The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

RAY SUAREZ: Good evening. I`m Ray Suarez.

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Monday; then, with three days to go before the Iowa caucuses, the latest on the presidential campaign from Judy Woodruff in Des Moines; an update on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto; a consumer`s guide to end-of-the-year charitable giving; a look at troubled Kenya in the wake of a disputed presidential election; and a conversation with John Ashbery, MTV`s new poet laureate.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: Presidential contenders began their final push for votes in Iowa today, just three days before Republicans and Democrats hold their caucuses. Two polls showed Democrat John Edwards in a virtual three-way tie for the lead with Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

On the Republican side, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee battled former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for first place. We`ll have more on this story right after this news summary.

In Kenya today, post-election riots rocked the country, leaving at least 135 people dead. The opposition, led by Raila Odinga, rejected election results and accused President Mwai Kibaki of stealing his re- election. In Nairobi, police fired tear gas and water cannons on thousands of demonstrators as they ran through the streets.

Opposition supporters also blocked a road into the city center by lighting a fire. We`ll have more on this story later in the program.

Electoral officials in Pakistan today put off deciding when parliamentary elections will be held in the wake of Benazir Bhutto`s death. The decision will be announced tomorrow. The vote was originally scheduled for January 8th, but there were indications a delay of up to six weeks could be expected.

Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif threatened street protests if that happened, and he made a strong public attack against President Musharraf.

NAWAZ SHARIF, Former Prime Minister of Pakistan: Musharraf must go immediately. He is the primary and principal source of discord in the country. He is a one-man calamity. He is responsible for all the trouble in Pakistan. The country is burning.

RAY SUAREZ: Questions also mounted today over how exactly Benazir Bhutto died. New video released yesterday showed the moment shots rang out and Bhutto`s hair and shawl jerking upward. That was in direct conflict with a government analysis that said she died after hitting her head on the sunroof of her car. We`ll have more on this story later in the program tonight.

2007 was the deadliest year so far for U.S. troops in Iraq, but for the month of December the death toll dropped, with 21 U.S. troops killed. For the year, there were 899 American deaths compared to 822 in 2006.

In the latest violence in Iraq, a suicide truck bomb struck a checkpoint north of Baghdad. At least 12 people were killed.

A U.S. Marine will face reduced charges for his role in leading the killing of Iraqi civilians in 2005. The U.S. Marine Corps announced today it`s charging Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich with voluntary manslaughter instead of the more serious murder charges.

Twenty-four unarmed Iraqi civilians were killed at Haditha, and prosecutors said it was revenge for a roadside bombing. Of the eight Marines implicated in the case, none will face murder charges.

Sarah Jane Moore, the woman who took a shot at President Gerald Ford, was released from prison today. Now 77 years old, she served 32 years of a life sentence at a federal prison just east of San Francisco. In 1975, she fired on President Ford outside a San Francisco hotel, but her arm was pushed when she fired the shot, and the bullet flew over Ford`s head.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 101 points to close at 13,264. The Nasdaq fell 22 points to close at 2,652.

But the markets finished a volatile year in the black, despite lagging problems from the housing downturn and the credit crunch. The Dow gained more than 6 percent. The Nasdaq rose nearly 10 percent. And the wider S&P 500 index advanced 3.5 percent.

That`s it for the news summary tonight. Now: the Iowa caucuses; Bhutto`s assassination; charitable giving; Kenyan elections; and MTV`s poet laureate.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: As the clock ticks toward the start of the big presidential election year, the candidates are all sharing the same New Year`s resolution: to start 2008 with a win in Iowa. Judy Woodruff reports.

FORMER GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE (R), Arkansas: I`d rather run a marathon than a 5K, because I`m not a fast runner, but I can go distances.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mike Huckabee may prefer marathons, but right now he`s trying to sprint to the finish line in Iowa. With the caucuses here just three days away, Huckabee is virtually tied with rival Mitt Romney in the Republican contest.

A new MSNBC-McClatchy poll shows Romney with a slight advantage over Huckabee, while a Reuters-C-SPAN-Zogby poll has Huckabee first.

The close race has triggered a new ad war between the candidates, with Romney on Iowa television taking on Huckabee`s record while governor of Arkansas.

FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY (R), Massachusetts: I`m Mitt Romney and I approve this message.

ANNOUNCER: Two good men.

ANNOUNCER: But who is ready to make tough decision?

ANNOUNCER: Mike Huckabee? Soft on government spending, he grew a $6 billion government into a $16 billion government, backed in-state tuition benefits for illegals, and granted 1,033 pardons and commutations, including 12 murders.

JUDY WOODRUFF: On NBC yesterday, Huckabee responded directly to the attacks.

MIKE HUCKABEE: Mitt Romney is running a very desperate and, frankly, a dishonest campaign.

JUDY WOODRUFF: His campaign was just about to start airing ads of its own critical of Romney, but Huckabee announced today he had changed his mind, would pull that ad, and run a positive one instead. We asked him about this while he was getting a hair cut.

MIKE HUCKABEE: Just didn`t feel right about it, Judy. Just felt like, you know, that we were just jumping down the same mud hole everybody else was in. Just decided it wasn`t worth it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Why did you want it in the first place?

MIKE HUCKABEE: Same reason everybody runs it. You think you`ve got to, if you`re going to counterpunch against negative stuff that`s hurting you. And, you know, it`s pretty clear that some of the negative stuff has hurt us. I mean, we realize that.

But I think we hopefully made the right decision. Here`s the thing: I know whether politically I made the right decision, I don`t know that. Personally, I know I made the right decision. I feel totally at ease with what we did. I mean, I know I can put my head on the pillow tonight. I`m going to sleep sound.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), Arizona: I think the important thing is for me to hear from you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, John McCain is fending off attacks from Romney, as well. McCain`s campaign released an ad in New Hampshire questioning Romney`s criticism of McCain on immigration.

ANNOUNCER: John McCain reacts to Mitt Romney`s negative attacks.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: You know, I find it ironic Mitt Romney would attack me on the issue of immigration. This is the same Mitt Romney who called my plan, quote, "reasonable."

JUDY WOODRUFF: As for the Democrats, the race in Iowa remains a dead heat among three candidates, with the final few days focused on voter turnout.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), Illinois: How many people are still undecided about who they`re going to caucus for? Don`t be bashful. Raise your hands. All right, guys, you see that? There`s our marks.

JUDY WOODRUFF: At an event in the town of Perry today, volunteers for Barack Obama worked hard to sign up potential supporters for Thursday night caucuses.

In Keokuk, Hillary Clinton also urged her backers to turn out Thursday night.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), New York: So I`m asking you to caucus for me. I`m asking that on Thursday night you join your friends, your family, your neighbors, and stand up and say that you want me to be your next president.

JUDY WOODRUFF: John Edwards finished second here in 2004 and yesterday told CBS`s Bob Schieffer he expects to improve on that.

FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), Presidential Candidate: We have huge momentum on the ground. I mean, this is something -- it`s palpable. I mean, I go to my events. The crowds are overflowing. They`re spilling out the doors. There`s a huge amount of energy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The MSNBC-McClatchy poll shows Obama and Clinton in a statistical tie among the Democrats, with Edwards narrowly out in front for the first time since the summer. The Reuters-C-SPAN-Zogby poll showed Clinton slightly ahead.

In Perry, Obama again made the case that he represents the best opportunity for change.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: There are those who argue that they should be elected and they will bring about change because they know how to play the game better in Washington.

But I have to say, we don`t need somebody who knows how to play the game better. We need to put an end to the game-playing in Washington. That`s why I`m running for president of the United States of America.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Clinton responded at her midday event in Keokuk.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Now, everyone running for president is talking about change, and I believe we`ve got to have change. Everyone agrees with that.

Some people think you bring about change by demanding it, and some people think you bring about change by hoping for it. I think you bring about change by working really, really hard every single day. That`s how change happens in a life; that`s how change happens in a business, in a community, and a country.

(APPLAUSE)

JUDY WOODRUFF: For his part, Edwards yesterday said he was best prepared to fight for the middle and working class.

JOHN EDWARDS: I think that we have an epic fight in front of us. And I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy.

And if we don`t take that hold away, it will be impossible to have universal health care, energy transformation, trade and tax policy that actually works for the American people and for the middle class.

JUDY WOODRUFF: For New Year`s Eve, the candidates will be showing up at parties, but all of them aimed squarely at growing their turnout Thursday night.

RAY SUAREZ: And Judy joins us live from Polk County Convention Center in Des Moines, the media Mecca for the Iowa caucuses.

And, Judy, let`s talk about the Democrats first. That bunched pack at the front -- Obama, Edwards, Clinton or Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or whatever the order is -- they`ve been in the front for a couple of weeks now, but that doesn`t mean that nothing is changing inside that trio, does it?

JUDY WOODRUFF: No, it doesn`t, Ray. And you`re right. I am here at the convention center, where we`re going to hear the results on Thursday night. We`re just here a little bit early; that`s why this place is so empty.

But you`re right. It doesn`t mean nothing has changed. The three are still very tightly running together in the polls. One poll shows John Edwards moving up.

And there`s a lot of talk about, well, there`s some momentum with Edwards, but at the same time we have to warn anyone who`s looking at these polls they`re notoriously unreliable at a holiday like this one, Christmas. And second of all, trying to predict the outcome of a caucus is always dangerous.

But what has changed, Ray, is the messages of these candidates has really solidified in the last week or so. All three of them are talking change, but what`s different is that they`ve honed in on what is their definition of change.

For Hillary Clinton, it`s "I`ve got the knowledge and the experience. I can make the change happen from day one."

For Barack Obama, "I`ve got new ideas and I`m a unifier. I can bring together the warring sides out there in Washington and around the country."

And for John Edwards, he says, "Literally, I`m going to blow the place up. I`m coming to fight." It`s a much more populist anti-corporate message.

So that is what we`re seeing. At the same time, Ray, we don`t really see anybody breaking away from the pack.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, with those three inside the margin of error, let`s talk a little bit about mechanics, what it takes to win in Iowa, because a caucus is so different from a balloting day.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It is very different. And we talked about this on the NewsHour, as all of our viewers know. What makes it different is that you not only go and place a mark on a piece of paper; you have to commit several hours on a cold night in January, leave your home, and be there.

There`s no absentee balloting at a caucus. That means each one of these campaigns is pouring unprecedented staff and money into getting people out of their homes and to the caucuses.

For the Edwards campaign, a lot of focus on people who have already caucused in the past, who know how it`s done, especially out in the rural areas of the state. That`s their principal focus and beyond.

For Barack Obama, it`s bringing new people to the table. In many cases, it`s the younger Iowans, but it`s also people who are just new to the political process.

And, finally, Hillary Clinton going after women, going after older voters. They all have their own particular demographic, if you will, that they`re going after.

But going door to door, e-mailing, we are seeing a kind of sophisticated outreach and an amount of money spent in the state we`ve never seen before.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, to the Republicans, it`s gotten pretty tough, direct, and it seems at times personal between the former governors, Romney and Huckabee.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Indeed, and you just saw that in the piece. Romney has been going after Mike Huckabee -- Romney had it all to himself here for a while. And then, about a month ago, Mike Huckabee started making headway, the former Arkansas governor.

Romney is now fighting back. He`s on the air with negative ads criticizing Huckabee. And just now, just in the last few days, Huckabee has decided he`s going to fight back.

Today he did something fairly unusual. He called a news conference and said, "Well, I was going to run this ad critical of Governor Romney, but I`ve decided I`m going to pull it back, because I don`t think it`s the right thing to do to get down in the mud."

But at the same time, he showed the ad to reporters, so the point was made, in a way, he`s able to have it both ways. He`s able to show what he was going to say, at the same time he can the high road.

But that`s where you`re seeing all the attention on the Republican side, Ray. And even the other candidates in the Republican race concede that these two are fighting it out for number one and number two.

RAY SUAREZ: Tremendous number of candidates running around the state trying to connect with voters, tremendous amount of money being spent, but not to bring a mass turnout, is that fair to say?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we looked at the population numbers of Iowa, Ray. It`s something like three million people almost live in this state. Maybe 8 percent of them, we are told, are going to turn out for these caucuses.

The Republicans are saying they hope to have 85,000, maybe 90,000 people. The Democrats are aiming for 150,000, the most optimistic projection 200,000 people. But that is still a really small percentage of Iowans who will turn out.

And yet they will have an outsized influence on this campaign. All eyes are on Iowa this Thursday night.

And, finally, just another point, there`s more enthusiasm here on the Democratic side. As I just said, the Democrats looking at 150,000 and up; the Republicans settling for less than 100,000. There`s just more interest right now and excitement on the Democratic side, and, frankly, that reflects what we`re seeing around the country among Democrats.

RAY SUAREZ: Judy Woodruff from Polk County, Iowa, she`ll be joining us from there for the rest of the week. Thanks a lot.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you.

RAY SUAREZ: And you can watch on our Web site reports from Iowa Public Television on just how a caucus works. Visit our Vote 2008 page at PBS.org.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: More doubts on the official explanation for the death of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Jonathan Rugman of Independent Television News filed this report yesterday from Islamabad with video exclusive to ITN.

JONATHAN RUGMAN, ITV News Correspondent: It`s late afternoon, and a crowd estimated at a few hundred is swarming around Benazir Bhutto`s car. A clean-shaven man in sunglasses is watching at the fringes. He`s concealing a gun. The man in white behind him is the suspected suicide bomber.

The sniper moves in to within a few feet of Bhutto, who is greeting her supporters. He fires three shots. The last bang is that of the suicide bomber blowing himself up.

Twenty-one people in all were fatally injured here. You can hear their cries of pain and shock.

Look at the shooting again. As the gunman fires at Bhutto, her hair is lifted. Her shawl is also seen to rise, and she falls inside her car.

These images, broadcast for the first time, apparently contradicting the official version of events, which insists that Benazir Bhutto was not shot.

At the spot in Rawalpindi where the former premier was last seen alive, they`ve sprinkled petals in her memory. "Long live Bhutto!" her supporters shouted. "Bhutto is alive! Her killer must pay the price for her blood!"

The government says she was killed after fracturing her head on her car`s sunroof lever, but many here say both pictures and eyewitness testimony make a mockery of the government`s story.

PAKISTANI CITIZEN: I have seen that Benazir was gun shot by a gun. I am 100 percent sure that Benazir was killed by a gun, a gunshot.

JONATHAN RUGMAN: That opinion on the street seemingly borne out by the latest pictures of Thursday`s atrocity. As more such images come to light, they will fuel the anger of protesters both here at the scene of the crime and around the country who feel that they`ve been lied to by the government and there`s been a deliberate cover-up of what amounts to a massive security failure to protect this country`s best-known politician.

A surgeon who treated Bhutto on Thursday night said she was shot twice in the head and the neck. You could hear the shots in this footage and again see the gun.

But by Friday, the hospital mysteriously changed its story, saying no bullet wounds had been found. Instead, a government spokesman insisted she`d hit her head against her car after the bomb exploded.

PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT SPOKESMAN: Then she was leaving, there were three shots that were fired. You could hear these three shots that were fired. But fortunately enough, none of these shots hit her.

JONATHAN RUGMAN: But look at the car. There`s no sign of blood on the silver-colored sunroof lever. And though the car was damaged, it was bomb-proof. Every other passenger in it survived.

Our pictures show Benazir Bhutto had fallen into the car before the explosion, which suggests she was more likely killed by an assassin`s bullet seconds earlier.

We spoke to a senior Bhutto aide who traveled in the car behind her. She described the government version of events as "ridiculous, dangerous nonsense, a cover-up."

To the left of the car, we can see three policemen. They`re doing nothing to hold back the crowd.

There`s no doubt Benazir Bhutto made a fatal mistake when she stood through her sunroof, yet her aides claim President Musharraf turned down her request to allow British and American private guards to protect her, though one of the president`s confidantes told me there was no security lapse.

SENATOR TARIQ AZEEM: This was one of her biggest political assets, to be with her own people, to be with them, to be amongst the crowd.

JONATHAN RUGMAN: But you wouldn`t protect the president like that. He wouldn`t have that lack of security. She was the most famous politician in the country.

SENATOR TARIQ AZEEM: Yes, she was different from President Musharraf, I can assure you.

JONATHAN RUGMAN: Officials have rejected calls for an independent foreign inquiry into this assassination, though they`ve offered to exhume Bhutto`s body if the relatives who`ve just buried her request it.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: Now, in 2007`s final hours, an end-of-the-year look at charitable giving amid recent concerns about how some nonprofit organizations are run. Margaret Warner has the story.

MARGARET WARNER: For many charities, this is a busy time, as hundreds of thousands of Americans rush to make tax-deductible donations before the end of the year. But once again, there are reports raising questions about how charities use their money.

For example, earlier this month, the American Institute of Philanthropy rated 20 out of 29 veterans charities with grades of D or F. Just seven groups received an A.

The bad ratings included well-known groups like the Purple Heart Service Foundation, AMVETS, and the Disabled Veterans Association. It said the eight worst performers gave less than one-third of their donations to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The report cited the worst for poorly managing their funds, paying high overhead and costly fees, or compensating their directors too handsomely. Other news accounts raise questions about whether charities actually receive the full donations when retailers promised customers they`ll give a portion of their sales to charity.

So what do donors need to know and watch out for in their end-of-year giving?

For that, we turn to Art Taylor, president and CEO of the Better Business Bureau`s Wise Giving Alliance, which monitors charities and publishes evaluations on the Web site Give.org, and Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, a publication that tracks charities and nonprofit organizations.

Welcome to you both.

So what should we make, Art Taylor, of these latest reports? I mean, are these new abuses or the same old ones?

ART TAYLOR, Wise Giving Alliance: Well, in the case of charities that are involved with veterans, and we also track badge scams with police and firefighter organizations, there`s really nothing new, although people may be surprised to find how poorly some of these organizations perform.

The real trouble is that many of these groups rely on outside fundraising groups that are very expensive, particularly telemarketers, to raise funds, and so most of the American public does not realize that 80 percent to 90 percent of a telemarketing dollar will end up with the telemarketer as opposed to the charity.

And so we like to inform donors that they should give directly to a charity if they`re interested, rather than through a telemarketer.

MARGARET WARNER: In general, if you look at the veterans groups and what criticism was raised about them, is the general problem with problem charities, is it mismanagement or are they outright scams?

STACY PALMER, Chronicle of Philanthropy: It`s a little bit of both, and that`s the hard part for donors to be able to tell. Some people go into the charity business because it`s pretty easy to pull off a scam. There aren`t all that many laws. There`s not a lot of regulation, and it`s pretty easy to pull on people`s heart strings.

That`s why it`s often these kinds of charities that raise money for emotional causes -- dying children, the firefighters -- those kinds of things that you can barely say no to, that`s where, unfortunately, most of these scams come. And that`s where you have to be especially alert.

So in those kinds of cases, sometimes it`s people actually wanting to line their own pockets or the pockets of their friends. In other cases, it`s naivete. People have a terrific idea. They`re passionate about wanting to help a particular cause.

Veterans, for example, everybody wants to do something to help them. But they may not know how to do it. They may not know how to raise money. And so they may fall prey to some of these telemarketers, as Art says, who just say, "Oh, well, we`ll give you 10 percent; 10 percent is better than you had before. You had nothing before. You didn`t have to hire a fundraiser. We`ll do the work for you."

MARGARET WARNER: So how should charities be judged, Art, by an organization, by you? Is it just by the percentage of the money they take in that they actually give to the recipients or are there other tests?

ART TAYLOR: Well, clearly, finances is important to most donors, but it can also be a false positive. We`ve studied organizations and have found that, while very few fail to meet our financial ratio test for overhead, they fail to meet many more of our standards which go into areas such as how they`re governed, whether they have conflicts of interest on their boards, how they deal with areas such as cause-related marketing and a host of other areas.

So we caution donors: Don`t be fooled just because you find a charity has low overhead into thinking that that charity is one that you should support.

MARGARET WARNER: And, in fact, sometimes aren`t problems -- take what happened with the Red Cross and Katrina -- if they don`t spend enough money on managing all their volunteers and managing the money.

ART TAYLOR: Well, it is important for an organization to spend money on overhead. You can`t really operate well if you`re not providing overhead; you can`t be accountable to your donors; you can`t get your true message out, unless you`re doing some overhead spending.

So we want to encourage some overhead spending. We just don`t want it to be excessive.

MARGARET WARNER: What about effectiveness, Stacy Palmer? I mean, you could have an organization that sends 80 percent of their receipts out -- let`s say, a relief organization -- but how does one know if the stuff just doesn`t sit in a warehouse and rot? I mean, how does an organization like yours monitor effectiveness?

STACY PALMER: That`s the really tricky part, but the most important thing -- while it`s terrific that groups are providing good governance, and that`s the sort of the thing -- what we want to know is, are they actually doing their job? Are they helping people?

And so, as a donor, you need to ask them. You need to look at the annual reports on their sites. One of the best things you can is see if a third party has evaluated them in some kind of way. A lot of charities are doing that now, especially because they see that donors are more skeptical.

So if there`s somebody that`s looked at them from the outside and said, "Here, you`re doing a terrific job or you`re not doing such a hot job, these are the kinds of things you need to do better."

MARGARET WARNER: But how does a group, an outside group, let`s say with real expertise assess effectiveness, short of going to, you know, Bangladesh or wherever the group is operating?

STACY PALMER: Right. There are a lot of fledgling efforts now to try to do a better job of evaluating charities, but it`s very hard. And that`s why there are a million charities in this country. Not all of them are ever going to be evaluated by these third parties or anybody who can really dig in and answer those questions.

So as a donor, we have to do our own due diligence to try to answer those questions. One thing to do is to just get online and look at what`s been written about the charity. Has it appeared in news reports? Because a lot of times journalists are looking into whether a group is effective or not.

So do as much reconnaissance as you can do, depending on the size of the gift, too. It`s not worth it, you know, if you`re not making a terribly large gift, you might not have the time to do it. But if you`re giving a very big gift, then you`re going to want to do as much research as you can.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, that is an issue. Let`s say you`re someone who gives normally to a couple dozen charities. It`s not really realistic, is it -- you`re expected to read the annual reports of each? I mean, what`s a person like that to do?

ART TAYLOR: Well, it depends on, I guess, a person`s stomach for being duped. If you are very trusting, you may not want to do a whole lot of investigation, regardless of how much money you`re giving.

And most people, you`re right, if they`re only giving a small gift, they won`t do a whole lot of homework. They`ll rely on a friend or, if they`ve had an experience with the charity and it`s been good, they`ll maybe continue to give.

MARGARET WARNER: So you mean, if you know the charity on the local level and you know they`re doing good work, that`s a good test?

ART TAYLOR: That`s a good test. I mean, local charities are fine, because you can go visit them. However, the large national and international groups may not have the same local presence, and so you`ll want to have to rely on third-party evaluations such as ours and others to give you some sense of whether that group is worthwhile.

On the question of effectiveness, Stacy is right. There are fledgling efforts. A few years ago, we came up with two standards that began to look into whether charities are assessing their own effectiveness.

And we`ve seen a lot of changes as a result of that. Organizations are being more open about their own effectiveness, looking for ways to get that information to donors.

And we plan to do a lot more. We`ll be convening some leaders of some major charities in the next months to try to figure out a way to get a universal way of looking at an organization`s effectiveness.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Stacy Palmer, what do the charities that have been identified as badly performing, what do they say in their defense? And is there anything to it?

STACY PALMER: Some of them are quite troubled by the reports, obviously because they don`t want their reputation tarnished. Some of them say they really did have no choice. They didn`t know how to raise money. They got scammed. And, you know, they`re very sorry.

MARGARET WARNER: You mean, they went to an outside party?

STACY PALMER: Right. So some of them say that they just didn`t know what to do. There wasn`t any other chance for them to raise money.

That doesn`t really hold up so much, because plenty of charities that are new operations that maybe are raising money sometimes for controversial causes, not even something like veterans where everybody wants to give to support that kind of cause, they raise this money in a very efficient way. So that doesn`t hold up, but that`s part of what the excuse is.

In other cases, some of the people that have been accused haven`t been really wanting to account to themselves in the press and they`ve been evading Congress, as well. So we haven`t really heard from all of the ones that have been named.

The charities that do help veterans all say that they`ve got lots of donors calling them and asking more questions. So even the legitimate groups say that they`re getting lots of calls. They`re very worried that their donations are going to drop just because now everybody is skeptical.

So I think we have to be careful not to have an overreaction.

MARGARET WARNER: And a lot of people don`t look at the whole list. They just...

(CROSSTALK)

STACY PALMER: It`s good to be careful, but sometimes people get too careful, so you don`t want to be scammed, but on the other hand you still want to do good.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally, we have all seen, you know, you go to a store and they say, "We`ll give 1 percent to some conservation cause." You go to a restaurant, and they say, "We`ll give 1 percent to a homeless shelter." Is that on the up-and-up usually? There were these stories that some of the charities said, "We knew nothing about it." And how do you as a customer know?

ART TAYLOR: Well, very interestingly, in a recent hearing, Senator Menendez asked that very question. And I understand he`s proposing legislation to require businesses that do this to inform the charities before they begin using their name.

MARGARET WARNER: It seems like kind of a basic, doesn`t it?

ART TAYLOR: Well, it is, but you`d be surprised how many businesses are out there using the good name of charities to promote products. Some of them may even be non-performing products, thinking that, by doing this, they`ll get a better return. People would be more interested in looking at those products.

So, you know, we try to police this by requiring charities to disclose to donors, when they know, how much of the purchase price will actually go to that organization and also how long the campaign will run, so people won`t be buying things throughout the year expecting that money to go to charity, when there was only really a small window for it.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think this is a serious problem?

STACY PALMER: It`s a problem. It`s not as serious as some of the other things facing charities and donors, but it`s something important. And it just raises this continuing need for donors to ask as many questions as possible about any kind of charitable giving.

It`s your money. You take it very seriously. Ask tough questions, and never feel pressured into giving. There are plenty of great causes. So if it doesn`t seem right and you don`t feel right about buying the product or making the donation, don`t do it. You don`t have to.

MARGARET WARNER: Stacy Palmer, Art Taylor, thank you both.

ART TAYLOR: Thank you, Margaret.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: A flawed election and a violent outcome in one of Africa`s largest and richest countries, the East African nation of Kenya, a former British colony of 34 million people. President Mwai Kibaki has claimed victory, but backers of opposition leader Raila Odinga charge the vote-counting was rigged.

We start with a report narrated by Neil Connery of Independent Television News.

NEIL CONNERY, ITV News Correspondent: On the streets of Nairobi and across Kenya, the violence continues to spread. Thousands of demonstrators protesting against what they say was a rigged presidential election.

Those caught are shown no mercy by the security forces.

Riot police use live rounds and tear gas to try to restore order. In the chaos unfolding in the capital`s slums, looters try to take advantage, but are soon dealt with.

In the western town of Kisumu, an opposition stronghold, more than 40 bodies have been discovered after a night of violence. Eyewitnesses claim police opened fire on demonstrators.

Across the country, more than 100 people have been killed so far.

President Mwai Kibaki`s declaration of victory and immediate swearing- in for a second term has been condemned by the opposition leader as a fraud.

RAILA ODINGA, Opposition Leader: We are not intimidated with the prospect of arrests, prosecution or detention. Democracy is expensive, and we are prepared to pay the ultimate price.

NEIL CONNERY: Some have already had to, and anger across Kenya is growing. Independent observers, including the European Union, have condemned the election.

ALEXANDER GRAF LAMBSDORFF, E.U. Election Observer Team: We have encountered some serious problems. Our observers, for example, were present in the Molo constituency when the results were announced there. And when the same results where announced here in Nairobi, the result for Mr. Kibaki was significantly higher. This is an inconsistency that we would like to see addressed.

NEIL CONNERY: The opposition leader has demanded a recount and is calling his supporters to join a rally on Thursday, where he expects more than a million people.

RAY SUAREZ: For more, we talk to Joel Barkan, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and professor emeritus at the University of Iowa. He returned last night from serving as a Kenya election observer.

And Chris Fomunyoh, a senior associate of Africa programs at the National Democratic Institute, a nonpartisan organization that monitors elections and promotes democracy worldwide. He is a citizen of Cameroon.

And, Professor Barkan, explain why, in a continent of more than 50 countries -- some with stable democracies, some authoritarian regimes, some hardly exist as countries at all -- the Kenyan election in particular is so important.

JOEL BARKAN, University of Iowa: Well, Ray, the Kenyan election is very important because, as you just noted, there is an array of regimes in Africa.

And Kenya has been one of those countries that has struggled for the last 15 years to become a democracy. It`s just on the cusp. This was the fourth multiparty election since 1992. Each was progressively better, and the hope here was this would put Kenya over the top and consolidate democracy.

RAY SUAREZ: When you say each was progressively better, you`re counting the one that just passed?

JOEL BARKAN: Until this one. And sadly, this one, there was backsliding of a significant nature. Things went very well through election day and through the counts.

I watched the counts in a primary school under a gas lamp on Thursday night. It was very moving, totally transparent. The problem occurred in reporting the results back to the electoral commission in Nairobi, where the results were held up.

And now, nearly three days later, there has not been a complete reporting of the election results.

RAY SUAREZ: Chris Fomunyoh, wasn`t Mwai Kibaki part of the change, part of the positive change that was seen by the rest of the world in Kenyan democracy?

CHRIS FOMUNYOH, National Democratic Institute: Well, to some extent, yes, because five years ago, when Kibaki was elected president, he was actually part of a broad coalition that had come together to challenge the KANU, the former ruling party that had ruled the country since independence.

And so, in some ways, five years ago he had been seen as part of the change movement. But in the last five years, also his administration had showed a lot of shortcomings, in terms of issues pertaining to corruption and accountability. And in many ways, many Kenyans interpreted this election as a referendum on Kibaki`s governance.

RAY SUAREZ: Is there a mechanism for challenging this election, Professor?

JOEL BARKAN: Well, there is the legal mechanism of going to the courts, but the fact of the matter is there`s not much confidence in that. Elections have been overturned in Kenya in the past at the parliamentary level -- that is, individual constituencies -- but not a presidential election.

The difference about this election is, is that it was very close from the start. Opinion polls made this election too close to call. And that is why it was so important to have a transparent counting of the vote so that the losers would accept the decision. And, sadly, that has not been the case.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, just a few minutes ago, we saw the main opponent, Raila Odinga -- and for people who don`t follow African politics, he`s political aristocracy in Kenya. His father was a leader of the independence movement.

Is there enough of a civil society in Kenya for him to become a leader of the opposition without holding a post, enough of an organizational architecture so that he can be the change without being in office?

CHRIS FOMUNYOH: Well, it`s fair to say that Raila, I think, has earned the respect of a lot of Kenyans. And in the last five years, he has been very instrumental in terms of bringing about democratic change and improvement over the elections, as Joel just referred to.

He was part of that coalition that rallied around Kibaki five years ago to win the election. And also, two years ago, he masterminded the effort to vote "no" on a referendum that Kibaki tried to push through, which referendum would have increased presidential powers.

And so he has a rallying around him, which could be very determinate, in terms of the future of Kenya.

RAY SUAREZ: So where does that energy go?

JOEL BARKAN: Well, the problem here is that Raila is a master campaigner. He basically has organized the entire country, except the central province heartland, on his behalf.

He won the election for Kibaki, but, quite frankly, Kibaki did not live up to a pre-election deal in 2002, and that led to Raila breaking from Kibaki, creating this opposition party.

Where does it all lead? One of the results that has come out are the parliamentary results, and Raila Odinga`s party holds, by my count, at least 107 seats in the parliament. So he has a parliamentary majority.

And Mwai Kibaki is going to find it very difficult to govern, given the nature of this election, given the fact that he faces an opposition that is angry about this election.

RAY SUAREZ: When you look at Kenya on a map, Chris Fomunyoh, three of the countries that border Kenya are in one form of civil war or another, in Somalia, Uganda, Sudan. Kenya has been relatively stable by comparison, hasn`t it?

CHRIS FOMUNYOH: Kenya has been relatively stable, but I think that also underscores the importance of these elections and why, for the American audience, it`s important to pay attention to what`s happening in Kenya.

Lest we forget, Kenya has been a strong ally in the fight against terrorism. We cannot forget the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar-es- Salaam.

Kenya also a bulwark, is an anchor state to the south of Somalia, but also to the southwest of Sudan. And it`s not very far from the Great Lakes region, which is also a very turbulent region.

And I think it`s important that whoever gets to govern Kenya be a leader whose legitimacy is supported by the overwhelmingly majority of Kenyans.

RAY SUAREZ: Has Kenya been infected by some of the problems that surround it? Has there been, for instance, an effort to organize Islamic radicals in a state that`s divided among the religions?

JOEL BARKAN: There has been some attempt to organize Islamic radicals along the Kenyan coast in the madrassas, but on the whole Kenya politics has been largely insulated, that is to say, it`s insulated itself.

Kenya`s political elite is, if anything, more pre-occupied with itself, and should perhaps devote greater attention to the surrounding states. So that`s really not the problem.

The problem is, going back to Chris` point, is that Kenya is the anchor state, by virtue of its geography, by virtue of the fact that, under Kibaki -- and he must be given points for this -- you had a complete turnaround in the economy, compared to what was there prior to 2002. That has a ripple effect across the region.

But if Kenya were to fall into a chaotic situation, it`s going to be a very bad situation for Uganda, which is landlocked, for the emergence of a stable economy and government in southern Sudan, et cetera.

RAY SUAREZ: Has the violence, Chris Fomunyoh, broken down along ethnic lines, because the two candidates represent two different ethnic groups?

CHRIS FOMUNYOH: I think it would be very simplistic to kind of define this along ethnic lines, because I think every time that Africans are given an opportunity to make rational political choices, they do make those choices based on reasons that may not solely be dependent on their ethnic affiliation.

For example, Raila Odinga, the opposition candidate, is from the Luo ethnic group, which is a small minority in Kenya. And yet he was able to garner this amount of support, even by the government`s account, accomplishing 44 percent of the vote, which means that somewhere there are people from other ethnic groups that have rallied around him and supported the platform of his party.

Obviously, when the situation begins to degenerate, then there`s a tendency for people to fall back to their basic instincts, which would be ethnic protection or resulting to ethnic support.

RAY SUAREZ: Chris Fomunyoh, Joel Barkan, thank you both.

JOEL BARKAN: Thank you.

CHRIS FOMUNYOH: Thank you.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: Finally tonight, another conversation in our occasional series on poets and poetry, and to Jeffrey Brown.

JEFFREY BROWN: For much of his life, John Ashbery has been a walker in the city.

JOHN ASHBERY, American Poet: I used to have a little recording device I took around with me, so I could record those and other things that occurred to me while I was walking.

JEFFREY BROWN: The words, phrases and sounds he collected often ended up in his poetry, a body of work that has led him to be considered one of the nation`s most important writers of the last half-century.

Ashbery was born in Rochester, New York, in 1927. As a young man, he and friends like Frank O`Hara and Kenneth Koch formed what came to be called the New York school of poetry.

His first book of poems, "Some Trees," was published in 1956. In 1975, "Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror" cemented his reputation and earned Ashbery a triple crown, the Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award, and the National Book Critics Circle Award.

Now, at age 80, he`s just garnered a rather different and unusual honor, being named as MTV`s first poet laureate.

In all, he`s published more than 30 volumes of poetry, criticism and essays, including, in recent months, a new book of verse, "A Worldly Country," and a collection of selected later poems called "Notes from the Air," which includes the poem "This Room."

JOHN ASHBERY: The room I entered was a dream of this room. Surely all those feet on the sofa were mine. The oval portrait of a dog was me at an early age. Something shimmers; something is hushed up. We had macaroni for lunch every day, except Sunday, when a small quail was induced to be served to us. Why do I tell you these things? You are not even here.

JEFFREY BROWN: I talked with John Ashbery recently at his New York apartment.

"Notes from the Air," now, is that a good description of where words or phrases come from, from the air, in a sense?

JOHN ASHBERY: Yes, I would say that it is. Poetry comes to me out of thin air or out of my unconscious mind. It`s sort of the way dreams come to us and the way that we get knowledge from them, through television, old movies, which I watch a lot of. Lines of dialogue suddenly seem to be part of a poem there.

JEFFREY BROWN: Those "Notes from the Air" that he turns into poems -- yes, he still drafts his poetry on an old typewriter -- have earned him a reputation for being hard to read. An Ashbery poem often has no clear narrative and a bewildering, if humorous, wordplay.

"We`ll party when the millennium gets closer," he writes in the poem "Tuesday Evening." "Meanwhile, I wanted to mention your feet." Later, in the same poem, this strange exchange occurs.

JOHN ASHBERY: Well, I never said my system was foolproof. You did, too. I did not. Did, too. Did not. Did, too. Did not. Did, too. Hell, I only said, "Let`s wait a while and see what happens. Maybe something will." And if it doesn`t, well, our personal investment in the thing hasn`t been that enormous, you crybaby. We can still emerge unscathed. These are exceptional times, after all.

JEFFREY BROWN: Is it sort of a conversation with yourself going on?

JOHN ASHBERY: Yes. Very often -- maybe not me with myself, but of two personalities in my head who are arguing and sort of ignoring me at the same time.

JEFFREY BROWN: They`re arguing and ignoring you?

JOHN ASHBERY: I sometimes feel that that`s what happens.

JEFFREY BROWN: So you have this reputation for being difficult. Does that bother you?

JOHN ASHBERY: Well, it kind of does, because I think that it precedes my poetry and may discourage people from picking it up and, "Oh, he`s so difficult. I`d have to read a book about him before I could appreciate anything that he wrote."

JEFFREY BROWN: Does a poem have to be understood in the way we normally think of understanding language?

JOHN ASHBERY: Well, I never quite understood about understanding.

JEFFREY BROWN: You never understood about understanding?

JOHN ASHBERY: No, at least as far as poetry goes. I frequently, when I`m reading a poem, react to it, and enjoy it, and even love it before I`ve actually figured out what it`s saying, what its literal sense is.

JEFFREY BROWN: Meghan O`Rourke is a poet and a critic for Slate, and she wrote an essay called "How to read John Ashbery." And she suggests, she says, "Rather than struggling to understand the poems, to take pleasure in their arrangement the way you listen to music."

JOHN ASHBERY: Well, I think maybe she`s right. I certainly -- my ideas for poetry, in fact, tend to come more from music than they do from poetry or literature.

JEFFREY BROWN: What do you mean by that?

JOHN ASHBERY: One listens to a piece of great music, say, and feels deeply moved by it, and wants to put this feeling into words, but it can`t be put into words. That`s what the music has already supplied. The meaning and words will just be superfluous after that. But it`s that kind of verbal meaning that can`t be verbalized that I try to get at in poetry.

"The History of My Life."

Once upon a time there were two brothers. Then there was only one: myself.

I grew up fast, before learning to drive, even. There was I: a stinking adult.

I thought of developing interests someone might take an interest in. No soap.

I became very weepy for what had seemed like the pleasant early years. As I aged

increasingly, I also grew more charitable with regard to my thoughts and ideas,

thinking them at least as good as the next man`s. Then a great devouring cloud

came and loitered on the horizon, drinking it up, for what seemed like months or years.

JEFFREY BROWN: You`re now routinely described as one of the leading lights of American letters. You`re described as one of the great poets of your era. You`re sort of in danger of canonization.

JOHN ASHBERY: Yes, how did that happen anyway? I sort of went from being sort of unknown and considered remote and incomprehensible to being a sort of household word without any intervening period of warm, gracious understanding. I don`t know what...

JEFFREY BROWN: You`re baffled.

JOHN ASHBERY: Yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: You told me before we started that you`re still writing regularly, but you may have written enough poetry for the world at this point, or too much?

JOHN ASHBERY: Oh, no, I intend to go on as long as I can. But one wonders sometimes, sometimes just how much is too much? I try to stay at enough...

JEFFREY BROWN: You try to stay at just enough.

JOHN ASHBERY: Yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, John Ashbery, thanks for talking to us.

JOHN ASHBERY: Thank you.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: Again, the major developments of this day.

Presidential contenders began their final push for votes in Iowa just three days before Republicans and Democrats hold their caucuses.

Questions mounted over exactly how Pakistan`s former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, died.

And post-election riots rocked the country of Kenya, leaving at least 135 people dead.

We`ll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I`m Ray Suarez. Thanks for joining us. Have a happy new year. Good night.