DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: The Democratic candidates are here this morning for their final joint appearance before Super Tuesday. We intend this hour to be a free-wheeling, informative discussion of the issues.

Joining me in the questioning are reporters Elizabeth Bumiller of The New York Times and Andrew Kirtzman of WCBS-TV Channel 2 here in New York.

This broadcast is being carried on many CBS radio and television stations, and by the Discovery Times channel.

The candidates' campaigns have drawn for positions around the table. There are no set rules, no time limits, although we hope things will move along fairly quickly and that the answers will be at least reasonably brief, gentlemen.

And we have only one goal, and that is to help you, the voters, make an informed decision.

So let's get to it. It's a big day in the news. Haiti is in the news. We have questions about that.

But first, I want each on of you in turn, in one sentence, in terms of your own spirituality, if you prefer religiosity to complete the sentence, "This I believe..."

Senator Kerry?

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:I believe in God. And I believe in the power of redemption, and the capacity of individual human beings to be able to make a difference, because, as President Kennedy said, "Here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own."

RATHER: Senator Edwards?

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe we live in a country where there are two different Americas, one for people who get everything they need every single day, and one for everybody else. And I believe that the president of the United States, with the Lord's help, has the power to change that.

RATHER: Congressman?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe that we're here to bring spiritual principles into the material world. And reflecting the words in Matthew 25, "When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you shelter me?" We have a purpose here on this earth to try to help this -- lift this world up.

RATHER: Reverend Sharpton, "This I believe..."

REV. AL SHARPTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe in God, but I believe that God created us for a purpose. I believe that God has blessed this country immeasurably. The question is whether this country will bless God. So the way we can judge that is how we treat each other, human rights, in the many Americas.

I believe there are many Americas, not just poor and rich, but of many colors, of many religions, of many sexual orientations.

How we deal with one another, how with provide for one another, how we protect one another, is how we determine whether we are worthy of the blessings that God has given us.

RATHER: Thank you, Reverend.

Let me say again, that it is not scriptural, but around this table, at least, blessed are the brief.

(LAUGHTER)

SHARPTON: For they shall inherit the debate.

RATHER: Very probably.

Senator Kerry, President Bush has made it clear that the United States will be part of an international force going to Haiti. You've been critical of that action. Tell me what your beef is with what the president is doing.

KERRY: He's late, as usual. This president always makes decisions late after things have happened that could have been different had the president made a different decision earlier.

ELIZABETH BUMILLER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Senator Kerry, what would you have done in this situation?

KERRY: Well, first of all, I never would have allowed it to get out of control the way it did.

KERRY: This administration empowered the insurgents, and it empowered -- look, Aristide...

BUMILLER: How did it empower the insurgents?

KERRY: I'll tell you precisely how, but first let me say this. President Aristide has made plenty of mistakes, and his police have run amok, and other things have happened, I understand that.

But the fact is that, by giving to the insurgents the power to veto an agreement, they effectively said, "Unless you two reach an agreement on the sharing of power, we're not going to provide aid and assistance."

So he empowered the insurgents to say, "No, we're not going to reach agreement." And they continued to battle, continued to have no services provided in Haiti, and then it started to spiral downwards.

So the result is that you almost inevitably had the clash that you have today. And innocent Haitians, the people of Haiti, deserved better than that over the course of the last year.

BUMILLER: Senator Edwards, could we ask what you think of this? Did you agree with the president's decision? And you've been critical in the past of his policy toward Haiti.

EDWARDS: Yes, that's because he's ignored Haiti the same way he's ignored most of the countries in this hemisphere.

Now, we have -- this is a country that's extraordinarily unstable. I think this is the 33rd government that they've had. One of the poorest nations, if not the poorest nation, in the world.

We should have been engaged over a long period of time, in a serious way, at least through diplomacy, not to allow this to get to a crisis situation where it now is.

I do believe that now, that now the proper thing to do is for America to be part of the United Nations force to secure the country. That is the right thing to do.

But there are very serious issues here. The Haitian constitution, for example, provides that the chief justice is a successor to Aristide. The chief justice is apparently very close to Aristide.

I mean, we have to put a political process in place, stabilize the country first, then put a political process in place that allows us to move toward a serious democratic election, so that the people of Haiti are satisfied with the result.

Senator, do you have any argument with anything that Senator Kerry just said about Haiti?

EDWARDS: We have a slight difference. I think it is true that, at its best, for the president and the administration, this has been neglect. In other words, they've paid no attention, they haven't been engaged. At its worst, they have actually facilitated the ouster of Aristide.

SHARPTON: I have a difference with both of those...

(CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: Al, if you would let me finish, please.

BUMILLER: But no one says he's a good president, so why is it so terrible he's gone? You've all agreed on that.

EDWARDS: The reason is because it should be a democratic process that leads to his leaving, not the...

KERRY: George Bush...

EDWARDS: Excuse me, John, if you let me finish. It should be a democratic process that provides for someone else to rule Haiti.

And that's the problem with this. I mean, if you look at what's happened in Haiti over a relatively long period of time, it's been extraordinarily unstable. As I mentioned earlier, 33rd regime change.

We need to put a process in place that makes sure that the people of Haiti are satisfied with who's governing them.

ANDREW KIRTZMAN, WCBS-TV: Senator, he was installed by Democrats, not by Republicans. Why are you blaming Bush, when you could be blaming Clinton, who was the one who was responsible for him being in power in the first place?

EDWARDS: But, remember, prior to that time, he was elected in elections that weren't even questioned or challenged, number one.

And number two, when this problem began to develop, this president did exactly what he's done with other problems around the world, which is do nothing, do nothing, and when it gets to crisis stage, then we act.

And that's what's, by the way -- if we can just little elevation on this...

KIRTZMAN: Not much, Senator.

EDWARDS: One of the most serious problems with this with this administration is they talk about a doctrine preemption. How about a doctrine of prevention, where America leads and stays engaged with this problems?

KIRTZMAN: Reverend Sharpton, you've been patient.

SHARPTON: First all, I talked with the opposition leaders and President Aristide by phone this week. Second of all, I've been to Haiti several times. And I think that I'm speaking as one who has been close to this situation more than anyone on this stage.

One of the things I think we're seeing (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is that we only want certain people to talk, but we want everybody to vote. And we need to rid ourselves of that.

What we need to do, first of all, is allow Haiti to have the resources. The World Bank had approved a $500 million loan that this country has blocked. That's one.

RATHER: Was that the Bush administration or the Clinton administration?

SHARPTON: This administration, as well as prior administrations, should have made sure the World Bank loans had gone through. The resources were available. You almost set up a situation where Aristide had to fail.

Now, Aristide...

BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton, can we just go to domestic politics for a moment?

SHARPTON: No, we're going to finish on this.

BUMILLER: I would...

SHARPTON: If you don't want us to participate, say that, ma'am. I listened to them go back and forth.

BUMILLER: Let's go back to Haiti.

SHARPTON: Let's deal with Haiti. I think that what we're trying to say is that the president...

BUMILLER: No, no. Mr. Kucinich, would you like to say...

SHARPTON: ... should not come now, late, after he ignored what was going on all along. And I think that it is too little too late to just talk about military action.

RATHER: Congressman?

KUCINICH: I'd like to answer your question directly. What the president is advocating, in terms of international intervention, is the right thing to do.

Now, let me talk to you about what I would do as president, in terms of creating a Department of Peace, a Cabinet-level position, where you would track the kind of percolation of conflict that goes on and intervene in a nonviolent way before it gets out of hand.

I mean, we need to take a prospective look at all of our international relations.

RATHER: Senator Edwards, we need to move on. We have a lot of ground we want to cover. We could spend this whole hour talking about Haiti and, I think, substantively so.

EDWARDS: Yes.

RATHER: But we're a couple days away from possibly decisive Super Tuesday. There are any number of voters out there who are in the process of making up their minds.

Is there any question that you can ask Senator Kerry, speaking directly to him, that you think is important for those voters who haven't made up their mind, are in the process of making up their mind, to draw him out on some difference between the two of you?

Or are you in the position of saying, "Listen, it's late on, and I'm pretty much playing for vice president now, and I don't want to ask him the tough questions"?

EDWARDS: Oh, no. Oh, no, no. Far from it. I think there are tough questions. Let me tell you what I think, first of all, the fundamental difference is between John Kerry and myself. And then I'll ask him a question if you'd like me to do that directly.

The fundamental issue in this election is whether the people of this country believe that we're going to get change that originates in Washington or change that has to come from out here in the real world. And the differences between us on this -- I have multiple examples; I'll just give you one.

John Kerry has said he and I are in the same position -- we have basically the same position on trade. That's not true. We have a very different record on trade. But more importantly, my approach to trade is fundamentally different than his.

What he has suggested is that when he becomes president, he'll set up a committee to study for 120 days our trade agreements to see what needs to be done. Now, in the real world, in Ohio, if you live in Ohio and you lose your job during that 120 days, think about that. What you're going to say to a family that's lost their job because of bad trade agreements is, "Don't worry, we've got a Washington committee that's studying this for you."

I mean, what we should -- we know what's wrong with these trade agreements. They need to be changed. The president of the United States needs to be willing to change them.

(UNKNOWN): Senator Edwards, can I just ask, if you lose all 10 primaries on Tuesday, are you still in this race?

EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am, I'm going to be...

(CROSSTALK)

(UNKNOWN): Why?

EDWARDS: Because the American people deserve this choice. And we are a very different choice, for the reasons we just talked about.

RATHER: I'd like to hear your question to Senator Kerry.

EDWARDS: My question is, do you believe we're going to change this country out of Washington, D.C.?

KERRY: Yes, because that's where the Congress of the United States is, and that's where 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is. And the answer is, we're going to need a president who has the experience and the proven ability -- proven ability -- to be able to stand up and take on tough fights.

Now, I just listened to John talk about Washington, D.C. Last time I looked, John ran for the United States Senate, and he's been in the Senate for the last five years. That seems to me to be Washington, D.C.

Secondly, when he tried to say there's a difference between us on trade just now, he said there's a difference in the record versus what we're going to do. That's not what people are looking for.

On the record, I have consistently fought to put in the trade agreements enforceable measures that allow us to stand up and fight for workers. In the China trade agreements, which incidentally John voted for, we have anti-surge, anti-dumping provisions. The president hasn't enforced them.

Moreover, John has just misrepresented the position that I've taken.

KERRY: I am not only going to have a 120-day review of every trade agreement, so that we have smart, thoughtful people look and see what's working and what isn't working, but he knows very well that I have also pledged for a number of years that we should have no trade agreement that does not also have labor and environment standards contained within it.

Now, that's exactly the same position...

RATHER: Senator, you look nervous over...

EDWARDS: He is dead wrong. Dead wrong. If you look at -- I mean, it's all fine to say, "Going forward, this is what I'm going to do." But what you've done in the past gives some indication to the American people about what you're, in fact, going to do.

Let me just give you some differences between us on the record. There's no way to dispute this.

First, I voted against final fast track authority for this president to continue to negotiate these trade agreements; he voted for it. I voted against the Singapore trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the African trade agreement; he supported it. I voted against the Caribbean trade agreement; he supported it.

It's just simply not the truth...

(CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: If you'll allow me to finish.

These are great arguments about what he intends to do going forward. But it's similar, for example, Senator Kerry has consistently said that he can pay for all the things that he's proposing and substantially reduce the deficit, I think I've heard him say cut it in half, in his first term.

Well, The Washington Post today just analyzed his proposals, and its the same old thing. Here we go again. In fact, in fact, he overspends, in terms of being able to pay for all of his proposals, he overspends by $165 billion in his first term, which means he would drive us deeper and deeper into deficit.

My point is very simple about all this. This is the same old Washington talk that people have been listening to for decades. They want something different, Dan.

RATHER: Let me give Senator Kerry a chance to respond to...

KUCINICH: Dan, let's talk about the same old Washington...

KERRY: Wait, wait, can I respond, Dennis...

KUCINICH: No, this is my turn. And I'm saying that we could talk about the same old Washington talk, but with all due respect, John, you told the New York Times that NAFTA should exist. And I think that NAFTA should not exist.

Now, when we're going back to what both, you know, Senator Kerry and you are -- and we've been back on it a lot. Senator Kerry, you knew full well that when NAFTA was passed, and when the WTO passed, that it was written specifically so as not to provide for workers' rights, human rights and environmental quality principles.

It's kind of like crying crocodile tears for workers, after millions of jobs have been lost in this country, to say, "Well, we're going to fix it."

The fact of the matter is, the WTO does not permit any modification. It was written that way.

And so I've said as president I will cancel NAFTA and the WTO, and go back to bilateral trade, which will save those jobs in Ohio.

RATHER: Let's give Senator Kerry a chance to respond.

KERRY: Well, yes, we need to go on, but these are central issues. And John has just made some very important statements, and I want to respond to them.

I think John would have learned by now not to believe everything he reads in a newspaper. And he should do his homework, because the fact is that what's printed in The Washington Post today is inaccurate.

A stimulus is by definition something that you do outside of the budget for one year or two years. The Washington Post included the stimulus when they figured the numbers. The stimulus is what you do to kick the economy into gear so that you can reduce the deficit.

Secondly, they did not include the reduction of the $139 billion of the Medicare bill which I have said I am sending back to Congress because it's a bad bill. I voted against it, it's bad.

Now, when you add up my stimulus that's outside of the budget and the Medicare numbers that they didn't even include, you do not go over, I do not spend more...

BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, let me...

KERRY: No, no, I insist on being able to finish.

BUMILLER: I want to ask a really important question.

KERRY: This is important.

(CROSSTALK)

SHARPTON: If we're going to have a discussion just between two -- in your arrogance (ph), you can try that, but that's one of the reasons we're going to have delegates, so that you can't just limit the discussion.

And I think that your attempt to do this is blatant, and I'm going to call you out on it, because I'm not going to sit here and be window dressing.

BUMILLER: Well, I'm not going to be addressed like this.

SHARPTON: Well, then, let all of us speak.

(CROSSTALK)

SHARPTON: I want us to be able to respond, or then tell us you want a two-way debate.

RATHER: Here's where the thing is. We certainly want to hear, I think you will agree, the voters have spoken.

SHARPTON: No, the voters have not spoken. We've only had -- he's won one primary. He's come in fourth seven times.

BUMILLER: How many delegates...

SHARPTON: What you're trying to do is trying to decide for the voters how we go forward. The voters need to hear this morning from four candidates, or say the media now is going to select candidates.

RATHER: Reverend, we've heard from you, we're going to hear from you. I don't understand what the argument is.

SHARPTON: I had to fight to speak on Haiti, I had to fight to speak on trade. You got a guy with one primary that you're pretending he's -- Gary Hart won more primaries than Mondale.

Let's have an open debate and go into Super Tuesday, or say that you guys want to decide the nominee.

RATHER: Reverend, debate them, not me.

SHARPTON: If I get time, I would love to do that.

RATHER: You've been on, but the clock's been running on you. I wanted to hear what you had to say...

KERRY: Can I just finish?

RATHER: Finish what you have to say, Senator, then we're going to go to Reverend Sharpton.

KERRY: On trade, there is no difference between what John Edwards would do today and what I would do today. And to listen to John try to carve out this -- what I think is sort of a protectionist point of view in the past, actually is not documented by the record.

John Edwards has been in the Senate for five years. He's talked more in the last five weeks about trade than he has in the entire five years.

The fact is that he didn't vote in the 1994 election when he had a chance to vote about trade. He didn't talk about it, against it, in his election in 1998 when he ran for the Senate.

And he went to The New York Times last week and said that he thought that NAFTA, in fact, was good for the prosperity of our country.

RATHER: Senator, I'm going to call time.

KERRY: I think you have to be consistent in this...

EDWARDS: After Reverend Sharpton speaks, I deserve a chance to respond to that.

RATHER: Reverend Sharpton?

SHARPTON: I think that, again, NAFTA and the WTO were wrong from its beginning. You cannot change it; you must rescind it. It has cost thousands upon thousands of jobs. We talk about it being a "patriotic" thing to protect American businesses, but we call it "protectionism" to protect American workers.

I think there are a lot of differences among us. I think clearly Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards voted for the war. They support trade agreements. They supported what I think is the most anti-civil rights act of our time, the Patriot Act.

But I also think that that's why we have a convention, that's why we have delegates, that's why we'll come to a consensus and have a candidate to beat Bush.

But as long as we try to stifle the discussion, it feeds into the Ralph Naders of the world that say the only way to deal with this is to leave the party.

SKIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards, didn't you tell The New York Times editorial board last week that your plan would not, in fact, significantly cut the export of jobs?

EDWARDS: No, what I said was we need a trade policy in this country that works for American workers, that allows them to compete.

I want to go back to something that the senator...

SKIRTZMAN: Before you do, though, are you saying flatly now that your NAFTA proposal would stem the flight of jobs abroad, and by how much?

EDWARDS: I think it would help. Not just NAFTA, I think that all our trade policy can have a significant impact on the outflow of jobs, plus our outsourcing policy. Taking away, for example...

SKIRTZMAN: Can you quantify it somehow?

EDWARDS: No, of course not. There's no way to do that. What we know is there are millions of jobs leaving, millions of jobs leaving this country. We need a trade policy and a tax policy that allows American workers to be competitive.

But you've got to give me just at least 60 seconds to respond to what Senator Kerry said.

The suggestion -- the suggestion -- that I came late to this? I want to say to Senator Kerry, I have lived with this my entire life. I saw what happened when the mill in my hometown closed that my own father worked at.

I respect your -- you have a right to have a different view than I do. But to suggest for a moment that this is not personal to me? I have lived...

KERRY: I never said that. I never said that.

EDWARDS: Excuse me, if you'll let me finish, I have lived with this my entire life. I have seen the effect not just on the economy, but on the families who are involved when families lose jobs.

RATHER: Senator, can I come back...

EDWARDS: This is something I take very seriously and very personally. And there is, in fact, a significant difference between us on our records.

BUMILLER: Can I just change the topic for a minute, just ask a plain political question?

The National Journal, a respected, nonideologic publication covering Congress, as you both know, has just rated you, Senator Kerry, number one, the most liberal senator in the Senate.

You're number four.

How can you hope to win with this kind of characterization, in this climate?

KERRY: Because it's a laughable characterization. It's absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life.

BUMILLER: Are you a liberal?

KERRY: Let me just...

BUMILLER: Are you a liberal?

KERRY: ... to the characterization. I mean, look, labels are so silly in American politics.

I was one of the first Democrats in the United States Senate in 1985 to join with Fritz Hollings in deficit reduction. Now, does that make me a conservative?

I fought to put 100,000 police officers on the streets of America. Am I a conservative?

BUMILLER: But, Senator Kerry, the question is...

KERRY: I know. You don't let us finish answering questions.

BUMILLER: You're in New York.

(LAUGHTER)

KERRY: Well, I'm going to fight for it. And that's exactly what I'm going to do, I'm going to fight for it.

BUMILLER: All right.

KERRY: Do you know what they measured in that? First of all, they measured 62 votes. I voted 37 times; 25 votes they didn't even count because I wasn't there to vote for them.

Secondly, secondly, they counted my voting against the Medicare bill, which is a terrible bill for seniors in America, they called that being liberal. Lots of conservatives voted against that.

In addition, they counted my voting against George Bush's tax cut that we can't afford. I thought it was fiscally conservative to vote against George Bush's tax cut. They call it liberal.

BUMILLER: Is this a helpful characterization in this campaign?

KERRY: I think it's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

KUCINICH: Let me answer directly. I'm liberal, and I'm co- chairman of the Progressive Caucus in the United States Congress. And as such, I stand for full-employment economy, universal health care, protection of Social Security, canceling NAFTA and the WTO, creating a Department of Peace.

These are the kinds of things that relate to creating a sustainable society where people can have peace and prosperity simultaneously.

RATHER: Congressman, do you consider Senator Kerry a liberal by your definition?

KUCINICH: I think it's important to hear how the senator describes himself.

RATHER: But my question is, how do you describe him? Is he a liberal?

KUCINICH: I don't think so, because he voted for the war. He voted for the Patriot Act. He supported NAFTA and the WTO. I would say that...

RATHER: Reverend Sharpton, do you consider Senator Kerry a liberal?

SHARPTON: No. I think that anyone -- if you want to use George Bush as the definition of conservative, most of America is liberal now, because most of America would vote against Bush.

(LAUGHTER)

So in that broad definition, he is.

But I think that compared to some of us, no. I think we've made ourselves clear on that.

But I don't think -- "liberal" is going to lose this dirty name in 2004, because George Bush has so let down what conservative -- I remember when conservatives were respectable.

BUMILLER: Thank you, yes.

RATHER: Senator Edwards, I want to...

EDWARDS: May I respond to just to this question, Dan...

RATHER: Sure.

EDWARDS: ... because all three others have.

RATHER: Well, I'm coming to you. Are you a liberal?

EDWARDS: I don't believe anybody -- this is actually a subject that John and I agree about. I don't think anybody in America cares about what some inside-Washington publication says about your ideology.

What they care about is: What are your values, where you come from, what do you believe in, and who are you fighting for? And do you understand the real world and the problems that people face every day in their life? That's what the people of the United States are looking for.

KIRTZMAN: Let me pick on that.

EDWARDS: This president...

KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards...

EDWARDS: ... this president does not understand what's going on in people's lives. He is completely out of touch.

I wish he would so one day what the four of us do every single day, which is go out, campaign, conduct town-hall meetings, not ticketed events, not when you make people pay $2,000 to get in the door, but actual real people and listening to what their problems are.

This president does not know what's going on in the real world.

KERRY: Can I say one other thing?

RATHER: If it's brief.

KERRY: Well, I will be brief. But is this president a legitimate Republican or conservative? Because there's nothing conservative about driving deficits up as far as the eye can see.

There's nothing conservative about trampling on the line of division between church and state in America.

There is nothing conservative about letting your attorney general trample on civil liberties and civil rights, and be twice cited by his own inspector general for doing so.

This administration is extreme. And I believe we're offering America mainstream American values.

RATHER: But, if you will, Andrew has a question and I wanted to get to it. But I let me pick up on that and what Senator Edwards said.

The latest poll I've seen shows that a combination, that a Kerry- Edwards ticket or an Edwards-Kerry ticket, would at this moment get more votes than a Bush-Cheney ticket. It would be stronger than either one of you, Senator Kerry or Senator Edwards, running alone, and Reverend Sharpton, with you or the congressman alone.

My question is, Senator Kerry, are you prepared here and now to say, if you get the nomination, you will run with John Edwards and that's a strong ticket?

KERRY: No, and I don't think John Edwards would be prepared to say that he would necessarily run with me.

RATHER: Would you, Senator Edwards?

EDWARDS: I think there's no way to say that. We're still in a fight for the nomination.

KERRY: We're vying for the nomination.

KUCINICH: And let me say why neither Senator Kerry nor my good friend, Senator Edwards, would be appropriate as nominees: Because they supported the president on the war, said there were weapons of mass destruction, which you actually embroidered, Senator Kerry.

And you know what? Think of the 2004 debate, standing next to President Bush where he says, "Oh, look, I said there were weapons. Senator, you said there were weapons. I was for the war; you supported the war. I was for the occupation; you supported the occupation. And Senator, thank you, you want to send more troops to the armed services."

You know what? I'm in the best position to challenge this president, because the war should be the singular issue. They lied to get the American people to accept the war. We have 130,000 troops there who are still at risk. We've spent over $200 billion of money that's needed for our domestic agenda. Over 10,000 Iraqis have lost their lives.

I mean, this war ought to be the single issue. And frankly, John...

BUMILLER: Let me ask a question about Iraq. I have an Iraq question.

KIRTZMAN: This morning you have -- go ahead.

(LAUGHTER)

KERRY: You're having to work to get in.

(LAUGHTER)

KIRTZMAN: Tough crowd.

Senator Edwards, through the campaign, and again this morning, you have spoken very eloquently and movingly about the fight against the rich and the powerful on behalf of the working class. And yet, you yourself are rich and powerful. You're worth upwards of $36 million. You have a $4 million house in Georgetown, a $1 million beachhouse in North Carolina, a $1 million home in Raleigh.

Do you think your supporters know that you live this way?

EDWARDS: Well, first of all, in fairness, if you're going to list our assets, I hope you'll list John Kerry's too...

(LAUGHTER)

... because he's got a lot more than I've got.

CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: Here's the truth. The truth is that I come from the same place most Americans have come from. I grew up in a family where my father worked in the mill, working -- didn't make me any different than most people in this country. I mean, he worked hard, he had a high school education. I was the first person in my family to go to college.

KIRTZMAN: But they've heard that part, but have they heard the other part, is the question.

KUCINICH: Why should that disqualify him? I mean, that's crazy. You know what? He has spoken...

(CROSSTALK)

KUCINICH: John, let me defend you on this.

(LAUGHTER)

Because I'm saying that the fact that he's speaking about these issues relating to two Americas, that there's poverty in this country, and those issues ought to be addressed, I'm glad you're talking about it, John, and I...

SHARPTON: And I am, too. But I think, Andrew, the point is...

(CROSSTALK)

SHARPTON: I will let you finish, like you did me.

I think the point is, though, the reason I say there's more than two Americas is because he could come from there to where he is. And many of us can't because of other obstacles: because of race, because of sex, because of sexual orientation.

So the reason I disagree with just two Americas is, he could go from a mill to $36 million. Many people can't do it.

And I might add, there was nothing more biased in the South than some of those mill towns, where some of us couldn't even work in the mills.

So I think that his story should be told, but it should be told in the broader context of why everyone can't have the same kind of achievement.

(CROSSTALK)

KIRTZMAN: I've got to interrupt you, because Dennis was defending...

(CROSSTALK)

KIRTZMAN: I will give you the turn. I just want to remind you of the question that I...

EDWARDS: I remember the question.

KIRTZMAN: Do you think your supporters know you live this way?

EDWARDS: Yes, sir, I think that most of them do. They know I've done very well.

And the truth is this. Let me just put this in the simplest terms I know how. I come from the same place that most Americans come from. I am running for president of the United States so that millions of American get the same chances that I've had. I mean, it's just that simple.

And Al Sharpton is completely right about one thing. This is not just wealth and class. It's race -- we have two health-care systems in America. We have two public school systems. We have two governments, one for the insiders and the lobbyists and one for everybody else.

What this is about for me, in its simplest terms, is trying to make sure that other Americans get the same chance that I've had.

I don't want to see us, those of us who've had the great luck to have done pretty well in this country, to pull the ladder up behind us. We want to make it available to more people, no matter where they live, who their family is or what the color of their skin is.

BUMILLER: Senator, let's move this around the world to Iraq for just a minute.

KERRY: Can we also move it around the table?

(LAUGHTER)

BUMILLER: I'll ask you, and then I'll ask the Reverend Sharpton.

As you know, Iraq is to begin ruling itself on June 30th, when the U.S. is transferring authority. Now, there's a lot of people in Washington and Baghdad who are saying this is completely set on a political timetable at the convenience for President Bush.

Should we put off the June 30th transfer?

KERRY: I think the transfer should depend entirely on the ability to guarantee a stable Iraq. It should not be set arbitrarily, certainly not by an election date.

What is critical is that you have...

BUMILLER: Is that a yes or no?

KERRY: It's, obviously, it's a...

BUMILLER: It's a what?

KERRY: You should put it off if it's needed to be put off. I mean, look, if the date works, terrific. But the test is not a date. The test is the stability and viability of Iraq. And what is critical...

BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton, what do you think?

SHARPTON: I think the date was set for political reasons. If it, by some miracle -- and I don't foresee it -- that we could see a stabilized enough situation to meet the date, we should do it. But I don't see how we can do it.

I think I am part of those that think that this was set in time for the '04 election, time for George Bush, when he's trailing in the fall, to say that they're already in self-government, and try to take it off the table.

I think that we cannot take Iraq off the table. I think the president misleading the country, and those that supported his misleading it, while hundreds of thousands of us marched, must be a central issue in the fall campaign.

BUMILLER: Senator Edwards?

EDWARDS: First of all, I think the date has now been embraced by the United Nations. The key to this is that there be legitimacy. There will not be legitimacy as long as this to the Iraqis has the stamp, "Made in America." This has to be changed.

And in order for it to be changed, the United Nations has to be involved in setting up this provisional government. That way, it'll be more acceptable to the Iraq people, more acceptable to the rest of the world.

KIRTZMAN: Senator Edwards...

EDWARDS: And the administration, by the way, the Bush administration, is completely responsible for us being in this place. They have squandered our credibility around the world, which is why we're in this place.

RATHER : Just before you answer, let me remind people who may have just turned in, we have just passed the halfway mark. We're roughly 33 and a half minutes into an hour program with the four remaining contenders to the Democratic presidential nomination.

Now, Congressman, the question is whether you think that date should be postponed.

KUCINICH: Well, I'd say that the date is not as significant as the fact that the United States wants to maintain control over the oil assets of Iraq, wants to privatize Iraq, run the contracts in Iraq and continue an occupation of Iraq.

See, that's the key issue. Because you have 130,000 troops there. You have all kinds of families who are wondering when are my sons and daughters, mothers and fathers going to come home.

And you know what? I've been the only one up here to, throughout this whole campaign, talk about a specific plan for withdrawal. We have to find a way to bring U.N. peacekeepers in and to bring our troops home.

And that's what we ought to be talking about here. I mean, it would be good to hear from Senator Kerry, who the other day said that there's a right way and wrong way to do it, and that we're in there for the long haul -- it'd be good for you to tell the American people what are you going to do with those other 40,000 troops you say you're going to bring in the first 100 days?

And also, are you going to have a draft? Are you going to get us out of Iraq, or are you going to be the Democratic version of the Republican war that you voted for?

KERRY: No, I'm not going to have a draft. Yes, I will get us out of Iraq.

KUCINICH: How?

KERRY: None of those troops are going to Iraq that I've talked about, that 40,000.

That is a reflection of the fact that our military is extraordinarily overextended. Our Guards and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. When we bring the rotation of these four divisions back, over the course of the spring, we'll only have two divisions actively prepared to do what we need to do in our country.

KUCINICH: How are we going to get another 40,000 troops, John?

KERRY: Dennis, I laid out -- I think I was the first United States senator to stand up and lay out a very specific plan for how you approach the rest of the world and bring them to the table with respect to Iraq.

And the way -- you can't just cut and run, Dennis.

KUCINICH: I've never suggested that, John.

KERRY: Well, then, you've adopted my plan, because my plan...

KUCINICH: No, John, I've...

BUMILLER: Can I ask a more personal question about Iraq and funerals? Could I just -- let me just ask that, because...

KERRY: But wait a minute, we actually have an issue that's on the table here, and I'd like to finish it.

BUMILLER: Can you do it quickly?

KERRY: There is a better way to do what George Bush is doing, which is to bring the international community in. He refuses to share responsibility in the reconstruction. He refuses to share responsibility for the decisionmaking of the transformation of the country. And both of those are prerequisites to being able to get other countries to share in the responsibility.

BUMILLER: OK.

KERRY: And what is incredible is that all of Europe has a huge interest in not having Iraq as a failed state on its doorstep, all of the Arab countries have a huge interest in not having a failed Iraq...

BUMILLER: Let me...

KERRY: ... as their neighbor, and notwithstanding...

BUMILLER: Senator...

KERRY: ... the president has none of them legitimately involved.

BUMILLER: Thank you.

Here's the question. As you well know, more than 500 American men and women have died in Iraq, and the president has been criticized for not attending a single funeral.

Now, the argument of the White House is that he can't attend one without attending them all.

KERRY: I disagree with that.

BUMILLER: What would you do?

KERRY: That is just profoundly wrong. I've talked to a number of families, many families, and those families have said to me, you know, we haven't really from the president or anybody, why can't you make phone calls to those families?

BUMILLER: How can you go to 500 funerals and be president?

KERRY: You don't go to 500 funerals. But you can certainly say to people -- and it shows respect to all the families, if you pick a funeral, go to that funeral. And then, you know what else...

SHARPTON: Or reach out to the families.

(CROSSTALK)

BUMILLER: The president does do that.

SHARPTON: I preached at one of the funerals of one of the young men killed, Darius Jennings. It's not about going to all of the funerals, it's showing compassion. These people lost their lives in the service of this country.

The real question, though, is why they lost their lives in the first place. And that's why I said we've got a debate out in this party. There were those that supported the president doing that. You can't give a man a blank check, and then go back and ask how come there's no money in the account. They gave him a blank check. He used it.

KUCINICH: There's a point that's being missed here, and the point that's being missed is, we should be taking action to make sure there are no funerals.

SHARPTON: That's correct.

KUCINICH: We should be bringing our troops home.

KIRTZMAN: OK, fair enough. Fair enough. Everyone...

(CROSSTALK)

KERRY: ... allowing those those caskets to be viewed when they come in to Dover Air Force Base...

BUMILLER: Well, do you think they should be photographed when they come back?

KERRY: I think you should give them full honors after their return to the United States.

KIRTZMAN: OK. Fair enough. Fair enough.

Senator Edwards, one of the main issues of the general election is going to be whether the president can keep you safe. There has not been a terrorist attack on United States soil for two-and-a-half years since the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Now, is that just luck, or can you credit President Bush with that?

EDWARDS: Oh, I think -- first of all, I don't credit the president. I think there are a number of things that the administration and the Congress have done that have moved the country in the right direction toward keeping the American people safe.

We have not done enough. There are a whole group of things that need to be done to keep the American people safer.

KIRTZMAN: Has George Bush kept the country safe, in your opinion?

EDWARDS: No, that's what I'm trying to tell you. I think there are a whole group of things that we need to do in addition to what's being done now.

For example, a better job at our ports. We have thousands of containers coming in every day. We inspect 4 or 5 percent of them. All of the experts tell us if we don't inspect at least 10 to 20 percent, it's very difficult to have a deterrent effect.

We have nuclear and chemical plants that are extraordinary vulnerable.

But by the way, this is a perfect example of Bush being married to special interests, because the chemical industry -- what happened was, they recognized the problem that I recognized, and others, about the vulnerability of chemical plants. We have over a hundred...

KIRTZMAN: But put yourself in the place...

EDWARDS: You just asked -- you just asked me what he's not done...

KIRTZMAN: We just have limited time, so we want to try to give everybody...

EDWARDS: ... you'll let me finish this, please.

This is a perfect example of what this administration does. We have chemical plants, over 100, any one of which, if they were attacked, could cost a million lives or more.

All of us recognized this was a problem. We wanted to take action. The chemical industry pushed back, lobbied against it, and the Bush administration caved.

KIRTZMAN: With all due respect, Senator, I'm trying to get to the bottom line of my question, though...

EDWARDS: Yes, sir.

KIRTZMAN: ... which is that the typical American, when he or she goes to a voting booth in November, has got to make a bottom-line decision: Who is going to keep me safe? Now, we've got Bush in the White House already or a one-term senator who doesn't have that much foreign policy experience.

Number one, how do you convince that person that you can keep him as safe or safer than Bush? And number two, would you consider running with a running-mate, perhaps, who has more foreign policy credentials than you do to make up for that deficiency?

EDWARDS: First of all, there is no deficiency. The issue here is not the length of your resume. The issue is the strength of your vision, what it is you believe needs to be done to keep the American people safe, convincing them that -- for example, when I have been campaigning around the country, I have consistently asked to groups of people, "What would you do differently today than you would have done on September 11th if a terrorist attack occurred in your community?"

EDWARDS: People don't have a clue. They have no idea what they're supposed to do.

KUCINICH: Well, there's another aspect to that.

(CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: Excuse me, if I could -- I'll finish. In 30 seconds, I'll finish.

But that's a perfect example of what's happening in the real world -- not in Washington -- in the real world. People do not know what needs to be done. They don't how to respond if an attack occurs. They don't know, in fact, if an attack occurred in the middle of night, how they're going to find out about it.

RATHER: Reverend Sharpton?

SHARPTON: I think that the first thing you've got to deal with, Andrew, on that question is we've got to finish investigating what happened 9/11 to find out if the Bush administration could have done more to avoid that attack.

I mean, maybe I missed something here, but that attack happened under George Bush. It didn't happen under someone else.

So are you now suggesting that Bush's answer to Americans are, be glad you're alive? I mean, I think that that is absurd.

I think that we need to finish investigating what happened 9/11, could this administration have done more, before we start giving them bouquets and talk about...

KIRTZMAN: It's an interesting point. It's an interesting -- well, let me just pivot off of what Sharpton says, an interesting point.

Do you agree with Wesley Clark that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the World Trade Center attacks?

KERRY: I think we could have done -- absolutely, we could have done more. No question about it. But we should have done more since then, too.

And let me just say something. We've spent -- this debate is now getting towards its end. We're in New York City. Fifty percent of the African-Americans in New York City are unemployed between the ages of 16 and 64.

One of the things the president could have done in order to make this city more safe, frankly -- he's only given it one-tenth of the money that they need with respect to protection of water supply. He's cut $250 million for firefighters. They're cutting firefighters and closing firehouses. They're cutting the COPS program.

There's a $5 billion to $6 billion deficit in the state of New York. The governor, therefore, has started to raise taxes or cut services.

George Bush's priority: tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

My priority: a $50 billion fund as a tax relief education fund, which is part of the stimulus counted in my numbers...

BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, I have a...

KERRY: Can I finish?

KIRTZMAN: You haven't gotten the direct answer...

KERRY: I'd like to finish.

(CROSSTALK)

KUCINICH: You haven't gotten a direct answer on this, and I want to answer you directly. This is about national security. And you asked the question, essentially, are we safer?

And I will submit to you, we are not. We are not safer, because we attacked a country that did not attack us and have created a resurgence of al Qaeda as a result.

We are not safer, because we don't know about 9/11 because the commission can't even get the information from the White House.

RATHER: Thank you, Congressman.

KUCINICH: Excuse me.

We are not safer because the president has a doctrine of unilateralism and preemption and is building new nuclear weapons, sending a signal to the rest of the world that they better watch out, and follows up in saying, "You better get us first before we get you."

BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, I have a question...

KUCINICH: We're not safer.

BUMILLER: ... about likeability. You know, even your Democratic fans say that the president beats you hands down on likability, which, like it or not, is a major factor in a television era.

So what have you learned from your -- one of your competitors, John Edwards, about campaigning and what's important in a 2004 race?

KERRY: Actually, Elizabeth, I learned it from the people who I've campaigned with all across the country. I learned it in Iowa, and I learned it in New Hampshire.

And I think the reason I've won 18 or 20 contests so far, and I'm now campaigning hard to win others, is that give me a living room, give me a barn, give me a VFW hall, give me a one-on-one, and I think I can talk to anybody in this country.

BUMILLER: Senator Edwards, what do you think...

KERRY: And that is precisely what I'm doing today and precisely what I'm going to keep doing.

RATHER: If I may, Elizabeth, let me ask Senator Edwards the same question in a somewhat different way.

EDWARDS: Yes, OK.

RATHER: I want to use a Texas expression here. We know...

EDWARDS: Somehow I knew this...

(LAUGHTER)

RATHER: No, but, in understandable terms, we're dealing with something really important here. That is, who is going to run against George Bush in November. We're talking the presidency of the United States.

But we know that likability, as Ms. Bumiller said, is very important to the campaign -- charisma, whatever you want to call it.

Does Senator Kerry have enough Elvis to beat George Bush...

(LAUGHTER)

... enough excitement factor, enough charisma, enough likeability?

You know what I'm talking about, and people in North Carolina and elsewhere will know what I'm talking about when I say, "Does he have enough Elvis," because when he gets down to November, a lot of people are going to vote on who they like the best, whether we want them to vote that way or not.

EDWARDS: Yes. Let me answer your question directly. First of all, I know John Kerry. I like him very much. And he and I have known each other for years.

Here's what I would say, though, in answer to both of your questions.

I don't think this is a personality contest. I think what people are looking for in a president is somebody who, when they hear them speak, speaks their language, understands what their lives are like, shares their values.

And I sometimes hear journalists say, "Well, you know, the people who vote, they just don't understand the issues well enough. They don't understand the subtleties of the difference between you and John Kerry at the fourth level of tax policy."

Well, here's the truth about that. The truth about that is the American people get it right. What they know is they know in their gut when somebody's telling them the truth. They have a radar for the truth, and they know who they can trust. They know whether you're honest and sincere, and whether they can rely on you and trust you...

RATHER: But excuse me, one second...

EDWARDS: But that, I think -- if I could just finish -- that, I think, is the ultimate issue. When they look in your eyes, when they hear what you have to say, do they trust you, and do they want you to be their president?

RATHER: Let me call time out for just one second, because this is necessary. We are inside roughly the 13-minute mark here, and I have to do something now that I wish I didn't have to do. I wish we had the rest of the afternoon to talk about it, but we need to pick up the pace in these 13 minutes, because there are any number of subjects that we have not covered.

So, let me, with your permission, change the subject very quickly. I do ask for brevity here. We'll try to work everybody in.

But, Senator Kerry, what's wrong with gay marriage?

KERRY: I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a personal belief.

RATHER: Well, what's wrong with a man and a man committing to each other for life?

KERRY: What I think -- I think it's a distinction between what you believe the institution of marriage is, but what's important, Dan, is that you give people rights. I'm for rights, not for terminology or status -- rights.

RATHER: But who does it hurt, Senator?

KERRY: I think all -- that's not the issue. The issue is...

RATHER: Well, that's the question.

KERRY: ... are we prepared to provide rights to all Americans, so that they share the same rights as other people, not the same terminology or status?

I believe that the right, the spousal rights -- the right of inheritance, the right with respect to taxes, the right with respect to visitation in a hospital -- there are a whole series of rights. I am for those rights being afforded to every single American without distinction.

KUCINICH: May I respond?

RATHER: But who does it hurt, Congressman?

KUCINICH: First of all, I'm glad that Senator Kerry says he's for rights. I think it would be instructive to review the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, because I think that many Americans believe that equality of opportunity should not be denied on account of race, color, creed or sexual orientation.

And so what we're really talking about is having people be able to avail themselves of the same protections of civil law, that 1,047 different protections that people have when they're married, and to enable those privileges to be extended to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

This is really about who we are, not just as a party, but as a nation. And we have to show capacity to expand. And I think any of us who are up here should be willing to take a stand on behalf of those people who are about to be excluded by the president of the United States from the protection...

(CROSSTALK)

KIRTZMAN: I'm kind of curious, Senator Kerry. If one of your children came to you and said, "First of all, I'm gay; second of all, I've met someone of the same gender that I want to marry," would you go to the wedding? Would you respect that relationship?

KERRY: I've been to the wedding of somebody who has gotten married who's gay, and I just happen to have a different opinion about what you call it and what the status is.

But I believe they deserve all the rights, all the support, all the love, all the affection, all of the rights that the state can afford. That's why...

(CROSSTALK)

KERRY: That's why I am for civil union. That's why I'm for partnership rights. That's why I'm for even the federal extension, with respect to tax code and other rights.

RATHER: Reverend Sharpton?

SHARPTON: I think that's states' rights. I think you cannot have any civil or human rights left up to the states.

RATHER: So you're for a constitutional amendment?

SHARPTON: I am for the constitutional right for human beings to decide what they want to do with human beings. Which is why I think the likeable thing is one issue here, is not who runs against the president, it's what runs against the president.

RATHER: All right, let me again move on...

SHARPTON: And I think what must run against the president is the rights of American citizens to have fair and equal rights.

RATHER: Let me just say...

BUMILLER: Let me ask John...

EDWARDS: Can I just say, though, how extraordinarily political what this president is doing is. I mean, here -- first of all, there's no issue...

BUMILLER: No, no. Here's the question.

EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am.

BUMILLER: Do you see a difference between gay rights and civil rights? Why is one right a federal right, and the other one you're saying leave it to the states? What's the difference here?

EDWARDS: Here's what I say. I say that the federal government plays an important role in civil rights and in gay rights. I believe the federal government should recognize what the state, who has forever, now, decided what constitutes marriage...

BUMILLER: Why is there a different standard here?

EDWARDS: But wait a second, wait a second. We're talking about what the definition of marriage is, which is something that has always been decided by states, not rights. Now, see, this is one place that actually Senator Kerry and I largely agree. If we're talking about a bundle of rights, with what rights you'd get under federal law for partners, the problems with adoption...

SHARPTON: But they used to say that blacks were three-fifths of a human. What do you mean? Are gays and lesbians human or not?

EDWARDS: Of course they're human.

SHARPTON: Then why can't they have the same human rights?

BUMILLER: I hate to ask this question because I never get an answer, but what is the difference between a gay marriage and a gay civil union, when you have heterosexuals getting married at city hall, and there's no religion involved and it's called a civil ceremony? What is the difference?

SHARPTON: They say you can shack up, just don't get married. That's the difference.

RATHER: If I may, we need to move on.

BUMILLER: But the answer?

EDWARDS: The answer is, I believe that gay and lesbian couples should be respected. I think they're entitled to rights. And that's what I think the role...

BUMILLER: But you just can't call it marriage.

EDWARDS: I think it's for the states to decide that.

RATHER: We're at 11:51 eastern time. We are all going to get criticized if we don't move to at least some foreign policy questions.

Senator Kerry...

KERRY: What about the economy, health care, education...

RATHER: I wish we had another three hours. Here's the question...

(CROSSTALK)

RATHER: I want to talk about North Korea. You're president of the United States, and you get information, absolutely unequivocal information, that the North Koreans, not only do they nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver those nuclear weapons, but that they are real and present threats to Japan and some of their neighbors (ph).

Are you prepared, under those circumstances, to move and move decisively with American military power?

KERRY: Of course I'd do whatever is necessary to protect the security of the United States of America. Bill Clinton moved quite authoritatively when the Straits of Taiwan were being threatened by China. I would do the same thing.

KERRY: But here is what is important with respect to North Korea. I believe that between China, Japan and South Korea and our own interests, and the state of the economy in North Korea and their own interests, there is a deal to be struck.

And what is quite extraordinary is that this administration did not follow up on the extraordinary work of Bill Perry, of Bill Clinton, President Clinton, and the work that they did to actually get inspectors and television cameras into the Pyongyang reactor. Now they're gone.

This administration has made the world less safe because they were unwilling to continue that dialogue.

RATHER: Senator Edwards?

KERRY: I will go back immediately to that dialogue. And I believe we can avoid the very situation you describe.

BUMILLER: But, Senator Kerry, they did make some progress this weekend in those talks. How can you...

KERRY: Yes, but, Elizabeth, let me tell you something. The progress is so minimal, it is so slow, and it's begrudging. And they are not doing the kind of direct, head-to-head negotiations.

And I have said that I would put all of the issues of the peninsula on the table, not just the nuclear issue, but the economic, the human rights, the deployment of forces. There are major issues there...

RATHER: Senator Edwards, is this talking the question to death? And as president, would you be prepared to commit American military power to subdue North Korea under the circumstances I outlined?

EDWARDS: I would never take that option off the table.

I think the starting place, the starting place -- first of all, these negotiations that have just taken place, and John mentioned all of the countries -- Russia, in addition to that -- that were participating in these discussions, we need all of these countries involved.

But the problem is, we weren't leading the discussions. We were sitting in the background. The South Koreans were making proposals; others were making proposals. We weren't leading.

The reality is that this is a serious, serious threat. They have allowed this to get to crisis situation. I said that at the very beginning about the whole problem with Haiti. This is a pattern. This is not an isolated incident. This is a pattern.

Now we're in crisis, and now they're doing something. But why was Colin Powell not there? Why were we not seriously leading these negotiations?

What we need is we need to demand that they stop their nuclear weapons program. We need to have absolute ability to verify that that's occurring. And we need to be willing to give something in return.

KUCINICH: And in order to have credibility, in order to have credibility, John, we should be canceling our nuclear programs. We're building new nuclear weapons.

How can we tell North Korea, you shouldn't have a nuclear program...

BUMILLER: Let's move on...

RATHER: Sorry, I have to call a television time-out here.

KUCINICH: Dan, we have to work for nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear abolition.

And as president, I would meet with the leader of North Korea and assure him that we mean North Korea no harm; he can put away is weapons. We need to do that with the whole...

RATHER: Congressman, what I need to do is to point out that we need a two-minute drill here now. We're inside the two-minute mark. If we have a two-minute grill, please.

The fence or wall in the Middle East -- the Israelis say it's a fence, the Palestinians call it a wall.

Senator Kerry, what do you call it?

KERRY: A fence necessary to the security of Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate.

RATHER: Reverend Sharpton?

SHARPTON: I think it's a fence, but I think that we must keep Palestinian rights in mind.

And I think it will not work unless we have cooperation of all sides, and we not in any way, shape or form have an unbalanced Middle East policy that we've had so far.

RATHER: Fence or a wall?

EDWARDS: It is a fence, both symbolically and in reality. There are only a very few miles of it that are made of concrete.

And the Israelis have the right to protect themselves. And I agree that until we get to the place that they have a real partner, which America has to play an enormous role in, they're entitled to build the fence.

RATHER: Congressman?

KUCINICH: When Israel builds something on its territory, it's a fence. But when they build something on the Palestinians' territory, it's a wall.

And I think that we need to help bring the parties together, for peaceful coexistence and restart the peace talks.

RATHER: I want you to keep in mind, we have about a minute-15.

Ms. Bumiller?

BUMILLER: Really fast, on a Sunday morning, President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. He's made quite clear in his speeches that he feels God is on America's side.

Really quick, is God on America's side?

KERRY: Well, God will -- look, I think -- I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard. And God has been on our side through most of our existence.

BUMILLER: Senator?

EDWARDS: Well, there's a wonderful story about Abraham Lincoln during the middle of the Civil War bringing in a group of leaders, and at the end of the meeting one of the leaders said, "Mr. President, can we pray, can we please join in prayer that God is on our side?" And Abraham Lincoln's response was, "I won't join you in that prayer, but I'll join you in a prayer that we're on God's side."

SHARPTON: And I think that's the point...

BUMILLER: Reverend Sharpton?

SHARPTON: I think it's important we're on God's side, as I said earlier, that we must (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

But I also think we've got to heal this president from feeling like he and America is the same thing. God is on America's side. That does not mean He supports what George Bush...

RATHER: Fifteen seconds, Congressman.

KUCINICH: We need to break the spell of fear which is over this country. Remember where we come from as a country. When Francis Scott Key wrote that "Star-Spangled Banner," he made the connection when he said, "Does that star-spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave?" The connection between democracy and courage.

I would call out the courage of the American people, and defend our rights, cancel the Patriot Act, reestablish the fullness of our democracy.

RATHER: Congressman and Senators, Reverend, our time is up. We want to thank the Democratic candidates for president, all of you, for joining us here today, and particularly for participating in this kind of discussion.

Senator John Kerry, Senator John Edwards, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the Reverend Al Sharpton.

President James Madison once said, "A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with knowledge." We hope we've added some of that this morning.

Thank you all very much.