On Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 11, 2007 - 5 P.M.

Guests Sen. Barack Obama, Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, Michael Eric Dyson, Armstrong Williams, Kate O‘Beirne, Anthony Zinni, Bob Shrum talk with guest host David Gregory
Transcript for Hardball:
DAVID GREGORY, GUEST HOST: Tonight, Senator Barack Obama on Iraq, McCain and Don Imus. Let‘s play HARDBALL. Good evening. I‘m David Gregory, in again tonight for Chris. The public trial of Don Imus continues. Today we learned the radio talk show host will meet with Rutgers basketball team members this week to apologize in person for his recent remarks. According to “The Wall Street Journal,” this afternoon General Motors, American Express and Glaxo SmithKline announced they are pulling their advertising from Imus‘s CBS radio show that is simulcast on MSNBC. NBC and CBS have suspended the IMUS program for two weeks starting Monday. More on the Imus incident and debate later.

Also tonight, Iraq. Today in a speech at the Virginia Military Academy, Senator John McCain lashed out at anti-war Democrats and singled out Senator Barack Obama for his recent statements on the war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When the president vetoes, as he should, the bill that refuses to support General Petraeus‘s new plan, I hope Democrats in Congress will heed the advice of one of their leading candidates for president, Senator Obama, and immediately pass a new bill to provide support to our troops in Iraq without substituting their partisan interests for those of our troops and our country.

GREGORY: In just a moment, my conversation with Senator Barack Obama.

Plus: Today Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that U.S. Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan would serve 15-month deployments, three more months than originally expected. Our HARDBALLers Bob Shrum and Kate O‘Beirne are here, will join us to talk about that later.

But first, my interview with Senator Obama.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE):

GREGORY: Senator Obama, I want to begin by asking you about Don Imus. You have condemned his remarks about the women‘s basketball team at Rutgers. Let me ask you pointedly, do you think he should be fired?

Sen. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don‘t think MSNBC should be carrying the kinds of hateful remarks that Imus uttered the other day. And you know, he has a track record of making those kinds of remarks. Look, I‘ve got two daughters who are African-American, gorgeous, tall, and I hope at some point are interested enough in sports so that they get athletic scholarships. And my wife and I every day are reinforcing our love for them and how special they are. I don‘t want them to be getting a bunch of information that somehow they‘re less than anybody else, and I don‘t think MSNBC should want to promote that kind of language.

GREGORY: So he should be off the air, off of MSNBC and off of CBS, off the air completely, in your judgment.

OBAMA: Ultimately, you guys are going to have to make that view (ph).

He would not be working for me.

GREGORY: Is there a larger conversation that this incident has started about public discourse in this country, about race in this country? And if so, what is that conversation you‘d like to see?

OBAMA: Well, I think it goes beyond race. Obviously, what this reveals is that we still have a host of racial stereotypes that are out there, and that we are fast loose in playing with those racial stereotypes and bandying them about and thinking that there aren‘t going to be any consequences to it. And that‘s a problem.

But I also think there‘s a broader problem of a coarsening of the culture, where we think that it‘s entertainment to insult people. And I don‘t think it‘s that funny, and I think that we need to think about how are we promoting tolerance and how are we promoting intelligent debate, and that‘s not been the trend in too much of our media. That‘s something I think that we‘ve all got to think about.

GREGORY: Final point on this. You‘ve been a guest on the Imus program to promote your books. Will you or would you be a guest on his show in the future?

OBAMA: No, I would not. I was on there once, actually, after the Democratic national convention. I spoke about my book briefly. That‘s been my only experience on the show. And he was fine when I was on that show. But I don‘t want to be an enabler or be encouraging in any way of the kind of programming that results in the unbelievably offensive statements that were made just a few days ago.

GREGORY: Senator, let me turn to Iraq. As you know, Senator McCain gave a rather pointed speech today about the war and about Democrats who, like yourself, want to see a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. In response, you had some pointed language yourself in a statement, saying that what‘s needed in Iraq is a, quote, “surge in honesty.” That was a response to the McCain speech. Do you think that John McCain is dishonest about Iraq?

OBAMA: I think John McCain is sincere, but I think that everything he says is belied by the facts on the ground. You know, witness the recent visit, where you‘ve got a hundred armed guards, Black Hawk helicopters and Apaches protecting a congressional delegation, and John McCain pointing to that as evidence that things have improved in Iraq.

The fact of the matter is that what John is touting and what the president has been touting is more of the same. We send more troops in, we spend more billions of dollars on what has been a fundamentally failed strategy. They make the argument that success is right around the corner if we just give it a little more time. And then their timetable passes, and they say, Well, we‘re going to try it a little more.

And the American people have said, Enough. And the reason they‘ve said enough is they recognize that we are not going to make progress in Iraq unless we fundamentally change the political dynamic on the ground.

GREGORY: Right. But part of that argument is that to change the political dynamic, you‘ve got to at least have security in Baghdad. Whether you agree with the surge strategy or not, it‘s less than 50 percent implemented at this stage. Why not give it more of a chance?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that the bill that we sent the president does give it a chance. What it says is, in fact, that you will have an entire year to make Baghdad more secure. But what it also says is that we‘ve got to send a signal to the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurdish factions in Iraq that they need to begin planning and coming to a political accommodation that is not dependent on hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops being present, helping to fan the flames of anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East, providing a ready target for recruitment for al Qaeda.

That is the dynamic that has to change, and unless we send them that

strong signal, my theory is—and I think many experts around the world do

is an unsustainable policy that will result in the same kinds of problems that we have now simply further down the road.

GREGORY: Final question. You know about the news today by the Defense Department, that deployments will be extended to 15 months, a real hardship on our young men and women who are over there. You had said about the troops that Democrats shouldn‘t play chicken with the troops on the ground. So why not do what the president has said, send a clean bill that does not include timelines that he objects to, to insure that the funding for the troops stays up, even while this debate continues?

OBAMA: Well, I wasn‘t quite quoted properly there. What I said is, is that Democrats aren‘t interested in playing chicken with our troops. I certainly am not. I am committed, as is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and every other Democrat, to making sure that our troops on the ground have the night-vision goggles and body armor, and hopefully, the proper training that they need. That‘s one of the problems with the current deployment schedule.

It‘s the president who has decided to make this an issue by threatening to veto what I think is a responsible, well-thought-through piece of legislation. And if he chooses to veto it and he sends it back, then we will continue to try to find ways to ratchet up the pressure on him and do so in a way that is responsible to make sure that our troops come home safely.

GREGORY: Senator, just one more, to go back to the topic of Senator McCain. And the issue of credibility on the war is going to be a big issue in this campaign. Does Senator McCain have more or less credibility than you do in the debate on the war?

OBAMA: Well, David, look, I think that John McCain is a genuine American hero who has made enormous sacrifices on behalf of the American people. I leave it up to the judgment of the American people to decide who‘s got more credibility on this particular war. I was against it in 2002. If they go on my Web site, Barackobama.com, they can see the speech that I delivered at that time that anticipated most of the problems that we‘ve had subsequently.

So on this war, at least, I think it‘s fair to say that my judgment was the right judgment, and I think John has been mistaken consistently in his approach.

GREGORY: Senator Barack Obama, thank you very much for your time.

OBAMA: Thank you.

GREGORY: And more of the war debate later.

But coming up next: The public trial of Don Imus goes on. That meeting between Imus and the Rutgers women‘s basketball team is set to happen sometime this week. Will the players accept Imus‘s apology? And will he keep his job?

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL. One week after Don Imus made his comments about student athletes at Rutgers University, the fall-out continues, with more advertisers now saying they will not do business with him or his program.

HARDBALL‘s David Shuster now has the background.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE):

DON IMUS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I‘ve said I‘m sorry. I‘m going to apologize to these young women.

DAVID SHUSTER, HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Today Americans woke up to this picture of the Rutgers basketball players on the front page of some of the nation‘s top newspapers, and the story is now having an impact on Imus‘s advertisers. Procter & Gamble, the nation‘s biggest market and one of the largest advertisers on MSNBC, has pulled its ads off the channel‘s entire daytime schedule. A P&G statement said, quote, “Any venue in which our ads appear that is offensive to our target audience is not acceptable to us.

Other sponsors are pulling commercials from the MSNBC simulcast of the Imus broadcast. The advertisers include Staples, Bigelow Tea, Glaxo SmithKline, American Express and General Motors. GM is to show‘s biggest advertiser. In a statement, GM said, quote, “Mr. Imus has publicly apologized. We have decided, however, to suspend our advertising while we continue to monitor the situation.

IMUS: What I did is made a stupid, idiotic mistake in a comedy context.

SHUSTER: Imus will begin his two-week broadcasting suspension on Monday. In the meantime, MSNBC has learned Imus is scheduled to meet in person with the Rutgers student athletes this week.

ESSENCE CARSON, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: We would like to get to know him behind the video—I mean, behind the television broadcaster, behind the radio broadcasts, as much as we would like to show him who we are behind basketball players because he don‘t know who we are as people.

OBAMA: Today on his radio show, Imus made that same point, but in his defense.

IMUS: And I wasn‘t sitting here in my mind, individually picturing these young women and saying, This is what I think they look like.

SHUSTER: Regarding Imus‘s employment, the Rutgers basketball coach said that judgment should be left to CBS and MSNBC.

C. VIVIAN STRINGER, RUTGERS WOMEN‘S BASKETBALL COACH: This is the time for—I think, for people‘s voices to be heard, so we don‘t make a judgment as to whether or not he should lose a year, a week or a lifetime ban. I think that will be made and the decision will be made actually by the sponsors, as well as the viewers.

SHUSTER (on camera): In the meantime, the national debate over Don Imus continues, with so many eyes focused now on his coming meeting with the Rutgers University women‘s basketball team.

I‘m David Shuster for HARDBALL in Washington.

GREGORY: David, thanks.

For more on the public trial of Don Imus, let‘s bring in Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, president and CEO of Women in Cable Telecommunications. She‘s also a trustee for the Women‘s Sports Foundation and advisory board member for Ivillage, and a 1984 Olympic gold medal winner. Michael Eric Dyson is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of “Debating Race.” And Armstrong Williams is a syndicated columnist and radio talk show host. Welcome, all.

Ms. Mosley, let me start with you. There is a public trial, in effect, going on. Is there a verdict about Imus, in your judgment?

BENITA FITZGERALD MOSLEY, WOMEN‘S SPORTS FOUNDATION: I think the verdict is really told and has been told by the advertisers, by the team, by many of us who feel that—you know, I‘m representing 6,000 women and a premier women‘s organization. I‘m an athlete myself, a champion female athlete. And the issue is abhorrent. I mean, his comments were abhorrent, and I think the advertisers are definitely speaking. The public is speaking.

And women, who represent 82 percent of all the purchases made in the United States of America, are certainly going to listen, and do listen with their pocketbooks. And so I think this is issue where the verdict is not necessarily going to be made by MSNBC or CBS. The issue is really going to be decided by the viewers, the advertisers, the listeners and the public.

GREGORY: Armstrong, there is a defense, in effect, being put up by Don Imus, which is, This is not who I am.

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: You know, sometimes we don‘t ever know who we are until sometimes we have that moment where we say things and it‘s like pulling the trigger on a gun and you just cannot put the bullet back into the revolver. What is unfortunate is that Don Imus is being defined by these comments. And as I‘ve said all along, he should definitely not be fired. I think the marketplace should make that decision, and that‘s exactly what is happening.

He has to pay some kind of price for his derogatory remarks. I mean, this is what he does as a shock jock, so none of us are surprised. People listen to Don Imus and you hear this all the time. He offends everyone.

But I think America has gotten to the point where something like what Dr. Maya Angelou said on your broadcast earlier today, that we need to just clean house of all of this, from the rap artists to the hip-hop artists, this violence against women, this negativity against women.

GREGORY: Right.

WILLIAMS: And so—and I guess Don Imus is the scapegoat for it all. I don‘t think he‘s alone, but I just think he‘s been held to a different standard. But this is where we are.

GREGORY: Professor Dyson, scapegoat or serial offender?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, AUTHOR, “DEBATING RACE”: Serial offender. I mean, obviously, when he‘s offended Gwen Ifill, a respected journalist, as a cleaning lady 15 years ago, when his compatriots suggested that Venus and Serena should not appear—Williams, the famous tennis stars—should not appear in “Playboy,” a degrading suggestion in itself, but rather in “National Geographic,” his comments about Jews and others—yes, this is a serious offender.

And true enough, the culture is replete with egregious examples of the assault upon black women‘s bodies, in particular, in women‘s identity more broadly. But the reality is, Snoop Dogg doesn‘t have a show on MSNBC where he sits down with presidential candidates, as he did with Christopher Dodd, to talk. So he‘s held to different standard because he‘s got a different kind of authority. He has a different kind of bully pulpit.

I agree with Mr. Williams that—and Dr. Maya Angelou that, obviously, the assault upon black women‘s bodies through rap music, through the broader culture, through the subtle machinations of media on television, where we fail to show the diverse complexity of black women‘s lives—all of us have to be held accountable, and the blood is on all of our hands. But Don Imus has to be held accountable.

GREGORY: You‘re shaking your head.

WILLIAMS: The problem here is this. All of them have advertisers and sponsors, whether it‘s Snoop Dogg, whether it‘s the rappers.

GREGORY: But you do have to buy your way into Snoop Dogg. You‘ve got to buy his album or even some comics, you‘ve got to buy your way into the show.

WILLIAMS: But the difference is—I am sure that there are many women out there who have complained before, who are very offended by the music that these artists come—and we need to ask ourselves is, What is it going to be the standard? Will there be one standard for Don Imus and a different standard for someone else? I think if we‘re going to have integrity on this and be consistent on this, everyone should be held to the same standard and they should face the same punishment.

DYSON: Well, Armstrong, you just said that the marketplace will determine it. If people are outraged and fed up with...

WILLIAMS: And I said...

DYSON: Let me finish. If they are outraged and fed up with that kind of stuff, then they won‘t buy the albums, then they won‘t feed it. So you can‘t make a marketplace argument on the one hand and then hypocritically suggest on the other hand that we should have one standard, when, indeed, you said the market—let the marketplace determine it.

But I don‘t believe in that. I believe that people who are offended by rappers should talk about that. But I think, as Mr. Gregory has said, you‘ve got to pay $15 to get that album. The reality is, they don‘t have the bully pulpit or the kind of outlet that Mr. Imus has...

(CROSSTALK)

DYSON: MSNBC is not carrying Snoop Dogg. I‘m not denying that. But I‘m saying that I—you believe in free speech. And I believe in free speech.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

DYSON: I‘m suggesting to you that people have the right to say what they have to say.

If Don Imus was an entertainer, if Don Imus was making a rap record, then we would have a different standard.

(CROSSTALK)

DYSON: But he is—he is putting forth an argument within the context of journalism.

GREGORY: Let me ask you—Ms. Mosley, let me ask you this.

Is there something that is unique that happened here? All this talk about whether he should be pulled off the air—and MSNBC and CBS will make that decision—we‘re talking about this meeting with this extraordinary group of young women...

MOSLEY: Right.

GREGORY: ... these athletes, who are so impressive.

MOSLEY: Right.

GREGORY: In many ways, they hold his fate in their hand.

Do you see it that way?

MOSLEY: I—I really do. I think...

GREGORY: Their judgment about the meeting they have with him will—will do a lot.

MOSLEY: This is a huge opportunity for women athletes. It is a huge opportunity for the media to really come to a place where they can, hopefully, collectively, with Don, make a statement about the—really, the lack of coverage of women athletes, the lack of coverage of their success, the lack of coverage of—when you only have 6.9 percent of all the media, sports media, electronic or printed, being about women in sports, here you have a story like this, that is so negative, that has so overshadowed all of these wonderful women‘s achievements, both academically and athletically, the—I‘m a Tennessee Lady Vol.

You know, they won the championship and haven‘t gotten the...

GREGORY: Right.

MOSLEY: ... the—their due.

And, so, I think the—the bigger message here, hopefully, for them, is that they are able to find a way to help him help them promote the idea that women athletes, particular—and women, particularly African-American women, deserve our respect across the board.

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Professor Dyson, what does Don Imus have to do in this meeting with these women...

DYSON: Well, here is one of the...

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: ... that saves—saves his job, in effect?

DYSON: Right. Right.

Well, you know, here is one of the undersides. In essence, they are saying, we want to show Don Imus that we are not what he said.

Now they are proven to a known bigot. Isn‘t this ironic, that the balance of power is still in Don Imus‘ hands? They have prove to a bigot that they are not what he said, when he should be proving to them that he is the human being who is beyond this bigotry.

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: I don‘t know that I necessarily agree that that is where the onus is. Don‘t you think that the onus is on him? He‘s the one who has asked for this meeting.

DYSON: No, but the young—of course, but the—he asked for the meeting because he offended them. So, the onus is still on him.

But I‘m saying, the burden is on these women to prove: Hey, we‘re not the hos you said we were. We are not what you said we were.

Why do they have to prove even that? Isn‘t it ironic that, here we are, deciding the paternity of Anna Nicole‘s child, at the same time this story is going on, and nobody is saying, here‘s a woman who didn‘t even know who her baby‘s father was, who is not being considered a ho, in the same way that these young women are?

So, you‘re dealing with much more ancient wounds that have been imposed upon the black body, especially the black female body.

And I think that what Don Imus has to do is to say, “Look, I, consciously or unconsciously, participated in the perpetuation of a legacy of stereotypes that I didn‘t even know I was doing,” so he can own up to that, and he says, “What can I do now to make sure that other people who are similarly—believe similar things can address those or at least confront them?”

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Armstrong, quickly, before I have to take break.

WILLIAMS: Listen, the onus is not on these women.

After listening to Vivian Stringer and these athletes, they represent the best that America has to offer. The onus is on Don Imus to really state to them, emphatically, as they look him in the eye, why would you make such an outrageous and such an insulting—and such insulting comments about people that you really know nothing about? What did we do to deserve that? And not just for these women, but for all women who are offended by people like Don Imus and many more like him.

GREGORY: All right. I‘m going to take a break here. We are going to come back with our guests, talk about this ongoing public trial, if you will, of Don Imus.

This is HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “IMUS IN THE MORNING”):

DON IMUS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: While I can tell them how it was said, what the context was, and who I am, and all of that, I need to know who they are, and—because they are the ones who got hurt. And they are the ones who had the joy of playing for the national championship besmirched by this idiotic, stupid comment that...

GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That was Don Imus on his radio show this morning.

And we are back with Benita Fitzgerald Mosley of the Women‘s Sports Foundation, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson of the University of Pennsylvania, and radio talk show host and syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams.

Just a—a few minutes here to conclude this conversation.

I want to put up on our screen for our viewers a comment made in Mike Lupica‘s column in “The Daily News” of New York, a friend and someone who appears on the “Imus” program.

He said, “If the worst thing you do in public life becomes the last thing, then how did the Reverend Jesse Jackson survive ‘Hymietown‘ and how did the Reverend Al Sharpton survive Tawana Brawley?”

Ms. Mosley, is their redemption for Don Imus? Is an apology sufficient? Is an opportunity for him to engage in this conversation in a constructive way enough so that it‘s not the last thing he does?

MOSLEY: I certainly don‘t think it will be the last thing he does.

And redemption—of course, I believe in redemption and also repentance. But I think this is a larger issue. This is really a pattern of bigotry that is really taking place here with him.

And I think, yes, the conversation with the women players is an opportunity, as I said earlier, for the conversation to broaden about how we talk about women, how we talk about women athletes, how we talk about African-American women in the media, be it rap, be it on television, in the movies, wherever, and to take that larger discussion and say, you know what? Enough is enough.

Let‘s halt it. Let‘s make a difference. Let‘s take it, from this point on, whether it is Don Imus, whether it is Howard Stern, whether it‘s a shock jock, or a news commentator, that we all are held to a higher standard, to really treat...

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: And do we all get to the higher standard by Imus staying on the air with a new commitment?

WILLIAMS: I think Imus is far more effective for being on the air now, because this is the first time he has ever been accountable for his actions, where he‘s offended everyone. And I think he can do much good.

Like I said, I saw the good he did with Hurricane Katrina, where he was outraged, because he felt this country had betrayed the trust of the American people, only because they were black. And he was an advocate.

He has shown that he has the compassion and that he can be fair-minded. I think he deserves another chance. And I think he can become a strong example and a strong advocate for the very things we‘re talking about.

GREGORY: Professor Dyson, just a few seconds left. Final comment.

DYSON: Well, look, redemption is critical.

But, remember, the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, let‘s not believe in cheap grace. If he has been a repeat offender, then he has to be brought to bear with the American public‘s outrage at what he has done. So, if Don Imus is serious, an apology will be followed by behavior that will change.

Should he remain on the air—I agree with Armstrong Williams—perhaps he will then bring a greater consciousness of the broader society. But, in the meantime, I think he has to be made an example. Ron Artest was suspended from the NBA for an entire season after he engaged in his behavior there. Why not Mr. Imus subject to the same thing?

GREGORY: And, Armstrong, just quickly, you think this is also a wakeup call to the black community, when it comes to confronting this kind of hate...

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: It‘s a wakeup call to racists, misogynists, bigots, and people who refer to women as some of the worst and the most derogatory things you have ever heard of.

In fact, it has less to do with color than it has to do with the behavior of these people that we continue to talk about and repudiate time and time again.

DYSON: But, Mr. Gregory, that didn‘t start with rap music.

Much more ancient than 30 years of rap music is the fact that, in the early 1900s, in the 20th century, black women were deemed to be unrapeable, because they were seen to be promiscuous. These are deep and abiding stereotypes in the collective American imagination that are far more ancient than rap music.

GREGORY: All right.

We‘re going to—I am going to have to leave it there.

Thank you to my guests, Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, Michael Eric Dyson, and Armstrong Williams.

To be continued.

Up next: Senator John McCain says Democrats who want a timetable for pulling troops out of Iraq are reckless. But is McCain‘s vigorous support for President Bush‘s strategy in Iraq sinking his presidential campaign?

You are watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARGARET BRENNAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I am Margaret Brennan with your CNBC “Market Wrap.”

Stocks closed sharply lower, as minutes from last month‘s Federal Reserve meeting showed that Federal Reserve policy-makers remain concerned about inflation. They agreed that higher interest rates could—quote—

“prove necessary.”

That put some pressure on the Dow Jones industrial average, which closed the day off some 89 points, ending its eight-day winning streak—the S&P 500 off about 9.5, the Nasdaq down by 18 points.

Citigroup unveiled plans to eliminate 17,000 jobs, or about 5 percent of its work force. In addition, another 9,500 jobs will move to lower-cost locations, like Poland.

Sales at established Target stores rose 12 percent in March, thanks to an earlier Easter holiday.

And oil prices rose slightly today, climbing 12 cents in New York‘s trading session, closing the day at $62 and just one penny a barrel there.

Meantime, rising gasoline prices have not discouraged Americans from driving. The Energy Department reports, demand last week reached a new record high for April.

That‘s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to

HARDBALL.

GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Beginning immediately, all active-duty Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will serve 15-month tours, three months longer than the usual standard—this announcement just hours ago by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

With the details, our Pentagon correspondent, Jim Miklaszewski, joins us now.

Jim, what brought this on? And it seems like an obvious point, that this is a pretty big hardship on our fighting men and women.

JIM MIKLASZEWSKI, NBC PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely.

It is clearly an indication that the strain on the U.S. Army in particular is getting to a point where the Pentagon and the Army itself had to take these drastic measures.

You know, many forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have had their tours extended, but this, in fact, makes it the policy that all Army troops now in Iraq or Afghanistan or soon to deploy to those two conflicts will serve 15-month terms.

If there is any silver lining to this, they say that it will now guarantee at least one year between those combat deployments for recuperation and training. But some Army officials are already telling us that this is going to take a heavy toll on their morale, not only of the soldiers, but their families.

GREGORY: Mik, thanks very much—Jim Miklaszewski at the Pentagon for us tonight.

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have traded some barbs in the past several days on the war. Today, they faced off once again with exchanges on the Iraq situation.

Let‘s bring in our HARDBALLERS, Bob Shrum, an MSNBC political analyst, and Kate O‘Beirne, Washington editor of “The National Review.”

Welcome, both.

KATE O‘BEIRNE, WASHINGTON EDITOR, “THE NATIONAL REVIEW”: Thanks, David.

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Senator McCain making this much-anticipated speech about the war.

Let‘s listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN ®, ARIZONA: Before I left for Iraq, I watched with regret as the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission. Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted.

What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender?

In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering. A defeat for the United States is a cause for mourning, not celebrating.

GREGORY: This is one of several speeches that McCain is going to give, Bob Shrum. He is trying to shore up his credibility on the war, trying to articulate his support for the surge strategy.

Is this working?

BOB SHRUM, NBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I respect his consistency—although I think he is wrong—more than I respect his honesty today.

He said, as we just heard, the Democrats voted against support for the troops. That is a Rove-like lie. The fact is, Democrats voted for it. The Congress voted for it. The president is threatening to veto it.

And he sounds more like Joe McCarthy than—than John McCain when he suggests that, somehow or other, our enemies were cheering when Congress approved funding for the war, but wanted to set a deadline.

This speech was advertised as a brave political act. I think it was cynical and deceptive.

GREGORY: Kate, how do you see it?

O‘BEIRNE: I think John McCain—John McCain strongly believes in the position he is holding. It is clearly not a political calculation. He recognizes how unpopular it seems to be in public opinion polls.

But, as he frequently says, “I would rather lose a campaign than a war.”

John McCain understands, there is so much animosity on the part of Democrats to George Bush. John McCain understands presidents don‘t lose wars. Countries lose wars. The kind of case he is able to make—and he has always been, I think, far more effective making the case for this war, and the need to give it one last chance, because the consequences of failure are so enormous, more effective than the White House has been—he thinks the public could again be rallied, when they understand the consequences of failure.

Look, the debate, David, is between those who think it‘s utterly hopeless in Iraq, and nothing could possibly be won there, largely Democrats on Capitol Hill, and people like John McCain, who think the consequences of failure are so series, that it‘s—it‘s owed one last chance to make it work.

GREGORY: Early in the hour, I spoke to Senator Barack Obama, who had this to say about Senator McCain and his views on Iraq.

Listen.

(BEGIN a VIDEO CLIP):

OBAMA: I think John McCain is sincere, but I think that everything he says is belied by the facts on the ground. You know, witness the recent visit, where you have got 100 armed guards, Black Hawk helicopters and Apaches protecting a congressional delegation, and—and John McCain pointing to that as evidence that things have improved in Iraq.

GREGORY: Bob Shrum, back in 2004, as you remember, the Bush advisers would tell people like me if the question is about the war, the answer is George W. Bush. Well the truth is that McCain‘s advisors say the very same thing. Does it work for John McCain in this election cycle?

BOB SHRUM, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, what I think worked in 2004 for the Bush advisors—and as you‘ll recall, David, it is how they began their campaign, and they got criticized for it. It‘s how they ended the only positive advertising they did in the campaign, was to try to make 9/11 the question. If 9/11 was the question, then the answer was George Bush.

I think we have reached the point where the American people have decided that this policy of continued occupation of Iraq does not work. They want a new policy and a new direction. As I watched John McCain today, I thought it was sad. I thought, here‘s a guy who used to actually have a reputation for straight talk and really did engage in straight talk, who does have, as Kate said, an unpopular position. And he can go out and argue for it.

GREGORY: But Kate, it is pretty straight talk when you‘re out there saying, voting for me, even though you disagree with me. I mean, that‘s an interesting way to get votes.

O‘BEIRNE: And David, General Petraeus, our new commander in Iraq, represents a new course. And that‘s something I thought Senator Obama was a little slippery about. This is not the status quo. Look, Democrats are in a tougher position now. All they had to do last November was criticize the war. Now they need to an alternative. It seems to me, in challenging President Bush on this supplemental appropriations bill, they have started this fight over a supplemental bill, and they don‘t have an exit strategy.

They seem to now want to put the onus on George Bush, although it‘s their responsibility to pass appropriations bills, not the president‘s. legislation. They do not have an end strategy. Look, the Republicans think the Democrats are over reaching. Jack Murtha give the game away. He says what we want to do is starve the troops so we have to end this war. And the Democrats, on the other hand, are utterly convinced they have George Bush on the ropes, and they have public opinion firmly with them. Someone is wrong there.

GREGORY: All right, we are going to take a break, come back with Bob Shrum and Kate O‘Beirne. This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC. Don‘t go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):

OBAMA: I think it goes beyond race. Obviously, what this reveals is that we still have a host of racial stereotypes that are out there, and that we are fast and loose in playing with those racial stereotypes, and bandying them about, and thinking that there aren‘t going to be any consequence to it. That is a problem.

But I also think there is a broader problem of a coarsening of the culture, where we think that it is entertainment to insult people.

GREGORY: Barack Obama appearing on this program and making news earlier in the hour, talking about the Don Imus situation in the larger discussion in the country, including the political discussion about all of this. We‘re back with MSNBC political analyst Bob Shrum and Kate O‘Beirne, Washington editor of the “National Review.”

Kate, let me start with you. You have Barack Obama saying he would not appear again on Don Imus‘s show, and should be taken off the year. Do you think there is a larger conversation that is going to be about public discourse, the coarsening of our discourse, and politics here, that Barack Obama might carry forward, or somebody else in the campaign?

O‘BEIRNE: Yes, I thought Senator Obama made excellent points there.

There is certainly room to do so. Don Imus is not a bad recent example. He is an equal opportunity offender. He is coarse. He is nasty. It‘s not just about blacks, as in the most recent example. It‘s about Jews. It‘s about women. Yes, he does present an opportunity to say why do we think this is so amusing. He is a bully.

GREGORY: Bob, do you think this is the beginning of a conversation that becomes part of the campaign?

SHRUM: I certainly do, and I think that the Rutgers basketball team yesterday showed the country a degree of dignity and courage that we haven‘t seen in a long time. They are actually going to go from being players on a basketball court to referees in the public square. I think they are ultimately going to be the decision makers, in terms of what happens to Don Imus.

One thing I would say, by the way, about all these advertisers canceling who are canceling their ads on MSNBC during the day, or for the Imus show, there are radio talk-show hosts all over this country who every morning get on the air and attack things that are very important to African-Americans. If those advertisers are sincere, they ought to be canceling that. Don Imus made a mistake. These guys do it as a matter of policy.

GREGORY: I‘ve got to leave it there. I am out of time. My thanks to Bob Shrum and Kate O‘Beirne. When we return, former CENTCOM Commander Anthony Zinni. You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL. As we previously reported, the Pentagon has decided to extend the deployment of all soldiers from 12 months to 15 months. Retired General Anthony Zinni served as commander in chief for U.S. Central Command in the late 1990‘s, and warned that military action in Iraq was a very risky and dangerous proposition. General Zinni wrote the book “The Battle For Peace,” and he joined us here.

I began by asking him where we are in Iraq today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE):

GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI (RET), AUTHOR, “THE BATTLE FOR PEACE”: I think we‘re coming on to a tipping point here. If General Petraeus and sort of this new strategy doesn‘t start turning the corner and showing progress, I think we‘re going to have to rethink our strategy for this region.

GREGORY: What will progress look like? How would you define it?

ZINNI: I think progress, obviously, a lessening of the violence, more control by the Iraqi forces, the government beginning to stand up and do its thing; I think the sheikhs and others beginning to cooperate ;the economic conditions bettering. Across the board, we should see things rise in these areas.

GREGORY: Is there a military solution to Iraq?

ZINNI: There‘s no military solution. I think General Zilmer, who controlled the Marines in Anbar, said there is none. He‘s right on the mark. It‘s economic, political, development, reconstruction, social issues that have to be dealt with that really have to be the keys.

GREGORY: So what are U.S. forces doing there?

ZINNI: Well, there‘s a security requirement, obviously.

GREGORY: Before those other things can happen?

ZINNI: Well, I think in addition to. I don‘t think it‘s necessarily sequential. But you need a security environment for those things to flourish.

GREGORY: Well, but that‘s the president‘s argument, that you must have a security environment that is safe enough before political compromises can be made, before political reconciliation can actually happen.

ZINNI: Well, I don‘t agree with the before. It can happen simultaneously. And what we did is we had insufficient troops going in, didn‘t control the borders, didn‘t control the population; allowed all the worst elements of society to gather strength. And I think even now there‘s insufficient forces. That doesn‘t mean that the surge is the right answer. What‘s the purpose of the surge should be the question. But you have to show hope and promise amongst the people. This is a hearts and minds battle.

GREGORY: Hearts and minds; was the president wrong when he launched this war, that he could transform the region, beyond Afghanistan, by invading Iraq? Was the invasion of Iraq, military force in Iraq, the wrong approach?

ZINNI: I think it was, because, first of all, it was the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time. We should finished business in Afghanistan first. Saddam was contained. But if you did it, he should have understood clearly—certainly the secretary of defense and the military leadership—what it would take to do this. This was no liberation. It would take an occupation. It would take years. It would take a total commitment, significant treasure, and I don‘t think they grasped all that. We certainly did before that in the planning.

GREGORY: Would it have been worth it had it been done right?

ZINNI: I think it could have been worth it, in the end, had it been done right. But given the situation in Afghanistan and the other requirements we had, it was the wrong time to stretch us that thin and become distracted from Afghanistan.

GREGORY: Could you have a war on terror and still have Saddam Hussein in the equation?

ZINNI: I think eventually you would deal with him. He wasn‘t, obviously, directly related to the problem we were dealing with, the 9/11 perpetrators. I think eventually, down the road, I think the likes of Saddam Hussein would have had to have been dealt with. But it‘s a matter of when and where and how.

GREGORY: Can you change the culture in the Middle East? Can you change or confront Islamic fundamentalism through force?

ZINNI: I think that there may be places where you obviously have to use force, where you have to counter those that want to perpetrate violence on you or our allies. But I think there‘s more to it. For this society to evolve and reform, the efforts have to be economic, political and social, more than just the use of force or the military.

GREGORY: Do you think if there is a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops—do you think that chaos would ensue if troops were pulled out at that deadline, regardless of the circumstances on the ground, as the president warns?

ZINNI: First of all, I don‘t think there‘s going to be withdrawal of troops in the way we think about it. We have interests in this part of the world, political, security and economic interest. We will be there to ensure those. We may evolve into some sort of containment strategy, repositioning troops. But to believe we‘re going to walk away from this totally is naive. That‘s not going to happen.

GREGORY: Because we‘re going to have to have some level of force.

ZINNI: Now I think there are ways we can extract ourselves from being in the midst of the sectarian violence, have certain rules of engagement on when we engage, build a stronger alliance and a security arrangement in the region, and do other things, including support the Iraqis, a security assistance program. But we need to be talking about a containment strategy or a future strategy, and I don‘t hear that discussion.

GREGORY: What would that strategy be?

ZINNI: I think that strategy is, first, to look at a regional cooperative arrangement, security-wise, to look at burden-sharing, in terms of international and regional support for what we do, a reconstructed Iraqi security program, where we position our troops and the forward presence that makes sense, the rules of engagement under which they would engage, the economic and social and political reconstruction of Iraq, and how that would be tailored.

The Hamilton/Baker are was a good start. I don‘t think it went far enough. But we didn‘t even get that far.

GREGORY: But if we have an exit strategy from Iraq, and bring troops home, what is the U.S. presence in that part of the world going to be, and what will be the threshold for intervention if, frankly, all hell breaks loose?

ZINNI: Well, I think, to answer the second part first, I think we would obviously go after al Qaeda. We would not let the Iraqis fail. We would reinforce them, if necessary. We would contain the borders from any spill over from the violence. I think we would work through security assistance programs to build regional capabilities. You know, we did this between the Gulf War and this intervention. We built a dual containment strategy, which was the title of it, and it was effective and, actually, it was economical.

We did it with less troops than go to work at the Pentagon every day. And they weren‘t even assigned to CENTCOM. So we need to evolve back into that. How the troops will be laid down is a matter of discussion. What types of troops; where would they be; how often would they be there? That all can be worked out with our allies in some sort of constructive way that retained the coalition and then contains the threat.

GREGORY: General Zinni, what will historians say 10, 20 years from now about this president and this war?

ZINNI: I think they will say that the war was questionable, in terms of the rationale for it, at best. They will say that the conduct of the war was terrible. If we just look at World War II, where our military was at the beginning, where it was four years later; if you do a comparison, our military did not grow, it did not adapt to this kind of war. I think the administration will be held responsible for that. It didn‘t transform in any way to adjust to this threat.

So I think this part of it, this war, at this moment, is going to look like a foreign policy disaster in the future.

GREGORY: Will the president be vindicated. Will his vision in that part of the world be vindicated at any point?

ZINNI: I don‘t think so. I think there will be some softening, if this ends up being reasonably stable. We have to stop talking about victory in a traditional sense or defeat in a traditional sense. We‘re after reasonable stability, reasonably representative government. I mean, in the short and maybe near term, that‘s the best you can hope for. It will evolve over time.

But I don‘t think this period is ever going to be vindicated, because the military decisions were disastrous. The political decisions were disastrous. The foreign policy strategy was non-existent.

GREGORY: General Zinni, thank you very much. The book is called “The Battle For Peace.

GREGORY: Tomorrow on HARDBALL, Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd. Plus, singer Sheryl Crow and environmental activist Laurie David, who want you to do more to fight global warming. Right now it‘s time for “TUCKER.”

On Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 10, 2007

Guests Clarence Page, Al Sharpton, Sabiyha Prince, Deforest Soaries talk with Guest Host, David Gregory
Transcript of Hardball for April 10, 2007:
Good evening. I‘m David Gregory, in tonight again for Chris. NBC News and CBS radio have suspended radio talk show host Don Imus for two weeks starting April 16, condemning his racist and sexist comments about the Rutgers women‘s basketball team. This morning, Imus appeared on NBC‘s “Today” and again apologized.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):

DON IMUS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I am going to apologize to them and ask them for their forgiveness. I don‘t expect that, and I don‘t think they have any obligation to either forgive me or to accept my apology.

GREGORY: As we mentioned, today the young women at the center of the controversy, the Scarlet Knights, told reporters they will, indeed, meet with Don Imus. Later, we are going to talk with the Reverend Al Sharpton about the controversy and also take a larger look at this incident and what it says about race relations and decency in our country.

But first the background and HARDBALL‘s David Shuster with this report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE):

DAVID SHUSTER, HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was the announcement from the Rutgers women‘s basketball team that Don Imus had been hoping for.

ESSENCE CARSON, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: We have agreed to have a meeting with Mr. Don Imus. This meeting will be a private meeting at an undisclosed location in the near future.

SHUSTER: That means Imus will get an opportunity to explain and apologize in person for the comments he made last week on his broadcast.

IMUS: Oh, some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some hard-core ho‘s.

IMUS: That‘s some nappy-headed ho‘s there, I‘m going to tell you that!

(LAUGHTER)

C. VIVIAN STRINGER, RUTGERS WOMEN‘S BASKETBALL COACH: It‘s not about the Rutgers women‘s basketball, it‘s about women. Are women ho‘s? Think about that. Would you have wanted your daughter to have been called that?

PAGE: Yesterday, NBC News announced that the simulcast of Imus‘s radio program on MSNBC will be suspended for two weeks starting next Monday because this week, the show is conducting a charity telethon. Imus reacted this morning on the “Today” show.

IMUS: I think it‘s appropriate, and I an going to try to serve it with some dignity and—a lot of dignity, if I can. I‘ve had a long relationship going back to 1971 with people at NBC and a long relationship with CBS. And when I talked with Phil Griffin last evening and he told me that he was—they were suspending me, I expressed to him that—how I felt about that and accepted it in the spirit in which it was—in which it was rendered.

SHUSTER: But when pressed by Matt Lauer about a pattern of racial humor on his program, Imus was defensive.

IMUS: This is a comedy show. I‘m not a newsman. This is not “Meet the Press.” We don‘t—anything we say—it‘s not an excuse, but context is important. There‘s a difference between premeditated murder and a gun going off accidentally. I mean, somebody still gets shot, but the charges are dramatically different.

SHUSTER: And Imus insisted his comments about the Rutgers team were not intended to be offensive.

IMUS: But it was comedy. It wasn‘t a malicious rant. I wasn‘t angry. I wasn‘t drunk. I wasn‘t stating some sort of philosophy. As I said yesterday morning, I‘m not a racist, I‘m—and I‘ve demonstrated that in my deeds, in my work. And if we can only cite three or four instances in a comedy program...

MATT LAUER, “TODAY”: Well, wait a second, Don...

IMUS: ... which is designed to push the envelope over 30 years—you know—what I did is made a stupid, idiotic mistake in a comedy context.

LAUER: Well, let me...

IMUS: I didn‘t open the microphone to say, This is what I think of these Rutgers women.

LAUER: Let me put it this way...

IMUS: Does it mean I should be excused for the remark? Absolutely not.

SHUSTER: Also on the “Today” show this morning, Reverend Al Sharpton, who has called for Imus to be fired.

REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: What precedent are we setting now, that you can apologize every 10 years when you go over the line and maybe you‘ll get a two-week suspension? I think that this is something that is unhealthy for everyone in America, and he should be fired.

SHUSTER: Despite the joint appearance on the “Today” show, Don Imus attacked Sharpton for declining an invitation to appear on Imus‘s program following an Imus appearance yesterday on Sharpton‘s broadcast.

IMUS: I talked to Reverend Sharpton yesterday for two hours, Matt, and I told Phil Griffin and everybody else that I didn‘t intend—I invited Reverend Sharpton to appear on my program, and he didn‘t have the courage that I had.

SHARPTON: No, I decided I would not...

IMUS: Because I walked—I‘m talking, Reverend Sharpton!

(CROSSTALK)

IMUS: I walked in his studio yesterday, and there were hundreds of people there. And my hands weren‘t shaking and I don‘t get up and run out of the studio every five minutes when the mikes went off. I sat there and I talked to Reverend Horgans (ph) like a man—Reverend Sharpton like a man, and he did not keep his word. I asked him to appear on my program. He said he didn‘t want to appear at the scene of the crime!

SHUSTER: As for Imus‘s request to meet with the Rutgers women...

IMUS: And I am going to apologize to them and ask them for their forgiveness. I don‘t expect that, and I don‘t think they any obligation to either forgive me or to accept my apology.

SHUSTER: The Rutgers players said they would wait to hear what Imus said before making any judgments, but they added that Imus has a lot of explaining to do.

HEATHER ZURICH, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: And we were insulted, and yes, we were angry. Worst of all, my team and I did nothing to deserve neither Mr. Imus nor Mr. McGuirk‘s deplorable comments.

PAGE: A few of the players noted that the language used by Imus is used every day by some African-American hip-hop and rap artists. But the players quickly added...

CARSON: But that doesn‘t make it any more right for anyone to say it, not only Mr. Imus, but if I were to say it, it doesn‘t make it any more right. It doesn‘t matter if you‘re African-American or whether you‘re Caucasian, Asian. It really doesn‘t matter. All that matters is that it‘s wrong.

SHUSTER: But will they accept Imus‘s apology?

MATEE AJAVON, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: Right now, I cant really say if we—you know, we have come to a conclusion of, you know, whether we will accept the apology. What I can say is that I think this meeting will be crucial.

SHUSTER (on camera): Amidst the ongoing protests against Don Imus and the questions about whether journalists, including those at this network, will continue to appear on his program, Imus today pledged to make changes. He said he would revamp his show, put on more African-American guests and talk more about issues of race.

I‘m David Shuster for HARDBALL in Washington.

GREGORY: David, thank you very much.

We go now to “The Chicago Tribune‘s” Clarence Page and “The Congressional Quarterly‘s” Craig Crawford. Welcome to you both. Thanks for being here.

I want to read a couple of things, Clarence, and then have you respond. Gwen Ifill, a colleague of ours who works for PBS, used to work for NBC News, wrote the following in a very thoughtful op-ed piece in “The New York Times.” Quote, “The sincerity”—and she‘s talking about the sincerity from Imus—“seems forced and suspect because he‘s done some version of this”—these comments, she means—“several times before.”

Next, this is an exchange you had with the I-man on his program back in 2000, and I‘m going to read through it for our audience and for you to see. Imus—this is—you introduced the idea of him taking a pledge here.

CLARENCE PAGE, “CHICAGO TRIBUNE”: Want me to do my part here?

(LAUGHTER)

GREGORY: “I, Don Imus”—Clarence Page—“do solemnly swear,” “do solemnly swear,” “that I will promise to cease all simian references to black athletes,” “that I will promise to cease all simian references”—he repeats it—“a ban on all references to non-criminal blacks as thugs, pimps, muggers and Colt 45 drinkers,” “I promise to do that.”

Clarence Page, you‘re here with us now. There was some laughter in the middle of this, but this was a serious...

PAGE: That was Bernard.

(LAUGHTER)

PAGE: That was Bernard in the background, yes.

GREGORY: This was a serious point you were making.

PAGE: Yes, it was, and I wanted to lighten it up a bit because this is a light show. You know, part of the problem here, David, is that Don‘s successful. He gets it both ways. He‘s a combination shock jock and morning political discussion leader.

GREGORY: Right.

PAGE: You know, he says he is—you know, he is an entertainer, not a newsman, but you know, he...

GREGORY: All right, but the point is...

PAGE: He does both.

(CROSSTALK)

PAGE: And so that‘s why I...

GREGORY: ... serious in making this pledge.

PAGE: That‘s why I wanted to get this in the right spirit of the program because at the time, this was the subject of—what, it was Tompaine.com had run a big piece about why are Washington‘s pundits supporting bigotry on Don Imus. They ran a quarter page ad in “The New York Times” op-ed page. And it quoted me saying, Well, I‘m concerned. I‘d like to talk to Don about this...

(CROSSTALK)

PAGE: So that‘s what led to all this.

GREGORY: All right. And now these comments, “nappy-headed ho‘s” is what he called these young women on the basketball team at Rutgers.

PAGE: Right.

GREGORY: Is he a racist or a serial offender, or both? What, in your mind?

PAGE: I like Don Imus personally. I can‘t read his heart and say if he‘s a racist. All I know is he says racist things from time to time. That‘s what I told him back in 2001, as he was telling me he wasn‘t a racist, et cetera. Gwen‘s right. There are echoes in his current series of apologies to what he was saying in 2001, on various other occasions.

Don‘s done some great things for a lot of black folks, for people of color, including me. When my book came out in ‘96, he gave me the kind of promo on the air there during his show that authors hunger for. I have nothing personally against him, but I have certainly been on the air talking about his racially inflammatory humor on the show, him and Bernard. It‘s all part of the package. So this is not new.

Now, you know, my old daddy always said, Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Now that, you know, he‘s gone back on that pledge, I‘m even more troubled than I was before.

GREGORY: Craig Crawford, is it time for Imus to go?

CRAIG CRAWFORD, “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY,” MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:

Not at all. I don‘t see how that helps anything. I would say this man—you know, in my experience on the show—I‘ve done it nearly 70 times in the last three years—this—his heart is as big as his mouth, and the mouth gets him in trouble, as it has now.

(LAUGHTER)

CRAWFORD: And I think there‘s an opportunity here. I was struck by how these students, these Rutgers students—they were so reasonable and calm and willing to listen and try to understand, hard as it might be for them, what his motivations were. And they are going to meet with him. And tell you the truth, I think a lot of us adults who are talking about this ought to just step back and let these 20-year-olds...

GREGORY: All right, well, so...

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: ... if this is a positive meeting—I mean, Don Imus—we both know him, we all know him—Certainly sounds contrite to me, that he gets it. This is going to be a tough meeting. Does this gesture mean something important, Clarence?

PAGE: Oh, it means that he has escalated things. And so has the public, in my view. You know, I haven‘t been invited back on the show, by the way, since the pledge, so I can‘t—I haven‘t had further discussions with him.

GREGORY: Do you think that was the reason?

PAGE: Maybe you got my slot, Craig.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Is that a reaction to that? Did he feel embarrassed by that?

PAGE: I have no idea, you know?

(CROSSTALK)

PAGE: ... when he broke some bones on the ranch, I sent him a get well card, but I haven‘t talked to him, though, since I was on the show. And I mean, what‘s important is not whether I‘m on the show or not. I think what‘s important here is the show itself and how it‘s conducted. The fact is, he‘s gotten away with more than a lot of other shock jocks have in terms of—the Greaseman, used to be here in D.C., and various others lost their jobs over just one case like this.

And now finally—you know, he thought he was going to get by with the one apology last Friday. As of Monday, he was apologizing all day long, going to Al Sharpton‘s confessional, if you will. And obviously, you know, for CBS and NBC to drop him for two weeks, it‘s a slap on the wrist in one sense, but the fact that it‘s kind of a slap at all is serious. It shows that there‘s some teeth behind this, as there should be.

GREGORY: But Craig, you feel a little bit differently here. You think that people are overblowing this, that he‘s apologized, that we should move on.

CRAWFORD: I think in the context of this show—I know, as you know say, that much of it is serious commentary. And when they do the sports, as they were doing here, that‘s where you see more to the comedy elements, some of the skits they do. It‘s not just racial. We see jokes about Catholics, about Jewish people, gays, I mean, and my argument would be that when you stifle that kind of speech, when you stifle it, you‘re not dealing with the sentiment behind it. And to actually say someone should be fired for making jokes about this kind of stuff doesn‘t really get us down the road toward discussing what‘s behind it and how—how...

PAGE: I‘m not calling for his firing, but if he were fired, what would happened, Craig?

CRAWFORD: Well, I think he‘d become a martyr and...

PAGE: What would happen, Craig? He‘d get a job someplace else, wouldn‘t he.

CRAWFORD: Yes, probably.

PAGE: Of course he would. Of course he would.

CRAWFORD: And—and...

PAGE: Or he‘d go to satellite like Howard Stern.

(CROSSTALK)

CRAWFORD: ... is better off if Imus goes forward, if he gets to know these students, they get to know him. When he takes up a cause, as we all know, he puts his heart into it. I think he will here, not just to save his job, but I think he‘s—I disagree with Gwen. I think his—his remorse is genuine, and I think he will go forward and take up this cause and do some things that will make a big difference, more of a difference than if he were fired.

PAGE: That would be great, but let‘s not feel sorry for Don. I mean, Don Imus is a really—if he wasn‘t as successful as he is, NBC, CBS—you know, well, how about two weeks, Don? I mean, that‘s what it looks like to me. I don‘t see him being severely punished. But I think that he is contrite, and I think he does want to do good. And he has done good with his ranch, with the kids out there who have cancer, autistic kids. All of this...

GREGORY: Is there room for...

PAGE: As I told him, that doesn‘t give you a license to...

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Is there room for him to refashion this program in a way that can heal this wound?

PAGE: Well, I don‘t know if it has to be refashioned necessarily. But I just think you can‘t have it both ways. You know, I think it‘s—the fair thing is for—if you‘re going to try to be a shock jock, you ought to be treated like a shock jock. That‘s what happens. And—but he does bring on great, reputable folks like Craig and various others, you know, who help to give him some credibility, and he helps to expand our audiences and all. You know, everybody wins in that arrangement. But you know, a host should not embarrass people who appear on the show. And when you go and embarrass yourself in this kind of a fashion, he‘s now put people who want to appear on the show on the spot. I understand Cal Ripken‘s dropped out of an engagement...

CRAWFORD: Yes, I—I think—you know, two things. You know,

first, I think, you know, getting into the—you know, the actual words

that he used, he was wrong and he should be punished for that and is being

punished. But I think further discussion as he goes down the road on this

you know, some of these terms, particularly the term “ho,” comes from gangsta rap.

PAGE: That‘s right.

CRAWFORD: And that needs to be condemned...

(CROSSTALK)

PAGE: And it is, too.

CRAWFORD: ... and discussed...

PAGE: I just did a column last Sunday I commend to your attention...

(CROSSTALK)

PAGE: ... Sharpton has, too, Jesse Jackson...

(CROSSTALK)

CRAWFORD: You know, that is a discussion I think whites and blacks need to have, rather than just saying someone should be fired for having said that. I think to be a racist, you have to hate black people, and I do not believe Don Imus hates black people.

GREGORY: I‘m going to let that be the last word. Thank you very much, to Clarence Page and Craig Crawford.

Coming up, the Reverend Al Sharpton. We‘ve been talking about him.

He is calling for Don Imus to be fired, and he‘s coming right here next.

You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):

KIA VAUGHN, RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER: I‘m not a ho. And at that, I‘m a woman, and I‘m someone‘s child, and you know, it hurts a lot. It does hurt. And there‘s a lot that should be said. There‘s a lot that I want to say, but you know, you can‘t say it. And I would like to speak to him personally and, you know, express how I feel face to face and ask him, After you‘ve met me as a person, do you feel in this category that I‘m still a ho, as a woman and as a black African-American woman, at that? I achieved a lot, and unless they have given this name, a ho, a new definition, then that is not what I am.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):

IMUS: I am going to apologize to them and ask them for their forgiveness. I don‘t expect that, and I don‘t think they have any obligation to either forgive me or to accept my apology.

GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That, of course, Don Imus on the “Today” program this morning, apologizing once again for his comments about the Rutgers women‘s basketball team. On Monday, he sat down with Reverend Al Sharpton to apologize on the reverend‘s radio program. And Reverend Al Sharpton joins us now. Welcome.

SHARPTON: Thank you.

GREGORY: Imus has apologized, and now the Rutgers lady basketball team will meet with him. What has to come out of that meeting for you to be satisfied?

SHARPTON: It‘s not about coming out of the meeting. I think that that‘s a private meeting is between he and those that he victimized with his statements. Our drive, from National Action Network and other organizations, is to deal with how the airwaves and those that use them must be accountable. That will not be impacted by a private meeting. That will be impacted by how the stations, how advertisers and how FCC deals with the policy of the airwaves.

GREGORY: But Reverend, you said on your program yesterday you were eager to see what the outcome of that meeting was.

SHARPTON: No. He said he wanted to be forgiven and he did not want to be perceived as racist. I said, I‘ll see what happens in that meeting. I did not say that would determine how we would deal with dealing with the airwaves and how they ought to be policed. That‘s absurd.

GREGORY: All right.

Your view on the suspension by NBC News and CBS Radio is what?

SHARPTON: I think that it is too little and I think it‘s too late.

We must remember that Mr. Imus made these statements Wednesday. Had the groups not raised this by Friday and over the weekend, I doubt if any action would have been taken at all. He barely apologized the day after. Then, he got a little more specific Friday. He really did not start apologizing until we raised public attention. And that is the point.

We cannot allow the airwaves to be used in a blatantly sexist and racist way, and unless somebody catches you, it‘s all right.

GREGORY: All right.

SHARPTON: When you heard today those young ladies talk about how this hurt them, how this will affect them the rest of their lives, I mean, it is amazing to me how people will sit up and just objectively discuss somebody else‘s pain.

GREGORY: Reverend, let‘s—let‘s—you have called for him to be fired—you just reiterated that now—taken off the airways.

Listen to what Imus said this morning during your appearance, your joint appearance, on the “Today” program, about what changes he would make to his program.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE TODAY SHOW”):

DON IMUS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I have a record of a—of a relationship with the African-American community, whether Reverend Sharpton likes it or not.

I am a—I am a good and decent person. And I have been conducting a comedy show for 30 years. I can come back, and serve, hopefully—will hopefully serve this—the suspension with dignity, and come back and create a dialogue.

One of the things that we‘re going to—that we‘re—we‘re going to do, that we have been talking about for years...

MATT LAUER, CO-HOST: Quickly, if you can, Don. I‘m running out of time.

IMUS: There ought to be a black person on this show every single day to add some perspective. And—and we ought to have more black guests. And—and me and the rest of white America ought to understand what is going on in the black community. And I will make an effort to do that.

GREGORY: Reverend, if—if Don Imus could make good on that commitment, would you support him staying on the air?

SHARPTON: First of all, he made the same pledge, as you just said, with Clarence Page. I mean, why don‘t we just play his last apology and last confession, and he wouldn‘t have to get up so early in the morning and do “The Today Show”?

Second of all, am I supposed to applaud, after 30 years, he says, let‘s put a black in the studio? I mean, what are we talking about here?

This is not about Imus. This is about accountability on the airwaves.

GREGORY: No. OK, I take that point. But is this also not an opportunity to put the issues that you care about, confronting this kind of racist talk and sexist talk, on the public airwaves, with a huge, large platform? Can you see him playing a positive role? And if—if—NBC and CBS does not listen to you, and he stays on the air, would you agree to be part of his program, as a commentator?

SHARPTON: I think the—I think the larger—No, I would not.

The largest—or the larger stage, the larger picture, I think, cannot include that, if someone misuses the airwaves, that all they have to do is make a tour of apologies, and then it‘s business as usual.

I—I—I see people sincerely struggling to try and come and set a bigger picture here, but they can‘t put in the picture there‘s no penalty for the racist, sexist use of the airways. That is what everyone seems to miss. This is not about Imus. This is about accountability and a standard on the airwaves that protects citizens from those airways being used in a racist, biased, sexist manner.

GREGORY: Let me ask you a question, based on your standing in the community, as a politician, as a former candidate for the presidency. Do you believe in redemption?

SHARPTON: Oh, absolutely.

I think that there has to be redemption. I have—as I said this morning on “The Today Show,” a man of a different race, a white man, stabbed me once for leading a nonviolent march. I not only forgave him. I went to jail and met with him and forgave him. But I didn‘t say he shouldn‘t pay for the crime.

There‘s a difference between redemption and amnesty. A lot of people are not talking about redemption. They‘re talking about amnesty.

GREGORY: But, in your case, as critics would point out, you didn‘t go as far as Imus in a controversy that had to do with you and the Tawana Brawley case, a woman who the court...

SHARPTON: Nor did I castigate a whole race of people.

GREGORY: I‘m sorry. If I could...

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Sir, can I...

SHARPTON: Nor did I castigate a whole race of people.

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: I just want to finish the question.

You—you didn‘t go as far as apologizing to the people who you hurt through that incident. This was, the courts have concluded, a hoax, accusations against whites by a young black woman about a race-based assault. A court ordered you to pay restitution for a defamation suit against people‘s whose reputation you hurt. You didn‘t apologize for that.

SHARPTON: And I still don‘t apologize. This was a case, as you said, of a young lady accusing people of doing something to her.

To compare that to a man castigating a whole race—nobody came to him, like this young lady came to me. He was not talking about did he believe in a case.

So, the—to the extremes people will go to compare an individual case, a civil case that, when the courts ruled...

GREGORY: Right. I‘m not—but, Reverend, I‘m not comparing the cases.

SHARPTON: Wait a minute. You wanted me to let you...

GREGORY: I just wanted to ask the question.

SHARPTON: You wanted me to let you ask it. Let me answer.

GREGORY: OK.

SHARPTON: And to compare that shows how far people will reach. This man was not talking about a specific case, with some information somebody gave him, whether you believe the information or not.

This man was talking about a race of people and a sex of people. There is absolutely no comparison. And, when the courts ruled against us, we paid that. That case happened 20 years ago. We‘re not talking about that.

What you are talking about is—is maligning a race, and him not having to pay for it.

GREGORY: Well, I‘m not—I am not talking about it. The question has to do with...

SHARPTON: Oh, I thought you were the one talking.

GREGORY: ... redemption.

SHARPTON: Maybe somebody else...

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: No, sir, I don‘t think that is not fair to talk about that I‘m talking amnesty. I am asking a question about your belief in redemption and people whose reputations you hurt, people that you hurt...

SHARPTON: Well, if I felt...

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: ... that you haven‘t apologized for.

SHARPTON: If I felt—if I believed...

GREGORY: And you are a strong person in middle of this debate.

SHARPTON: If I believed that young lady was telling the truth, as I do, what am I apologizing for?

And how do you compare that to a man condemning a whole race? Did I go and condemn a whole race of people? Or did we say we believed this young lady‘s statement about an individual? I don‘t how you even compare the two.

GREGORY: All right.

We‘re going to take a break here, the Reverend Al Sharpton staying with us—when we come back, questions about the larger questions raised by this incident.

Then, coming up later: a look at race relations in this country, how far we still have to go.

You are watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

We are back with the Reverend Al Sharpton.

Reverend, I have got just about a minute-and-a-half here. But I want to ask you a larger question.

If there is a national conversation that has started as a result of this incident, what is it and what should it be?

SHARPTON: I think the national conversation should be, how do we hold those that use the public airways accountable?

I think people have the right to free speech. I think we have the right to free comedy. I do not think they can use public airways recklessly. I do not that think we can have regulators in government that call some things indecent and other things permissible.

We need to have a conversation on what is permitted. And I think that this Imus incident will bring us to that conversation.

GREGORY: Imus challenged you during the “Today” program today about taking on the black community, about where the kind of language like “ho” originates in the hip-hop culture.

He may be an imperfect vehicle to bring that point up to you, in—in your estimation, in a lot of people‘s estimation.

Is that a fair point? And what can you do to advance that, to challenge the black community on that—on the use of that language within the black community, within the hip-hop community?

SHARPTON: The only reason it is not fair is because we have been dealing with that for some time.

I have been one that has been very vocal, as I think was stated in the segment earlier by Clarence Page and them, about the use of the N-word, the use of ho by people of my own community. I—I was one that was very upset with the movie “Barbershop” that denigrated black icons like Rosa Parks.

I only think him challenging me showed that he has not been in touch with what is going on. I think that there is a place that we need to have that discussion. It is wrong for anybody to call anyone a ho. It is wrong for anybody to use the N-word. I think that should not be used as an excuse to cover Imus, because I think, if you don‘t deal with Imus, then you lose the moral authority to join people like me in dealing with some of those bad elements of gangster rap—not all rap, but gangster rap.

You can‘t have it both ways. If you‘re going to join us in saying that these young artists ought to stop it, then you have got join us in stopping Imus.

GREGORY: The Reverend Al Sharpton—Reverend, thank you very much for coming on tonight.

SHARPTON: Thank you.

GREGORY: Up next: the big picture that we have been talking about.

We will talk right here about where we are with race and gender in our current politics and in this country, what role all of this plays in the 2008 election, and more about this conversation that Reverend Sharpton talked about Americans having as a result of this incident—when HARDBALL returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DARBY DUNN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I am Darby Dunn with your CNBC “Market Wrap.”

The Dow Jones industrial average ended higher for an eighth straight session, its longest winning streak in four years. The Dow gained more than four-and-a-half points, the S&P 500 up almost four, and the Nasdaq almost eight-and-a-half.

Dow component Alcoa kicking off earning season after the closing bell, reporting first-quarter profit jumping nearly 9 percent—however, earnings fell short of analyst estimates. In after-hours trading, Alcoa shares are up fractionally.

Oil prices rising slightly today, climbing 38 cents in New York, closing at $61.89 a barrel.

And another sign of woe in the housing market—D.R. Horton, the nation‘s biggest homebuilder, says second-quarter orders are down 37 percent. That is due in part to steep declines in California and the Southwest.

That‘s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to

HARDBALL.

GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL. I‘m David Gregory, in for Chris tonight.

There are larger questions coming about of the reaction to Don Imus‘ words. What does it tell us about race and decency in our country right now?

In a moment, we‘re going to talk with Reverend DeForest Soaries, who is going to moderate this meeting we have been telling you about between the Rutgers players and Don Imus.

But, first, let‘s bring in “Newsweek”‘s Jonathan Alter, who is an NBC News contributing correspondent. And we are also joined here in the studio by Sabiyha Prince, an anthropology professor at American University.

Welcome to you both, professor Prince and Jonathan Alter.

(CROSSTALK)

SABIYHA PRINCE, ANTHROPOLOGY PROFESSOR, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Hi.

GREGORY: Jonathan, let me start with you.

We talked a little bit earlier on the phone about whether this incident has created a race moment for America. Do you think that is the case? And how would you define that?

JONATHAN ALTER, NBC NEWS CONTRIBUTING CORRESPONDENT: I think it has created what you could call a teachable moment, the same way that, a couple of weeks ago, when Elizabeth Edwards‘ cancer recurred and Tony Snow‘s did, you know, we had a kind of a national conversation about surviving cancer.

And I this does give us a chance to talk about the coarsening of discourse in America, about accountability. As—as Reverend Sharpton said, what does accountability mean? Does it necessarily mean firing the person? Or is sometimes changed behavior enough form of—of accountability?

You know, David, in the YouTube culture that we have now, everything that somebody says is going to get replayed, and replayed again. And the question becomes, what is the response?

And I think something that has happened in the—just in the last couple of years, there has been such a negative reaction against President Bush‘s failure to apologize, failure to seem like he is being accountable to where the people are, that we have got more of a thirst for people apologizing when they screw up, and then changing their behavior as a result of having been called to account.

GREGORY: Professor Prince, let me pose that same question to you.

Is this a moment here, a teachable moment, a race moment, call it what you will?

PRINCE: Well, I think, David, that the history of the United States has been punctuated by a number of race moments.

So, the question becomes, what are we going to do with this, and where do we go from here? I would agree that, if we use this as a chance to perhaps educate America about the history of diverse peoples—for example, taking this Imus case, there‘s a historical context of African-American women being animalized, of African-American men being likened to animals, a dehumanization, if you will.

There is a precedent for that. It has happened on numerous occasions. And, perhaps, if—we can use this opportunity to share with America some of the literature about this context, a broader context, and about the experience of women, and the works of black feminists and other scholars, who have a lot to say on these topics.

GREGORY: It was also something about this incident.

It was not—as—as condemned as it is in—in hip-hop songs and rap music, where these artists talk about hos in a general sense, which has been condemned, this was, unfortunately, the specific application of that term to a group of young women who are exceptional young women, good students, and terrific athletes. And it really sort of woke people up and said, hey, wait a minute. This is really out of bounds.

PRINCE: I agree with you. So this is pointing to issues sexism, as well as racism, and how those things intersect. These are athletes. Haven‘t we not seen in the past women athletes being characterized as not being feminine, as somehow not being women. That is not at all appropriate and we need to get at the root of some of these things.

GREGORY: We have been looking at these pictures of the players and the coach. I want to listen to the Rutgers coach, Vivian Stringer, and what she had to say. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):

VIVIAN STRINGER, RUTGERS WOMEN‘S BASKETBALL COACH: The truth of the matter is that it is not even black and white. The color is green. The color is green. You see, because if we can tolerate as a society what has just taken place, the remarks that have been directed toward young women, I do not know how anyone could have heard this and not been personally hurt and offended.

GREGORY: I also want to bring in the Reverend Deforest Soaries, who will moderate the meeting between Don Imus and the players from Rutgers. Reverend, welcome.

REV. DEFOREST SOARIES, WILL MODERATE IMUS/RUTGERS MEETING: Thank you very much for having me.

GREGORY: Talk about this meeting that is going to occur. You‘ve been talking to Imus. You‘ve been talking to the players and the coach, and the folks at Rutgers. What is going to happen at this meeting?

SOARIES: Well Mr. Imus has confessed, as it were, of his sin or his crime. What seems to be in disagreement is whether or not there should be any sentence. The remarkable outcome of this, from the Rutgers women‘s perspective, is that these young women, 17, 18, 19 years old, see the need to have a dialogue with Mr. Imus.

They could be so bitter or so hurt that they would simply dismiss him or they could be so angry that they would want to retaliate. But they‘ve decided—

GREGORY: To say nothing of their parents, by the way.

SOARIES: I mean, this is a level of maturity that I have not seen in recent years, particularly around very volatile race and gender issues. And so in this meeting Mr. Imus will have a chance to say directly to them what he has said to the public, and that is “I‘m sorry.” He will also have a chance to answer questions that they would like to probe, in terms of who he really is.

He has said it is important for America to know who he is, but it should start with the persons that were victims of his ugly conversation. They then will have an opportunity to share with him exactly how they feel. I have said to Mr. Imus, I am not sure he understands the depth of complexity that he has caused in these ladies‘ lives. This is more than a passing insult. This is a deep stain, which one player said would be a scar for the rest of her life.

We will have a dialogue. He will have an opportunity to express his views; they theirs. And then we will see what the next step should be.

GREGORY: Reverend, we are talking here about whether there is a larger important conversation to have as a country, about the power of words, about decency and about racism. And I think you said on Reverend Sharpton‘s program yesterday that for a lot of black people in this country, this may have been a confirmation to them to their sort of deep cynical belief that white people do not like them. It may have been a kind of ugly confirmation of that.

SOARIES: What‘s interesting is that pundits and leaders have a tendency to think in terms of left and right. And left would be more progressive and liberal. Right would be more conservative. And, in that sense, this becomes an enigma, because Mr. Imus is traditionally identified with the left. And one would have to imagine, how could somebody who supports black children, who supports black causes, who has been a philanthropist, really say those kinds of words and then admit he has no idea from whence they came.

This speaks to a deeper problem that we explore in black America, quite often, and that is that there is a deep fault of racism that exists, and it is like Anthrax. It will kill you, but you can‘t be seen. Every now and then it emerges, and we act surprised, but I think until we have a genuine conversation about gender and race and about green—that‘s what Coach Stringer was trying to get at.

The fact is, in this country, the problem is not race or gender. The problem is that we will do anything to earn a dollar. And if it exploits people or hurts young people, it does not seem to matter as much.

GREGORY: Reverend Soaries, Jonathan Alter, and Dr. Sabiyha Prince all staying with us. We‘re going to take a short break and come back and continue this conversation. You are watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: I am the father of a daughter who is in college. I can guess at some of your rage and anger, but I can‘t know all of it. Can you really turn this into a positive and redemption? Can this be the lesson from this, some day?

STRINGER: I hope so. And I think that with all things that are bad, I do not think bad can overcome—I don‘t think that evil can overcome good. These young people are good. What he did was evil. But I need everybody‘s help. We need everybody‘s help.

GREGORY: That was C. Vivian Stringer, the coach of Rutgers, speaking to Brian Williams, who interviewed the players as well as Coach Stringer. You can see more of Brian‘s interview on NBC Nightly News on your NBC station later today.

We are back with “Newsweek‘s” Jonathan Alter, and Professor Sabiyha Prince, and the Reverend Soaries, who will moderate the meeting between Don Imus and the players from Rutgers. Jonathan Alter, you wanted to make a point. Go ahead.

ALTER: Well, I was just going to say that I think there is a kind of an interesting power relationship here that is also come into view. You know, Don Imus is a powerful broadcaster, at least he has been. And he will now be judged and his fate will determined by how these young politically powerless, until now, women react to him. And I think there‘s something that is exquisitely American about that. It is almost like a form of our jury system, where his fate will depend on how these young women react, what their view is toward redemption, towards punishment, towards some of these very complex and deep issues about how we deal with bad behavior and racist words in our society.

GREGORY: Professor Prince, do you think that there is a racial divide, in terms of how people evaluate this?

PRINCE: Undoubtedly, and that is something that I think probably disturbed me perhaps even more than the comments themselves. And what I‘m referring to would be the responses to people, in particular I have to say powerful white people in the media, and in politics, and particularly males. There has been this excuse, this discussion about, well, he is a friend of mine, and I don‘t think he a bad person. And I have to wonder if the ethnic group that was slurred in such a way was not African American, perhaps another group, perhaps another group that has a history of --

GREGORY: Jews, for instance?

PRINCE: That would be a good analogy I think. What would be the response from individuals like John McCain, individuals like Ed Schultz. Barbara Walters, I think, has weighed in. James Carville.

(CROSS TALK)

ALTER: He has done this kind of thing to Jews. I am Jewish. I have heard him call people, you know, in very unflattering terms—refer to our Jewish background. He hasn‘t done it to me, but I have heard him do to other people. It is in the nature of the show, so it is simply not accurate to say that if the show were on the other foot, and he were attacking other ethnic and religious groups, people would react differently.

What is different about this, just so we are really clear, and, I think, why this is really a problem, and why it was such a deplorable thing for him to say, is that on his show, when he goes after people, almost all of the time, it is powerful people in the media, in politics. They can take it. They are public figures. We want that robust debate, even when it does go a little bit over the line.

What is not acceptable is to do it to people who are powerless, who have done nothing wrong and are not public figures.

GREGORY: Reverend Soaries, let me ask you, you have talked to Imus. Do you think he gets it? Do you think he is surprised by some of the reaction or do you think he understands this?

SOARIES: I think he gets it now. The problem is he did not get it then, and when you get it retroactively, you can‘t withdraw the pain. In order to have a civil society, we must have moral consensus. And moral consensus then compels us to call a spade a spade, whether the spade is from our tribe or not.

I think our divide today is not between so much black and white, but between just a generic consensus over what is acceptable and unacceptable in civil society. When African-Americans become as angry about anti-Semitism as we are racism, then I think we are growing up. In America, we have not grown up, and we have allowed profit driven media to drive wedges between us. So we are living below our Homo Sapiens status.

GREGORY: And, Professor Prince, quick reaction to this: Imus‘s claim that has to be seen in the context of comedy.

PRINCE: It think that‘s completely absurd. First of all, he was not funny. So let‘s just start there. Comedy is no excuse to disparage people and to dehumanize people. And so I agree with the reverend that we need to arrive at some sort of standards. And let me just cut off at the knees folks who may want to make comparisons with perhaps the Chris Rocks and the Dave Chappelles. I think we‘re talking a little bit about apples and oranges, because these people are making political commentary and they are speaking historically from a place where people have not had the power to critique white people and to critique white privilege.

GREGORY: I just have to take a quick break here. We will come right back.

(CROSS TALK)

GREGORY: Reverend, I‘m sorry. I‘ve got to take a break here. We have a satellite issue, which is cutting us off a little bit. We‘re going to come back with our guests. You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP):

RUDY GIULIANI ®, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My reaction is it was wrong. It was very wrong. He has acknowledged that. I have to say that I generally feel about things like that, when people make big mistakes like that, what I look to is do they understand it, do they acknowledge it, do they seem to be really sorry for it, and are they going to make a pledge not to do it again. He seems to have done those things.

GREGORY: Rudy Giuliani today on the campaign trail, talking about Don Imus. I want to thank the Reverend Deforest Soaries, who we‘re going to lose. He‘s got another interview to do. He will moderate a meeting between Don Imus and the Rutgers women‘s basketball team. “Newsweek‘s” Jonathan Alter and American University Professor Sibiyha Prince are still with us.

Jonathan, let me start with you. As a kind of concluding point in this conversation, about what this incident tells us about the kind of conversation we need to have as Americans, about race and decency in our politics and in our public discourse. And by that I mean has there been a kind of defining down of decency, that has gone on to the point where it took something like this to be a tipping point to really wake people up and say, this is way out of bounds?

ALTER: Absolutely. You know, what happened is that we had the rise of what was called political correctness in the 1980s, and then there was a backlash against PC behavior. And everybody kind of said -- or lots of people said, hey, lighten up. You know, don‘t go to the ramparts every time somebody said something a little bit offensive or objectionable.

And so that mentality existed in this country for a long time, that

sort of lighten up, anti-PC mentality. Then something like this comes

along, where somebody says something that is not politically incorrect, but

actually much, much, much worst, and it reminds us that that backlash

against PC may have gone too far, and that the people who talk about

sensitivities to language within bounds have a real point. The question is

GREGORY: You know what, I am simply out of time. Jonathan Alter and Sibiyha Prince, thank you very much. Join us again tomorrow night at 5:00 and 7:00 eastern for more HARDBALL. Right now it‘s time for “TUCKER."