. The adrenaline took – you know, took such hold of me that I went back and reviewed it went ‘well, that wasn’t my best vocal performance,’ but you know, no one’s perfect, so.

RODRIGUEZ: But you admit that you got carried away with the other stuff?

LAMBERT: Yeah. I mean, it was – it – you know, it got the best of me. I’m obviously learning. I mean this is –  this was my first performance post Idol on television. The song, lyrically, is sexual. And I just was performing the lyrics of my song. And I think in the future I will probably make a little bit more of an effort to stay consistent with what I do during rehearsal to what I do during the show. That’s something that I’m learning now. And that way if anybody has any problems with what I’m doing it can be explored during rehearsal.

RODRIGUEZ: What is the image that you want America to have of Adam Lambert?

LAMBERT: Well, and I think that’s the funny thing, is that this is one song. This is one production number. This song on the album is one of the few songs that really explores risque, dangerous kind of edgy sexuality. There’s other songs on the album that are completely different. So for me, I hope that people don’t put me into a box saying ‘oh, he’s nasty and he’s going to be that way all the time.’ That was one performance.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright. And Adam, I know you’re going to stick around, perform two songs and take questions from the audience.

LAMBERT: Yeah. And parents, this is appropriate. I promise.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright. Good. Good to know because it is early.

LAMBERT: It is Early.

RODRIGUEZ: Adam Lambert, thank you.

With Thanksgiving kicking off the holiday season, it's time to gather with family and friends, give thanks, and just enjoy the company and the food ... right? Not according to the three broadcast networks. ABC, CBS, and NBC have been counting down to Thanksgiving by counting calories.

In the past week, from Nov. 18-24, five network stories have bashed traditional Thanksgiving food because it's not "healthy." With the nation in a recession and the unemployment rate above 10 percent, the media want Americans to worry about their waistlines too. Each of the networks offered tips on how to avoid the "most gut-busting holiday of the year," as Harry Smith of CBS's "Early Show" put it Nov. 19.

Their first advice to viewers was to paint their dining rooms blue. (Quick, you have less than 24 hours!) Allegedly, people eat 33 percent less than if they ate in a yellow or red room. Viewers also need to toss that beautiful flower centerpiece out the window and replace it with a bowl of apples, bananas or after-dinner mints. The Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation claimed that overweight individuals that inhaled those scents before a meal ate less.

And forget about the soft, festive glow of candles. People tend to linger around the table when there's not a lot of lighting and - other than the fact that that strengthens important relationships, it also leads to overeating. Last but not least, throw out those glass dishes. There's one study (yes, one) that found that women ate less food out of opaque dishes.

We haven't even gotten to the food yet, folks.

No stuffing. Period. David Zinczenko, editor-in-chief of Men's Health defined stuffing on NBC's "Today" as "a lot of croutons that are moistened with fat and sodium." But luckily you can replace that stuffing with cream spinach. Of course when making the spinach, you must substitute True Lemon for salt, skip the butter, and use only evaporated skim milk.

You also need to heat up all of the really bad foods, whether or not that particular food needs to be heated.

"We know when we heat something up," said dietitian Keri Glassman on ABC's "Good Morning America," "there's a better aroma, and a recent study found that people that smelled high caloric foods actually were reminded to curb their consumption."

And when viewers aren't heating up food, they need to be throwing it away. Toss the marshmallow on the sweet potatoes and save 30 calories. Cut the crust off a piece of pie and save 70 calories. Oh, and if it's pecan pie, pick off five nuts too - and save 100 calories. As far as salad goes, absolutely no croutons and no fatty dressing.

"Food marketers love to take innocent little salad greens and corrupt them with calories and fat and salt," said Zinczenko to NBC's Lester Holt. "Why stuff yourself with calories and fat when you can be stuffing yourself with vitamins, minerals, and fiber?"

On Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, correspondent Nancy Cordes reported on the Obamas hosting their first state dinner in the White House and declared: “Everyone wants one, but only a few hundred are lucky enough to get an invitation to the hottest ticket in town...”

Cordes concluded her brief report by mentioning: “Pop entertainer and Chicagoan Jennifer Hudson will entertain the guests, giving everyone, including the Obamas, ample opportunity to dance.” Footage was played of the first couple dancing as co-host Maggie Rodriguez added: “Which we know they love to do.”

Rodriguez spoke with former Clinton White House official Laura Schwartz, who remarked: “What an exciting day today.” Rodriguez agreed: “I know.” She then asked Schwartz: “...what do you think the Obamas want this dinner to say about them?” Schwartz described the event as the Obamas “inviting the world into their home” and noted the couple’s frequent global travel: “...the Obamas have been traveling quite a lot this first year, which is very exciting, it’s good for America. It’s good to be involved.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:14AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Up next, it’s the hottest it ticket in D.C. We’re going to tell you which Hollywood stars are invited to the Obama’s first state dinner.         

7:17AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: The Obama’s first state dinner is tonight and almost everything about it is a closely guarded secret, from who’s invited to what’s on the menu. But we have got a sneak peek for you this morning, courtesy of CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes.

NANCY CORDES: Everyone wants one, but only a few hundred are lucky enough to get an invitation to the hottest ticket in town, the President and Mrs. Obama’s first state dinner. The guest of honor is India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife. Many of the details are still hush-hush, but the evening is expected to be a mix of Washington heavy weights, staff members, and Hollywood big wigs. Expected to attend are Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but not her husband, former President Bill Clinton, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. From the entertainment world, likely guests include Obama fund-raiser Steven Spielberg, Ari Emanuel, and film maker M. Night Shyamalan. The Obamas chose to host the event on the South Lawn, under a white tent which can accommodate close to 400 guests. While no one is giving a price tag on this dinner, previous state dinners ranged anywhere from $60,000 to upwards of several hundred thousand.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON [POLITICO]: It’s larger than Bush’s official dinner in 2005, where there were about 150 people there, but smaller than the Clinton’s dinner, which had about 700 people there.

CORDES: Pop entertainer and Chicagoan Jennifer Hudson will entertain the guests, giving everyone, including the Obamas, ample opportunity to dance. Nancy Cordes, CBS News, Washington.

[FOOTAGE OF OBAMAS DANCING]

RODRIGUEZ: Which we know they love to do. Joining us now from Washington, our old friend Laura Schwartz, former White House director of events during the Clinton administration. Helped plan many of these state dinners. Hey Laura, good to see.

LAURA SCHWARTZ: Good morning, Maggie. What an exciting day today.

RODRIGUEZ: I know. From what you heard about the details that Nancy just gave us, what do you think the Obamas want this dinner to say about them?

SCHWARTZ: Well, I think this is their – you know, this is their first state dinner, so they are inviting the world into their home by way of the prime minister of India and it really is the time to put that outstretched hand of America here at home. You know, the Obamas have been traveling quite a lot this first year, which is very exciting, it’s good for America. It’s good to be involved. But this is the first time these honors are given here at home, the people’s house, right behind me.

RODRIGUEZ: We know that celebrity Chef Marcus Samuelson will be preparing the menu. Is it customary to honor the guest of honor, in this case the Indian prime minister, with the food or in another way?

SCHWARTZ: Absolutely, Maggie. You what happens, about two months before now, one of the delegation members have come over from India, they sit down, they talk about the likes and the dislikes of the prime minister and the spouse. Any food allergies. In this case the prime minister is a vegetarian. And then the White House wants to highlight the best of America. So they’re bringing Marcus Samuelson into work with Chef Cristeta Comerford, the White House chef, who’s fabulous in her own right and she still will oversee the entire dinner, but Marcus Samuelson will definitely add a little zing.

RODRIGUEZ: Oh, unfortunately we’re out of time. Laura Schwartz, thank you so much.

SCHWARTZ: Thanks, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: You’re welcome.

Speaking with Brookings Institution analyst Michael O’Hanlon on Tuesday about President Obama’s upcoming decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, CBS Early Show co-host Harry Smith worried: “...how much is this going to cost him on the Left? Because I’m – I’ve got this sense that there will be people on the Left of President Obama who are not pleased by this.”

Despite representing a liberal leaning think tank, O’Hanlon dismissed the political concern: “Of course that’s right, Harry. But I think the real risk is if the war isn’t won. You know, the Left won’t like this, but if in a year we can see progress, people will forget their original doubts and they’ll be glad there is an exit strategy emerging ahead.”

Prior to Smith’s discussion with O’Hanlon, White House correspondent Bill Plante reported on the soon-to-be-announced war strategy and pointed out: “A new CBS News poll shows 69% of Americans think the war is going badly. And only 36% believe more U.S. troops would make things better.” A clip was then played of another Brookings analyst, E.J. Dionne, who lamented: “We’ve been at this since 2003. We have spent a lot of money, we’ve lost a lot of lives. When does this end?” He mistakenly confused the start of the Iraq war with that of Afghanistan, which began in 2001.

Plante concluded his report by making sure to promote White House spin designed to appease the President’s anti-war liberal base: “But here’s the key. This won’t be presented as a troop increase. It will be presented as a plan to stabilize Afghanistan and begin a timed withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country.”

Smith began by asking O’Hanlon: “Is General McChrystal going to get everything he wants?” O’Hanlon responded: “Well, I doubt it, although I’m hearing that NATO countries, our allies in Europe, may actually provide a few more troops than expected.” O’Hanlon went on to praise Obama for reaching out to U.S. allies: “And of course with President Obama preaching multilateralism and trying to create a new tone in American foreign policy there was hope that allies might want to contribute more in this sort of a situation. It hasn’t happened yet, but that may compensate for any gap between what General McChrystal has proposed and what President Obama may want to provide.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Breaking news. After months of meeting, President Obama will soon announce his decision about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. We’ll bring you the very latest from the White House.

7:06AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: The White House says President Obama is ready to announce his new Afghanistan strategy within days. But will his decision, which took months to make, cost him politically? CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has more on that. Good morning, Bill.

BILL PLANTE: Good morning to you, Harry. The long wait is over. The President has made his decision on Afghanistan. And he’ll tell the nation about it next week. Last night’s session with his war council is expected to be the final one before the President announces both an Afghanistan surge and an exit strategy.

ROBERT GIBBS [WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY]: I characterized a decent part of it as not just how we get people there, but what’s the strategy for getting them out.
                    
PLANTE: The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has recommended 40,000 additional troops. Many military officials expect McChrystal to get most, but not all, of the requested troops. Between 20 and 30,000. A new CBS News poll shows 69% of Americans think the war is going badly. And only 36% believe more U.S. troops would make things better.

E.J. DIONNE [BROOKINGS INSTITUTION]: We’ve been at this since 2003. We have spent a lot of money, we’ve lost a lot of lives. When does this end?

PLANTE: Now, the new strategy will involve more troops, no doubt about that, but it’ll be –  and it’ll be presented to the nation by the President in a speech nationally televised, probably next Tuesday. But here’s the key. This won’t be presented as a troop increase. It will be presented as a plan to stabilize Afghanistan and begin a timed withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country. Harry.

SMITH: Bill Plante at the White House this morning. Thank you very much. Joining us from Washington is Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Good morning, sir.

MICHAEL O’HANLON: Good morning, Harry.

SMITH: Is General McChrystal going to get everything he wants?

MICHAEL O’HANLON: Well, I doubt it, although I’m hearing that NATO countries, our allies in Europe, may actually provide a few more troops than expected.

SMITH: They certainly have been pushed in the last couple of days to put up more troops.

O’HANLON: That’s right. And of course with President Obama preaching multilateralism and trying to create a new tone in American foreign policy there was hope that allies might want to contribute more in this sort of a situation. It hasn’t happened yet, but that may compensate for any gap between what General McChrystal has proposed and what President Obama may want to provide.

SMITH: All of these meetings, nine – some people have counted ten meetings in all – over several months, this still doesn’t necessarily guarantee the outcome the President is looking for, no matter what the strategy.

O’HANLON: Well, that’s right. Because you need a strong host partner. You need a strong Afghan government. Or at least a competent – you know, even if it’s just a mediocre one, one that can at least start to move forward. The good news here, even though President Karzai has a lot of cronies who are not very good actors and are corrupt, there are some people in key positions who run, for example, the police and the army. His two top guys in the cabinet who do that, who are seen as pretty good, who are working pretty well with us. And we have this very vigorous program now to train the Afghans and essentially do an apprenticeship program with the Afghan army and police under McChrystal’s proposal. So that gives me some hope.

SMITH: This is a little bit like Iraq after the country was stabilized.

O’HANLON: Yeah, I mean, you know Iraq did work out, at least in military terms. We obviously see the politics there continue to be difficult. I’m not quite as confident yet that we’re going to get there in Afghanistan, but the plan is equally intense and equally focused and I think McChrystal, frankly, is as good as Petraeus, so do I have some reasons for hopefulness.

SMITH: And very quickly, how much is this going to cost him on the Left? Because I’m – I’ve got this sense that there will be people on the Left of President Obama who are not pleased by this.

O’HANLON: Of course that’s right, Harry. But I think the real risk is if the war isn’t won. You know, the Left won’t like this, but if in a year we can see progress, people will forget their original doubts and they’ll be glad there is an exit strategy emerging ahead. The problem will be, of course, if we don’t have progress in a year, that’s going to mean that we reinvested in a failing mission and that would be the problem.

SMITH: Michael O’Hanlon, thank for your expertise this morning. Thank you sir, appreciate it.

O’HANLON: Thank you, Harry.

Continuing the push for medical marijuana, on Monday’s CBS Early Show co-host Russ Mitchell declared: “As more youngsters are being diagnosed with autism, there is a growing need for alternative treatments. One California mother says medical marijuana has made vast improvements in her autistic son.”

Correspondent Hattie Kauffman reported: “Joey is severely autistic, so uninterested in food he was wasting away....But Mieko [Joey’s mother] claims it all changed with marijuana brownies.” Meiko Perez argued: “They’re seeing Joey come out. He’s never made noises. We didn’t even know he could make noise until the first batch of brownies.”

At the end of the brief report, Kauffman noted mild criticism of the controversial treatment: “The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes legalization of marijuana, but supports more research.” She then concluded: “Though there’s absolutely no evidence Marijuana cures autism, this mom says it has improved her child’s life.”

CBS has shown its acceptance of marijuana use in the past. On the February 3 Early Show, co-host Harry Smith commented on a photo of Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps caught smoking pot: “So far there hasn't been much negative reaction to the photo....A few years ago, it might have ruined his career. Maybe it's a sign of changing attitudes.” Correspondent Randall Pinkston followed by touting a recent poll: “The seeming lack of outrage may reflect America's changing attitudes towards marijuana...While a majority of Americans still oppose legalization, a new CBS News poll shows a big swing in opinion in recent years.”

Here is a full transcript of the Monday segment:

8:02AM

RUSS MITCHELL: As more youngsters are being diagnosed with autism, there is a growing need for alternative treatments. One California mother says medical marijuana has made vast improvements in her autistic son. Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman reports.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Pot Prescription; Mom Says Marijuana Helps Autistic Son]

MIEKO PEREZ: You want a banana.

HATTIE KAUFFMAN: That Joey Perez wants to eat anything is amazing, says his mom, Mieko.

PEREZ: Everyone who came to my home was watching me watch Joey die. He was deteriorating hourly.

KAUFFMAN: Joey is severely autistic, so uninterested in food he was wasting away. At ten years old, he weighed just 48 pounds. Even bulky Halloween costumes couldn’t disguise his frightening look of starvation. But Mieko claims it all changed with marijuana brownies.

PEREZ: He only ate like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for four years.
            
KAUFFMAN: She says not only is Joey eating more, he’s communicating.

PEREZ: They’re seeing Joey come out. He’s never made noises. We didn’t even know he could make noise until the first batch of brownies.

KAUFFMAN: Medical marijuana is often prescribed for cancer or aids patients who need to gain weight. But a prescription to a child is unusual. The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes legalization of marijuana, but supports more research. Though there’s absolutely no evidence Marijuana cures autism, this mom says it has improved her child’s life. Hattie Kauffman, CBS News, Los Angeles.

CBS’s Early Show on Friday completely ignored the grilling Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner received on Capitol Hill on Thursday and the calls for his resignation by members of Congress. ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today both covered the contentious exchanges.

ABC’s Good Morning America provided the most coverage. Correspondent Bianna Golodryga observed that "a handful of Republicans and one Democrat are calling for his resignation" based on the current economic situation. She then played video of Republican Michael Burgess deriding Geithner: "I don't think you should be fired. I thought you never should have been hired."

Another clip featured Republican Kevin Brady directly asking the Treasury Secretary: "For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?" But, even though the Early Show found time for generous coverage of Oprah Winfrey and the announcement that she’s retiring in two years, the news program skipped reporting on the calls for Geithner’s resignation by these Republicans. (House Democrat Peter DeFazio and Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell both have previously made similar announcements.)

CBS’s Evening News also did not cover the story on Thursday, unlike ABC’s World News and NBC’s Nightly News. Both of those shows did and featured the calls for resignation.

GMA correspondent Golodryga on Friday did attempt to defend Geithner. At the close of her report, she asserted, "One year ago, the stock market was on a nose-dive. Major banks were going under. And the economy suffered its biggest quarterly contraction in seven years. Now, all of that has significantly improved today, except for when it comes to jobs." However, Golodryga left out any mention of the deficit, which has been tripled under President Barack Obama.

This Week host George Stephanopoulos appeared next and did admit that the Obama administration’s claim that things could be worse without the stimulus, isn’t "good enough." But, he also dismissed any notion of a growing movement against Geithner: "You have still only got two members of Congress [sic]. One from the far right and one from the far left who have called for him to go. And, also, one Senator, Maria Cantwell of Washington."

NBC’s Today featured a Ann Curry news brief on the topic:

ANN CURRY: The White House is defending Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who came under some heavy fire on Thursday for how he's handling the economic crisis. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill called for his resignation, and at least one Democrat agreed that he should step down. Geithner was criticized for the nation's 10.2 percent unemployment rate and for the slow recovery but the White House later said, that Geithner has helped bring the economy back from the brink.

Then, in a later segment, Meet the Press host David Gregory appeared and briefly touched on the issue. He dismissed the attack on Geithner as a "perception problem," saying, "You've got Wall Street doing better than most American workers in this country, you've got 10.2 percent unemployment and a ballooning federal debt. Those are the problems for Secretary Geithner, and he's just the proxy, because those are really the problems for the President. Overall, it's a perception problem that the administration has to deal with." 　

A transcript of the Bianna Golodryga segment, which aired at 7:10am EST on November 20, follows:

ROBIN ROBERTS: Now, to the political revolt under way over Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the man hand-picked by President Obama to turn around the economy. A handful of Republicans and one Democrat are calling for his resignation. This morning, the White House firing back. And our financial correspondent Bianna Golodryga has more on that.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Rough day, yesterday. It was anything but your typical Capitol Hill hearing. The Treasury Secretary spent the yesterday defending how the administration is handling the economic recovery. The normally reserved Geithner could not hide his frustrations, however, at accusations that became rather personal. And that's when things got heated.

REP. MICHAEL BURGESS (R-TX, Joint Economic Cmte.): I don't think you should be fired. I thought you never should have been hired.

REP. KEVIN BRADY (R-TX, Ranking member, joint economic Cmte.): For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?

GOLODRYGA: The Treasury Secretary took issue with the notion that the Obama administration is to blame for the economic crisis.

TIM GEITHNER (Secretary of the Treasury): You gave this President an economy falling off the cliff. Values of American savings cut almost in half. -I can't take responsibility is, is for the legacy of crisis you bequeathed this country!

BRADY: This is your budget. This is your bailout. This is your stimulus. This is your act. It is time to take responsibility.

GEITHNER: I take full responsibility for those.

BURGESS: My constituents, they're not just anxious. They are mad. They are fighting mad about what has happened in the economy.

BRADY: It's appropriate for the American people to assess how well this administration's economic policies are working. They are not. They have failed.

GEITHNER: I agree with almost nothing in what you said. And I think almost nothing of what you said represents a fair and accurate perception of where this economy is today. If you look at any measure of confidence in the financial system, it is substantially stronger today than when the President of the United States took office.

GOLODRYGA: And it's not just Republicans who are calling for his head. A Democratic congressman started it all on cable TV.

ED SHULTZ: Should he stay in his job, Congressman?

REP. PETER DEFAZIO (D-Oregon): No.

SHULTZ: You think Tim Geithner should be gone as Treasury Secretary?

DEFAZIO: I do.

GOLODRYGA: So, let's look at the facts. One year ago, the stock market was on a nose-dive. Major banks were going under. And the economy suffered its biggest quarterly contraction in seven years. Now, all of that has significantly improved today, except for when it comes to jobs. The unemployment rate back then was 6.6 percent. Today, that's nearly doubled. And that's become the administration's Achilles' heel now.

On Thursday’s CBS Early Show, after Rudy Giuliani suggested the Obama administration was trying to “satisfy left-wing critics” by trying 9/11 terrorists in civilian court, incredulous co-host Harry Smith saw no such connection: “But Hang on. So it’s – so the idea of them being tried in open court is a left-wing political agenda?”

Smith began the interview with the former New York City Mayor by skeptically wondering: “You said yesterday that this was a political decision. How is it – do you think it’s a political decision?” Giuliani responded: “Well, it’s a political decision because I believe that this is being done to satisfy left-wing critics....After all, it was lawyers in Attorney General Eric Holder’s law firm that challenged the military tribunal, challenged the habeas corpus, fought these cases all throughout. So I think this is a political agenda.”

After Smith was taken aback by the charge that liberal politics was involved in the decision, Giuliani began to explain: “Of course. Because they could be tried in military courts. As everyone else was up until now. And it would add-” Smith cut him off: “So as the attorney general yesterday, ‘we need not cower in the face of this enemy’” Giuliani shot back: “Please let me finish what I was saying. I didn’t get a chance to complete my thought.”

Giuliani continued to emphasize the political motivation: “And this is something that was pushed very, very hard by the left-wing for President Obama to do and he’s been criticized for delaying in doing it.” Smith tried to discredit the former Mayor: “And you’ve been criticized, though, because some people feel it’s a flip-flop on your part, the ‘Blind Shaikh’ and other conspirators in the first World Trade Center bombing, were tried here in New York successfully. You called it a symbol of American justice.” Giuliani pointed out: “The reality is of course there was no military tribunal in 1993. It would have been absurd for me to argue for a military tribunal in 1993.”

At the top of the interview, Smith tried to portray a CBS poll showing a clear majority of people opposed to trying the 9/11 terrorists in civilian court as evidence that Americans were “deeply divided” over the issue. He reported: “40% said the trial should be in open federal court. 54% said they should take place in a closed military court.”

In his final question to Giuliani, Smith asked about the Ft. Hood shooting: “...a 2007 performance review of Major Nidal Hasan....[shows] He’s dealing with PTSD patients and he’s talking to them about Jihad, it sounds like. How is it that in this day and age we’re still not able to connect the dots?” Giuliani blamed the political correctness pushed by the left: “I think there’s a fear that you’re going to be accused of discriminating against people of the Islamic religion.... It comes with the administration saying you can’t use the term ‘war on terror’....they’re committing these crimes in the name of Jihad. That is precisely what Major Hasan was doing. The administration doesn’t seem to want to recognize that.”

Smith loyally defended the Obama administration: “Except – except the report was written in 2007 and that was – way precedes the Obama administration, so I’m not sure there can be a delineation that – that you’re trying to make.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:07AM

HARRY SMITH: Now to the latest on the 9/11 suspects coming to New York City. The man who made the controversial decision to put them on trial in federal court told the Senate Judiciary Committee, Wednesday, why he’s doing it. CBS News chief judicial correspondent Bob Orr is in Washington with the story. Good morning, Bob.

BOB ORR: Good morning, Harry. Well, Attorney General Eric Holder is strongly defending his decision to try confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York, saying the criminal justice system will win a conviction.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Terror On Trial; A.G. Holder Defends Court Decision]

ERIC HOLDER: Failure is not an option. This – these are cases that have to be won.

ORR: But Senate Republicans ripped Holder’s decision, saying public testimony could compromise sensitive intelligence.

JEFF SESSIONS: I believe this decision is dangerous. I believe it’s misguided.

ORR: Critics said Holder should have left Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his four henchmen in military court, where they had already asked to be martyred.

HOLDER: I’m not going to base a determination on where these cases ought to be brought on what a terrorist, what a murderer wants to do. He will not select the prosecution venue. I will select it. And I have.

ORR: But 9/11 families who watched the hearing, wearing and holding pictures of victims, also challenged the decision and quietly confronted Holder in the hearing room. Geraldine Davie lost a daughter in the World Trade Center.

GERALDINE DAVIE: My country already let me down once and my daughter was caught in the cross hairs. Now this is letting me down a second time? This is unconscionable. Absolutely unconscionable.

ORR: Now, Holder said if somehow the government manages to lose the case, KSM and the others would not be freed. In fact, they would continue to be held as enemy combatants. Harry.

SMITH: Bob Orr in Washington this morning, thanks. Americans are deeply divided on where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other defendants should be tried. In a recent CBS News poll, 40% said the trial should be in open federal court. 54% said they should take place in a closed military court. Former New York City Mayor and federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani has called this one of the worst decisions of the Obama administration. He joins us this morning. Good morning, Mr. Mayor.

RUDY GIULIANI: Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Rudy’s Outrage; Former Mayor Bashes Decision On Terror Trial Venue]

SMITH: You said yesterday that this was a political decision. How is it – do you think it’s a political decision?

GIULIANI: Well, it’s a political decision because I believe that this is being done to satisfy left-wing critics who all during the last two or three years have campaigned against these military tribunals. After all, it was lawyers in Attorney General Eric Holder’s law firm that challenged the military tribunal, challenged the habeas corpus, fought these cases all throughout. So I think this is a political agenda. Because it makes no sense. There’s no reason for it, it’s unnecessary-

SMITH: But Hang on. So it’s – so the idea of them being tried in open court is a left-wing political agenda?

GIULIANI: Of course. Because they could be tried in military courts. As everyone else was up until now. And it would add-

SMITH: So as the attorney general yesterday-

GIULIANI: And it was – let me finish what I’m saying-

SMITH: -‘we need not cower in the face of this enemy’-

GIULIANI: Please let me finish what I was saying. I didn’t get a chance to complete my thought.

SMITH: Go ahead.

GIULIANI: The – the reality is that they could be tried in a military tribunal, there is no reason to try them in a – in a civilian court. Others are going to be tried in the military tribunal. And the reality is we’ve never done this before. And this is something that was pushed very, very hard by the left-wing for President Obama to do and he’s been criticized for delaying in doing it.

SMITH: And you’ve been criticized, though, because some people feel it’s a flip-flop on your part, the ‘Blind Shaikh’ and other conspirators in the first World Trade Center bombing, were tried here in New York successfully. You called it a symbol of American justice.

GIULIANI: Yeah, correct, the people who accused me of a flip-flop were on Sunday when I appeared on the talk shows, the Obama administration did. The reality is of course there was no military tribunal in 1993. It would have been absurd for me to argue for a military tribunal in 1993. And in 2006, there was no military tribunal because lawyers that worked for Attorney General Holder and others had gotten them declared unconstitutional. They’ve since been fixed. Now there’s a military tribunal. And if there wasn’t a military tribunal, I would be the first one to say ‘try them in federal court, try them in New York, we have no other choice and we will show that we can – we can provide justice.’ But military courts can provide justice just as well without the same unnecessary risk.

SMITH: Alright, let me ask you this question very quickly. And this is a little bit off the subject. But about connecting the dots. There was a report on NPR yesterday that says it’s obtained a 2007 performance review of Major Nidal Hasan, this doctor who is alleged to have fired at all of these soldiers down in Ft. Hood. And in this performance report, it said ‘while he was competent to deliver safe patient care, he demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment, lack of professionalism, counseled for inappropriately discussing religious topics with assigned patients.’ He’s dealing with PTSD patients and he’s talking to them about Jihad, it sounds like. How is it that in this day and age we’re still not able to connect the dots?

GIULIANI: Oh, I think – I think there’s a tremendous thrust – and particularly in these areas – not to do it. Because I think there’s a fear that you’re going to be accused of discriminating against people of the Islamic religion. There isn’t an ability to separate these two things. It comes with the administration saying you can’t use the term ‘war on terror.’ You can’t talk about Islamic extremism terrorism. You’ve got to call it something else. There’s even a – some kind of a word category they set up for it, which sounds a little Orwellian. But the reality is we can make the distinction. There are wonderful people of the Islamic religion, most of them. Then there are Islamic terrorists. And they are committing these crimes, not for some abstract reason, not for some unconnected reason, they’re committing these crimes in the name of Jihad. That is precisely what Major Hasan was doing. The administration doesn’t seem to want to recognize that. And until it does, it’s going to send a signal all through – all through the bureaucracy, including the Army, ‘you better be careful, you’ll be an accused of profiling. You’ll be accused of discriminating.’

SMITH: Except – except the report was written in 2007 and that was – way precedes the Obama administration, so I’m not sure there can be a delineation that – that you’re trying to make.

GIULIANI: Oh, but those criticisms – those criticisms were happening politically way back 2003, 2004.

SMITH: Okay.

GIULIANI: A whole sense of don’t profile, don’t pick on people. That’s been going on for some quite some time. The Obama administration has kind of institutionalized it now, but that’s been going on for – for a number of years.

SMITH: We got to go. Mr. Mayor, thanks for your time this morning.

GIULIANI: Thank you.

Citing an interview the President gave to White House correspondent Chip Reid, at the top of Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith declared: “An outraged President Obama says heads may roll when he returns from Asia, telling CBS News he’s furious over leaks about Afghanistan.” The leaks in question have highlighted the administration’s inaction on the war.

Rather than press the President on why he has failed to make a decision on Afghanistan, in the taped interview, Reid explained: “I asked the President if he’s as angry as Defense Secretary Robert Gates about all of the leaks coming out of his administration about the Afghanistan deployment decision.” Obama replied: “I think I’m probably angrier than Bob Gates about it....For people to be releasing information during the course of deliberations, where we haven’t made final decisions yet, I think, is not appropriate.” Reid followed up: “Is it a firing offense?” Obama responded: “Absolutely.”

After the interview clip, co-host Maggie Rodriguez was glad to see the President putting his foot down: “Good to hear that he has a zero tolerance policy on the leaks. That is no joke.”

The latest CBS News poll shows that Obama only has a 38 percent approval rating on his handling of Afghanistan, perhaps that is why the network is running defense for him.

After giving the President an opportunity to voice his “outrage,” Reid moved on to softer topics: “The President talked movingly about the toll his job is taking on him.” Obama explained: “Well, look – my weight doesn’t fluctuate too much. It goes in a five-pound bandwidth. It has for the last – it has for the last 30 years.” Reid wondered: “Skipping meals?” Obama admitted: “Skipping meals, that’s usually just a scheduling issue, but I’m eating fine and I’m sleeping fine. My hair is getting gray.”

After the interview, Smith listed Obama’s challenges: “National debt hits a new record, IAEA is afraid the Iranians are hiding more nuclear devices, and oh, there’s this other thing about health care to deal with when you get home.” Rodriguez added: “No wonder he’s gray.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

 7:00AM TEASE:
                    
HARRY SMITH: An outraged President Obama says heads may roll when he returns from Asia, telling CBS News he’s furious over leaks about Afghanistan.

BARACK OBAMA: For people to be releasing information during the course of deliberations where we haven’t made final decisions yet, I think, is not appropriate and-

CHIP REID: Is it a firing offense?

OBAMA: Absolutely.

7:02AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: Alright, our other top story this morning, President Obama has left China and is now in Korea, the final leg of his trip to Asia. He arrived in Seoul this morning and will meet with leaders there tomorrow. Before leaving, the President took a tour of the Great Wall of China, saying ‘it was magical.’ He also sat down with CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid.

CHIP REID: In my interview with the President here in Beijing, he had some very interesting things to say about the war in Afghanistan, about the toll his job is taking on him, and even about Sarah Palin. The President said it’s still several weeks before he makes a decision on how many more troops to send to Afghanistan.

BARACK OBAMA: Afghans are responsible for their own security. We’ve got to get Pakistan involved in a more effective way. So there are a range of things that we know we have to do. And at this point it’s a matter of fine tuning a strategy that we can be confident will be successful. And also won’t be open-ended. And I think that General McChrystal shares the same goal that I do and the same goal that the American people do. Which is for us to be able to protect our homeland, protect our allies, protect U.S. interests around the world.

REID: I asked the President if he’s as angry as Defense Secretary Robert Gates about all of the leaks coming out of his administration about the Afghanistan deployment decision.

OBAMA: I think I’m probably angrier than Bob Gates about it. Partly – partly because, you know, we have these deliberations in the situation room for a reason. Because we are making decisions that are life and death. That affect how our troops are going to be able to operate in a theater of war. For people to be releasing information during the course of deliberations, where we haven’t made final decisions yet, I think, is not appropriate and-

REID: Is it a firing offense?

OBAMA: Absolutely.

REID: Put your seat belt on, sharp turn here. Sarah Palin has given you a grade of four so far, as president, on a ten-point scale. Is that a fair assessment?

OBAMA: Well, look, you know, I have to say that obviously Ms. Palin’s out there selling books right now. I think she’s going to do very well. She and I have very different political philosophies. So it’s probably not the person that I look to for measuring how our administration’s doing.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama One-On-One; Dismisses Palin’s Criticism of Him]

REID: The President talked movingly about the toll his job is taking on him.

OBAMA: Well, look – my weight doesn’t fluctuate too much. It goes in a five-pound bandwidth-

REID: Skipping meals?

OBAMA: It has for the last – it has for the last 30 years. Skipping meals, that’s usually just a scheduling issue, but I’m eating fine and I’m sleeping fine. My hair is getting gray. And it is the butt of a lot of jokes from my wife as well as my friends. You just don’t have a comparable set of circumstances with two wars, a financial crisis as bad as anything since 1933, a host of regional issues that have to be dealt with, a pandemic – right? You have a convergence of factors that have made this a difficult year, not so much for me, but for the American people. And so absolutely that weighs on me. Because whenever I visit Walter Reed or other military hospitals, I see the incredible sacrifices that our young men and women are making. You know, that is – that is a heavy – heavy weight. But it’s an extraordinary privilege, as well. And I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t trade my job for anything.

REID: The President’s last stop before heading home is South Korea. He said his top goal there will be to keep ratcheting up the pressure on North Korea to stop its nuclear weapons program. Traveling with the President in Beijing, Chip Reid, CBS News.

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Good to hear that he has a zero tolerance policy on the leaks. That is no joke.

SMITH: Very difficult thing to deal with, especially while you were out, you remember those little pink slips that you used to – you come back to your office – messages while you were out?

RODRIGUEZ: Yeah.

SMITH: National debt hits a new record, IAEA is afraid the Iranians are hiding more nuclear devices, and oh, there’s this other thing about health care to deal with when you get home.

RODRIGUEZ: No wonder he’s gray.

SMITH: There you go.

NBC and CBS’s morning shows on Tuesday completely ignored the revelation that the Obama administration’s Recovery.gov website claims to have saved or created jobs in congressional districts that don’t exist. ABC’s Good Morning America devoted 21 seconds to the developing story.

On ABCNews.com, Jonathan Karl wrote, "In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending." There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona. On Monday night’s World News, the network did manage a full report by Karl. He elaborated, "And it lists $34 million spent in Arizona's 86th district. That district doesn't exist either. In fact, in virtually every state, the website lists millions of dollars spent and hundreds of jobs created in fictional congressional districts."

And yet, NBC’s Today show and CBS’s Early Show on Tuesday skipped the report. Good Morning America opted for a single news report by Chris Cuomo. He quickly recapped the story and added, "The administration blames human error, but says the job count is still correct."

A transcript of the November 17 GMA news brief and the November 16 World News full report can be found below:

GMA 

11/17/09 7:13

CHRIS CUOMO: A White House website set up to track new stimulus jobs lists places that do not exist. The site says 30 jobs were created in Arizona's 15th congressional district. The problem is, there is no 15th district. For nearly every state, the website lists fictional congressional districts. The administration blames human error, but says the job count is still correct.

World News

11/16/09  6:38

CHARLES GIBSON: One of the great curiosities in Washington involves the economic stimulus program. How many jobs does it save? How many jobs has it created? There's a government website that is supposed to track those questions region by region across the country. Our Chief Congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl has been checking it and has found it puzzling. Jon?

JONATHAN KARL: Charlie, nobody is suggesting any wrongdoing here, but the $18 million website created by the White House to track the stimulus lists millions of dollars spent and jobs created in places that don't exist. The Recovery.gov website has a wealth of information about stimulus spending.

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN (UNITED STATES): We got a new modern website that's going to blow you away in terms of how detailed it is. I really mean that.

KARL: You can track the money and the jobs created by state, by zip code and by congressional district. The website, for example, says 30 jobs were created and over $700,000 spent in Arizona's 15th congressional district. The problem, the sate has only eight congressional districts, there is no 15th district. And it lists $34 million spent in Arizona's 86th district. That district doesn't exist either. In fact, in virtually every state, the website lists millions of dollars spent and hundreds of jobs created in fictional congressional districts. Check out Connecticut, where in the 42nd congressional district, 25 new jobs are listed for zero dollars spent. Again there is no 42nd district. The website also lists stimulus spending in US territories including the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, where 142 jobs were supposedly created in the non-existent 99th district and another .3 jobs in the 69th. The administration chalks it all up to human error and says the mistakes were most likely made by grant recipients who filled out their forms correctly and may not even have know what congressional district they live in. Charlie, they say that the overall numbers given by the White House about job creation are still accurate. We'll keep looking at it.

NBC and CBS’s morning shows on Tuesday completely ignored the revelation that the Obama administration’s Recovery.gov website claims to have saved or created jobs in congressional districts that don’t exist. ABC’s Good Morning America devoted 21 seconds to the developing story.

On ABCNews.com, Jonathan Karl wrote, "In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending." There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona. On Monday night’s World News, the network did manage a full report by Karl. He elaborated, "And it lists $34 million spent in Arizona's 86th district. That district doesn't exist either. In fact, in virtually every state, the website lists millions of dollars spent and hundreds of jobs created in fictional congressional districts."

And yet, NBC’s Today show and CBS’s Early Show on Tuesday skipped the report. Good Morning America opted for a single news report by Chris Cuomo. He quickly recapped the story and added, "The administration blames human error, but says the job count is still correct."

A transcript of the November 17 GMA news brief and the November 16 World News full report can be found below:

GMA 

11/17/09 7:13

CHRIS CUOMO: A White House website set up to track new stimulus jobs lists places that do not exist. The site says 30 jobs were created in Arizona's 15th congressional district. The problem is, there is no 15th district. For nearly every state, the website lists fictional congressional districts. The administration blames human error, but says the job count is still correct.

World News

11/16/09  6:38

CHARLES GIBSON: One of the great curiosities in Washington involves the economic stimulus program. How many jobs does it save? How many jobs has it created? There's a government website that is supposed to track those questions region by region across the country. Our Chief Congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl has been checking it and has found it puzzling. Jon?

JONATHAN KARL: Charlie, nobody is suggesting any wrongdoing here, but the $18 million website created by the White House to track the stimulus lists millions of dollars spent and jobs created in places that don't exist. The Recovery.gov website has a wealth of information about stimulus spending.

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN (UNITED STATES): We got a new modern website that's going to blow you away in terms of how detailed it is. I really mean that.

KARL: You can track the money and the jobs created by state, by zip code and by congressional district. The website, for example, says 30 jobs were created and over $700,000 spent in Arizona's 15th congressional district. The problem, the sate has only eight congressional districts, there is no 15th district. And it lists $34 million spent in Arizona's 86th district. That district doesn't exist either. In fact, in virtually every state, the website lists millions of dollars spent and hundreds of jobs created in fictional congressional districts. Check out Connecticut, where in the 42nd congressional district, 25 new jobs are listed for zero dollars spent. Again there is no 42nd district. The website also lists stimulus spending in US territories including the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, where 142 jobs were supposedly created in the non-existent 99th district and another .3 jobs in the 69th. The administration chalks it all up to human error and says the mistakes were most likely made by grant recipients who filled out their forms correctly and may not even have know what congressional district they live in. Charlie, they say that the overall numbers given by the White House about job creation are still accurate. We'll keep looking at it.

On Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez previewed an exclusive interview with Levi Johnston on the CBS entertainment show, The Insider: “Levi Johnston says he is winning the war of words between Sarah Palin and him. We’ll hear from him.” Later, correspondent for The Insider, Chris Jacobs, declared: “Sarah Palin lashing out at Levi and now Levi fires back.”

Rodriguez has conducted three exclusive interviews with the estranged father of Palin’s grandson in the last six months, the latest on October 29. In The Insider interview, Johnston is given the opportunity to continue his vicious, personal, and unsubstantiated attacks against the former Alaska governor, claiming: “I think she’s going out and talking and she’s just digging a bigger hole for herself....I just look at her in disgust. It’s almost funny that she’s like 46 years old and she’s battling a 19-year-old and I’m winning and I’m telling the truth. She’s lying and losing.”

The preview segment of the interview, in which Johnston reacts to Palin’s interview with Oprah Winfrey on her new book, goes on to feature an expletive laden rant by the would-be Playgirl model: “She’s really underestimating me right now and that’s not a smart thing to do....You know, she’s basically calling me a liar, which is total [expletive]. I did for, you know, a few, you know – a couple months and then we split up and that was it. You can totally tell, if you pay attention, that she’s the one [expletive].”

Rodriguez concludes the segment by encouraging viewers to watch the rest of the interview on Tuesday’s edition of The Insider: “Alright Chris, we’ll be tuning in. Thank you so much....Tune into The Insider tonight for more on Levi Johnston’s take on Sarah Palin. Be sure to check your local listings.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Sarah Palin hypes her new book on Oprah and slams the McCain campaign.

SARAH PALIN: I did not want that message sent out that we were giddy happen to become grandparents.

RODRIGUEZ: While the father of her grandchild, Levi Johnston, fires back.

LEVI JOHNSTON: I think she’s going out and talking and she’s just digging a bigger hole for herself.

RODRIGUEZ: We’ll have more of his exclusive reaction.

7:12AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Up next, Sarah Palin hypes her book on Oprah while Levi Johnston watches and claims victory. We’ll tell you what both had to say.

7:24AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Still to come, Levi Johnston says he is winning the war of words between Sarah Palin and him. We’ll hear from him when we return.     

7:31AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: But first, Sarah Palin. She didn’t hold back when she talked to Oprah. And Levi Johnston, the father of her grandson, was watching. The Insider’s Chris Jacobs is live in L.A. with Johnston’s exclusive reaction. Hey Chris, good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Levi vs. Sarah; Grandson’s Father Goes Rogue on Palin]

CHRIS JACOBS: Good morning, Maggie. Only The Insider’s cameras were rolling as Levi watched Sarah Palin talk tough about his choices to take their spate public and then pose for Playgirl. Levi shared his thoughts with us.

SARAH PALIN: A bit heartbreaking to see the road that is he on right now.

LEVI JOHNSTON: I think she’s going out and talking and she’s just digging a bigger hole for herself.

PALIN: Kind of this aspiring – aspiring porn, some of the things that he’s doing. It’s kind of heartbreaking.

OPRAH WINFREY: The Playgirl centerfold?

PALIN: Right. It’s – I call that porn, yes.

JOHNSTON: I just look at her in disgust. It’s almost funny that she’s like 46 years old and she’s battling a 19-year-old and I’m winning and I’m telling the truth. She’s lying and losing.

JACOBS: Sarah Palin lashing out at Levi and now Levi fires back.

JOHNSTON: If you look at her face, she’s got – she’s really – you can tell her mind’s going 100 miles an hour when Oprah asked her those Levi questions. I got a lot more knowledge and, you know, credibility than she gives me credit for.

PALIN: And by the way, I don’t know if we call him Levi. I hear he goes by the name ‘Ricky Hollywood’ now. So if he – if that’s the case, we don’t want to mess up this gig he’s got going.

JOHNSTON: She’s really underestimating me right now and that’s not a smart thing to do.

JACOBS: With daughters Willow and Piper in the audience, Sarah implies Levi’s a liar.

PALIN: The whole premise of Levi ever having lived with Bristol is false. And from there, though, I mean, you take that foundational untruth and you can kind of measure all the other things that he’s saying.

JOHNSTON: You know, she’s basically calling me a liar, which is total [expletive]. I did for, you know, a few, you know – a couple months and then we split up and that was it. You can totally tell, if you pay attention, that she’s the one [expletive].

JACOBS: But Levi is especially irritated by this moment.

WINFREY: What happens when he comes to see the baby?

PALIN: He’s quite busy with his media tours and he hasn’t seen the baby for a while.

JOHNSTON: You know, I’ve been gone a lot on the media. That is – yeah, I haven’t seen him a lot, but that’s not always why.

JACOBS: Levi’s long contended that the Palins are keeping him away from his now 10-month-old son, Tripp, and that he’s gearing up for a custody battle.

JOHNSTON: We’re going to court. It’s – all this is going to be over with and I won’t have much else to say about Sarah Palin because I will have my kid.

JACOBS: Palin appears to extend an olive branch to her grandson’s father, but Levi says there’s no truce yet.

PALIN: An open invitation for Levi to come to Aunt Katie’s house for Thanksgiving dinner in Washington, there.       

JOHNSTON: That was a real convincing invite. I think if I go there, I’m going to need – I’m going to need an army because it’s – it’s not going to be good.

JACOBS: And this isn’t the last we’ve seen of Levi Johnston. Tonight we’ve got a whole lot more. The Insider is inside Levi’s Playgirl photo shoot, shirtless and stripped down. Now the answer to the million dollar question is will he take it all off. You’re just going to have to wait and see tonight on The Insider.

RODRIGUEZ: Oh, you’re going to tell us?

JACOBS: Maybe.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright Chris, we’ll be tuning in. Thank you so much.

JACOBS: Thank you very much.

RODRIGUEZ: Tune into The Insider tonight for more on Levi Johnston’s take on Sarah Palin. Be sure to check your local listings.

Appearing on Monday’s CBS Early Show to discuss Sarah Palin’s upcoming book tour, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer dismissed the former vice presidential candidate’s political ambitions: “I think she’s going to sell a lot of books. I think she’ll be a great attraction out, you know, as an amusement....But I can’t imagine that she has much future in politics. I really don’t.”

Early Show co-host Harry Smith began by asking Schieffer about Palin’s criticism of the McCain campaign in her book, ‘Going Rogue.’ Schieffer responded: “Well, this is Sarah Palin’s turn to get even....I don’t think it’s going to work.... it’s kind of like a baseball player going into a slump and blaming the manager or blaming the bat boy or blaming the fans or something.”

Schieffer went on to write Palin’s political obituary: “But I don’t think it’s going to help re-establish her as a, you know, as a political candidate. I – my guess is she’s not ever going to run for anything and I think if she did, I don’t think she would get very far.” Even Smith seemed to think that was premature, replying in a surprised manner: “Really?”

Trying to convince Smith of Palin’s political irrelevance, Schieffer attacked her decision to step down as governor of Alaska: “...let’s not overlook the fact that she had to leave the governor’s office in Alaska because that was too much for her. Can you imagine her going through a primary with an opponent? You know, I mean, what would she say? ‘When the going to gets tough, I’m ready to quit?’ I mean, that is not how one builds a political base.”

After Schieffer deemed that Palin was nothing more than “an amusement,” Smith wondered about her endorsement of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the New York 23rd congressional race: “...one of the most important endorsements for that rogue candidate up there was from Sarah Palin. She’s very popular among the tea party set. Do you not think this is part of a growing base of folks from which will ascend into more power in the Republican party?”

Schieffer explained: “Well, the Republican Party is very split right now....And you have that segment, mostly the people on the Right, but you also have candidates like Mike Huckabee, who ran the last time out, who generally made a good impression....She will not be the only person who comes at it from the Right, if she should decide to run.” He once again concluded: “I think the purpose here for Sarah Palin right now is to sell some books and to try to sell her side of the story....It’ll sell books, but I don’t see it going beyond that.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:01AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Everybody is waiting for the release of Sarah Palin’s memoir. And it’s been reviewed in all kinds of papers all over the country, I’m reading the review in the Wall Street Journal this morning. And she comes down hardest, really, on the McCain campaign.

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: I know.

SMITH (Pumps fist): Really.

RODRIGUEZ: And they are fighting back.

SMITH: Right. So we’re going to talk Bob Schieffer about it – that and some other things a little bit later on this morning.     

7:11AM TEASE:

SMITH: Coming up next, Sarah Palin ‘Going Rogue’ to promote her new book. We’ll take a look at why the McCain camp is up in arms.

7:15AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: Sarah Palin’s new book is already a best seller, but it doesn’t officially hit the bookstores until tomorrow. Some of what she’s written has already been leaked and that is stirring up a lot of controversy. CBS News correspondent Randall Pinkston has the latest. Randall, good morning.

RANDALL PINKSTON: Good morning, Harry. Though Sarah Palin talks about her role in governing Alaska in her book, it’s her elevation to the national stage as John McCain’s running mate and her clashes with his campaign staffers that will likely make this a real page turner. Among the moments Sarah Palin writes about in her memoir, friction with senior McCain strategist Steve Schmidt.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Palin, Politics & Publishing; Fmr. McCain Staffer: The Book Is ‘Fiction’]

PETER WALLSTEN [REPORTER, WALL STREET JOURNAL]: She is uncomfortable with his language at one point. He seems to be cussing in front of her children.

PINKSTON: Wall Street Journal reporter Peter Wallsten reviewed Palin’s ‘Going Rogue.’

WALLSTEN: She was really bruised, her image was battered after that campaign.

STEVE SCHMIDT: She’s going to have broad appeal across the country.

PINKSTON: During the campaign, Schmidt championed Palin on the Early Show, but in a phone interview with CBS News on Sunday, Schmidt called Palin’s book ‘fiction,’ saying ‘it’s not true.’

ED GOEAS [REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST]: Certainly some of the staff that was assigned to her did not do her a great service.

PINKSTON: But Ed Goeas, who was program director at last year’s GOP convention, says Palin’s recollection of events are accurate.

GOEAS: She had a very unique kind of style that connected with people out there, and I think that was contrary to necessarily where they were trying to take her as a candidate.

PINKSTON: Soon after her book hits the shelves, Palin will hit the road, on a tour some say is an effort to re-establish herself ahead of the 2012 election.

WALLSTEN: She’s taking a tour of small towns and mid-sized cities where her base lives and the point right now is just to sell as many books as possible.

PINKSTON: Palin’s book tour begins this week in Michigan, a state that the McCain campaign pulled out of against Palin’s wishes. That makes it a perfect place, strategists agree, to prove that Sarah Palin is ready for a future campaign. Harry.

SMITH: We’ll find out. Alright. Randall Pinkston, thank you so much. Joining us now is CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation Bob Schieffer. Bob, good morning.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning, Harry.

SMITH: It really is amazing how much attention has been paid to this book and it hasn’t even hit the stores yet in large part. What do you make of all of the criticism in this book, especially focused on the McCain campaign?

SCHIEFFER: Well, this is Sarah Palin’s turn to get even, as it were. She – she came under this intense criticism all during the campaign and now she’s giving her version of why she didn’t succeed as a candidate. I mean, I don’t think it’s going to work. I – you know, it’s kind of like a baseball player going into a slump and blaming the manager or blaming the bat boy or blaming the fans or something. You know, it makes for provocative reading. I think she’ll sell a lot of books. But I don’t think it’s going to help re-establish her as a, you know, as a political candidate. I – my guess is she’s not ever going to run for anything and I think if she did, I don’t think she would get very far.

SMITH: Really?

SCHIEFFER: No. I mean, well, what’s she going to say? I mean, let’s – let’s not overlook the fact that she had to leave the governor’s office in Alaska because that was too much for her. Can you imagine her going through a primary with an opponent? You know, I mean, what would she say? ‘When the going to gets tough, I’m ready to quit?’ I mean, that is not how one builds a political base. I think she’s going to sell a lot of books. I think she’ll be a great attraction out, you know, as an amusement. She’s interesting, she’s a celebrity. But I can’t imagine that she has much future in politics. I really don’t.

SMITH: It’s so interesting because, for instance, in this House race up in the 23rd district, one of the most important endorsements for that rogue candidate up there was from Sarah Palin. She’s very popular among the tea party set. Do you not think this is part of a growing base of folks from which will ascend into more power in the Republican party?

SCHIEFFER: Well, the Republican Party is very split right now, as you know Harry. And you have that segment, mostly the people on the Right, but you also have candidates like Mike Huckabee, who ran the last time out, who generally made a good impression. Someone who won the Iowa caucuses. She will not be the only person who comes at it from the Right, if she should decide to run. But I think the purpose here for Sarah Palin right now is to sell some books and to try to sell her side of the story. One of the problems you have, though, when you start taking on campaign aides, people don’t know who these people are, you know. And so she’s fighting against people that most people don’t know who they are. It’ll sell books, but I don’t see it going beyond that.

SMITH: Bob Schieffer, thanks for getting up early for us this morning. We do appreciate it, sir.

SCHIEFFER: You bet.

SMITH: Alright.

On the November 14 Saturday Early Show on CBS, as substitute co-anchor Debbye Turner Bell hosted Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh for a discussion of Sarah Palin’s soon-to-be released book, Going Rogue: An American Life, Turner Bell suggested that there was "a little bit of revisionist history" in the book, which according to her, is "already stirring controversy." She also contended that one of Palin’s quotes praising her husband Todd’s good looks "doesn’t sound very presidential,"and suggested that Palin showed "naivete" by complaining about vicious attacks made against her early on in the campaign by some liberals.

For his part, Hirsh agreed with Turner Bell’s suggestion about "revisionist history," and called it "somewhat disturbing" that Palin responded to some of the criticism against her, calling it a "streak of vindictiveness toward her political enemies."

After the two theorized that the book was meant by Palin as a way of kicking off a presidential campaign for 2012, Turner Bell brought up charges of "revisionist history," which she tried to distance from herself by theorizing that others might call it that: "She seems to be trying to get her side of the story out. Some would maybe call that a little bit of revisionist history. Is that your take on this book?"

Hirsh agreed: "Well, there is. I mean, there are a couple things, you know, that were somewhat disturbing about Palin that appear in this book, this streak of vindictiveness toward her political enemies, which we see now include many in the McCain camp."

He soon added: "So Going Rogue is probably an appropriate title. Whether it's the kind of President America wants, assuming that Sarah Palin is gearing up for a presidential run, is another question."

And, even though there were gross attacks on Palin and her family early on as she entered the 2008 campaign – including the theory advanced by liberal bloggers that her youngest child, Trig, was really her daughter's baby; and the theory by FNC liberal Alan Colmes that Palin might have caused Trig to have Down's Syndrome by avoiding prenatal care, even though the disorder is well known to be the result of heredity – Turner Bell treated Palin's complaint about "character assassination" as a sign of "naivete" by Palin. Turner Bell: "Let's quickly take a look at some of the quotes that are in the book. One, she says about when she first got in, and she says, ‘Before my plane even touched down in Anchorage, shocking character assassinations of those I love began.’ So she seems to be surprised by that. Is this a reflection of her naivete?"

Turner Bell also characterized some of Palin’s words of admiration for her husband as "not very presidential," though Hirsh suggested that such "blunt" talk helps make her popular. Turner Bell: There was, of course, a rumor that she and her husband, Todd, might be divorcing, and this was what she said, "Dang, I thought. Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd?" That doesn't sound very presidential, does it? "

Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the November 14 Saturday Early Show on CBS:

DEBBYE TURNER BELL: There's a lot of high drama surrounding Sarah Palin's memoir, Going Rogue: An American Life. The former Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Governor's new book hits the store shelves on Tuesday, but portions have leaked, and they're already stirring controversy. So what effect does all this publicity have on Palin’s future? Joining us now from Washington is Newsweek’s senior editor, Michael Hirsh, to talk about this. Good morning, Michael. How are you this morning?

MICHAEL HIRSH, NEWSWEEK: Good morning. Very well, thanks.

TURNER BELL: It seems to be an unwritten rule when any politician is gearing up to run for President, they write a book. Is that what this is about you think?

HIRSH: I think very much so. You know, I mean, there's a long and storied history there. And Palin has put her own particular stamp on this tradition. Whether it's going to get her what she wants, which is apparently, you know, a national stage leading into 2012, is another question.

TURNER BELL: She seems to be trying to get her side of the story out. Some would maybe call that a little bit of revisionist history. Is that your take on this book?

HIRSH: Well, there is. I mean, there are a couple things, you know, that were somewhat disturbing about Palin that appear in this book, this streak of vindictiveness toward her political enemies, which we see now include many in the McCain camp. You know, basically the book confirms all of the stories that have been out there for many months about the dissensions within the McCain camp, as well as some of the questions about her mastery of the issues. You know, we see that in this book, as well. So Going Rogue is probably an appropriate title. Whether it's the kind of President America wants, assuming that Sarah Palin is gearing up for a presidential run, is another question.

TURNER BELL: Let's quickly take a look at some of the quotes that are in the book. One, she says about when she first got in, and she says, "Before my plane even touched down in Anchorage, shocking character assassinations of those I love began." So she seems to be surprised by that. Is this a reflection of her naivete?

HIRSH: Perhaps. It, you know, again, she seems to be mainly out for repudiation of her critics here, and what you see is, you know, a lot of self-involvement. And, again, is that the kind of thing that the American people want in a presidential candidate with all of these other issues pressing?

TURNER BELL: And another quote – oh, I’m so sorry, Michael – I want to get another quote in, though, before we have to leave. There was, of course, a rumor that she and her husband, Todd, might be divorcing, and this was what she said, "Dang, I thought. Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd?" That doesn't sound very presidential, does it?

HIRSH, laughing: Well, there have been those stories out there, and, of course, she abruptly quit the Alaska governorship, and the stories swirled that she was having personal problems with Todd Palin. But they're still together. And, you know, look, I mean, it's also what people like about her. She's very blunt. Whether that makes her a presidential candidate, again, is really something that people are going to have to decide as the book sells.

TURNER BELL: Certainly, no one can deny in certain sectors she's wildly popular. Is this book – in just a word or two – is this book going to help her or hurt her cause?

HIRSH: I think it's going to help her, you know, with her base, her relatively narrow Republican base. I don’t know that it helps at all with what she would need to actually be elected President, which is to appeal to something beyond the conservative base of the Republican party.

TURNER BELL: All right, we'll certainly see. Michael Hirsh, thank you so much for your time this morning. Appreciate it.

HIRSH: Thank you.

Speaking to the defense attorney for Ft. Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan on Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith asked: “Do you think – and this is not from a scientific or even legal standpoint, but just as you’ve been able to speak with him, do you think he’s competent to stand trial?”

In his first question to Hasan’s attorney, retired Army Colonel John Galligan, Smith wondered: “First things first, you met with Hasan at some point yesterday. Is he coherent?” Galligan replied: “He’s coherent.” He then lamented: “I learned from, actually members of the media, that apparently he was going to be charged yesterday. I was surprised by that and I was saddened by the manner in which it occurred, because I – I received belated notice.”

Smith seized upon that statement: “How unusual is it for a case as important as this one is, for the suspect to be charged with a crime and for his attorney not to be present?” Galligan admitted: “Well, there’s no legal requirement that I have been present when the charges are preferred, under the manual.” He then added: “I was extremely upset to learn that they were going about this important step in the pre-trial procedural process without formally notifying me....my first five minutes with the client were spent almost apologizing for the manner in which it went down.”

After Smith questioned Hasan’s competence, Galligan explained: “...he understands who I am, we can talk, he knows what time it is. But, again, I was only there for an hour and could I tell at the end of that one hour session I was kind of pushing the limits in terms of my ability to keep him fresh and alert in a discussion with me. His medical condition is extremely serious.”

Smith first spoke with Galligan on Tuesday, and was similarly concerned with Hasan’s mental state: “Is he coherent?....Does he know what he is alleged to have done?” At that time Smith also asked Galligan: “You said yesterday you don’t think the Major can get a fair trial. Why not?” Galligan replied: “Well, I don’t know if I said that he can’t get a fair – I – I think that would be difficult to achieve at Ft. Hood given the – the national media attention that’s been focused on the Ft. Hood community.”

Smith went so far as to cite a terrorist who praised Hasan’s actions:

Right. The – the military feels like the Major acted alone, that’s why this is going to be a military trial. Yet at the same time, he – we know now that he has exchanged these many messages with this radical cleric named Anwar Al-Awlaki. Awlaki said over the last couple of days, he called Major Hasan a hero: "He’s a man of conscious who could not bear living a contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an Army that is fighting against his own people." Are you satisfied that Major Hasan acted by himself?

Smith later suggested a possible legal strategy to Galligan: “Is it possible the government failed to defuse a ticking time bomb and might that end up being part of your defense?”

Here is a full transcript of the Friday segment:

7:07AM

HARRY SMITH: One week after the Ft. Hood massacre, the suspect, Major Nidal Hasan, has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder as he lay in his hospital bed. Joining us from Ft. Hood, Texas is Colonel John Galligan, a retired Army officer who is Hasan’s civilian attorney. Good morning, Colonel.

GALLIGAN: Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Facing the Death Penalty; Hasan’s Atty. Speaks Out On Murder Charges]  

SMITH: First things first, you met with Hasan at some point yesterday. Is he coherent?

JOHN GALLIGAN: He’s coherent and I – you’re correct, I did meet with him. I was totally surprised to learn that there was going to be a major press release or a meeting with the disclosure by PAO officials. When I queried about that, I wasn’t too sure what time it was going to occur, what it was going to be about. But I learned from, actually members of the media, that apparently he was going to be charged yesterday. I was surprised by that and I was saddened by the manner in which it occurred, because I – I received belated notice.

SMITH: Here’s the important question. How unusual is it for a case as important as this one is, for the suspect to be charged with a crime and for his attorney not to be present?

GALLIGAN: Well, there’s no legal requirement that I have been present when the charges are preferred, under the manual. However, given, as you’ve noted, the high profile nature of the case, given his location and status, still in an ICU unit, and described by me, based on the last time I saw him, in a medical condition that I would describe as guarded, I was extremely upset to learn that they were going about this important step in the pre-trial procedural process without formally notifying me. And by that I mean ensuring that I knew that it was going to be done, coordinating it in advance. That would have permitted me to be down there. In all honesty, my first five
minutes with the client were spent almost apologizing for the manner in which it went down.

SMITH: Right, let me-

GALLIGAN: This that wasn’t, I don’t think, my responsibility, but that’s what happened.

SMITH: Right. Let me ask you this. Now that you’ve had the opportunity to speak with him a couple of times, do you think – and this is not from a scientific or even legal standpoint, but just as you’ve been able to speak with him, do you think he’s competent to stand trial?

GALLIGAN: Well, his competence, and that is not mental responsibility or culpability for any charged offenses, but his competence, his ability to relate with me, he understands who I am, we can talk, he knows what time it is. But, again, I was only there for an hour and could I tell at the end of that one hour session I was kind of pushing the limits in terms of my ability to keep him fresh and alert in a discussion with me. His medical condition is extremely serious.

SMITH: Colonel Galligan, thank you very much for your time this morning.

GALLIGAN: You’re welcome, sir. Thank you.

SMITH: You bet.

Appearing on Friday’s CBS Early Show to discuss the release of Sarah Palin’s book, ‘Going Rogue,’ author Ann Coulter told co-host Harry Smith: “[John] McCain...was the media’s favorite Republican. So any criticism his side made of Palin was instantly printed and now we finally get the pay back. And I’m looking forward to it.”

Coulter made the comment after Smith asked about “the tension and the conflict between” the former vice presidential candidate and the McCain campaign. He went on to remark that Palin “represents a kind of orthodoxy within the Republican Party.” Coulter replied: “I’d put it a little differently....I would say she is an authentic American the way most members of the media are not, that certainly Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd do not represent the average American.”

Referring to the left-wing New York Times columnists who frequently attacked Palin, Coulter continued: “She can go and be comfortable in very many parts of the country where Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich would never deign to visit, much less be comfortable.” Smith clarified: “These are the people who might necessarily be critical of some of the things she has to say.” Coulter responded: “Yes, they certainly were.”

Smith followed up by wondering: “Does she represent in her philosophy, in her, say, support base, does that represent the future of the party?” An on-screen headline read: “Politics of Palin; Is She A Serious 2012 Candidate for GOP?” Coulter touted Palin’s importance, but was unsure of her political ambitions: “It’s certainly a part of the future, but, I mean, I don’t – it’s not like I’m supporting her for president. I don’t know who our president is going to be....I think she is a very powerful voice for conservatism and wow she has a lot of appeal out in America.”

Coulter added: “I think that has a lot to do with the hatred for her. I think any liberal male took his life in his hands for saying, ‘well, I’d never vote for her, but, boy, she’s attractive.’ Woah.”

At the end of the interview, Smith promoted the release of Coulter’s book, ‘Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America,’ in paperback. Coulter mentioned: “Oh, I discuss the media’s treatment of Palin in here.” Smith replied: “I remember that. I remember our conversation about that.” On the January 6 Early Show, Smith interviewed Coulter about the book and proclaimed: “You’re the whiner. You’re the one who's claiming victimhood here. That you're the victim o this great left-wing conspiracy....You should – you should have a cross. You should put yourself up on a cross.”

Here is a full transcript of Smith’s Friday interview with Coulter:

HARRY SMITH: Conservative commentator and best selling author Ann Coulter is one of Sarah Palin’s biggest supporters. She is with us live in the studio. Good morning.

ANN COULTER: Good morning.

SMITH: Scott Fitzgerald said there’s no second acts. I’m wondering if everything that happened with Sarah Palin in her vice presidential campaign was really just an overture and not a first act. And that this really is setting the table for her to run for president. Would you read it that way?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Politics of Palin; Is She A Serious 2012 Candidate for GOP?]

COULTER: I have no idea if that’s what she wants to do, but this is certainly a big second acts in itself. I mean, she has a massive fan base. This book has been number one on Amazon since it was announced. It isn’t out yet and we’re talking about it.

SMITH: Sure.

COULTER: So she has a popular appeal. I’m sure she’ll campaign for other Republicans if she wants to run for office in three years or 11 or 15. Who knows.

SMITH: You don’t have a gut check that says this is really about her rise to national prominence?

COULTER: Oh, she has national prominence.

SMITH: Well, right, but as setting – setting some sort of a foundation for a run for the presidency?

[Coulter shrugs shoulders]

SMITH: Really?

COULTER: I’m not Nostradamus.

SMITH [LAUGHS]: I’m stunned.

COULTER: Really?

SMITH: I’m a little stunned. I just thought that you would – that this is what it feels like, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s so.

COULTER: I think she’s – right now we just see her promoting this book and having mass – I mean, she sends out a Twitter post on the death panels and suddenly that’s all everyone’s talking about and it gets the death panels killed. That’s a little Twitter post when she’s just sitting in her kitchen. She has massive influence. What she does with that I don’t know.

SMITH: Right. Some of the things in the book are pretty interesting and she says she was billed $50,000 by the RNC for the vetting process.

COULTER: Right, right.

SMITH: When they came to see, ‘well is she run-able?’

COULTER: Yeah.

SMITH: And the RNC came back and said ‘no, she wasn’t.’ This sounds very interesting. The tension and the conflict between her and this campaign-

COULTER: Right, right.

SMITH: Were formidable.

COULTER: Right. And, wow, I hope she pays them back in this book and I can’t wait to read it. No, I mean, McCain – the – he was the media’s favorite Republican. So any criticism his side made of Palin was instantly printed and now we finally get the pay back. And I’m looking forward to it.

SMITH: This – it’s interesting because she represents a kind of orthodoxy within the Republican Party, right?

COULTER: Yeah, I’d put it a little differently.

SMITH: How would you say it?

COULTER: I would say she is an authentic American the way most members of the media are not, that certainly Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd do not represent the average American. She has a blue collar union-card-holding husband. She can go and be comfortable in very many parts of the country where Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich would never deign to visit, much less be comfortable.

SMITH: These are the people who might necessarily be critical of some of the things she has to say.

COUTLER: Yes, they certainly were.

SMITH: We’re just – we’re just fleshing this out for the rest of the audience. And my – my question is, though, in the end, is – does she represent in her philosophy, in her, say, support base, does that represent the future of the party?

COULTER: It’s certainly a part of the future, but, I mean, I don’t – it’s not like I’m supporting her for president. I don’t know who our president is going to be. I don’t know if conservatives do. I think she is a very powerful voice for conservatism and wow she has a lot of appeal out in America. And the camera loves her. I mean, I think that has a lot to do with the hatred for her. I think any liberal male took his life in his hands for saying, ‘well, I’d never vote for her, but, boy, she’s attractive.’ Woah.

SMITH: Alright, last but not least, guess who’s book is out in paper, right? There it is.
            
COULTER: This weekend. Oh, I discuss the media’s treatment of Palin in here.

SMITH: I remember that. I remember our conversation about that. Alright, Ann Coulter, good to see you.

COULTER: Good to see you.

Those that were eating Rice Krispies as they watched the CBS "Early Show" Thursday heard a lot more than snap, crackle and pop during Harry Smith's interview with movie star John Cusack.

Much like Rosie O'Donnell on last Friday's "Late Night," Cusack used the F-word as he discussed the 20th anniversary of his hit film "Say Anything."

Honestly, what is it about Hollywoodans that prevents them from governing their tongues when the situation calls for it (video embedded below the fold):

HARRY SMITH, HOST: Does it seem like 20 years ago already?

JOHN CUSACK: Some mornings, yeah I f**king feel a little older than others.

(Laughter from Smith).

Interestingly, Smith didn't miss a beat.

I guess that's America now, huh?

Certainly beats being urinated on by a beaver though!

Snap, f-bomb, pop -- Rice Krispies.

At the top of Thursday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez declared: “...former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, almost walks off Larry King Live, saying his questions were inappropriate.” The headline on screen read: “Prejean Pouts.”

Co-host Russ Mitchell later reported in a news brief: “Prejean nearly walked out on CNN interviewer Larry King last night. Prejean had answered questions about a sex tape she made as a teenager....She then refused several times to discuss a settlement she reached with the Miss USA Pageant, but King persisted.” Mitchell failed to provide the context that Prejean had already completed a 30-minute interview with King and was strangly brought back for the final few minutes of the show.

Later in his report, Mitchell explained: “King tried to go to a caller from Detroit, but Prejean removed her mic and prepared to leave. She then changed her mind and completed the interview. She never did answer Mr. King’s question.” Co-host Harry Smith later noted: “And the fact is – is the reason she was pulling her mic is because she said ahead of time she wasn’t going to take questions from callers.”

After Mitchell’s report, Rodriguez recalled an interview she did with Prejean: “I remember when she was here and I interviewed her, she was very uncomfortable with tough questions and so was her mom who came with her. I’m surprised – it can’t be easy, but I’m surprised she’s not used to it by now.”

Co-host Harry Smith joked: “Larry King, as we all know, I mean, is the tough interviewer.” Mitchell added: “He does not give up.” While making fun of King’s normally softball interview style, Smith and Mitchell failed to describe the unusually tough and unfair treatment he showed Prejean.

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: And former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, almost walks off Larry King Live, saying his questions were inappropriate. We’ll hear what else she said.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Prejean Pouts]

7:12AM SEGMENT:

RUSS MITCHELL:  Former Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean, nearly walked out on CNN interviewer Larry King last night. Prejean had answered questions about a sex tape she made as a teenager. Something she has called the biggest mistake of her life. She then refused several times to discuss a settlement she reached with the Miss USA Pageant, but King persisted.

CARRIE PREJEAN: Larry, it’s completely confidential and you’re being inappropriate. Okay?

LARRY KING: Okay, alright.

PREJEAN: You’re being inappropriate.

KING: ‘Inappropriate King Live’ continues.

PREJEAN: Yes.

MITCHELL: And King tried to go to a caller from Detroit, but Prejean removed her mic and prepared to leave. She then changed her mind and completed the interview. She never did answer Mr. King’s question.

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: I remember when she was here and I interviewed her, she was very uncomfortable with tough questions and so was her mom who came with her. I’m surprised – it can’t be easy, but I’m surprised she’s not used to it by now.

HARRY SMITH [JOKING]: Larry King, as we all know, I mean, is the tough interviewer.

[LAUGHTER]

MITCHELL: He does not give up. (In Larry King voice) Detroit, you’re on the air.

RODRIGUEZ: He is know for-

MITCHELL: He doesn’t stop.

SMITH: And the fact is – is the reason she was pulling her mic is because she said ahead of time she wasn’t going to take questions from callers. So that’s – in fact, if we actually want to know what happened, we’ll read about it this morning.    

Is it newsworthy when an animal urinates on a member of the press?

The good folks at CBS News must think so.

On Thursday, CBSNews.com not only created a video clip of Debbye Turner Bell getting splashed in the eye by a beaver on that morning's "Early Show," but someone actually posted it at the website's "Recommended" videos section (embedded below the fold):

So, the nation is embattled in two wars and a recession, and the good folks at CBS are recommending viewers watch a video of one of their correspondents getting urinated on.

Is this a reflection on THEM or the correspondent?