from south carolina. hope to see you then. "in the arena" starts right now. good evening. i'm eliot spitzer. welcome to the program. tonight's top story, the intersection of two criminal cases that shook the american sense of justice. the acquittal of casey anthony and the killing of her daughter, caylee and the case of dominique strauss-kahn. what do they have in common? both are cases that were overcharged and under estimated. prosecutors saw not justice, but political gain and public acclaim. both are reality shows designed for effect and high ratings. has our judicial system come to this and can it be saved?

in a moment, one of america's great legal scholars gives us his critique. first, a look at the other stories we'll drill down on tonight. getting away with murder. marsha clark was the lead prosecutor in the o.j. simpson case. >> not guilty of the crime of murder. she says finding casey anthony not guilty is even worse. rewriting the sacred words of the founding fathers. how dare anyone try. two great scholars say it's how the old boys would have wanted it. getting the inside scoop on madison and jefferson. then, dominique strauss-kahn isn't likely to face a jury in new york. one of the most prominent men in france weighs in on american justice. not a good week for prosecutors. the dominique strauss-kahn case unraveled.

casey anthony acquitted. do we need to rethink how high profile cases are initiated and how the media has its thumb on the scales of justice. my guest, allen is one of the most distinguished lawyers in the country and a professor at harvard law school. thrilled to have you on the set. are the cases, is it a coincidence or demonstrative of something deeper in our judicial system. >> it represents both. a deep functioning of the system. our system doesn't work at the beginning. we have elected prosecutors and elected judges. we tend to sensationalize cases in the beginning. we can't rush to judgment. the media tends to create black and white portraits of good and bad guys. in the end, the system works because the jury sorts out the good evidence from the bad

evidence as in the caylee anthony case. a good prosecutor like the prosecutor -- ultimately does the right thing. other prosecutors don't do the right thing. they bury evidence. he did the right thing. >> you are saying he rushed to judgment by initiating it then did what was ethically mandated and tough, not easy to declare the world. >> especially because he was so bad in the ginning, it was hard to be good at the end. >> let's separate two pieces. one might expect the media, which plays to a larger audience to pander, rush to judgment. we may dispair about it. harder to control. prosecutors, how do you limit or infuse into what they do some greater sense of hesitancy or judgment before the cases? >> first of all, we have the problem we are the only country

that elects prosecutors and makes them stand for re-election. you know that. good prosecutors can resist that temptation to pander to the public. weak prosecutors are always running for re-election. there's an institutional problem. the media, we have the first amendment. >> i want to push you a little more. one would almost say, yes, the election created pander. on the other hand, if you don't elect them, how are they chosen? if you put an enormous, the greatest power anybody has is to bring charges. the power to choose a prosecutor into a centralized zone isn't that worse? >> no. it depends on how you pick them. in england and israel and other countries, it's a civil service job. in israel, the state prosecutor, the attorney general is an appointment. it goes through a committee or

distinguished judges and lawyers who pick professional prosecutors. in some parts of the world, it's very political. each has its benefit and each has disadvantages. >> it sounds wonderful. i can see the ph.d. say we have a great system. doesn't that give the reigning elite who choose these great lawyers, they protect themselves. don't you get some element, take france. dominique strauss-kahn is charged. they are suppressed because they are elite. >> that's the disadvantage. one of the benefits is they are sensitive to the rights of children as in caylee anthony case and also sense toitive to poor women. i don't blame, in either case, the prosecutors for leaning over to make sure that in one case

the wealthy and powerful and the other case an adult woman doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. then you have to look hard and make sure that the evidence is valid that you have the kind of case and you don't overcharge and you wait to charge until the evidence has been tested. >> now, the charge in decision in european systems is not only civil but judges themselves run the investigation. is that preferable to what we have? >> it's more complicated. they are magistrate judges. they do investigations and decide which charges to bring. if they are good, they are very good. if they are subject to the thumb of the government, they are bad. take for example our military system. it's very professional. if we have command control, if the generals tell the prosecutors what to do, it's terrible. the jury serves as a filtering function. it's like a democracy. >> i see an inconsistency.

you love the jury system. i'm with you. i have been frustrated as a prosecutor with certain jury outcomes as we are with the casey anthony case. having said that, you love that democratic process but you don't trust it to pick the prosecutors. >> we need checks and balances. we need a mixed system. i would never abolish the system. 12 people picked off the street. i would prefer not to see prosecutors elected or if elected, not reelected. maybe one six-year term. especially if they are good. what you don't want is a prosecutor holding his finger up in the wind and worrying about re-election. it's bad enough the day congressmen are elected they are to worry about re-election. i think the mixed system, professional prosecutors, amateur democratic jurors is the best balance. >> we are not far off from what

we would aspire to? >> right. federal system is close to that. we have juries. we should separate out the political function in the justice department. the attorney general from the charging function. england has that. a director of public prosecution. >> let's talk about dominique strauss-kahn for a moment. you have particular critiques of what could make the system work better in terms of subjecting the evidence to more scrutiny. one issue has to do with releasing the name of the victim, why? >> when we have the combination of the perp walk and holding the name of the alleged victim. he's guilty as hell and she's the real victim. it shifts innocence. it denies the defense opportunity to get evidence that might help undercut the credibility of the alleged

victim. >> why? the defense notion? >> you can't put it in the paper. when we put the name out of the woman accusing mike tyson, without days we got the information she falsely accused someone of rape. in this case, had the person -- her name is still not revealed. on day three, all this information would have been known and the prosecutor would have said wait a minute, maybe we can't prosecutor. there's a downside to it. the downside is you don't want to discourage real rape victims from coming forward. you also don't want to treat women the way we treat children. the only group's names we with hold is children. rape is like murder and assault. we put their names forward. they are adults. when they are adults, they have to have themselves treated, not

like children. it's sexist to treat them like children. >> they are fair arguments. you state them exquiz italy. the second is victimization of the victim. >> if she's a real victim. >> by the way, we should create an atmosphere where the person is not victimized when she comes forward as a rape victim. we are not people who come from those cultures which we have honor killings. if you are raped, we are honoring you. we are going to get justice. people should not be ashamed to come forward and explain they have been a victim of this violence. >> allen, always so much fun and fascinating to have you here. author of "trails of zion," great book. george washington was first in the hearts of countrymen. lynn kon freed the slaves. today's politicians can barely keep us from going broke.

can the bar hit any lower? would deliver t&t ae our next generation mobile broadband experience to 55 million more americans, many in small towns and rural communities, giving them a new choice. we'll deliver better service, with thousands of new cell sites... for greater access to all the things you want, whenever you want them. it's the at&t network... and what's possible in here is almost impossible to say. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ look at that car, well, it goes fast ♪ ♪ givin' my dad a heart attack ♪ [ friend ] that is so awesome. ♪ i love my car [ engine revving ] [ male announcer ] that first chevy, yea, it gets under your skin. ♪ even if you think your mattresses is just fine,

ask me what it's like to get your best night's sleep every night. why not talk to someone who's sleeping on the most highly recommended bed in america.™ it's not a sealy or a simmons or a serta. ask me about my tempur-pedic. ask me how fast i fall asleep. these are actual tempur-pedic owners. ask someone you know. try your friends on facebook. you'll hear it all. unedited. ask me how it feels after 10 years. just ask me. there are over 4 million tempur-pedic owners, and they're more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand. ask me why someone who's never had an ache or a pain is in love with this bed. start asking real owners. find out what you've been missing. right now, you can buy a tempur-pedic mattress set and save up to $200. plus, take advantage of our 4 years spial financing. visit tempurpedic.com for full details on our mattress set savings event and 4 years special financing. don't wait-offer ends soon. visit tempurpedic.com now.

the casey anthony trial was arguably the most watched trial since o.j. simpson. yesterday's not guilty verdict

sent shock waves. after watching both cases play out, they thought anthony and simpson were guilty. one woman said yesterday's acquittal was worse than simpson's. she should know. she was the head prosecutor in the o.j. simpson murder case and wrote the book "guilt by association." marsha, thank you for joining us. why was this worse? >> it was worse in the sense that it was much more shocking. a lot of foreshadowing the tell us there were going to be problems. long before we picked a jury, within weeks of the preliminary hearing, they convened a meeting with the family of the victims saying do not expect a conviction here. it may be the best we can hope for is a hung jury. there's a lot of reason to understand things may not turn

out the way we expect them to and the evidence dictates it should be. in this case, there was no foreshadowing. you don't have a nationally recognized football hero who appeared in commercials and movies. you don't have the racial part of it. it can very well skew a verdict. this is a woman who was unknown. the case came out, the facts came out as they did. it played out in a way that was incendiary until the opening statements. by that time, the jury heard the allegations made by jose baez. they didn't hear all the speculating of the truth and not truth of the allegations. there was much less in the way of a fair verdict. i thought it was compelling. a lot of people are doubting the strength of the case. i don't doubt it. i heard it come out at the time. a lot of people agreed it was a

compelling case. some degree of homicide. it was shocking to see that all homicide was down as not guilty. >> interesting that you as the prosecutor of the o.j. case almost suggesting it had flaws you understood. jeff, do you buy this critique? >> no. i don't. you know, i watched marsha throughout the trial, i thought she proved that case beyond a reasonable doubt. i think the o.j. simpson verdict was far more shocking and more wrong than the casey anthony verdict. i really did think the casey anthony verdict was based on the evidence. there you had a case with no cause of death. no motive. no time of death. all of which were completely present and obvious in the simpson case. there was no doubt of how the

two defendants or victims died in the simpson case. there was abundant dna evidence. i don't have to persuade marsha clark that o.j. was guilty. i think this case was a lot tougher. it was a lot more questionable. >> let me come back to you. in some of the writing you have done since the verdict came out, you made a distinction of reasonable doubt. all three of us have been prosecutors, you try to describe it to people. reasonable doubt is one thing, reason to doubt is different. describe how you have created this distinction. i think it's a powerful one. >> what i have always seen the defense do and whether or not it succeeds has to do with the juries mind set. the defense will give the jury a reason to doubt. some guy did it. another guy made me do it or i was forced to do it.

a reason to doubt. that does not equate to reasonable doubt. a reason does not mean reasonable. the distinction can get lost. reasonable doubt is an elastic concept. a jury that gets nervous about the importance of their verdict can translate one to another and take any reason to mean a reasonable doubt. i think it's what happened here. >> let me jump in here. tv time is short. one of the jurors in an interview made the statement, which is accurate, no doubt. look, we thought the prosecution had a powerful case, just not beyond a reasonable doubt. reference has been made where the choice is presented to the jury, guilty, not guilty or the third one, not proven. the scottish system, not proven. jeff, does that make sense to you? >> no. all our prisons are overcrowded.

one thing every prisoner has in common is they were convicted under a standard of reasonable doubt or they pled guilty. the idea this is an unsurmountable mountain is silly. in certain cases the jury finds not guilty. 80% to 90% of cases end in conviction. i don't think it's a standard unfair to prosecution. sometimes the defense wins, that's fine. >> you have been a journalist too long. marcia, do you think there's utility to not moving? do you think not proven is a useful standard to have? >> i do. i don't think it's a bad thing to give them an alternative. does it change anything? that's the bottom line. i wrote that in the article in the "daily beast." what difference does it make. if a jury finds somebody not

proven, it's the same as not guilty. the only difference is the maybe tiny 100/1000 where if you have a not proven over not guilty. >> i have to say, i have never heard of that finding of factual innocence. have you seen that in a courtroom? >> i have. as a matter of fact it happened in the case of jeannie adair accused of killing her husband. it had her problems, no doubt. she went before the judge asked for a finding. the judge gave it to her, the finding of factual innocence. the prosecution appealed it. the court of appeal knocked it down saying there wasn't enough evidence. she does not deserve it. it's a rare thing. >> i have never encountered it. so be it.

another fact to story away. mar marcia you have commented on the two cases giving discomfort to people. does it make you challenge the jury system? >> it doesn't. the jury system is flawed, of course. people are flawed. you have a system that involves people, it's going to be flawed. if you come up with a better one, i would be glad to go with it. flawed as it is, it's the best system we have. >> jeffrey, do you share that view? >> i agree. >> the cardinal sin in the caylee case was overcharge? >> overcharge. it's discorrection. we have to have prosecutors who recognize it's important not to get overly -- fall too much in love with your own cases. it's a problem anyone has in your business. you get too -- you identify too closely. in this case, ask for the death

penalty. not only not justified by the facts, but hurt the whole case in front of the jury. i thought it was a big mistake. on the other hand, i have to say distilling it down, we listen to the shrill conversation. a definite sense that despite it all, the system has worked. hard to say after this week. somehow the system worked. thank you for joining us. up next, leadership in washington. it's as rare as intelligent conversation from cable television. or when you're distracted? when you're falling asleep at the wheel? do you know how you'll react? lexus can now precisely test the most unpredictable variable in a car -- the driver. when you pursue perfection, you don't just engineer the world's most advanced driving simulator. you engineer amazing. ♪

you engineer amazing. woman: saving for our child's college fund was getting man: yes it was. so to save some money, we taught our 5 year old how to dunk. woman: scholarship! woman: honey go get him. anncr: there's an easier way to save. get online. go to geico.com. get a quote. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

we avoided total bankruptcy, wow. that's now the pathetic goal that our elected officials on both sides seem ready to settle

for. it's a new low for american politics. in the early '90s, a senator declared america had defined dooef yen si down. in today's washington post, they apply that concept. by setting such minimal goals, he's totally right. is there any way out? i'm joined by david gergen from buffalo, new york. thanks for joining us. >> thanks, it's good to be with you, again. >> is he right in envoking the famous phrase, are we defining democracy down that somehow we have lost sight of grander objectives? >> matt miller is a friend of mine as well and a former colleague. he's written a number of wise things. this is one of the columns that i think is his best. he's taken daniel patrick

moynihan who he has argument defined social behavior down some years ago. it applies to our politics. he's got a point. certainly the american people believe that. polls show two-thirds of american people think we are suffering from bad leadership. three quarters said we are in decline as a nation. >> is there an answer? is there a way out? how do you begin to ratchet the bar back up when we have, you know, as matt says in the column, a week from now or two weeks from now champaign bottles being opened up in washington for a celebration because they managed to raise the debt ceiling. it's hardly a manifesto for facing the larger problems. how do you reset expectations to demand more of government? >> it's an interesting question. first of all, it is critical that we overt a catastrophe. that means we need an agreement. the white house comes to an

agreement tomorrow. there's a lot of talk today, dodges and things like that. both sides saying they are willing to compromise. let's see. we can't look at rhetoric. we have to see if we get a hard deal that lowers the debt ceiling and convinces the credit agencies like standard and poors and moodies and we have a credible plan. otherwise, they are going to downgrade the credit ratings. please, go ahead. >> i'm with you on that. i'm in that camp. those trying to portray an apocalyp apocalypse. they are giving an accurate image. it's a dangerous moment. i want to hear your answer to how we address the structural issues that i think are the deeper, long term crisis. >> i don't think we are going to restore confidence. it's taken a long time to get

into this hole and have the kind of erosion we see. it's going to require a series of effort on the port of the white house and the congress in our political leadership in the state to take one step at a time to climb out of the hole. that means we need to do it on the debt ceiling and energy, housing, immigration, on the whole series of things. and on the creation of jobs because unless we get growth going in this economy, if we remain divided as we are now, poisoned, paralyzed polarized politics, i can just -- i have been in talks the last few days with a lot of fine people and i can tell you, the people are aching for leadership. they are just yearning for someone who will step forward. one of the things we discussed was when we were in early republic, we were -- we only had

3 million people in the country and we produced world class leaders, washington, franklin, hamilton, jeffreys adams. here we are 300 million people and we struggle to find a world-class leader. >> where you have been is a wonderful gathering where people come to hear folks like you who can explain what is going on in the world. it's a center for study and thoughtful conversation, which we don't have enough of in this nation. when i look at the structure that is have bridaled and handcuffed our decision making i look at the filibuster. we have every two years out of four are dedicated to a new presidential election. we have not permitted the process of decision making to become thoughtful. can we remedy those issues as well? >> you know, you are a lawyer.

you are wise in the law. there are structural issues that have to be overcome. before you get there, you have to restore a healthy political culture. you have to rebuild a culture in which people are willing to say i'm a strong democrat or republican but first and foremost, i'm a strong american. i care about the country. we are going to find ways to solve problems, not find ways to throw spitballs at each other or appeal to our basis going on in the debt reduction talks. we have to find the -- create an environment that brings forward statesmen and stateswomen who are going to put the country before partisanship. i think if you change the culture, you can change the process. it's impossible to change the process until you change the culture. >> it's interesting you say that. certainly, it's the case that early on in this nation, when

you had all of them, they did manage to bridge chasms that were id logically different. they managed to come together around documents and policy that is were so instrumental in our growing nation. you look at the litany of what we are facing you have gone through it before. not one of them has had any meaningful set of policies to confront it over ten years. you begin to wonder if we are mired in something. >> i agree with that. if you go back to the early days, one of the most important compromises made was struck over dinner one night because of state debts and whether the national government would be able to assume those debts in change for what hamilton wants. he had the capitol moved to the south. that's how it became washington, d.c. it was a compromise by people who were hard headed. they came together for the common good.

it's what we don't have a sense of now. people taking positions on the deficit, but how many are standing up saying this is for the sake of the country. we have -- each side has to give here. i believe strongly we need to reduce spending. spending is out of control. i also believe people who are affluent in this country, i happen to be one of them. i know a lot of affluent people prepared to step up and pay more taxes as long as they are getting a straight deal from the government as long as they will reduce spending and get rid of special interest and unnecessary subsidies. then a lot of people are going to do their share and step up. >> i think you are exactly right about that. we have ten seconds. you refer the famous compromise. wouldn't it be better if the capital were in new york? come on, tell the truth. >> no, no. i'm from north carolina, we like

it where it is. >> just not washington. >> that's right. thanks for being here. >> people wanted to send their best to you. >> david, thank you so much. always a pleasure having you on the show. coming up, mark twain said everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it. same could be said for the u.s. constitution. obviously, mark twain never saw -- i can afford to visit my folks for the holidays. and reconnect with my girlfriends in vegas. because i get ridiculously low prices on all my trips. you see, when hotels have unsold rooms, they use hotwire to fill them, so i get 4-star hotels for up to half off. now i can afford a romantic trip to new orleans. hi honey! ♪ h-o-t-w-i-r-e... ♪ hotwire.com agents, what did we learn here today? that lint balls are extremely flammable... ...that's why it's important to regularly clean and inspect your vents.

correct. [ male announcer ] we are insurance. ♪ we are farmers ♪ bum, ba-da-bum, bum, bum, bum ♪

rarely that has constitution been at the heart of politics like it is today to the claim the health care reform act violates mandates. what the constitution actually means, that question stirs all americans. here to put it into context, two of the smartest minds out there. two of my favorite guests. fareed zakaria and columbia

university historian simon. gentlemen, welcome and thank you for being here. simon, let me start with you. back to the days of hamilton and jefferson. what the constitution meant in terms of government power has been at the vortex of debate. >> absolutely. the miracle is hamilton represented jefferson of what government could do they ever collaborated enough. both of them, it's a lesson for us, we are prepared to sink that fundmental difference of what american government was. that put on hold, the issue is the hot button issue for us now. is it actually in the best tradition of american politics to take a relatively expansive view of what government could do or is government only entitled to do those things which were

enumerated. >> give us, in your best minimalist way, hamilton's sense of -- >> it's important to hear from the genius rogue alexander hamilton now. he's not getting a hearing. his view was there are going to be circumstances. he had the true vision of america. it was industrial and commercial power. hamilton said, what we meant by the general welfare in article one section eight and what we mean by the necessary clause of powers of government to make the enumeration happen is we cannot foresee what congress, not what the executive would do, what congress needs to legislate on. >> fareed what would happen to this nation if hamilton's vision hadn't won? >> it's impossible to invision.

it was written by men in wigs who own property and slaves in a country that numbers 4 million. they did not know the existence of the cotton gin let alone the army like we know it today. hamilton saw a great industrial superpower. jefferson's vision was agricultural. i would add one more thing in terms of, if the constitution means anything, which is in some ways a strange term. the founders fought and disagreed. there was one thing they were all very impressed by. that was the classical republican virtues. the constitution was written because the articles of federation produced a two-week central government. they were worried about the fact there was no space for public virtue and the proper handling of government debt.

it's why they brought together a stronger government and talked a great deal about republican virtue. they were not so hard on individualism. they were more concerned about the common good. the most important thing they did was to write a short document. the reason the constitution has endured and so many other constitutions haven't, is because it is short, which means we fill it in with practice, with historical experience. it is a version of english constitution. they point out britain has no constitution. they have an accumulated set of practices. in that sense, that was the genius of the constitution. they understood, don't overdo it. >> let me jump to the question at the heart of the debate. the word originalism. people say we must interpret the constitution as understood by those who drafted it. a, does that make sense and then, more suddenly, how do those who drafted it understand

our ability to add interpretations based upon new dynamics, facts and situations? well, originalism cannot be among the concept. as fareed said, i think the three of us agree, the glory of that was the intensity of its dispute. disputes were never allowed to be so ferocious that they called, as some do, for a virtual obliteration of the other party. they did not demonize each other and say i'm the real american. you are a form of crumby european trader. they could have done it to hamilton. hamilton wanted to improve exactly as fareed says, this is going to get us in trouble. improve the british state and make it free. the british state was a money

anied corrupt system. hamilton rebelled against that. he wanted to take the practical wisdom from power, finance and political justice and make it better. >> bring that back to the interpretation of the document itself. >> i think, again, not to preempt it, but as you said, the founding fathers in all their disputes and disagreements were children of the enlightenment. it was to understand how thinking about power and government and get principles moved on from there and moved on from the renaissance. it was in their dna, horrible creature to feel things would move on again. their generosity was to organically provide for the constitution exactly as you said, to flower, bloom and change and mutate as

circumstances. >> do we see that in the writings of time. the founders themselves understood the words just on the page themselves would not deal with the crises we would have to deal with. >> what you can say is jefferson's views on slavery. he felt this was a reck onning that had to come. many people at the time recognized that there were major issues that were unfinished. the nation was just being founded. the united states is unusual that we became a state before we became a nation. most countries, the german's, french they were nations long before they became states. in america you first created a state, a founding documendocumen americans. nobody knew how it would play out. there was a sense of uncertainty. the idea it was going to be a

biblical document is nowhere in the founders conceptions. what's striking about it, by the way, at the time to have written such a secular document as the constitution. really, there's not a word about religion at a time when everything was about religion. >> hold that thought. we are going to come back for more on that topic. we'll be right back. ve the future of business. in here, inventory can be taught to learn. ♪ machines have a voice. ♪ medical history follows you. it's the at&t network -- a network of possibilities... committed to delivering the most advanced mobile broadband experience to help move business... forward. ♪

we like to go the extra mile for our clients. with the wassman family, it was 2,500 extra miles. we're the wassman family from skagway, alaska. livin' so far out and not havin' a bank within 90 miles... i was runnin' into dead ends. happened to come across quicken loans online. [ chris ] walked over to the computer... i was able to see all the paperwork. while i was on the phone, i was able to go through the checklist. [ kathy ] they were quick and efficient. quicken loans is definitely engineered to amaze. they were just really there for us. took some crazy risks as a kid. but i was still over the edge with my cholesterol. anyone with high cholesterol may be at increased risk of heart attack. diet and exercise weren't enough for me.

i stopped kidding myself. i've been eating healthier, exercising more, and now i'm also taking lipitor. if you've been kidding yourself about high cholesterol...stop. 80% of people who have had heart attacks have high cholesterol. lipitor is a cholesterol lowering medication, fda approved to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients who have heart disease or risk factors for heart disease. [ female announcer ] lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems and women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. you need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. tell your doctor if you are taking other medications or if you have any muscle pain or weakness. this may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. great ride down. if you have high cholesterol, you may be at increased risk of heart attack and stroke. don't kid yourself. talk to your doctor about your risk and about lipitor.

welcome back. still with us, fareed zakaria and simon. is it historical? does it misinterpret what this constitution has been for the entirety of our nation's history? >> well, i think they are right to recognize that america is unique and it has, at its core a document about political ideas.

we should cherish them and debate them. where they are wrong is thinking it points in one simple monolithic direction. it is a brief document that allows you to fill in the blanks over the last 222 years, filled with disagreements from the founding fathers onwards. the idea you can magically say the constitution says this, what would madison have said about modern drug policy, who knows. the world they knew was so different. of course you have to, you know, whether you call it modernize it or interpret it differently. of course you do. >> there is one good thing that could happen out of the tea party. i agree with fareed, when talking act what they had in mind, we are talking extremely polarized debate. the good thing that could happen would be, i think, since we are now faced with moments in american history when a radical

polarization are two halves of the country with different views about what the federal government should be, let us have not literally a constitutional convention, just a great convection of debate on that subject. sure as hell we will not get it in the election next year. >> i don't think americans think the constitution left us with peculiar ideas. the senate is probably the most undemocratic, the most unrepresented upper house in the world. >> because of the allocations. each state gets two votes regardless of how many, 36 million people in california, half a million in wyoming. >> people who own property should have 72 votes for every one vote of people who don't. people in wyoming have 72 votes

for every vote of people in california have. it's in complete violation. >> let me end this conversation by saying the debate about the constitution and the education about the constitution that we all need is what folks get by listening to you and understanding the historical roots of the document than the linear document we hear of. folks thanks so much. great to have you here. what a joy to be with them. up next, dominique strauss-kahn isn't home free. even if he does go home, more charges could be waiting. will it keep him from being france's next president? i'll ask bernard. stay tuned. just stay off the freeways, all right? i don't want you going out on those yet.

and leave your phone in your purse, i don't want you texting. >> daddy... ok! ok, here you go. be careful. >> thanks dad. >> and call me--but not while you're driving. we knew this day was coming. that's why we bought a subaru. ♪ [ doug ] i got to figure this out. ♪ [ dr. ling ] i want to spend more time with my patients. [ jim ] i need to build a new app for the sales team in beijing. [ mrs. davis ] i need to make science as exciting as a video game. ♪ [ jim ] i need to push out a software upgrade. [ dr. ling ] review ms. cooper's history. [ doug ] i need to cut i.t. costs. [ mrs. davis ] i need to find a way to break through. [ jim ] i need to see my family while they're still awake. [ dr. ling ] see if the blood work is ready. [ doug ] i need to think about something else when i run. ♪ [ male announcer ] every day, we set out to do more than the day before. at dell, everything we do,

from solutions to services, gives you the power to do just that. ♪ so i.t. professionals can be more productive... business leaders, more innovative... doctors can be more connected to patients... and teachers have the power to make a difference. dell. the power to do more.

as we have reported, prosecutors in the dominique strauss-kahn case say they are not ready to drop charges despite the fact the case is crumbling before their eyes. he now faces new charges of rape in france. meanwhile, bernard wants his long-time friends honor restored by the american justice system. he's been a leading voice in defending dominique

strauss-kahn. i spoke with him earlier from paris in his first tv interview since questions surfaced about the hotel maid's accusations. >> thank you so much for joining us. you have, from the very beginning been the most fervent devout defender of strauss-kahn. so it is clear, the district attorney here in new york county has not dropped the case and is in fact continuing to investigate. they say there are flaws in the witnesses background and credibility, they have not, at this point, concluded anything she said about her relationship with dominique strauss-kahn is false. do you believe she fabricated it or there are credibility issues that derrive from her past. >> wait a few days, you will see. all this, the balloon will

explode. what i believe from the very first minute is that this story was impossible. dominique strauss-kahn could absolutely not do that. i know him. he's my friend. i know him since a long time. i knew that it was made up. i suspected it very, very strongly. they did not only defend my friend strauss-kahn, i defend a principle which is holy, sacred, which is the presumption of innocence. what happened? it's a pity for americans, too. the presumption of innocence was destroyed and mocked in this affair. dominique strauss-kahn was guilty before an examination. he was guilty because he was not in it at all. since the very first minute, he

was a symbol. when you have a symbol, this is no longer the american what they praise so heavily and so much. >> let me switch back to the french judicial system for a moment. new charges have been filed, somewhat similar allegations in france. how do you make sense of that? is that a figment of somebody's imagination? is it an effort to pile on? how are we here in the united states to make sense of the second charge brought against dominique strauss-kahn? >> as far as i am concerned, i have a strong suspicion that it is made up, again. we will see. what i can tell you is that dominique strauss-kahn will probably not have a gain. the jacket, falling of the

shoulder, all this comedy, all this treatment which is reserved to a great terrorist. the way the imf acted. the way the imf asked him to dismiss, resign without knowing anything. the imf was maids who demonstrated. shame on you. shame on you. you have the maids and you have the beaurocracy of the imf saying the same, shame on you. >> some of your most pointed and many people think legitimate criticisms related to the american media. it spared no opportunity, no chance to pile on to lacerate and destroy the reputation of dominique strauss-kahn. the first amendment is sacred. the first amendment that permits the press to do that. many view it as the mechanism by

which we control and restrain those who are too powerful in government or elsewhere. how would you suggest? what is your answer to the problem if you begin to restrain the media. don't you end up with government that knows no boundaries? >> no. i don't believe in restrain. i believe in market. i hope that the writers of new york post and daily news will know from now the newspapers are not readable. i hope that they will send a real warning to these newspapers who say black one day and white the other day. this is not serious. there is a real necessity of self-examination. same in france. we did the same. we have the same press. we have now the need of self-examination and the newspapers before anyone.

>> all right. >> it is raining in paris, i'm sorry. >> that's all right. always enjoy to hear your passion and intellect. thank you for joining us. >> passion for america. passion for america. >> we know that. thank you sir. >> bye-bye. >> dhl is always entertaining. in this case, he's proven correct. that's it for tonight. this is my last program. the best way to sign off is with a quotation from theodore roosevelt. it is the passage we took the title of the program "in the arena." here it is. it is not the critic who counts or the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds does it pert. it's the man in the arena whose face is marred by sweat and blood who errors and comes up short again and again becaus