house. he was also trying to protect the f.b.i., and people forget about this. he was not a volunteer. he didn't come to us. we went to him. and i actually was -- you used the term "stalker." to get him to talk. >> there is another fundamental flaw in this book. bob may not be as forthright about it as i am. that is the idea that somehow he played us, that he tricked us into something. nonsense. that we obtained information all over the lot. it was rare that he volunteered information. he would occasionly confirm it. but certainly the idea that he played us is utter noun nonsense because the stories turned out to be true. the people that got played were the prosecutors. they really got played. partly because the assistant attorney general and the

attorney general of the united states were in on the play. . it is the totemic investigative story. >> how old were you? >> i was 3 and 4. 3. but i'm 43 years old. so everything is compared to it, so i think it's the same for me as everyone else has talked. it's funny.

maybe this is generational. it has always been difficult for me to grasp how the initial story -- i get the "holy shit" moment for you guys. but even if it's something totally coincidental -- what i think about most is the way digital reporting breaks the news cycle. from our own experience, even more than breaks the news cycle, that the way the newspaper business ran four years ago with extras in extreme cases, it is a wants a bite of the apple.

there's a series of things a falloff from that. one is that no matter which have, it has to be framed in to two or three basic format of newspaper journalism. the way that things are the most different in my mind are the ways that operating on the web freesia from that. -- freeze you from that. as long as we know it's accurate, we can go right to press with it. we are not bound into that cycle and in my experience, it's great and you don't have to worry about scrutiny, but it also creates a much more interactive relationship with the audience, and i think that can be transformative. >> do you see a downside to that all?

>> there are many potential downsides. in as much as the competition we face today, that there is tremendous pressure to run with things before you got them down. i don't think that's inherit. >> let me throw up to ideas here. was there any story you think we would have done better to rush into the paper on this cycle? can you think of a single one that would have made a difference if we would have jammed it? >> that the thing, i'm describing something different. stories are reported in a basically different way. you have stories with many individual component parts to them. >> real time. >> it's not just the ability to

rush. >> i think there is a positive side to it and i think there's also a downside. you have to step back and say what is the goal? the goal of understanding. if we had gone to bradley and say we have one fact, he would have looked at us and said "get the fuck out of my office." [laughter] >> everybody learned a new word. >> and then we would tweet that. >> 140 characters. what is interesting about the process is we would to a draft. we would write on 6 ply paper and copies would go out to people. there were no computers.

sometimes editors would meet with us and if we got this story, is it ready? get more sources, get more information, i don't understand x and y. it was that process of delay that allowed us -- he never said we're not printing that story. >> i think that process can happen in a different fashion in this platform. there are two or three big parts of the u.s. attorney is story -- am sure they are true but we did not have it. there are many things we waited days or weeks, things that had to do with the dismissal of carol lamb. >> but your first story, how long did take for the reporting to get done? >> before you went live with it. >> two or three days. >> it was not a tweet.

>> there was no tweeting. you can still have that very collaborative process in a different platform. the point i would make is that there are -- you can have a broad arc of a story, but even a resignation happens -- a resignation is a self-contained story. you want to let readers in on it. there are incremental bits of information that allows you to have an ongoing conversation with the readers. >> there are two kinds of investigative reporting. this is one of the legacies of watergate. there is what i would call scandal coverage which is fast

moving, very public, 1000 reporters are calling over the same information. then there are the longer-term, very quiet, the liberty of investigations that are done. the pulitzer's will be out next week, the kinds of things that win pulitzers. dave barry famously calls them megaturds. the current environment takes you in two directions. watergate was a running investigation where you are trying to get things, but you're also taking the time to nail them down. >> i think we have to talk about the current environment because the dominant fact of the current environment is the way the information is being received. the readers and viewers are

very different today. we had a readership that is much more open to real fact than today. there is a huge audience partly whipped into shape by this 24- hour cycle that's looking for information to confirm their already-held political, religious, prejudices', believes, and ideologies. that is the cauldron into which all of this information is put. we had a bit of that. they tried to make our conduct in the press the issue and it worked for a while and they called us democrats and said bradley was a well-known liberal and all the rest. it did not work anymore. i have no doubt there are great reporters out there in news organizations that could do this story.

what i don't think -- i'm not so sure it would withstand this cultural reception that it might get ground up in the process. >> i don't think that's the problem. the question is what you have the institution? if you go back and look at this from the perspective of 40 years ago, the risk was bradley's and katharine graham's. they were the ones who were in peril. if it didn't check out, carl could have gone to cover rock music, something he wanted to do. i could have gone to the dark side and gone to law school. but they were the ones who had on the line.

>> "the washington post" had gone public credit that point. the nixon administration decided on the strategy of going after the tv licenses of the washington post to get the basic economic health of the company. this was a huge undertaking of courage on the part of the "washington post." >> the stock had just gone public and it was in the toilet. >> could i ask you to do something for me? you were 29 years old when this happened, he stayed in the news business and have got lots more experience. you are aware of the existing political climate and news climate. you have had a long, distinguished career since that moment. it's a beautiful day out there and markets has sent the entire staff home. the phone call has just come in

that says there's a break in and your the only people on earth who can cover it. what do you do today? what is the first thing you are going to do today and what's the next thing? >> hopefully we would be smarter and more organized and quite frankly work harder and more focused on that. maybe it's not the sort of story like watergate. not everyone is. some of the really great investigations are explanations of who people are, what they have done, what institutions mean and so forth. no one goes to jail. someone does not have to go to jail. >> one thing about an institution -- in those first

days, he was in the court room and i was going to florida to track the burglars to learn about their past, we have a guy at police headquarters at night to learn from a detective that howard hunt had in his pocket a notebook. in that note but, there was eight -- there was a notebook that said it bought the house. >> he said that could only mean one of two things. [laughter] he called the courthouse and i called the white house. -- he called a whore house and i called applied house. [laughter] >> you guys are the models for us, who were the models for you? wasn't mean as amateurs -- it jack anderson or did you

create your own model is you went along? >> i grew up at the "washington star." it had the most remarkable of staff at reporters -- staff of reporters. what we did that watergate was the kind of thing the started repeatedly. -- that the stark did it repeatedly. >> it people like david halberstam, the work he had done, the vietnam reporters, there was a lot of suspicion about that. but seeing we're asking the question what should we think about 40 years after this, one of the questions we should ask is to be no blood is going on

now? how plug in are we at the d.c. city council out in montgomery county? the state legislature, the white house, the food and drug administration and so forth. the people at these institutions, even the reporters at the post to file multiple times a day. you are unnecessarily beholden to people at the white house you have to talk to to get a response to the running daily story. they don't like what you do.

they just don't call you back and have you out hanging. one of the big important papers here, i said when is the last time you wrote something in your paper, the obama -- when was the last time you wrote something in your paper the obama administration didn't like? he could not think of anything. the question is what should we worry about? we should worry about secret government. there's more secrecy, it's better organized, it is concealed better and -- it doesn't mean it's necessarily illegal, but the judge who said it got right -- democracies die in darkness. i do not have the kind of confidence that you would hope about are we penetrating, are we describing these institutions at all levels. >> the president said an interesting thing today. he basically challenge the people in the audience to go

out and find out if what he was saying was true. i think he laid something out -- we know what he said today is going to be the basis of his campaign in terms of his domestic and economic message. i i think it's real question whether we will go out there and determine whether what he said is the truth. there was an awful lot he asserted today that this checkable. if your newspaper is in cleveland, you can go to the ohio senator who is a republican and say was obama telling the truth? >> said that could be my next book. >> the most important thing we do is determine what is news. >> the environment is very fast

moving and fluid and dynamic, but it is not shallow. and there are many levels and it could take your to get the story and we do a heck of a lot of stories pass off the administration, the congress -- stories that piss off the administration and congress. >> but are there enough? are you comfortable there are enough of the stories? >> i'm comfortable with the commitment that a place like the post has. they put their money where their mouth is. the willingness, are they still willing to put their money where their mouth is? there is every level of engagement -- >> amanda, what about where you are? what's the commitment to

investigative journalism? >> one of the things i'm thinking is despite the talk is how little has actually changed. how very similar it seems, the process you are describing, coming in on sunday, the fact you did not know that watergate was watergate. it was not watergate when you started. you just followed a string. so much of that seems exactly the same. the you disagree? >> -- do you disagree? the internet has changed everything and the internet has changed nothing. bob has a famous saying recess someone needs to go out in the night and knock out the door. you need to find a source, the need to find a document, you need to be honest pursuit of the truth.

the methods are internal and ancient. we have computer-assisted reporting, multi platforms, we can get the word out faster and use social media. but the heart and center of the game remains the type of reporting these guys did. >> one of the points looming over this whole conversation, what's different and what's possible and not possible, how much of that process was based on the fact that most cities -- not a monopoly in terms of a news monopoly, but the newspaper business was basically characterized by geographical monopolies or duopolies? >> it was not at the time. we had huge competition from the "washington star" and "new york times."

>> i remember talking with don grandpa's mother, kathryn in 1977 or 1978, a number of years after watergate. she said we had a good business year, we made millions of dollars. i said i thought it was a pretty good news year. she said that doesn't make any difference. i remember going to bend and crying and saying what you mean? she said it doesn't make any difference in what she meant is they have a monopoly that if there were lots of good stories in the paper, you would not sell more newspapers or advertising but what she said and what she did and what the current leadership at the post does this is we're going to

spend the money on having a news organization, reporters and editors that will go the extra mile. >> i think it functions on the editorial and business sides. the fact that you talked about how many reporters are on the investigative side -- it's no secret to anybody here -- the loss of classified ads, this aggregation of news and advertising, it's very similar on the editorial side. it goes to different kinds of competition. the fact that other mediums play into what is purely a print space. to me, that's the most interesting perspective.

the way the practice of journalism has been changed by the destruction of those monopolies. >> do you think it is possible that the institutional change we have seen, the diet before the internet of the sensational, manufactured controversy, the course and a vulgar -- and hardly a prude, but the change in what we put on the air and into our papers before the web, that there is i think there was already a huge shift under way -- i did a piece called "the triumph of idiot culture" in 1990 and the influence of murdoch. the dye at that most media

outlets -- the diet that most media outlets started putting out before the internet -- despite all of this talk about everybody gone to journalism school and imitating this methodology, i'm not sure that's where the effort when on the part of the management. >> i think there was that trend before these things, but if you talk about it yet culture, look a bit newspaper world in 1900. a lot of idiot culture and a lot less monopolistic. >> if carl and i are too young reporters working for you, what do you want? we knew what bradley wanted, good stories, keep going, take the risks. >> we had the first part of our site that we opened up when we started hiring original reporters was dedicated to

investigative journalism. it was called "the nutcracker. -- it was called "the muckrakers." >> we were talking about this before, this group assembled here -- when they were doing the movie version of "all the president's men" de decided to hire jason robards to play bradley. they decided they looked alike and they offered him the part -- this is in the mid '70s and they said we will pay you $50,000 and that was great. i'm going to get $50,000 and they gave him the script and he went home and read the script and came into the director and the actors and he says i can't play ben bradlee. they said why? he says i read the script and

all he does is run around and says "where is the fucking story." and they said that's what the editor of the "washington post" does. all you have to do is find 15 different ways to say "where is the fucking story." >> i was just thinking about all of the changes and the previous thing before watergate and somehow it becomes intimidating if we think we are supposed to be swinging for watergate every time we do something. i was thinking some place in the room i hope is another very

young person who took on another big institution that probably in her world was every bit as the president which was the young reporter who broke the story at penn state. a small paper, no big resources, a young woman and a debt think she was calling on was right in front of your face -- the thing she was calling on was right in front of your face. i don't know that it takes the big staff we are talking about. you were to people, there's a staff but it only takes one. >> that's why you have to create the incentive for the reporters to feel you are saying where's the story? >> that's what i'm saying. not sure it has changed all that much. >> i hope you are right.

this is the importance of the family-owned newspaper. even once it goes public, having that role where it goes beyond pure business aspects of the newspaper. >> there's no question there's less investigative reporting across the country. there were 40 entries from 29 legacy papers. 10 years ago, there were 110. >> some of that is just real reporting on the communities. >> i'm going to guess that some of you might have a question. i think we have time for water to questions. just ask the questions. >> a two-part question -- did you guys ever fight over the big issues during this story? and are you guys good friends now? >> yes. >> yes. >> give us an example of

something you fought over. >> during the reporting of watergate, i think almost never is the answer. we very quickly came to have very high regard and thought our skills work in a complementary way. >> be careful of that phrase "almost never." we ask about the tapping of the phones and his answer was "almost never." >> what went through your mind on november 8, 1972 when the election results came in with 61% of the popular vote, every state going for nixon except massachusetts and where we are today after that great reporting effort the made? was there a "oh, shit" moment? >> it did not surprise us and

it didn't affect us one bit. we knew the story had not got that much attraction. there was a lot of reporting left to do. we had a real moment in september of 1972. we found out that john mitchell of attorney general of the united states controlled the secret fund that paid for the bugging of watergate and some of these undercover activities. woodward led -- woodward and i would meet near the vending machine every day to get our book -- to get our good cop, bad cop routine. >> guess who was a good cop and

he was the bad cop? i turned and i said, all my god, this president will be impeached. he loved that me and said all my god, you are right. we can never use that word in this newsroom, ever. we just kept going. that is the answer. >> click question for trash and the panelists. i was really struck by the notion that a person raised about going after the one factor to get it on the web because that is what a lot of today is. i want to say that i think that

does undercut what you guys pioneer because you cannot leave your desk if you are after one fact. i think it prevents you from going at night and endorse stopping people. i think it undercuts it. >> i do not agree because i think -- maybe i am not being clear enough. there are different facts. there are facts that mean nothing. there are some of new pieces of information -- i have seen it many times and i see it every day. you have a story that is basically one key new piece of information. one new development. but, in a daily paper, there is no format for a paragraph. because sometimes, if you have an ongoing part of the story

were your readers understand the broader stories, the players involved, that is all that is really required. all that is necessary. stated in the way you say, i agree. but, yes, if you were looking for every new fact of information, you put everything up sequentially, i totally agree. that is not what i am saying . >> any other questions? i have one question about thinking about the big stories in the last four decades. which one do you think is the closest analogue to watergate? that same -- >> i think watergate really was the 100- year storm. >> microphone. >> i think watergate really was the 100-year storm. >> there is nothing that combines all the elements in the same way. in terms of it back up.

investigations, -- in terms of impact of investigations i have seen, the investigation of the catholic church had that kind of impact. it moved like a tidal wave and wind still -- it is still moving. that comes to mind. >> -- >> what about you? >> i agree with that. nope. i also -- there is sometimes a reluctance in the reporting profession, investigative, in death daily coverage -- in death daily coverage to not go after the power centers but to take on stories that are good stories but not go after the power centers. carl and i are your friends, but if you look at the books he has written since we did watergate, he hillary clinton -- the pope,

one of the great power centers. one of the big power centers in the world. sometimes, i think that there are a lot of low hanging fruit for people say, let us to a big story. they not -- they do not sit around and ask the hard question, who has the power and how do we hold them accountable? >> karle? >> that is a great dancer. >> i think you can elaborate debt. whether it is state college of pennsylvania -- that is a whole community that is an unbelievable power center in the sports program. one of the other things i think might be worth mentioning is that an awful lot of the great reporting of the last 30 years has been in books. i am not sure why. there are notable examples of it.

and, because those reporters have had time to do it in and have found the forum perhaps a little more receptive. >> a board member for the fund for investigative journalism, i would encourage you to apply for some of the grants we have to write the books. amanda, what about you in terms of -- >> going after the power center is a great thing, but that is not what you guys did. you pulled the string that was a phone call that came to you by serendipity and you kept pulling the string. what you did is believe something that . to be unbelievable. -- that seemed to be unbelievable. it changed the way you thought about all the institutions. >> we knew we were dealing with the white house. >> you are not sitting around saying i wonder what we can do to look at the power of the white house.

>> from that day that notebook that i talked about showed up in the pocket. it was either that or the cia we were looking at. we knew that much. >> i would agree that in terms of the way changed what we thought of an institution in the catholic church -- believing something that seems to be unbelievable, that is the same thing with joe paterno thing. you believe something that seems to be unbelievable. >> i just think about state legislatures. those are great stories. i mean, all over america. >> that is not low. is really important. really powerful. you think that -- look at where the super packs are putting their money now. -- superpacs are putting their money now. you think that state legislatures are really doing the will of the people, it is

easy to get motivated . >> i just want to be fair and then i will go to the questions. is there a big story that you feel is an analog to watergate? >> i think that there were some that thought they were watergate but were not. i still feel like, in some ways, the corruption of the intelligence process before the rock -- before the iraq war, it is in a much more polarized political environment. that story could not quite over, the -- quite overcome the partisan divide. it is similar to what it in a lot of ways. in some ways, because of the

political polarization and of the intelligence process is so dark and on a deplorable, i kind of feel it never got off the ground. i cannot really think of anything else. >> yes, mr. bradley. >> -- one moment. >> one of the reasons that it was different as a story received differently by the world was that the two reporters that were writing it, the story, nobody had ever heard of. the white their nose on page one

-- wipe their nose on page one. it is a great question. >> could everybody hear it? >> the amazing thing about this story -- you were reporting this story. the thing that is hard to believe is there were a lot of other big powerful news organizations in town and you took this story seriously and nobody else did for a long time. you have talked to a lot of other people who were reporters in town and you have passed them, why do you think that happen? why did not other news organizations take it as seriously as you did four months? i had only worked for the post nine months. -- i had only worked for the post nine months. i was an employee.

i was much more subservient in that period -- >> no more. [laughter] >> years ago. >> you have to capture the environment and that is why when we are talking about how do you get to stories like this, it is leadership from the top. somebody saying, this is what we do. this is the business we are in. this is our purposea. n. and not doing that on high from a weekly meeting but for walking. -- floor walking. he had a swagger stick. it was infection -- infectious. go to it. you cannot live on high as a

newspaper editor or a blogging editor, you have to be at their stimulating. >> reporters love and great stories. when i was 16-year-old. i worked at "the washington star." you go into a newsroom and the places electric. it is selected because the people who are in that newsroom know that there are stories out there. there is fun to it. we can talk all we want about, you know, a national interest and all these heavy things. a good story is a hell of a lot of fun. what better thing in the world? there is real purpose to it, as well.

i do not think it should take all the motivation that perhaps we are talking about on the part of journalists. >> this question is principally for jeff. i am wondering how the environment has changed for investigative reporting now in light of the intensity of countermeasures at the state and government level that is being used against the sources. it seems in some of the espionage cases, the law enforcement has bypassed reporters and zero straight towards -- and go straight towards the source. how does that change the world? >> we talk a lot about encryption. that is something we never used to do. bouncing off the question, i have kind of a radical thought. i do not think watergate would unfold the same way today.

there are too many things that are different. i do not think there would be any tapes. i think watergate changed government officials and the public. it would play out completely different. as josh said, that original third grade burglary would be white hot. it would be 24/7. you have an incredible heat. i am not sure that time for the story to unfold in the way it did would be -- be the same. prosecutors have learned more. judges have learned more. congress has learned more. the white house has learned more. >> congress has learned more? >> it we all are hoping. >> i feel like this thing would be completely different. who knows, but maybe it is over by the election? maybe it is a six-month story. maybe you never get a smoking gun. >> who knows?

this is history. >> what if? >> one of the college's assistant students in the journalism -- one of the college's assistant students in the journalism class about watergate -- >> what school? >> yield. -- yale. he said the one-page papers that these bright students have written and then asked that i talked to the class after word. i got the papers on a sunday night and i never read them. i came as close as i had to having an aneurysm. [laughter] because the students wrote that you just use the internet and you would go to wikipedia. you would google "nixon's secret fund." and it would be there.

somehow, the internet was a magical land turned that lit up -- lantern tha tlit up events. they said the political environment would be so different that nixon would not be believed and all of that tweeters would be in a lab and nixon would resign. >> wow. empted to corrected t them. the basic point is the truth of what goes on is not on the internet. it can supplement and help the truth, but the truth revised with people. reside with people -- reside with people. you have to find a way to build trust with human sources that will tell you, ok, this is what

really goes on. and you learn time and time again in journalism -- is a cold shower. believe me. you do a couple of interviews with somebody and you think you are really getting there and use it well, you know, i have some time, i will go back for a third and then you realize on the eighth interview, you start getting the real story of what is going on. thing, if there were some story like that that required incremental coverage, people would do it using the tools of the internet, but not being diluted that somehow, these are going to really tell you something that is hidden. >> the watergate hearings went

on for about three months from may until july of 1973. they made a huge difference -- [inaudible] >> he is making a great point about the watergate. he says he cannot remember this town being is gripped by any sense. -- event. they were on all three networks come alive. they ran to midnight. then tells the story -- [inaudible] >> but, the real thing to mention is -- the institution of the congress of the united states responded. i have grave doubts that the institution of the congress of the united states would respond to anything. the man who led the watergate

committee called us up and asked if we would like to -- he would like our sources. we said no. we will not give you the sources. he said, we are right to conduct this inquiry you have laid out. you have laid out your version of what has happened. if you look at those hearings in may of 1973 through august, they are the gold standard. they had the man who discovered the tapes. they laid out the whole money trail. in the special prosecutor's office, they discovered all this corrupt campaign money. >> the republican said, what did the president know and when? dexia the average u.s. -- >> the average u.s. home watched three hours of the hearings. they failed to under 37 hours of television.

-- filled 237 hours of television. i think we will have to wrap it up. i have a few copies of this book. i was on a panel with them a few years ago and i came out said they were signing my book and bob looked up and said, do you mind? i was like, know. i told my son, go by a pop -- a copy of my book. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> today, we will have the speeches by president obama and mitt romney to the american society of news editors. they talk about the budget, tax rates, and other campaign issues. we will show the president's

speech at 10:30 a.m. and former governor romney and 11:30 a.m. eastern. >> this year's stood in camera competition as students are across the country, what part of the constitution was important and why? the third prize winner selected the seventh amendment. >♪ >> we do not always realize the importance of other people's words. in everyday life, not just in court cases, we come to a point where we need our peers help. this is why the seventh amendment is important to me. >> get their right to a jury of peers.

>> i think it should be a jury of your peers. it should be 12 individuals that are a cross section of your community that should come in and listen to the evidence and make a decision. it should not be one or just three individuals making that decision. >> i like trial by jury because it allows the people to be a part of the decision making concerning important matters. >> trial by jury is a great concept. it allows people to have their the thoughts heard. this is bursting have been a case heard where -- this is versus having a case heard by individuals who are not giving them a fair trial. >> it is an opportunity for individuals to have their rights put first.

>> trial by jury is the best way to solve a problem. >> jurors do not just of cases. how many times have we not been stopped by a crime? we try to explain what happens. >> they can watch the pain and anguish that someone suffers. >> in civil cases, people are generally asking for -- [unintelligible] >> their right of trial by jury shall be preserved.

>> the trial by jury safeguards in the seventh amendment of the constitution were adaptations of these, not concepts harmonized by the sixth amendment clause that local juries be used in criminal trials. from its inception, the common law, the jury is meant to be representative of the judgment of average members of the community, not of elected representatives. >> in a civil case, which is primarily what i do, the evidence that has to be approved by the person bringing the case is just enough evidence to tip the scales of justice just a

little bit in that party -- that party's favre. >> people made you think that if they were affected by those decisions, and they are, what they would want people on the jury to think. people should realize and appreciate that and take more of an active role in their party. >> when you are taking a jury, when you are talking to potential jurors, you would hope that they would tell you the truth. he would hope they would be forthcoming to your questions. because a lot of that, the questions we ask, will determine whether or not we think they will be an impartial juror in the case. >> you will decide, guilty or

not guilty. >> jury is made about 12 individuals over the age of 18 better citizens of the u.s. they have not been convicted of a felony and a speaking with us. these 12 individuals are responsible for finding someone innocent or guilty. the jury must be made up of people who will make an unbiased decision. >> in some counties, if you are a schoolteacher, you are exempt from jury duty. which is reasonable because we do not want our children missing school and we do not want our teachers out of school, either. i have served on jury duty since i have bent in this city. >> the seventh amendment, the right to trial by jury, for started in the british government. jury trials were one of the amendments that came with it.

>> this came from 8 -- from great britain. if we go back to the magna quartet, the idea of limited government -- you have the right to have a trial. you have a right to have your voice heard and not just a the sense, but possibly a jury. your peers decide if you are guilty or not. >> i think the jury -- [unintelligible]

>> go to studentcam.org to watch the videos and comment on facebook and twitter . >> next, your calls and comments on "washington journal." then "newsmakers." after that, president obama and republican presidential candidates mitt romney speak at the american society of news editors' conference. >> tonight on c-span's "q. and a.," -- >> when i had to me my senators, that was a great opportunity. just being able to talk to them. >> leon panetta talked about how important it is to be financially sound because if we are not financially sound, the voting money to national defense

will be worth less because we will not have any money. >> high school students from all 50 states have participated in a government program in the nation's capitol. >> this morning, democratic pollster, doug schoen, talks about his new book, "hopelessly divided," the new crisis in american politics.