The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Jim Lehrer is off. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then, a look at the results of the Iraq election, which were released yesterday; a Paul Solman report on one family's attempts to escape welfare; and a media unit report on how Internet bloggers are affecting mainstream journalism.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: A massive car bomb killed the former prime minister of Lebanon today. The blast on a Beirut street killed at least nine others, and wounded 100. Rafik al-Hariri resigned his post in October, following a dispute with Syria over its influence in Lebanon. We have a report from Harry Smith of Independent Television News.

HARRY SMITH: Beirut hasn't seen scenes like this for years, and most Lebanese had begun to believe they would never see anything like this again. It was a huge car bomb, which left a huge crater, the most devastating attack since the end of 15 years of civil war -- among the dead, the man who was certainly the target of this attack, whose death is guaranteed to destabilize not just Lebanon, but the whole of the Middle East. Rafik Hariri, a billionaire businessman who resigned from government last October, had recently joined calls by the opposition for Syrian troops to quit Lebanon in the run-up to the general election in May. The foreign minister of Syria, which has 14,000 troops in Lebanon, was quick to condemn the attack as a crime and an act of terrorism.

FAROUK AL-SHARAA, Foreign Minister, Syria (Translated): This is a criminal, ugly act. We condemn those who are sowing sedition in Lebanon. We hope that the people will be cohesive and strong to reject any outside interference.

HARRY SMITH: In a cape broadcast by al Jazeera Television an unknown Islamic group said it carried out the killing and described Hariri as a Saudi agent. The attack comes as a horrifying reminder of Lebanon's 15 years of civil war. Prime Minister Hariri was largely responsible for rebuilding the country and its reputation, scarred by the violence and the taking of western hostages such as Terry Waite, held captive for five years before his eventual release in 1991.

GWEN IFILL: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad called the bombing a "horrendous criminal act." In this country, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said those behind the blast must be punished. He said the U.S. would seek international backing to "restore Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and democracy by freeing it from foreign occupation." Congratulations from around the world poured in today to the winners of Iraq's national elections. Official results of the Jan. 30 ballot were announced yesterday. A cleric-backed Shiite alliance came out on top with 48 percent of the vote; a Kurdish coalition placed second; and a secular Shiite group headed by interim Prime Minister Allawi came in third. Many Sunni Muslims stayed away from the polls and, as a result, their candidates did poorly. In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said negotiations between political parties should ensure that all groups are represented.

RICHARD BOUCHER: There is a whole lot of politicking going on. And we really see a lot of different configurations of people talking to others. Everybody seems to be committed to bringing more people into the process, reaching out to the Sunni population, and we certainly hope that those who are not participating in this voting or running candidates on lists will indeed find ways to become involved and engaged in the process.

GWEN IFILL: We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Meanwhile, the violence continued in Iraq today. A roadside bomb in Baqouba, north of Baghdad, killed three Iraqi national guardsmen. A separate bomb in the same city killed an American soldier and wounded three others. Another U.S. soldier was killed in fighting yesterday. President Bush today asked Congress for $82 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The request includes money to equip and train Iraqi and Afghan forces, assist the Palestinian leadership, and also for tsunami relief. The total of all of the Pentagon requests, including $25 billion approved by Congress last summer, has now surpassed $300 billion. South Korea warned today it's too soon to declare North Korea a "nuclear state" despite its neighbor's declaration last week that it now has nuclear weapons. South Korea's minister of unification cautioned parliament the claims must be verified independently. In Washington, South Korea's foreign minister said he would intensify diplomatic efforts to get the north to return to the negotiating table.

BAN KI-MOON: We urge North Korea that North Korea should return to six-party forum without any preconditions. We also urge North Koreans to make strategic decisions, realizing that much better future will lie if they abandon nuclear development program.

GWEN IFILL: The other countries in the six-party talks are the U.S., China, Japan, and Russia. Alberto Gonzales was officially sworn in today as the nation's 80th attorney general. He replaces John Ashcroft at the Justice Department. He won Senate approval earlier this month, in spite of criticism by democrats that he helped craft the policies that led to torture of detainees in Iraq. At the swearing-in ceremony, Gonzales pledged to uphold his duties to the country.

ALBERTO GONZALES: The attorney general is a member of the president's cabinet, a part of his team. But the attorney general represents also the American people, and his first allegiance must always be to the Constitution of the United States. And so I rise today to reassure you that I understand the special role of this office and to commit to do my best on behalf of the American people, to fulfill the confidence and trust reflected in my appointment.

GWEN IFILL: The president today also resubmitted to the Senate 20 nominees for federal circuit and appeals court positions. Democrats previously blocked votes on several of the men and women named today, charging they were too conservative. Republican leaders have threatened to change the rules to get them approved this time around. Also today, the president named Lester Crawford as the next commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Crawford has been acting director of the agency for almost a year. During that time, the FDA has come under fire for its lack of oversight of the arthritis drug VIOXX and five other widely used drugs. Former Health Secretary Tommy Thompson also raised questions about the safety of the nation's food supply. Howard Dean, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, announced at his first full staff meeting today that he is "ready to rock and roll," according to the DNC. The one-time presidential candidate was formally elected Saturday without opposition to replace Terry McAuliffe. Dean says he will reinvigorate the party from the ground up by developing stronger state and local organizations. He'll travel the country over the next few weeks spreading that message. In business news, Verizon agreed today to acquire MCI for more than $6.5 billion. It's the third telephone industry merger in just the last two months. The deal, which will result in the loss of 7,000 jobs from a combined workforce of 250,000, creates one of the country's largest communications companies. MCI, which changed its name from WorldCom, recently emerged from bankruptcy. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than four points to close at 10791. The NASDAQ rose six points to close well above 2082. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to: Winners and losers in Iraq; a welfare-to- work update; and bloggers and journalists.

FOCUS - WINNERS & LOSERS

GWEN IFILL: The vote tally from the Iraqi elections. Ray Suarez has that.

RAY SUAREZ: The word spread through the streets of Iraq that Shiites were the big winners in Iraq's Jan. 30 elections. Shias weren't the only ones celebrating; Kurds had reason to cheer too. Despite making up less than 20 percent of the Iraqi population, they won more than 25 percent of the overall vote. Some 8.5 million Iraqis went to the polls, about 58 percent of registered voters. They chose from a list of 111 slates on the ballot. The percentage vote each slate received will now be assigned to the 225 seats on the transitional national assembly, which must be seated before March 1. After two weeks of ballot counting, delayed by allegations of vote-tampering, this is the breakdown of the vote-getters. The United Iraqi Alliance, widely identified with the leading Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, won 48.2 percent of the vote, about 140 seats. And the Kurdistan Alliance received 25.7 percent, or 70 seats. It's a combination of the two main Kurdish political parties, headed by Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani. Coming in a disappointing third, with an estimated 40 seats and 13.8 percent of the vote, the Iraqi list, headed by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. Iraqiyun, a Sunni party led by current interim President Ghazi Al-Yawer, won less than 2 percent of the vote, but that's enough to get a handful of assembly seats. While turnout was as high as 92 percent in northern Kurdish areas and 75 percent in southern Shiite areas, those numbers were a far cry from the low turnout in Sunni- populated areas. In the western Al-Anbar Province, turnout was only 2 percent. Residents cited violence and intimidation as reasons to stay away. Sunni candidate Adnan Pachachi:

ADNAN PACHACHI: These elections were not inclusive enough. Many millions of Iraqis were disenfranchised. Something has to rectify that.

RAY SUAREZ: The election results will be officially certified later this week, as long as they're not challenged in the interim. Meanwhile, bargaining for leadership positions goes on. The top candidate for president: Jalal Talabani, the co-leader of the Kurdish alliance. Among the leading contenders for prime minister are Adil Abdul Mahdi, a Shiite and the current finance minister, and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, head of the Dawa Party.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on the results of Iraq's elections and the maneuvering that may follow, we turn to: Fouad Ajami, director of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies; and Vali Nasr, professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Professor Nasr, what's your overall impression of the election results?

VALI NASR: Well, I think it's a good day for the Shiites and the Kurds, but it's not a good day for Iraq as a whole because the elections have highlighted rather than erased sectarian divisions in Iraq. What we've ended up in the parliament is not a parliament of political parties but essentially two communities that now dominate over 70 percent of the parliament.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Ajami, what do you make of it?

FOUAD AJAMI: Well, Ray, the view I suppose here from New York is that this is a very good day for all Iraqis. In fact the story we led with from Beirut the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri tells us what the alternative is. Arabs know too well the spectacle of crimes, the spectacle of assassinations. Now the spectacle of ballots being counted and the spectacle of people bargaining over seats in the national assembly and the spectacle of a country being to gain in power, that's a new thing. I think it's a good day for all Iraqis. The Sunnis have a chance to come in. They will be invited in. They will come in. For now we must hail this day as a signal day in Iraqi history.

RAY SUAREZ: How do you respond to Professor Nasr's critique that you have a very small number of parties dominating almost all the seats in the new assembly?

FOUAD AJAMI: Well, I think we know that's true but if you take a look at the results I mean if you look at the so-called Shia victory it wasn't sweeping. It was less than 50 percent. If you take look at the role of the Kurds, the Kurds are secular. The Kurds are liberal. The Kurds have enormous experience building a homeland for the last fourteen, fifteen years under Anglo American protection. And they will bring all this to them --with them to this process. Even Prime Minister Allawi didn't do so poorly. He has 40 seats. It is really parliamentary politics at its best. Again and again we are talking about the Sunnis. In our piece we showed Adnan Pachachi complaining about the process not being inclusive. Pachachi was on the ballot. He won one seat, himself. He had no coattails so it's really -- we must give this political process its time.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Nasr, why don't you respond to that, that idea that the Shia victory though decisive was not sweeping. They may still need other parties in the parliament to govern.

VALI NASR: Well, that's true. Actually the practice of voting has been important for Iraq and the Arab world. But the reality is that the Shia vote does not represent a political party's victory in the parliament, the Shiites voted for a communal bloc that was supported by Ayatollah Sistani in order to protect Shiites' position in Iraq. Now what will emerge from this scenario that we see is that you're going to have an administrative government in Baghdad that's going to rule over Iraq and provide administration, but the real power in Iraq is going to be exercised from Najaf and Sulaymaniyah. And given the fact that the Shiites did not dominate and the Kurds have such a large number in the parliament makes it very difficult to have a powerful center ruling out of Baghdad. And in fact, if anything, Iraq might have a very weak center and very powerful provinces that will govern over themselves. That might be fine, but that's a very different conception than the one that we have been working with so far.

RAY SUAREZ: Are you as confident as Professor Ajami that the Sunnis will be invited in and play their rightful role in the drafting of the new constitution?

VALI NASR: I am confident that they will be invited in. But the problem is that because they did not participate in elections, we really do not know who their leaders are. The whole purpose of participating in an election is that a community or a political party would produce leaders with whom you can negotiate particularly because the constitutional process will involve a lot of hard bargaining. It is important to know who are the leaders of the Sunnis. The other part of voting is that when a community sends its representatives to a parliament, when those representatives negotiate and agree to things, that community is bound by what its representatives have agreed to. Since there is no Sunni leadership that has a mandate from its population, the Shiites or the Kurds may negotiate with them. It's not binding on the Sunnis. And it's not very clear that Pachachi or any other Sunni leader really actually represents the Sunnis.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Ajami.

FOUAD AJAMI: Well, you know this is a very surly view of history. In fact, we have these people who have been oppressed and brutalized for nearly four decades, and now comes this demand from my colleague from in Washington who wants this whole process to be perfect. I am not worried about Sulaymaniyah having a piece of the action in modern Iraq. Sulaymaniyah, by the way, is in the North. It's the base of Jalal Talibani. I know Mr. Talibani. If this man is going to be president of Iraq it would be a thrilling day for Iraq. He's a decent man and a secular man. He's pro American. He wants the best for Iraq. So the fact that Najaf will have a piece of the action as well, that is not unusual. Nor do I believe that Iraq is going to be ruled out of Najaf. Nor do I think this is the last -- this is the election that will end all elections. If this process plays out, there is going to be the drafting of a constitution by August. There's going to be the ratification of this constitution in October. And there's going to be a new election in December. The Sunnis can have another crack at this when they are good and ready, when they are represented. And as far as someone like Alwar, the leader of Sunni Arabs in Mosul, now this is one of the most decent men in Iraq; again secular, open to the Shia, open to the Kurds, wanting the best for his country. Let's give these people a chance. Let's not judge them. Let's not impose these draconian democratic hurdles that they have to meet so early in the hour and so early in this new order.

RAY SUAREZ: You said you're not too worried about Sulaymaniyah and Najaf, the Shia and Kurdish power centers having a piece of the action. But are there things that the Kurds want that the Shias aren't necessarily ready to give and vice versa?

FOUAD AJAMI: Right. To be honest with you, there are things that the Kurds want which I like. For example, the Kurds have sent a message the red line to the Sunni Arabs no return to Arab nationalism. This is a bi-national country of Arabs and Kurds. Their message to the Shia Arab, no theocracy, no excessive rule for the clergy in political life, so there is Kurdish influence in Iraq, so be it. I welcome Kurdish influence because it will be democratic. It will be secular. It will be towards federalism. It will tend toward federalism. Now we know that in their heart of hearts maybe the Kurds would like their own state. The Kurdish leaders are realists. They know what the world can bear and can't bear. And they know that they will need to stay within Iraq in order to keep the Turks and the Iranians and the Syrians out of their affairs.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Nasr, we talk at a time when the United States is said to be turning up the heat on Iran over its nuclear program. Can a new government of Iraq be both aligned with Iran and pro U.S. at the same time?

VALI NASR: Well, that's going to be a challenge before the Iraqi leaders. Without a doubt, the current set-up in Iraq is going to be more friendly towards Iran. Mr. Talibani has had relations with Tehran. That does not mean that he's a stooge of Tehran but means that he had lines of communication with Tehran and a good portion of the UIA in the South which now sits in the parliament has spent a good amount of time in Iran during years of exile and the party Sciri, which is a component of UIA has won very large in Baghdad. All of these power brokers will have good relations with Iran. And it's very clear that Iran welcomes what is coming forth in Iraq. It views the victory of both the Kurds and the Shiites as meaning that there will be a government in Baghdad that is more friendly towards Iran.

RAY SUAREZ: And what about Professor Ajami's point that the Kurds having a big influence in the new assembly is probably a good thing given the way Iraqi politics are breaking out, and his confidence that they'll be able to accomplish all the business they need to do during the year of 2005?

VALI NASR: Well, we hope that that will come to pass. And there is no doubt that the Kurdish influence is good in many regards for Iraq, also along the lines that he mentioned namely putting pressure on Arab nationalism. That is something also that Iran welcomes that Iraq does not go back to a Sunni-led Arab nationalism. But the key question is whether the parliamentarians will act at parliamentarians trying to represent popular political programs and trying to reflect socioeconomic demands or whether they will act as representatives of just ethnic demands -- that the Kurds will look to maximize power for the Kurds and the Shiite in the South for the Shiites. That may well still work for Iraq but it will make for a very different kind of Iraq with a very different balance of power than the one that that country has been used to.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Ajami, what about that idea that this is a very stiff assignment for a political class that's still very new and untested?

FOUAD AJAMI: Well, but that's it. As they say of the longest journeys they must begin somewhere. This is just the first step toward a democratic Iraq, toward a federal Iraq, toward a secular Iraq, toward an Iraq that's not filled with terror and mass graves. I mean, this is a break for the Iraqi people. And one should just give it time. One should trust in the willingness and the ability of the Iraqi people to draw a line for the Iranians. I'm not worried about Iran dominating Iraqi politics. Iraqi body politic will put Iran and the clerics and the example of Iran at the distance. None of the Iraqi leaders know believe that Iran is a great example for Iraq to follow. Indeed, they have a different idea of Iraq. And so from the Shia leaders, from the Kurdish leaders and from the Sunni leaders will understand that their community must now forsake hegemony and participate in an open Iraq, they all understand the magnitude of the challenge and the difficulty of it.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Nasr, some of the men who had been expected to be big players in a new Iraq, Adnan Pachachi, Ahmed Chalabi, Iyad Allawi, are they yesterday's men after these votes have been counted?

VALI NASR: Not necessarily. But one of the things that Dr. Ajami also alluded to is how do you build a government in Iraq. Whoever controls the government in Baghdad will have a position of building a political machine that can dominate politics in the future, and it really comes down to whether in the coming years those who will form Iraq's government which are going to be largely dominated by the United Iraqi Alliance of Ayatollah Sistani are actually able to deliver to the population both on the constitutional issues and also on the issues of governance; if they are not, it is very likely that Iraqis will turn to an alternate leadership which will be coming from the men that you mentioned.

RAY SUAREZ: Professors Nasr and Ajami, thank you both.

FOUAD AJAMI: Thank you.

GWEN IFILL: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: A welfare-to- work update; and

bloggers and journalists.

UPDATE - WELFARE TO WORK

GWEN IFILL: Economics correspondent Paul Solman of WGBH-Boston has the first of two stories, about the fate of families after welfare, drawn from Jason Deparle's new book "American Dream."

PAUL SOLMAN: Thirty-eight-year-old Angie Jobe would seem to be a poster mom for welfare-to-work, the sweeping legislation passed eight years ago that tried to push welfare recipients into the workforce. (Laughter) She's a certified nursing assistant, earns almost $11 an hour, has a 401(k) and loves her job, loves her patients.

ANGIE JOBE: When one of them just says, "thank you, I'm glad you helped me; I appreciate what you did," that's a good feeling.

PAUL SOLMAN: With his dad in prison, Jobe's oldest son, 19- year-old Redd, also works and contributes to the upkeep of the close-knit extended family. In a sense, the Jobes exemplify the welfare revolution, which since 1996 has more than halved the national welfare rolls, from over 12 million families then to less than five million today. But is so-called welfare reform the success it would seem to be? Because you can rewind the very same scene we shot and look at it in a very different way.

PAUL SOLMAN: Angie Jobe left for work in the cold and dark of morning, 5:30 A.M.

REDD: You all got to get up. Come on. You all got to get up.

PAUL SOLMAN: Back inside, son Redd was groggy from his job, the late-night shift at a nearby Burger King, but he still had to rouse, feed and trundle his siblings off to school. Redd himself dropped out after ninth grade.

ANGIE JOBE (working with patient): One, two, three.

PAUL SOLMAN: Even Angie Jobe's work might at times seem more reminiscent of the cotton picking her mother and grandmother did in Mississippi than an upward step on the mobility ladder, and this for a woman with a bad back.

PAUL SOLMAN: What don't you like about it?

ANGIE JOBE: I hate the lifting. I hate the cleaning up the BM's, you know. I hate getting up early in the morning. I hate my back hurts. ( Laughs )

PAUL SOLMAN: When co-worker Kathy Santoyo's back got bad, she was switched to a desk job.

KATHY SANTOYO: It's very hard work, and eventually your back starts hurting.

PAUL SOLMAN: But Santoyo, also a former welfare mother, has a high school diploma. Jobe doesn't, and thus has no real alternatives to the heavy lifting. How then are we to evaluate welfare-to-work? Is it a boon for the poor and society or more nearly a boondoggle? Fortunately, we had Jason Deparle to help sort things out. New York Times poverty reporter since the 1980s, Deparle spent the past seven years chronicling the lives of Angie Jobe and those around her during the move from welfare-to- work. The book that resulted, "American Dream," has been called "masterful," "the exhaustive and authoritative account" by the left-wing Nation Magazine, "fascinating" by the right-wing National Review, which also called it "one of the best books on the underclass ever written." So we brought Deparle to Wisconsin as both tour guide and evaluator of so-called welfare reform. Did it work or didn't it?

JASON DEPARLE: It worked fantastically well at putting low-skilled, single mothers to work. Angie is a perfect example. She had been on welfare for 12 years, she had no high school degree; she had four kids. She was exactly the kind of person that critics of the law thought would be damaged by it: You know, who would hire this woman? How could she keep a job? Who would take care of the kids? And yet within six months she was off the rolls, she was on the job. Angie out-earned nearly nine out of ten women who left the welfare rolls in Wisconsin. Her story, economically, is about as good as it gets. Yet, three times in three years she lost her electricity. She lost her health insurance for three years even though she was providing health care to other people on a daily basis. And she also ran short on food more often than -- really more often than she would talk about. If I asked her directly, you know, "Do you have enough food in the house?" She would well up and say, "Ain't nobody starving around here." But I slowly began to realize that a lot of the fights in her house ultimately centered around food.

PAUL SOLMAN: Everyday bills are also a source of unusual stress. So that bill, what is this bill for?

ANGIE JOBE: This is the light bill and the gas bill. It comes together, the light and the gas bill, which is $246.

JASON DEPARLE: Paul, at one point, in one of Angie's previous houses, she was working double shifts, working overtime, and her electricity got cut off twice in three months.

ANGIE JOBE: Yes. Yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: Is there more money going out than coming in? I mean, are you getting deeper in debt or are you...?

ANGIE JOBE: Um... I think so. I try not to. I try not to. But yeah, it's more money than I have.

PAUL SOLMAN: And this plays into Jason Deparle's main reservation about welfare reform: That so far at least it gives no sign of breaking the cycle of poverty, improving the lot of the children.

PAUL SOLMAN: So where are we now?

JASON DEPARLE: We're at Kesha's house. Kesha is Angie's oldest child, Angie's daughter. She's 21 years old, and she has two young daughters.

PAUL SOLMAN: So she dropped out of high school while Angie was working?

JASON DEPARLE: While Angie was working at the nursing home, Kesha got pregnant in high school and eventually left school. Had the baby but went to work as a checkout clerk.

PAUL SOLMAN: In fact, Lakesha Jobe spent much of her own childhood caring for her younger siblings, especially once her mother went to work.

WOMAN: Do you want to cook? You want to make Redd a sandwich and some pizza?

REDD: We're going to have a big old tea party. We've got... we've got some cake, we've got some pizza.

PAUL SOLMAN: With a track record of financial responsibility, Jobe's daughter became the family banker and remains a devout coupon-clipper who showers her kids with bargain toys. Yet she, like her brother, dropped out of school-- in Lakesha Jobe's case, when she got pregnant.

PAUL SOLMAN: Was there any difference between life when your mom was on welfare and when your mom was at work?

REDD: I can't answer that question because I don't know nothing about welfare -- I don't even know when she got off welfare, when she started to get on welfare.

PAUL SOLMAN: So it's not like your life changed dramatically or even enough for you to have noticed.

KESHA: No, not enough to notice.

PAUL SOLMAN: As we left, Jason Deparle reiterated his key concern: Whether welfare to work is likely to break the cycle of poverty.

JASON DEPARLE: On the margins most kids may be a little better off, but I would put theemphasis on "a little." You know, what you don't get from Kesha or Redd is a sense that their lives have been fundamentally transformed. If you're telling the story of this family, you wouldn't say, "Now Angie's at work, and my god the kids are going to have a whole different life than Angie." I think you sort of feel like their lives are unfolding more or less as Angie's life unfolded at the same age. Angie got pregnant at 17 and dropped out of high school and had a baby; and Kesha got pregnant at 17, dropped out of high school and had a baby. You don't get the sense that something fundamentally different is happening in the family.

PAUL SOLMAN: So are the children better off or not?

JASON DEPARLE: Jason Turner was one of the first people I met when I came to Milwaukee...

PAUL SOLMAN: To further pursue the question, we went to the home and office of Wisconsin's welfare-to-work architect. Deparle had featured Jason Turner in a Times story with welfare mom Opal Caples, through whom the reporter met the Jobes.

JASON DEPARLE: Here's Jason Turner, the architect of the new system, his boss at the time, Governor Thompson, Tommy Thompson. Here's Opal in the middle and her three daughters, Sierra, Kierra, and Tierra, skipping across the front cover as though off to a brighter future. Ten months later, Opal was homeless, pregnant and living in a crack house. How're you doing?

SPOKESMAN: Good to see you.

PAUL SOLMAN: Turner built Wisconsin's program around the theory that work has the power to save the soul. But, we asked him, has it actually improved the lives of the families and specifically of the children?

JASON TURNER: Well, it's far too early to determine whether that will happen, and it may not happen as a result of welfare reform. Welfare reform was about getting people engaged in work, and my view is that that participation and culture of work will have an effect on family life and on children over time.

JASON DEPARLE: I don't want to disparage the hopes that work would bring more social order and higher aspirations; I share them. I just haven't seen a lot of evidence of it yet.

PAUL SOLMAN: So how do you respond to that?

JASON DEPARLE: Work has more than one function. Work not only functions to provide income to the household, but I would say even more importantly, work is one's gift to others. It makes connections between the individual and other people. And what we lost in the -- among the dependent poor oftentimes are connections between work and giving to others through labor and to each other through family responsibility. Those connections have to be reignited, and work is the first step in that direction.

PAUL SOLMAN: Jason Deparle thinks that pertains to Angie Jobe, but only to a point.

JASON DEPARLE: Angie is in a better place personally now than she was eight years ago. She gets up in the morning; she has a place to go where she feels useful, where she feels like she's contributing. Now, I was initially a little skeptical when Jason had that theory, and I have to say that in Angie's life it has played that role, but it's only one part of her life, and she's still poor, and their household is still full of chaos, and her kids have still been struggling. It's a necessary first step but -- and one worth celebrating, but it would be terrible if society heard that as though "problem solved." There's a lot more that needs to happen with her family.

PAUL SOLMAN: Our final exchange was with Congresswoman Gwen Moore, who objects to welfare reforms that, she says, force single mothers into low-wage jobs.

REP. GWEN MOORE: I think people are better off when they're working when they don't have to leave their 11- year-old child at home to baby- sit so they can go to work. I think people are better off working when, in fact, they're working and those revenues will actually pay the rent, will actually buy them decent food.

SPOKESPERSON: Hello.

PAUL SOLMAN: Angie Jobe arrived home from work, and the congresswoman greeted her warmly.

SPOKESPERSON: How're you doing?

SPOKESPERSON: Great, how are you doing?

PAUL SOLMAN: Moore, herself a former welfare mother, had vigorously opposed welfare-to- work legislation when she served in the Wisconsin State Senate. She had used the AFDC welfare program to get a college degree to get elected to public office. And so she still defends the old welfare system as a ticket out and up for single moms.

REP. GWEN MOORE: Under AFDC, I could spend some time going to school instead of working, so it was possible...

ANGIE JOBE: No, I don't want to stop working. Uh-uh.

REP. GWEN MOORE: You don't want to stop working?

ANGIE JOBE: No, no, no. No.

REP. GWEN MOORE: Not even if it meant you could take a semester off and get your GED?

ANGIE JOBE: I enjoy working. That's what I get up for. (Laughs)

REP. GWEN MOORE: Okay.

ANGIE JOBE: You know, it just makes me feel good.

REP. GWEN MOORE: Okay.

ANGIE JOBE: You know, to know I can get out and do something to help my kids, you know.

REP. GWEN MOORE: Uh-huh.

ANGIE JOBE: Not stop working. Maybe -- maybe cut some of the days down, like I'm doing now, if I could further, I'd do that, but I don't want to stop working.

REP. GWEN MOORE: Okay.

ANGIE JOBE: I don't want to stop working.

PAUL SOLMAN: That sentiment sounded great-- in fact, just what the welfare reformers had in mind. And yet, when we asked Angie Jobe, who's also a writer, to read one of her poems to us, this is what she chose.

ANGIE JOBE: It's called "Better Days." "I am born of black color descendant of slaves, who worked and cried so I can see better days. Who fought and ran so I can be free to see better days. Better days are here, so they say. So why am I still fighting and crying and working and running? Maybe for my better days, or is it so my descendents can know of work I'm putting in for their better days?" And that's it.

PAUL SOLMAN: Some might say then that the question remains: Will truly better days ever come? And if so, for whom and when?

GWEN IFILL: Part two of Paul's story will look at low-income fathers and their importance to women and children leaving the welfare rolls.

FOCUS - BLOGGERS & JOURNALISTS

GWEN IFILL: Now, the rise of the bloggers, and the fall of their targets, on the left, and on the right. Media correspondent Terence Smith has that.

TERENCE SMITH: Web-loggers have added a new prize to the walls of their virtual trophy room: CNN's top news executive, Eason Jordan, resigned after a web-fed controversy over comments he made at a conference last month in Davos, Switzerland. A 23-year veteran of CNN, Jordan drew the ire of mostly right- wing bloggers after he allegedly said that U.S. forces in Iraq targeted journalists on several occasions. Jordan quickly modified his comments, but his remarks, made during an off-the-record discussion, were paraphrased on a website immediately after the forum. From there, two weeks of escalating criticism and demands on Jordan to explain exactly what he said ensued in the right-wing blogosphere. He resigned Friday night. Jordan joins two other recent internet-led casualties: Dan Rather, whose faulty reporting ondocuments purportedly dealing with the president's National Guard service led to his impending departure from the CBS anchor chair. And Jeff Gannon, an overtly partisan writer for a

Republican-funded website who asked a now-famous softball question of the president at a recent press conference:

JEFF GANNON: Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

TERENCE SMITH: Gannon was also found to be using a pseudonym, his real name is James Guckert, raising security questions. Bloggers from opposite sides of the political spectrum trained their fire on Rather and Gannon. Right-leaning websites like Powerlineblog and Little Green Footballs immediately questioned the authenticity of the documents used by Rather in his September report. After defending the report for 12 days, CBS recanted.

DAN RATHER: It was a mistake. CBS news deeply regrets it. Also, I want to say personally and directly, I'm sorry.

TERENCE SMITH: Shortly thereafter, rather announced he would leave the anchor chair this march. Bloggers from the left trained their sites on Gannon after the Jan. 26 news conference. Sites like Daily Kos and Americablog drove the investigation into Gannon's affiliations; his reporting and how he got into the White House press room. Gannon announced on his website last week that he was resigning.

TERENCE SMITH: And for more, we turn to: Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University, and author of the "PressThink" weblog; Jim Geraghty, author of the "TKS" weblog at National Review Online; and David Gergen, professor of public service at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Welcome to you all.

Jim Geraghty, many bloggers refuse to accept it when Eason Jordan apparently pulled back from what he said. Why?

JIM GERAGHTY: Well, there was some dispute between the differing accounts we got from people who were in the room at the Davos conference. Some, like David Gergen, said well it was pretty clear that he had stepped back. There are others like Rony Abovitz who wrote the original account of this that weren't quite so flattering and it appear that well, maybe he didn't really step back or maybe he left the audience rather confused. I think everyone wanted to see the tape and get a sense for ourselves of just what he said and just how much that retraction and how effective it was in persuading the people of saying whatever the controversy was it died down.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. David Gergen, if you can hear me now, what exactly -- you were there. You were the moderator of this panel. What exactly --

DAVID GERGEN: I was.

TERENCE SMITH: -- did Eason Jordan say and then pull back?

DAVID GERGEN: Well, I can't quote him precisely because I don't have a transcript. I can only tell you, Terry, a little bit of context and then what he said. The context was that Eason Jordan had just come from back from Iraq, 16th visit to Baghdad. The elections in Iraq were just a few days away. He was very tightly wound because he was deeply concerned about the safety of CNN journalists in Baghdad during the election. They had hired their own security firm and the U.S. troops were also protecting them. But CNN had lost three journalists over time there in Iraq. They were all killed -- one quite intentionally so by the insurgents. So this is a man who cares -- was under great stress and was very deeply concerned about safety of journalists on all sides as the election was approaching. When the question came up about all the deaths and Barney Frank, the congressman, made a comment that he thought most of the deaths had been collateral damage, I think that hit a button in Eason Jordan. And he really just exploded saying, look, this is not all collateral damage. Journalists are being targets in Iraq. And he left a very clear impression that journalists on both sides were being targeted, that Iraqi insurgents were targeting American journalists and in a limited number of cases he thought... he left the impression there had been targeting by American troops of journalists perhaps al-Jazeera or others. Now he knew as soon as he said that that was incendiary, that he had gone way too far. And he immediately began to walk his conversation back. When he was pressed to say, make it very clear, he was not saying what it sounded like he was saying. He was trying to say there is no official policy from the United States government to allow the killing of journalists and that his concern was whether troops on both sides especially American troops here in this particular case we're talking about were careful enough or whether there had been some carelessness and whether, in fact, the Pentagon and others ought to push harder for more care so that other journalists will be protected. In turn obviously he felt that that would help to protect American journalists. I thought he blundered. He went too far. But he also walked it back. That's why I believe sometimes it's terribly sad that he resigned over it. I think the punishment far exceeds the offense.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Jay Rosen, why -- bloggers picked this up right away. Mainstream media generally speaking did not. The bigger papers and broadcast organizations did not. Why not?

JAY ROSEN: Well, I think they felt that, first of all, the event was possibly off the record. They felt he had made amends, and they're used to a situation in which their judgment... this is news, this is not news -- is in a way final. And in this case they were surprises that it wasn't final. There was more to the controversy than they thought. And it ended up a very strange circumstance in which, for example, the Los Angeles Times was reporting on Eason Jordan's resignation over a controversy that it had never told its readers about in the first place. So this is a strange series of events. And I think it shows that journalists don't have exclusive sovereignty over the news anymore. Their judgment is not final. They have to be in conversation with people that perhaps they don't recognize as completely as they should.

TERENCE SMITH: In this case, Jim Geraghty, a real drumbeat developed. And so the question is: what was motivating bloggers who were calling for Eason Jordan's resignation even before they did establish exactly what he said. Were they trying to put another establishment scalp on the belt?

JIM GERAGHTY: Well, there are a lot of bloggers out there. And there's no doubt that some of them put the cart before the horse and were calling for him to be resigned or to step down or to have some sort of consequences before they called for the release of the tape. I think that's a little bit backwards. It would be nice if we could see exactly what happened. On the other hand we did eventually have seven accounts, all variations of saying he made the accusation and then kind of a backtrack. I do kind of wonder if to a certain extent we ended up in sort of a situation of like an old western in which, you know, Black Bart comes into town. Everybody wants ton the one who shot Black Bart. As soon as Eason Jordan ended up in this controversy there was a certain extent some bloggers wanted to be the one who took down Eason Jordan. And I don't think bloggers, you know, quit themselves well if they start trying to hold the execution before they hold the investigation. But most of the big mainstream bloggers, pundits, the Hugh Hewitts, the Jeff Jarvis's and Mr. Rosen clearly came out and said look show us the tape and let the public decide for themselves just how bad these comments were. It's just rather fascinating that the Davos authorities aren't releasing this tape and that mainstream media journalists who are usually the first ones pounding at the door saying the public has a right to know are actually blas and casual about the tape is not released. I think it would help if Mr. Gergen come out and say please release the tape the way that Chris Dodd and the way that Rony Abovitz, the blogger who started all this, did.

TERENCE SMITH: David Gergen, would that be helpful?

DAVID GERGEN: I have no objection to the tape being released whatsoever. I've been quoted to that effect in the press. It was an off-the-record setting. That's ordinarily respected. But in these circumstances I have no problem with the tape being released and let it be settled that way. But, you know, I think the damage is done now. This is what I think is very regretful is that this is a man who spent more than 20 years gaining stature and great respect within the journalistic community for helping to build CNN International, working with Ted Turner, working with Tom Johnson and others. And I think it's very distressing that one mistake which he tries to move back from, you know, costs him his job. And I have to tell you, Terry, that while I agree with Jay Rosen that, you know, the world has changed. I welcome the blogosphere because I think it's really important that citizens in this new public square be able to hold people more accountable than in the past, whether it's journalists or public officials or corporate officials or others. I think that is a welcome development. It's empowerment of citizens that we should be for. But there is within this public square -- there is a raucous quality sometimes; in this particular instance there were not only those who were pressing I think not unfairly for a release but there were those who were out for his scalp. There was a vigilante justice kind of quality here of people who were going after Eason Jordan not because of what he said but because of what he represented, and that is he represented CNN. And there are those who wish to paint CNN as this liberal media outlet in contrast to Fox and they want to beat up on him for that reason. Frankly I think that there has been a quality of vigilante justice here which has gone -- has been excessive. I think it's very -- it's been a cruel fate for Eason Jordan to be caught in effect in the culture wars that are going on in the country.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Jay Rosen, what about that ideological content or motivation so far as you know of bloggers on the left vis- -vis Jeff Gannon and the White House business or bloggers on the right who are looking with disfavor at either Eason Jordan or Dan Rather?

JAY ROSEN: I think there is an element of mob justice in this. The problem comes when a pre-existing story is tapped to interpret events that actually have their own reality and their own integrity -- in this case, a pre-existing story about CNN being a liberal network, sympathizing with Saddam, being anti-military, all of which is very dubious in my opinion, certainly played a big role in how people interpreted this event. At the same time, I have to disagree with David Gergen a little bit in that his only mistake was not speaking a little bit carelessly. He made a second mistake after that, which was not to communicate very well at all, not to enter into dialogue with people online, not to give any interviews except for one to Howard Kurtz late in the game, not to really respond until pressed further and to sort of keep adding to statements that weren't very illuminating in the first place. And even today CNN's explanation for why Jordan is gone is not very forthcoming. He isn't giving interviews. I'm sure you tried to get him on the show to dialogue about this, discuss it. He wouldn't do that.

TERENCE SMITH: Yes, we did just to make the point, Jay, we did invite him to come on.

JAY ROSEN: Right.

TERENCE SMITH: And he did not respond to that invitation.

JAY ROSEN: I think that this is where CNN and Jordan made a mistake. They thought not only that they could outlast the blogs but that they really have to engage with people who were raising questions online that they wanted answers to. I think that was an error.

TERENCE SMITH: All right.

DAVID GERGEN: Can I just respond?

TERENCE SMITH: Go ahead. David Gergen.

DAVID GERGEN: Very, very briefly. I think Jay Rosen is right that both Eason Jordan and CNN made a mistake in the way they handled it after the fact. I don't think that that's what was the cause of his resignation. I think this was a drumbeat that just became relentless. He found himself in an untenable position.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Let me ask Jim Geraghty here, what about that drum beat or digital lynch mob as it was called? You said you used your Black Bart analogy. Are there bloggers whose motivation is really to attract attention to themselves?

JIM GERAGHTY: Like I said there are a lot of bloggers out there. I wouldn't doubt that there are some who thought this is a great way to attention to get traffic to my blog. But I can't say I really buy into this argument that this is one mistake or one slip in the tongue because at a conference in Portugal last fall Eason Jordan said that several journalists were taken to the Abu Ghraib Prison complex and been tortured there. I'm wondering why I didn't see that on CNN. If he's got these kinds of evidence behind these stories, he should come out and show it. And the other thing which I'll admit a lot of people took into this story was his comments about not reporting everything he knew about Saddam Hussein in a run-up before the Iraq War. I admire him for coming out and saying this. But it's one of those things where he kind of came into this controversy with a black mark on his record that a lot of people caused them not to cut him slack they might have otherwise done.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Well, thank you all three very much. It certainly leaves one with the feeling that this whole debate is not over yet. Thank you very much.

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again, the major developments of the day. A massive car bomb in Beirut killed the former prime minister of Lebanon. Twin bombings in a city north of Baghdad killed three Iraqi national guardsmen and one American soldier. And Alberto Gonzales was officially sworn in as the nation's 80th attorney general.

GWEN IFILL: And once again, to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in Iraq. We add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. Here, in silence, are nine more.

GWEN IFILL: We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you and good night.