The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; the latest on Haiti from Lydia Polgreen of the "New York Times," and a look at the U.S. role in Haiti by Congressmen Rangel and Foley; a report on the University of Colorado's football and sex scandal; a pre-Super Tuesday debate over the Kerry or Edwards choice; and a pre-Oscars essay on the movies by Richard Rodriguez.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The pressure mounted today on Haiti's President Aristide. France called for him to resign in the face of an armed rebellion. Aristide insisted again he would serve out his term, which lasts two more years. The main rebel leader warned that his forces are "on their way" to the capital, Port-au-Prince. He said they could attack at any time. In Washington, Secretary of State Powell said Aristide must decide whether he can continue to be effective in office. Earlier, Powell denied the Bush administration had taken a "hands-off" policy toward Haiti. He told a Senate committee there is no point sending in forces until the opposition is ready to make peace.

COLIN POWELL: The Democratic political process in Haiti has essentially collapsed. The international community is ready to get engaged, willing to get engaged. There are debates and discussions taking place in the U.N. today, but anybody who looks at this says what is it we're getting into? We've got to get into something that looks like it is a political solution. And that has not yet emerged.

JIM LEHRER: Powell also reported "a spurt" of Haitians putting to sea to escape the turmoil. The U.S. Coast Guard confirmed it has intercepted roughly 500 people northwest of Haiti. Thousands of refugees fled political violence there in the early 1990s. Today, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry asked President Bush to name Senator Bob Graham of Florida as a special envoy to Haiti. Kerry said Graham understands how the problems there could spill onto U.S. shores. We'll have more on Haiti, and the U.S. response, right after this News Summary. The four Democratic presidential candidates debate tonight in Los Angeles. Front-runner Kerry will join John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton. Edwards said today he hopes to gain late momentum for next Tuesday, Super Tuesday, when ten states hold primaries or caucuses. In San Francisco he also went after the Bush administration again on its economic record.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: We also need to give families a chance to build some real wealth. This president, he understands completely how to create wealth for those who already have it. The question is what are we going to do to create some wealth for all those families that desperately need it, right? We need a president who will stand up for thosefamilies.

JIM LEHRER: We'll hear more from the Kerry and Edwards campaigns later in the program tonight. President Bush took his campaign message on the road today, to Louisville, Kentucky. He said the security and prosperity of the nation are at stake in this year's election. But he charged the Democrats are not ready to deal with either challenge.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Our opponents have not offered much in the way of strategies to win the war or policies to expand the economy. So far all we hear is a lot of old bitterness and partisan anger. Anger is not an agenda for the future of America.

JIM LEHRER: The president also urged Congress not to let any of his tax cuts expire this year. They include an increase in the child tax credit, and changes in the marriage penalty, among others. The U.S. lifted a 23-year ban on travel to Libya today. A White House announcement encouraged American businesses to return. Libya was invited to establish a diplomatic office in Washington. Late last year, Libya announced it would abandon all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. Iraq's top Shiite leader called today for holding elections there by the end of the year. Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani said he wants a date certain. His office issued a statement, saying: "The religious authority demands clear guarantees, like a resolution from the U.N. Security Council " A U.N. report this week said it would take at least eight months to plan elections, if the work begins now. A former British cabinet minister claimed today British agents spied on the U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, before the Iraq war. Clare Short quit the government in May to protest the war. She told BBC Radio today she was aware of the spying on Annan while she was still in the government.

SHORT: These things are done and in the case of Kofi's office it's been done for some time.

INTERVIEWER: Again, let me repeat the question again. Do you believe Britain's been involved in it?

SHORT: Well, I know, I have seen transcripts of Kofi Annan's conversations. In fact, I have had conversations with Kofi in the run-up to war thinking, "Oh dear, there will be a transcript of this and people will see what he and I are saying."

JIM LEHRER: British Prime Minister Blair called Short's comments "deeply irresponsible." He would not say whether they were true.

TONY BLAIR: I'm not going to comment on the operations of our security services, but I do say this. We act in accordance with domestic and international law and we act in the best interests of this country. And our security services are a vital part of the protection of this country.

JIM LEHRER: At the U.N., a spokesman said spying on the secretary-general's office is illegal. He said Annan would be "disappointed" if the allegations were true.

FRED ECKHARD: Such activities would undermine the integrity and confidential nature of diplomatic exchanges. Those who speak to the secretary general are entitled to assume that their exchanges are confidential. The secretary general, therefore, would want this practice stopped if indeed it exists.

JIM LEHRER: Earlier this month, the former Mexican ambassador to the U.N. said it was common knowledge the United States had spied on U.N. Delegations before the war. North Korea formally offered to abandon its nuclear program today. But a North Korean diplomat demanded the U.S. drop what he called its "hostile policy." The statement came at six-nation talks in china. Earlier, South Korea, China, and Russia offered to send energy assistance to North Korea if it freezes its nuclear effort. The U.S. House voted today to treat attacks on pregnant women as two crimes, against the woman and the unborn fetus. Supporters denied it was about abortion. Opponents said it would grant unprecedented rights to the unborn. The House has passed similar legislation twice before. The Senate never has. This bill also faces an uncertain future in the Senate. The Catholic archdiocese of Boston released a report today on sex abuse by its priests going back to 1950. During that time, 815 minors have made accusations against more than 160 priests. That's 7 percent of the ordained priests who served in Boston over that period. The report is part of a nationwide survey being released tomorrow. On the economy, the Commerce Department reported today orders for durable goods were down 1.8 percent in January. It was mostly because of a sharp drop in aircraft sales. Orders for other kinds of manufactured goods actually rose 2 percent. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 21 points to close at 10,580. The NASDAQ rose more than nine points to close above 2,032. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to a Haiti update, and a Haiti debate; a football and sex scandal in Colorado; a Kerry-versus-Edwards surrogate debate; and a Richard Rodriguez essay on Hollywood.

UPDATE - ON THE BRINK

JIM LEHRER: The crisis in Haiti. We begin with the situation on the ground. I spoke a short time ago with Lydia Polgreen of the "New York Times" in the capital, Port-au-Prince.

Lydia Polgreen, welcome.

LYDIA POLGREEN: Thank you, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: First, on President Aristide: Are there any signs today that he might go peacefully?

LYDIA POLGREEN: He has made every indication that he plans to stay in power. He spoke... he gave an interview to CNN earlier and he reiterated his commitment to hold onto the presidency and also to... has asked for international help to help quell the situation here in the capital. He has made absolutely no statement other than he plans to remain president of Haiti.

JIM LEHRER: And there are no signs around the edges that that is negotiable, as far as he is concerned?

LYDIA POLGREEN: There are no signs whatsoever from my conversations with people close to him. He is not making any plans to exit.

JIM LEHRER: What's the word now on where the rebels are and what their plans are for coming in to Port-au-Prince?

LYDIA POLGREEN: Well, the rebels have been saying for days that they're making plans to march on Port-au-Prince, but it's sort of hard to judge how real that statement is because it's not clear how many of them there are. I physically saw maybe a couple hundred when I was up in Cap-Haitien. They claim there are more of them garrisoned in Hinche, which is in the central plateau, and perhaps more in Gonaives as well. But it's very difficult to say exactly how many of them there are and where they might be at any given time. Some of them have fallen back into the mountains. They've had a threatening posture, saying they're going to march on Port-au-Prince if the president does not step down. But it's very difficult to say when and whether they have enough manpower to do it.

JIM LEHRER: So you don't have the feeling that anything is imminent?

LYDIA POLGREEN: I have not seen any men dressed in camouflage marching into the city, and until I see that, it's pretty hard to say that it's imminent.

JIM LEHRER: What's going on in the city itself now? Are the people bracing for a big fight? Are they... or what?

LYDIA POLGREEN: People are extremely tense in Port-au-Prince. For much of the day, life seemed to go on as normal. But in the past hour or so, you've seen flaming barricades go up -- people burn tires and block streets to keep traffic flowing at a glacial pace. You'll see gangs of armed men who claim to be loyal to the president running around the city directing traffic, in some cases robbing people. There have been reports of cameras stolen from journalists and things like that. It's quite a tense atmosphere.

JIM LEHRER: What... there were reports on the wires today that many of the Haitian police who are there to protect the city and President Aristide have already deserted. Is that correct?

LYDIA POLGREEN: That is correct. I've had conversations with many policemen, and they are quite frightened. They are generally not very well armed. Many of them just have .38 revolvers and essentially a nightstick. And they're not prepared to face soldiers, trained soldiers with M-16 rifles and things like that. So they are saying, "We're not going to die for this regime. We're going to protect ourselves." They're slipping out of their uniforms and running away.

JIM LEHRER: So if there is a fight, if there is a defense of Port-au-Prince militarily, it will be done by these folks you were talking about earlier, not by the organized police, is that right?

LYDIA POLGREEN: Yes. There are some riot police, some specially trained squads. They're not believed to number more than a hundred of them. At this point I think that the strongest line of defense are these armed gangs. And they do not have formal military training so the big fear, of course, is that there would just be... there would just be chaotic fighting by untrained people in the streets, which could lead to a lot of bystanders being killed.

JIM LEHRER: Is that an expectation now? Is that a given expectation?

LYDIA POLGREEN: It's tough to say. You know, the rebels have threatened to march on Port-au-Prince, but there is no indication that they've actually begun marching on port-au- prince. It could be that they're counting on the pressure that is mounting in the city to force Mr. Aristide to step down. He has not given any indication so far that he plans to do that, however.

JIM LEHRER: Are there any signs of people fleeing the country? What's the latest read you have on that?

LYDIA POLGREEN: I was at the airport today where there were some flights going out on American Airlines. It was orderly. It was quite crowded. There were a lot of Haitian-Americans and Haitians. Most of the foreigners have left already, the ones who were planning to leave. There were about 20,000 Americans in Haiti; most of them have left. There is not a lot of boat building going on that we're getting reports of. Apparently there was a boat that was intercepted off the coast of Florida, but that's fairly minimal at this point.

JIM LEHRER: Okay, so if there is a storm to come, this is the calm before it. Is that essentially what you're saying?

LYDIA POLGREEN: I believe so. It's... the situation in Port-au-Prince is very tense, but at the moment it's manageable.

JIM LEHRER: Okay, Lydia, thank you very much.

LYDIA POLGREEN: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: More on Haiti now, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Secretary Powell spoke about Haiti with reporters outside the State Department late this afternoon. He was asked if he thinks Aristide should step down.

COLIN POWELL: He is the democratically elected president, but he has had difficulties in his presidency. And I think, as a number of people have commented, whether or not he is able to effectively continue as president is something that he will have to examine. I hope he will examine it carefully, considering the interests of the Haitian people. But he is the democratically elected president of Haiti.

REPORTER: After 1994, after the military intervention by the U.S., do you think the U.S. and other countries pulled out too soon? Do you think all the problems that have occurred since that time in Haiti are there because of Aristide, or is it because of maybe the international media bears some brunt as well for the problems?

COLIN POWELL: Well, the United States and the international community stayed for several years. A Haitian police force was created. I went down a year after the return of President Aristide and saw them being trained. We've spent a great deal of money on their training. Commissioner Kelly from New York participated in that training, supervised that training, and a lot of money was invested in Haiti to try to build up the proper institutions of government. But unfortunately, it didn't... it didn't stay together. Corruption came into play, inefficiency came into play, cronyism came into play, and then the whole political tapestry of the country came apart with elections that weren't proper and an electoral crisis that was not resolved by President Aristide or the other political figures in Haiti. And so I think the international community tried very much to make a success of President Aristide's administration. I know that as a private citizen at that time, I did everything I could to help President Aristide and his new administration.

RAY SUAREZ: Joining me now to discuss U.S. involvement in the Haiti crisis are two members of Congress: Charles Rangel, Democrat of New York; and Mark Foley, Republican of Florida.

And, Congressman Rangel, whether or not you agree with Secretary Powell's analysis about whether the U.S. did enough in the past, is it doing enough today in Haiti?

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: I was really surprised to hear those comments by Secretary Powell. As you know I was with him and Dr. Rice and President Bush yesterday. He seemed to underscore support for the rule of law. He was waiting for the opposition to sign off on the accords that would include allowing them to appoint a prime minister, but he made it abundantly clear that he was going to respect the term and the fact that Aristide was elected. Now I would hate to have a friend that sounds like Aristide has in Powell today when he says, well, he realizes he was elected, that it's time for him to seriously discuss what he should be doing. Do you know the opposition... we're not just talking about legitimate people that have serious concerns about the administration of Aristide. We're talking about military people that General Powell helped chase out of Haiti. We're talking about thugs and criminals that have weapons that are killing people. We should be there talking about peace. Why in the world would the opposition agree to sit down and agree to the accords and not stick to their position in saying Aristide must step down if the secretary of state of the United States of America is saying that Aristide should seriously consider it? No, we're not doing what we should.

RAY SUAREZ: Just to see if I understand you, you're saying there's been a change in tone in Secretary Powell... on Secretary Powell's part just since yesterday?

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: Yes, every time you've heard from Secretary Powell, notwithstanding his disappointments in the administration of President Aristide, he's always said that the United States and the international community will respect the fact that he will be in office until he's elected. Now I heard something about the French saying that he should step down and whatnot. But I have confidence that my country was saying that the man was elected and that we were going to make compromises to make certain that the opposition would have some say in the administration. But I just heard what Colin Powell said, and while he said the same thing-- that the man is elected and that should be respected-- he said the man should seriously consider stepping down, which gives nothing but fuel to the opposition which includes thugs, criminals and people that General Powell chased out of Haiti. If -- I just talked with Aristide and he truly believes that the United States and the international community, if they don't come in and stop the violence, if they wait for the opposition to agree to the accords that he has already agreed to, he will be dead and they will take over the palace. I talked with President Aristide just two hours ago and I talked with his wife three hours ago. And they are concerned. Our lack of doing anything but waiting for the opposition means that we are against President Aristide.

RAY SUAREZ: Congressman Foley, let me turn to you now. Do you agree with your colleague from New York's analysis that the Bush administration is starting to back away from Aristide and is it the proper time or the proper thing to be doing?

REP. MARK FOLEY: Well, the administration was in fact trying to seek a settlement whereby Mr. Aristide could remain, in fact, in power for the remainder of his term. Regrettably we've heard from a number of other coalition partners that are unwilling to put one soldier on the ground if it means propping up this government. So we've got a difference of opinion. Charlie's right. The French did in fact say they wanted him to go. And that's ironic because the French love everyone. For them to demand Aristide leave is just a bit interesting. Now Mr. Aristide has had his problems. We've given opportunity to try and rebuild that country. Many of us were part of hopefully seeing Mr. Aristide's government, in fact, bring about some reforms -- have the police department protecting the citizens rather than killing them. We've noticed an infiltration of drug dealers and other things on Haiti. So, Charlie and I both agree that the crisis now is about saving lives first, solving the problem. We were hopeful that the insurgents would in fact agree to a shared power arrangement. I know that's maybe not in the best interest of Mr. Aristide but one in which I would end some of the turmoil. But the administration has been very, very insistent on not exactly throwing themselves in the middle of this crisis because they wanted others closer in proximity to lead the battle with us -- the Bahamians, the Jamaicans, the Dominican Republic, the Canadians and the French. So rather than saber rattling and telling the Haitian people this is how you're going to do it and this is the way we insist it be done, the administration has tried to take a careful approach by consulting allies talking quietly behind the scenes to the United Nations. Mr. Rajinori, under Secretary Powell has gone down there last Saturday. He and I traveled there several years ago together. He knows the area and knows the region and spent a lot of time personally invested in trying to bring these factions together. I will agree with what Charlie said. While we're signaling Aristide should go, it does fuel the flames, if you will, of those opposition leaders who are storming Port-au-Prince as we speak or close to it. So I don't want to send out mixed signals but what the administration tried to do initially was try to find a balance, find a way out of this crisis so more people's lives would not be lost in the streets of Haiti.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Congressman Rangel, the three corners of this triangle seem to not be willing to break the impasse. President Aristide says he won't share power with the non-armed opposition. And both the armed rebels and the political opponents say they don't see a future for the country that includes President Aristide in it. So does somebody have to give?

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: Up until yesterday, that was not the case. Aristide has said and continues to say and Secretary Powell and Dr. Rice agreed that he was prepared to share power as outlined by the accords that were set out by the international community in Jamaica and the ones that were supported by Secretary Powell and the one that Mr. Foley just agreed that should be done. So he agreed before. He agreed in giving up the prime minister which has even more power than he and that this should happen. The problem is that the international community and Secretary Powell were waiting for the opposition to agree to this. They haven't agreed. They're insistent that President Aristide step down. They're not going to the table and they'll be winners just by doing nothing. So what is it that we ask in Aristide to do? He's done everything.

RAY SUAREZ: Congressman Foley, is there a future in your view for a Haitian government and some stable governance there that includes President Aristide?

REP. MARK FOLEY: I hope we can find a solution to this. If it includes Mr. Aristide staying, I'm all for it. If it includes he has to leave based on the international partners, so be it. The one thing I want to see happen is for this country to be calm, for us as Americans to join together with the international community to rebuild this beautiful country. They need help. They want our assistance but we can't go it alone. So my desire is-- and I think Mr. Aristide is getting the message-- he's going to leave by a Learjet or he'll leave in a body bag. These people are getting close. There's no sense in him risking his life in Port-au-Prince based on the current scenario. And I can't see an end to the crisis. We can't intervene and jump in the middle of this right now until we get backing from the UN. I think that would be the next appropriate step. They're meeting now as we're speaking. Hopefully they will come with guidance in the morning or by noon tomorrow. Hopefully that won't be too late to step into the middle of the breach and try and solve this problem.

RAY SUAREZ: So you're saying the United States shouldn't jump into the middle of this but if it's waiting for the U.N., can it sit back and watch an armed group take control of the capital and topple this president?

REP. MARK FOLEY: We can't wait much longer, but when you opened your piece your reporter on the ground there suggested the insurgents had not seemed to be rallying to take over Port-au-Prince. So we're hoping that they're remaining on the outskirts of the town. Maybe there's a discussion going on as we speak that will help keep the flames from burning any brighter. We just simply want to protect the people there on the ground. So I'm prepared to look at any option but I know the State Department, I know Secretary Powell and I know the president and others are committed to a resolution that will hopefully end the struggle in Haiti.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: I'm now convinced after listening to Mr. Foley and Mr. Powell that the United States are on the side of the opposition and they want President Aristide either to leave by a jet or leave in a body bag. I'm telling you, if I was in the opposition, I would say we won. Stay cool. We got this president where we want. We don't have to wait for an election. We'll get rid of him and the international community will support it.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, what would you rather see happen than that scenario that you just spun out?

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: This United States knows how to stop the violence. When we went there before we didn't lose one member of the armed forces. Not anyone was injured. Not by accident. Police Commissioner Kelly of the city of New York trained those people and he said they didn't stay long enough to fully train them. They're not armed. We've got an arms embargo. We have a bunch of cowards with M-16s that were always against Aristide and always against democracy. If we just had an international presence saying drop your guns, then the Aristide supporters would drop their machetes and we would not have the bloodshed. Then we'll have a little longer to determine whether or not Aristide should accommodate the accords and integrate the opposition until his government. But if we do nothing, what we have said is we didn't like Aristide, he should go and let the rebels do what they want. As long as there's no agreement to go to the table and to insist that Aristide has to go, then I think that Mr. Foley's right. They're waiting for the body bag or for him to go into exile. And that is not what the United States should be supporting, that duly elected people be chased out of office by a bunch of rogues and thieves.

RAY SUAREZ: Congressman Foley, this has to be really quick but what's wrong with Representative Rangel's suggestion that this could be over very quickly with a very small expenditure of American power -- very quickly, please.

REP. MARK FOLEY: I just wish they were more consistent. They didn't want us in Iraq but they want us in Liberia and they want us in Haiti. I agree we could play a role but we can't go it alone. We need the French, we need the Canadians, we need the Jamaicans; we need others to at least lead the parade as we help to liberate at least from the stress today the crisis in Haiti.

RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen, thank you both.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL: I'm surprised you would even bring up the war in Iraq.

RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen, thanks a lot.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Scandal in Colorado, Kerry or Edwards, and Hollywood forever.

FOCUS - OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR

JIM LEHRER: The fallout from Colorado's football scandal. Spencer Michels has our report.

SPENCER MICHELS: The furor started in mid-January as a recruiting scandal at the University of Colorado in Boulder, with charges of sex and alcohol being used to attract high school athletes. Within weeks, the athletic department and the 29,000- student campus were rocked as the scandal escalated into a criminal investigation.

HOST: It's 3:46, the time, Dave Logan, Scott Hastings with you, 303-713-8585 that is the number, and David in Denver is on 850 KOA, David, how are you?

SPENCER MICHELS: It has dominated Colorado news and sports talk radio.

DAVE LOGAN: In 40 years, I don't think the University of Colorado football program has experienced a lower depth than as we sit today discussing.

SPENCER MICHELS: Every day seemed to bring new stories, strippers being hired to attract new football recruits at parties; women students being used to entice players. Three women claimed they were raped at a recruiting party and filed federal lawsuits claiming that the CU athletic department fostered an environment hostile to women. After the regents named a panel to investigate the charges, three more charges of rape and sexual assault against football players surfaced. The situation got national attention when place kicker Katie Hnida, who was on the men's football team in 1999, told "Sports Illustrated" this month that she had been groped by fellow players and raped by a teammate. Coach Gary Barnett who's been at the university since 1999, responded to Hnida's accusations.

GARY BARNETT: We discussed football issues, discussed team issues, and not at one time did she ever bring up to me any issue or any problem on our football team. In fact, she didn't even bring up the one player who was verbally abusing her.

SPENCER MICHELS: Then he was asked about her ability as a kicker.

GARY BARNETT: You know what guys do? They respect your ability. You could be 90 years old, but if you can go out and play, they respect you. Well Katie was, Katie was a girl, and not only was she a girl, she was terrible, okay? And there's no other way to say it. She couldn't kick the ball through the uprights.

SPENCER MICHELS: His remarks caused an uproar. The next night president Elizabeth Hoffman and Chancellor Richard Byyny took measures to try to quell the critics.

ELIZABETH HOFFMAN: I was outraged and shocked by the allegation from Katie Hnida, the former kicker, that she'd been sexually assaulted. I also want to say that I was deeply disturbed by the comments that Coach Barnett made yesterday, focusing more on her kicking ability than on the message at hand, which is that we really need to address the sexual assault. As I said yesterday, the chancellor and I will be appointing a special assistant to the president and the chancellor, to be in the athletic department and to really look at the issues about the culture, about the treatment of women, about issues of sexual assault, as well as issues surrounding recruiting.

SPENCER MICHELS: They also revealed that they had just discovered that in 2001 Coach Barnett had told an athletic department employee who alleged she had been raped that he would back his player 100 percent. They suspended Coach Barnett with pay-- he earns almost $1 million a year-- until the investigation was complete, although he insisted he hadn't meant to link Hnida's rape allegation with her playing ability. Supporters of the team were outraged. . A group of more than 40 parents of football players held a press conference pledging their support for the University of Colorado and for the Buffalo football program.

PLAYER'S PARENT: We are disgusted and angry with the allegations that have come out in regards to our sons' leaders, Coach Barnett, and how absurd and ridiculous it is that he or any members of his coaching staff would ever involve alcohol or sex parties to entice a student-athlete to attend this fine institution.

SPENCER MICHELS: Former players also came to the defense of their coach and team.

CHARLES JOHNSON: I also believe as a former student athlete and one who played under Coach Barnett, that he's a guy of high moral integrity and a guy who I believe in, quite frankly. That's my independent opinion of Coach Gary Barnett, a guy who's simply, I believe, done the right thing over the course of his time here. And again, I think it's unfortunate that a balanced story has not been told with respect to CU, particularly and especially with respect to the young student-athletes who are students here at the University of Colorado.

SPOKESPERSON: Grab a poster...

SPENCER MICHELS: But others were furious that not enough was being done. A group of students held a rally asking the administration to put a sexual assault expert on the investigating team.

WOMAN: We need to remember that a lot of the comments that were made by officials have been hostile and insensitive to survivors of sexual assault.

WOMAN: Come on.

SPENCER MICHELS: Kathy Redmond, the head of the national Coalition Against Violent Athletes, said the situation at Colorado is not unique, she herself had been attacked by an athlete at the University of Nebraska.

KATHY REDMOND: It's important to note that this just isn't about C.U. This happens at every school, division three, division one, it doesn't matter, it happens everywhere. And that's why it's so important for me to take the time now to educate people that CU is not isolated at all.

SPENCER MICHELS: Other students worry about what the controversy will mean for the school's reputation. Sergio Gonzales is one of three student body presidents.

SERGIO GONZALES: Actually I would say that's probably the first thing students think about when major issues like this blow up, from the university is what does that mean for my degree? Students are worried that it's going to have an impact that it's going to tarnish the reputation of the university, therefore it's going to tarnish and diminish the, the value of their degree.

SPENCER MICHELS: Some students think athletics distorts the university even when it's scandal free.

STEVI FAWCETT: Our football and everything is so national and so popular among the students. But half the students on this campus don't even know that the physics department, two of our physics people won a Nobel Prize in 2001. People don't even know that, but they know whether football won or not last week.

SPENCER MICHELS: Chancellor Richard Byyny believes the university will not be tarnished by recent accusations.

RICHARD BYNNY: I would say that we want to have a model program. You learn from the experiences. This is an institution of learning. We learn from those experiences and we will make changes that are necessary to be able to get beyond this and to continue to run a really fine university.

SPENCER MICHELS: Marti Bickman, a professor of English at the university for 30 years, thinks the current crisis could be a great opportunity for the university to reassess its priorities.

MARTI BICKMAN: Clearly the administration feels we should maintain the football program, and they're walking a very delicate balance between protecting the football program and trying to do right by the women who are making accusations. But, it would be wonderful if we could just reconsider: Well, do we as a community even want a football team?

SPENCER MICHELS: That's a question that a member of the University of Colorado's board of regents wants asked as well.

SPOKESPERSON: Gail? Hi, Jim Martin.

SPENCER MICHELS: Lawyer Jim Martin has been a regent for 11 years. He received two death threats this month for criticizing the university's handling of the controversy. He says that money has turned intercollegiate football into a business and that major reform is needed.

JIM MARTIN: It's an opportunity, it's a challenge now to us to be able to look anew at where does intercollegiate athletics fit into this overall academic mission -- and, to redefine the model, and the model, and I'm suggesting, still embraces the support in terms of, you know... but it makes it more private. It's really more a symbiotic relationship rather than a direct relationship with the universities and colleges.

SPENCER MICHELS: Kathy Redmond is not hopeful that will happen. She thinks that Colorado like other schools with big, expensive football programs, will always give the team special privileges.

KATHY REDMOND: It happens all the time because the athletic department, the football teams and the basketball teams are the cash cows of the university. They're revenue producing. So therefore, university presidents never take control of them. University presidents allow the athletic director and the coaches to call the shots, and in effect, they run the school.

SPENCER MICHELS: The chancellor argues that the football team is an important part of the university atmosphere.

RICHARD BYYNY: Our athletic program actually provides an excellent opportunity for young people to get an education, some of whom wouldn't attend the university if they weren't competitive athletes and remember, the athletic program is not just football. There is, are young people in many different sports. They get an opportunity clearly to get an education here. We have a long history of having athletic programs here and that's part of our culture today, when you think about the American culture, people are interested in sports. We continue to try and focus on the most important part, being education.

SPENCER MICHELS: But Byyny does believe these allegations could be a wake up call to re-evaluate his athletic department.

RICHARD BYYNY: Something like this is, is an alert. It tells us that we need to think about the issues and uh, and take them consider, you know, take them under consideration. Learn everything we can about them, not do that too slowly, I mean people want us to go ahead and make changes uh, within our campus.

SPENCER MICHELS: All of the recent developments in Colorado have prompted the NCAA to put together a committee to look at football recruiting policies nationwide. The association has promised to install new policies before the next recruiting season begins.

FOCUS - WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

JIM LEHRER: And now, the Edwards/Kerry difference, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: There will be four candidates onstage in tonight's Democratic debate in Los Angeles. But the shrunken field will offer the closest thing yet to a head-to-head encounter between front-runner John Kerry and his last viable challenger, John Edwards. What are the differences between these two candidates, and how deep do they really go? We explore that now with two senior advisers and media consultants to the rival campaigns: Mike Donilon, who is with Kerry; and David Axelrod, with Edwards. Welcome gentlemen to you both.

David Axelrod, what is... let me ask it in another way. A lot of people who go to both speeches, events, study the records of these two candidates come to the conclusion that at least on policy matters there's not a huge difference. Are we wrong about that?

DAVID AXELROD: Well there are some differences certainly on the issue of trade there's a difference. Senator Kerry voted for every trade treaty that came before him in the senate. Senator Edwards has voted against most of them because they didn't have the safeguards that he felt were necessary for American workers, for the environment. There are differences over campaign finance. Senator Edwards refuses all money from lobbyists, always has -- Washington lobbyists. Senator Kerry accepts those contributions. Senator Edwards wants to ban that. Senator Edwards has a more fulsome plan to help middle class people save and invest and send their kids to college but there's a lot on which they agree. There's no doubt - they're both Democrats. Senator Kerry is a good man. There is a lot of area of agreement. Where the real difference comes in is on the issue of who is most credible in terms of getting up every day as president of the United States and fighting for the embattled middle class in this country, people who are struggling, people on the... across the great divide that has been created by the economic policies that we've seen the last few years. John Edwards, I think, does that as a matter of conviction. It's been the cause of his life. He's not a career Washington politician. He hasn't spent his life there. If people want that, they're not going to vote for him. If they want someone who has spent his life fighting for people, taking on powerful institutions on behalf of people both outside of Washington and in Washington, he is the guy who can do that. He's been inspiring people all over this country with a message about bringing these two Americas together into one.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me get Mike Donilon in here. Do you agree on policy matters there aren't huge differences but the ones that there are, are the ones that David Axelrod just enumerated say on trade?

MIKE DONILON: No, I wouldn't agree with that. The first thing is this is that the biggest difference between Senator Edwards and Senator Kerry is in the area of experience. Senator Kerry has fought for his country and fought for people for 35 years. I think if you looked in the "New York Times" today for example with endorsed Senator Kerry it made very clear the difference between these two candidate was a Senator... Senator Kerry a man who is ready to be president who has really thought through the wide range of problems facing this country and the tough problems facing people every day in their lives as opposed to Senator Edwards who really has relatively little experience and is much newer to the stage. The real difference I think is in the area of experience and in the kind of leadership that Senator Kerry can provide for this country.

MARGARET WARNER: But you are talking about personal qualities rather than policy differences. Are you saying there really are no significant policy differences?

MIKE DONILON: Well, on the policy side, what I would suggest the differences are are these: First of all Senator Kerry has proposed a much bolder and a much more effective, we believe, health care plan, one that really goes after the issue of containing health care costs and bringing down those costs for families as well as businesses -- small businesses. We think that's a very effective way to go at a problem that is affecting so many people in this country. With respect to trade, for example, the fact of the matter is Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards agree on what to do about the problem, which is we need to have labor and environmental standards in the core agreements. But what Senator Kerry's focused on is what are we going to do about it? What he has proposed doing going forward in terms of deal with trade and job creation is to provide new incentives for manufacturing in other companies that are prepared to keep jobs here in U.S. -- to close down those loopholes that provide rewards and incentives for companies who take job overseas and really look to see how we can provide real presidential leadership which is what has been lacking in the area of trade where President Bush has really failed to step forward as a real fighter for American workers. That's what Senator Kerry is prepared to do.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Axelrod, is there a big difference in terms of what to do going forward about, I mean, both candidates are hammering at this jobs going overseas and so on -- on the trade issue.

DAVID AXELROD: Yes I mean I think it's an interesting formulation that Mike puts forward and I've heard it before the last week or two. What he's saying really is disregard what Senator Kerry did all those years in the Senate when he voted for all those trade treaties. He now recognizes that they're problematical and now he's as president going to clean up some of the problems that he helped create when he voted for those treaties. There are a lot of people who recognized the problem at the time -- Senator Edwards being one of them. I would say on health care, by the way, that there are differences between their plans. Senator Edwards' plan is the only plan that would insure that every child in America has health care by... as a birth right and I would certainly disagree that Senator Kerry has a more aggressive plan on cost containment than Senator Edwards who by the way has helped lead the fight in the Senate on some of these issues and particularly as they relate to the pharmaceutical industry, leading the fight for the Patients Bill of Rights. He has a long history of taking these issues on. I would agree with Mike on one thing. There is a difference in experience. That's an important distinction. Senator Kerry has spent his life in politics in the political arena, much of it in Washington. And if people put a premium on that, then they certainly will support him. Senator Edwards has spent his life not in the political arena but fighting for people in courtrooms across this country and then coming to Washington. He has really kind of fought to change Washington in the time he's been there. That's what he'll do as president. He comes from a different place.

MARGARET WARNER: I want to get back to the personal qualities. Indulge me on the policy differences for another minute or so. What, Mike Donilon, about this issue that Senator Edwards hammers on and so did David Axelrod that in their voting past on trade there are differences?

MIKE DONILON: Well, the truth is that Senator Edwards has spoken more about trade in the last few weeks than he has in the previous several years. The fact of the matter is he gave an economic speech in this campaign about what he would do as president and did not mention trade or NAFTA once. Now, Senator Kerry has been involved in the fight to create jobs and to fight for American workers for a long time. It's one of the reasons the leading defenders of working people in this country have endorsed his campaign. For example, Senator Kerry was one of the deciding votes and one of the people involved in the Clinton economic plan in the 1990s, which created over 20-plus million jobs so we really think the issue here is, look, there's a long record of Senator Kerry being on the front lines in fighting for jobs and if you look at the proposals that he has put on the table to deal with this problem, to address the kind of pain that people are feeling all across this country with respect to job loss, he's proposed the most effective and aggressive way to deal with creating jobs in America going forward.

MARGARET WARNER: Briefly to you both, Mr. Axelrod, on foreign affairs on Iraq in particular they both voted for the war and then they both voted against the supplemental spending bill. Is there really a huge distinction between them that the voters need to know about?

DAVID AXELROD: Honestly, I don't think there's a big distinction. I think they both recognize the flaws in the Bush policy and in shunning the world in trying to deal with this issue and both recognize that we have to bring the world back in. I think there's a broad agreement on that.

MARGARET WARNER: Briefly on that do you agree - broad agreement?

MIKE DONILON: On that particular issue. Let me address this very quickly, which is with respect to the issue of experience I would suggest the fact that Senator Kerry has been involved in combat and has seen what war is actually one of the things people are looking at saying maybe this is a person who is ready to lead the country. And that experience goes far beyond whether or not he was in Washington.

MARGARET WARNER: So what I see is broad agreement between the two of you that what's really important in this race are personal qualities, personal history, experience. Is that right, Mr. Axelrod?

DAVID AXELROD: I think that's fair. I think positions float from that but I think that that's a fair summation, yeah.

MARGARET WARNER: You both think that or do you agree?

MIKE DONILON: I believe particularly given the problems and the seriousness of the problems that the country is facing today that the kind of experience that Senator Kerry is a distinct advantage in this race.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Axelrod?

DAVID AXELROD: I think we need a president who has the life experience that gives him a sense of identification with the struggles that people have. We have a president who is so removed from people right now. We need a president who understands the problems of the working families in this country because he's lived it and he's struggled through it and John Edwards is that person. He'll bring a personal commitment to these issues.

MARGARET WARNER: A lot of voters who say they want someone who cares about people like me have come out and voted for Mr. Edwards.

MIKE DONILON: I would suggest that many have voted for Senator Kerry as well. If you were to look through the series of campaigns from Iowa to New Hampshire and beyond, Senator Kerry has spoken a great deal about the kind of problems people face with respect to health care, with respect to job loss, with respect to the struggles they face in terms of the increasing burdens and the day-to-day life. So I think Senator Kerry has demonstrated a very effective job in connecting with people and identifying with the concerns they're facing.

MARGARET WARNER: Gentleman, thank you... one last word from you.

DAVID AXELROD: I was going to say the difference is for John Edwards they're not the issues of the campaign. They're the cause of a lifetime. That's really the distinction in this campaign.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Thank you both very much.

JIM LEHRER: More about the policy differences between the Democratic candidates, including a quiz that helps you figure out which candidates you agree with most, can be found at the Online NewsHour.

ESSAY - HOLLYWOOD FOREVER

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, as Sunday's Oscar Awards approach, essayist Richard Rodriguez offers some thoughts about life, death, memory, and Hollywood.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: I am trying to account for how moved I was, one day recently, to come upon the grave of Tyrone Power. I had no vivid sense of him. I remember my mother spoke of his movies, and of Tyrone Power as her idea of a beautiful man. It is possible in Los Angeles to go to the funeral of a friend and to come upon the graves of movie stars on one's way back to the car. Actors not thought about in years are suddenly summoned by the names that appear underfoot. LA is a city of perpetual spring, a common place. But any visitor to LA notices almost immediately the scent of decay, whiffs of over-ripeness. In Beverly Hills, tourists buy star maps that are guides to the necropolis. And yet the movie industry works constantly against death and against nature. Celluloid, after all, confers a kind of immortality. And what we call our real memory becomes confused with what never was, and still is. Tonight on a distant cable channel, Eleanor Powell is dancing with Fred Astaire. Marlene Dietrich used to declaim to interviewers that movies were all about face. In middle age, Dietrich took to the stage to tease our memory of her image on the screen. When her body would no longer sustain the illusion, she retreated to a dark apartment in Paris and waited to die. In "Dark Lover," a biography of Rudolph Valentino published last year, Emily Leider describes the sudden transformation of Rodolfo Guglielmi, an Italian immigrant, into a world-famous silent film lover. Rodolfo Guglielmi died of a ruptured ulcer when he was 31 years old, but Rudolph Valentino became an immortal. People who never knew him committed suicide. A mob stormed the funeral home in New York where his body lay in state. As his corpse was transported by train to Hollywood, American housewives stood like Greek furies to attend its sad progress. To come upon the graves of the dead is to face an ancient lesson, that death takes us all. But to come upon the crypt of Marilyn Monroe is to rob us of the lesson. She cheated death by dying so young. Her tragedy will always be fresh. Movies favor the young-- the ease of the young, their solemnity, the carelessness of the young. Middle-aged actors say it all the time: For them, the roles do not come. This cemetery right behind the Paramount lot is called, not tongue in cheek, I think, "Hollywood Forever."

ACTOR: You're Norma Desmond. Used to be in silent pictures, used to be big.

ACTRESS: I am big. It's the pictures that got small.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: It was at paramount that "Sunset Boulevard" was filmed, the story of a silent film actress crazed by the intractability of time. "Sunset Boulevard" was the first film to notice the bitterness of those who are no longer called, and the decay underlying perpetual spring. At this year's Academy Awards, as every year, after the promenade of beauty, after all the sentimentalities of a cruel business are rehearsed, the year's harvest of death will be accounted. We will see Bob Hope and Katherine Hepburn and Gregory Peck, restored to their youth. Most touching will be those faces of minor actors we haven't seen for decades, but who had been so true to us in those years when we lived among dancing sophisticates and pirates and kings and the open road. To come upon the grave of Tyrone Power is to remember ourselves when we were young... ( knock at door )

ACTRESS: Oh, go quickly!

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: ...Is to remember my mother when she was young and beautiful, and she sat in a dark movie theater-- a life of romance that would never end. I'm Richard Rodriguez.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of the day. The pressure mounted on Haiti's President Aristide. France called for him to resign, and a rebel leader said his forces were closing in on the Haitian capital. The United States lifted a 23-year ban on travel to Libya. And a former British cabinet minister claimed British agents spied on the U.N. Secretary- General Annan before the Iraq War. Tonight's edition of "Frontline" is a two-hour special report on the invasion of Iraq. Please check your local listing for the time.

JIM LEHRER: And 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 four more.

JIM LEHRER: We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with Mark Shields and William Safire, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.