captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> ifill: president obama will lay out his 2014 agenda tonight before congress and the nation. we preview the state of the unionwith white house press secretary jay carney and our own mark shields and david brooks. good evening, i'm gwen ifill. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. also ahead, concerns about security at the sochi olympics and the lengths to which some american teams are going, to stay safe. plus: >> ♪ i hammer in the evenin' all over this land ♪ we remember folk legend and activist pete seeger with reflections from peter, paul and mary's peter yarrow.

those are just some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> i've been around long enough to recognize the people who are out there owning it. the ones getting involved, staying engaged. they are not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is, "how did i end up here?" i started schwab with those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives.

>> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: president obama delivers his 2014 state of the union address tonight, and he will highlight executive actions aimed at jobs and wages. as white house video showed mr. obama working on the speech, aides said he's set to order a higher minimum wage for future federal contract workers of $10.10 an hour.

the plan met with praise from senate democratic leader harry reid. >> i think we'll find at the state of the union tonight the president has decided that republicans are obstructing everything and they'll continue to do so and i agree with him. he needs to use his administrative authority, his executive authority, to start doing something for this country. >> woodruff: republicans dismissed the minimum wage move as window dressing. house speaker john boehner says it has a very narrow scope. >> this affects not one current contract. it only affects future contracts with the federal government. and so i think the question is, how many people, mr. president, will this executive action actually help? i suspect the answer is somewhere close to zero. >> woodruff: we'll preview the president's speech, with white house press secretary jay carney, right after the news summary. >> woodruff: arctic air descended on the deep south

today, bringing bitter cold to millions who aren't used to it. snow, ice and sub-zero readings stretched from texas to virginia. snowfall began to slow and snarl major interstates around atlanta, and shoppers emptied shelves of shovels and other cold weather gear. but as they waited for the worst, north carolina governor pat mccrory conceded the region is never ready for such weather. >> we've got to be honest that we don't have these storms very often, so, um, the equipment needed or the equipment level of capacity isn't as great as comparison to new york or connecticut or new hampshire. >> woodruff: meanwhile, the midwest endured another day of wind chills that reached as far down as 50 below. the huge storm also forced airlines to cancel about 3,000 commercial flights nationwide. in egypt, ousted president mohammed morsi went on trial on charges of organizing mass

prison breaks during the 2011 revolution. state t.v. showed morsi pacing inside of a soundproof, glass- encased cage, visibly angry and shouting at the judge. after five hours, the trial adjourned until february 22. >> woodruff: the fifth day of the syrian peace talks negotiations broke off, with little to show for the effort. syria's foreign minister charged the u.s. has sabotaged the geneva conference by resuming deliveries of non- lethal supplies to rebels. the state department said the syrian government has poisoned the talks by continuing to block aid to the besieged city of homs. >> woodruff: protesters in ukraine won new concessions today. the country's prime minister resigned, and parliament repealed anti-protest laws that sparked ten days of violence. still, opposition leaders insisted again that president viktor yanukovych must also resign. we'll get a full report on the developing situation in ukraine, later in the program.

>> woodruff: thailand is going ahead with parliamentary elections this sunday, despite fears of violent protests and an opposition boycott. the country's election commission had called for delaying the vote, but the government rejected the idea today. >> ( translated ): if we postpone the election will the problems go away? you can see that the problems obstructing the election cannot be solved even if we postpone it. the people who are causing trouble did not say they would stop if it is postponed. >> woodruff: the opposition has occupied parts of bangkok and demanded that prime minister yingluck shinawatra resign immediately. >> woodruff: wall street's jitters over emerging markets calmed today, and stocks turned higher after three days of losses. the dow jones industrial average gained 90 points to close at 15,928. the nasdaq rose 14 points to close near 4,098. a voice that shaped american folk music for several generations is gone. legendary musician and activist

pete seeger died in a new york city hospital last night, at 94. seeger helped spark a national folk music revival and lent his voice to vietnam protests and other causes, with hits such as "if i had a hammer" and "where have all the flowers gone". jeffrey brown explores his life and music later in the broadcast. >> woodruff: also ahead on the newshour, white house press secretary jay carney previews the state of the union; security concerns for americans at the sochi olympics; a potential compromise on the contentious farm bill; a new bid to end the unrest in ukraine; plus, shields and brooks >> ifill: the president will deliver his fifth formal state of the union address later this evening. for an early look at what to expect tonight, we are joined by white house press secretary jay carney. so, jay, what is the president

actually hoping to accomplish five years in-- six years in, actually, five speeches in. >> well, gwen, tonight presents the president with a special opportunity. he gets to go before the nation, speak to millions of americans and describe why he's optimistic about where america is and where we're going. for the first time since he's taken office, we really aren't facing the severe head winds that we were economically in previous years e her from the worst recession since the great depression or from the -- some of the shenanigans and obstructionism that we saw from congress in 2011 and again last year. right now, there's an opportunity for this country and this economy to grow more and for washington to take action to deliver expanded opportunity for all americans. to reward hard work and responsibility. so that's what the president's focus is going to be tonight and he looks forward to the opportunity. >> ifill: i know you have seen the polls i've seen, you don't have to acknowledge that if you

don't want to, but the truth is the president's at all time record low approval ratings. who do you think is listening tonight? >> well, gwen, i'm not sure i agree with that. there's no question that everybody has suffered here in washington because americans are fed up with dysfunction here in washington. it was only a few months ago that i stood at this podium and took questions from reporters here about whether the republican party was in permanent decline after they foolishly shut down the government. and cost the american economy and the american middle-class dearly through that action. of course, not long after, that we saw healthcare.gov have a really rocky rollout and that is something the president took responsibility for and he's ensured every day since that the web site gets improved and that we deliver on the promise of affordable, quality health care for the millions of americans who want it. but right now we have an opportunity to come together, for the president to take action on his own where congress won't cooperate and to cooperate with congress when congress

demonstrates that it's willing to work with him on common-sense solutions to move this country forward. to expand opportunity for americans everywhere. >> ifill: let's talk about the action the president's willing to take on his own. the white house announced today that he, with the stroke of a pen, will raise the minimum wage for federal contract workers. we heard john boehner a few minutes ago say "how many people is that going to affect?" so how many people is that going to affect? >> well, it's going to affect thousands of americans and it affectiteffects new contracts. so the point of this abc is that the president will deliver on the promise of expanding opportunity using the authority he has when he can't work with congress. congress has refused for the entire year since the president called for a raise in the minimum wage to act on that. he will, of course, ask congress tonight in addition to his executive action for federal contractors to raise the minimum wage across the country. it's the right thing to do. we have a situation here where

americans across the country are working full time, they're being responsible, they're taking care of their families and yet they're living in poverty. even with a full-time job. that's -- in the president's view that's not what we should be doing. we ought to reward hard work, we ought to reward responsibility. so that's what he's doing with this executive action and that's what he's going to call on congress to join him from doing. >> ifill: the president and you have said in the past several days he plans to use the power of the pen and phone in order to get things done in washington or at least the things he would like to see get done. last night judy woodruff talked to senator roy blunt about that. he said the president is giving up on congress. is he? >> absolutely not. this is not an either/or proposition, it's a both/land. it's not either legislate or use executive authority. it's both legislate and use executive authority. where congress is willing to cooperate-- on comprehensive immigration reform, for example, or further action to invest in our infrastructure-- the

president is eager to do that. but where congress won't act, where congress won't help him advance the cause of expanding opportunity, he's going to act on his own and use the authority to that he has to sign executive orders and presidential memoranda and use the power of the office to convene businesses and college presidents and people around the country who expand college access and to help advance the cause of advanced manufacturing in this country. there's so many things we can do together that don't require legislation. the president's not going to tie one hand behind his back and just try to get things done through congress. >> ifill: you mentioned that immigration reform. speaker boehner told people today that he is actually thinks he might get some movement on that in coming days. is this something the president is going to lock arms with speaker boehner on or basically let him lead the charge? >> well, the president believes that 2014 presents the greatest opportunity we've ever had to see comprehensive immigration reform become a reality. the senate took significant

action last year, as you know, a bipartisan majority paz passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. he hopes for action in the house and is encourage bid the signs we've seen out of house republicans leaders of late and we'll see how they move forward. the president believes that we can all work together on this, it will help our economy, help the middle-class, improve our security on the border and it will expand opportunity and innovation in this country. >> ifill: i want to ask you one final brief question which is about gun control. at this same state of the union speech last year the president spoke emotionally about it but yet very little has happened. is that something we can expect him to repeat tonight? >> well, the president pushed vary hard for background check legislation, the legislation that would have expanded the existing background check system. it had the support of vast majorities of the american people across the country in red states, blue states and purple states. unfortunately the congress did not heed the will of the american people and the president did not hide his

disappointment. just because congress won't act doesn't mean the president won't act where he can and he has done that. 23 executive action were outlined in the president's common sense proposal to reduce gun violence. the administration has acted on all 23 of those and he is always looking for more ways that he can act so he's going to do what he can mindful of the second amendment rights that he supports to reduce gun violence in this country. we're reminded far too often that it's a continuing problem. >> ifill: white house press secretary jay carney, we'll be watching with you later tonight. thank you. >> thank you, gwen. >> woodruff: now, to another look at the upcoming winter olympics which kick off one week from friday. tonight, we examine efforts to keep american athletes and visitors safe during the games. >> woodruff: workers added final touches to the olympic village in sochi today. but for many, security at the black sea resort has eclipsed

facilities as the overriding concern. olympic village director dan merkely, of canada. >> i'm very confident that these villages are really among the safest places to be in russia right now. and i am also extremely confident in the way our security agencies have prepared for the safety of athletes. >> woodruff: even so, on friday, the u.s. state department issued this travel advisory, urging caution for those planning on making the trip. private security firms have also been contracted to safeguard the 230 u.s. athletes, and to help evacuate them if need be. >> if we need to extract our citizens, we will have appropriate arrangements with the russians to do this. >> woodruff: defense secretary chuck hagel said friday the u.s. military is standing by if there's an emergency. >> the russians have not requested any specific assistance or technology.

we want them to know that if they need our help, we want to help. i think as you, most of you know, we'll have two ships in the black sea during that time. >> woodruff: in addition, air force transport planes will be ready in germany, about two hours away. it's all because of threats by extremists in russia's north caucasus region. they've vowed to attack the games, and last week authorities said a potential suicide bomber may have entered the city. there've already been multiple attacks outside sochi in recent weeks, including suicide bombings in volgograd, 600 miles away, that left 34 people dead. >> ( translated ): we saw on tv that a terrorist attack happened in volgograd, so, it is not impossible. i think that they won't let it

what can i say? our reliable police will be our hope. >> woodruff: it's a hope that thousands of athletes and spectators will share. so just how safe will the olympi for that we turn to dan richards, ceo and founder of global rescue. it's providing crisis management and response for the u.s. ski and snowboarding team, as well as corporate clients. and andrew weiss was the director of russian affairs on the national security council staff during the administrations of bill clinton and george w. bush. he's now a vice president at the carnegie endowment for international peace. and welcome to you both. andrew weiss, to you first, how would you describe the efforts the russians are making to keep these games safe? >> the russians are sparing no expense to make the games safe. the question is, there's a hard target around sochi, there seems to be a relatively robust russian troop presence in the mountains around sochi, there's cops on the street. the question is, there's plenty of soft targets across russia

and as we've seen in volgograd, any attack that happens between now and the games or during the games is going to be portrayed as connected with the olympics. >> woodruff: soft target meaning something more vulnerable. >> anyone on the moscow subway at rush hour knows it's a mass of humanity. god forbid something bad happens. we've seen that already in volgograd. there will be a jump to conclusions saying "this is a blow against putin, this shows russia is not safe, this shows sochi is not safe." that's the message the putin government is trying to control. >> woodruff: dan richards, what's your sense of how safe it is or will be? >> you know, i think that within sochi and the proverbial ring of steel here that it's going to be quite safe. as andrew mentions, targets outside of sochi might not be as hardened nearly as the olympic village itself or within the regions surrounding sochi that might represent more attractive targets for terrorists. >> woodruff: why are you confident that it's safe within the immediate, as you say, ring

of steel? >> well, the likelihood that the environment within that ring of steel is selected as a target, obviously it's an attractive target should a terrorist want to disrupt the games, that goes without saying. but the russians have expended basically every available resource in order to secure that area, both in terms of manpower, in terms of money, and other resources that would help secure the air, the land, the sea. they're monitoring all the communications. there's been an unbelievable amount of effort that's gone into the security. it doesn't mean that the likelihood that something happens is zero. it's not zero. but it's arguably the most protected environment that the olympic games has ever seen. >> woodruff: andrew weiss, we know the u.s. military has some offshore -- what is the u.s. military doing? >> i think at this point what we're seeing are largely attempts by the u.s. government to reassure people that we're watching this closely, we'll be relying primarily, though, on

the russians. this is their show. when you talk about warships in the black sea, there were warships off the coast of athens during these olympic games. so there's a precedent for it. the question is -- it all depends on the russians to be cooperative and provide the environment. so if you have a plane you're trying to get into sochi international airport you need flight clearance from the russians so the idea that the cavalry can steam in and pluck americans out of there, that's a bit of a stretch. the real challenge is for the russians, if something -- again, something terrible were to happen, manage the event, can they manage the consequences, can they provide an atmosphere of calm and that they can sort of organize a response. that's where the russian in the past haven't been very good and i think that's where people are worried. >> woodruff: dan richards, let me take that to you. as i understand it, what your firm is providing is crisis management and an ability if something were to happen to help get the athletes and anybody else out of there. >> that's correct. but what andrew says is also

correct and that is, you know, the airspace around soefp skh *u 100% controlled by the russians. nobody's going to fly over it or land at the sochi airport without their say-so. but global rescue has been retained to provide not only potential air transport but also support on the ground for our clients, u.s.a. among them. so if there are medical emergencies or other types of emergencies that require other consultative support or direct on-the-ground resources or transport at some point to a different level of care, that's what we're positioned to do but we're positioned to do in the conjunction with the support of the russians. >> woodruff: can you tell us anymore about how that works? i mean, is this different from what you would do at other olympics in another place where you didn't have this kind of security? massive security threat? >> that's a great question. the reality is, any time we're using air assets or flying in or out of somewhere we've got to get permission not only for the place that we're landing but also any countries that we're flying over.

so getting those kinds of permissions, working with the host nation in this case obviously the russians it's all par for the course, actually. >> woodruff: andrew weiss, do all the teams presumably need to have their own security arrangements? ability to get out if something goes wrong? >> i think since the munich games the world of security for olympics has been transformed. so you've seen secret service, c.i.a., f.b.i., all these kinds of entities providing the contingency plans and coming up with the sense of the security environment that would make our olympic athletes understand what they're going into and understand what the relative risks are. as your other guest indicated, this is a place that's going to be intrusively secure. so guests are going to be forced to get a background check to get their ticket. when they go to the venue, they'll be scanned multiple times. so it's not going to be the sort of free-wheeling time on the mountain. it's going to be very regimented and very russian and the russians are deploying cops on the street every 50 meters. there's going to be this very

obtrusive physical security presence that's intimidating. the russians are going to use racial profiling to make people who sort of match the profile of the insurgents that they're worried about in the north caucasus feel uncomfortable. so compared with moscow where an on any given day of the week you have two million migrants running around making their livelihoods, sochi will be a very different atmosphere. >> woodruff: dan richards, would you agree that description that it will be very different from other olympics? >> absolutely. you know, as andrew said, there's going to be a very visible and overt security presence and the kinds of things that might have been permissible ten or 15 or 20 years ago at an olympics won't be permissible here. you're not going to be walking around carrying bags of items, unidentified substances or bags into events wher events events e large numbers of spectators. there are going to be a large number of security personnel on the street, so i would agree with them completely. >> woodruff: finally to both of you, and i'll stay with you,

dan richards, when people ask you "should i go? is it safe?" what are you saying? >> i think northbound attending the olympics should go in with their eyes wide open. the possibility that something happens is not high. in fact, it's very, very low. but it's also not zero. so, you know, i think that the olympics is in general going to be a safe environment for spectators and for athletes. but nothing in this world is 100% and that isn't, either. >> woodruff: andrew weiss, what do you say to people when they ask you whether they should go? >> i think it's what he said. you have to be aware of the environment. but before every olympic games there's fixation on security. we saw this in london and athens. the russians are holding the games in a neighborhood which is quite unstable and where there's skepticism about russia's ability to deliver security. i think all told there's going to be a real sense of unease until these games are over and we're just going to have to see how things play out. >> woodruff: we hear you both. andrew weiss, dan richards, thank you. >> thanks for having me.

>> ifill: it's been two years since lawmakers began working on, and then fighting over, new farm legislation. the enormous, nearly one thousand page bill that is now emerging in congress could affect the cost of your groceries, the price of your child's school lunch, and the profit picture for major american corporations. the trillion dollar compromise to re-authorize the law would eliminate many direct payments to farmers, but expand crop insurance. slice about $17 billion, including eight billion from the food stamp program, that's about 1% of the program's total cost and bring some reforms to the agricultural system. there's a reason it took so long to strike a deal. here to explain is alan bjerga, who covers agriculture issues for bloomberg news. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> ifill: let's walk through this piece by piece. first, the compromise on farm subsidies, direct payments to farmers. >> what you saw developing as

the farm bill was brought forth was a lot of political pressure to get rid of this program that essentially pays farmers $5 billion a year for being farmers. >> ifill: including not to actually plant crops sometimes. >> in some cases you may see land lying fallow and direct payments still being had but this was part of a reform bill passed in 1996 in which you were going to have a transitional payment, a block grant, so to say, to get you off farm subsidies. it never went away and public pressure grew and grew to get rid of this program. especially the last few years when you've seen farmers doing quite well. you've seen farm profits near record for the past several years. it seems like especially a fiscally austere time this wasn't money farmers needed so it went away. >> ifill: what they're doing now, however, is keeping some of it? >> well, the idea is that you want to be able to help farmers when they need the help. so what you're seeing is an expansion of insurance-based programs, programs that will help people when there are either weather problems or, say, market collapses. now, again, these aren't cheap,

either. and people who would like to see less government spending in general have been frustrated with this bill because they feel like, again, these farmers are getting money during times when they don't need it. but the consensus in the agriculture committees is that this is a better way to go. >> ifill: when you do hear about the farm bill, you often hear about the dispute over food stamp payments. nutritional -- snap stands for something. what is it? >> the supplemental nutrition assistance program as of the last farm bill in 2008. >> ifill: this time, however, they wanted to cut how much? and they cut it down to 1%. they wanted to cut 5% from it. >> well, these numbers have gone back and forth. and the most expensive proposal you had in terms of the amount cut was $40 billion. that was in the republican version of the farm bill. that was a food stamp only bill that the house republicans passed last fall. they split the food stamps from farm subsidies. and that was actually sewn back together in this bill. there's a long standing coalition between urban lawmakers who want food stamp funds and rural lawmakers who want subsidies that really coalesced again and got the cuts

in food stamps down to $8 billion which is still $8 billion more than a lot of anti-hunger advocates would like to see but it's less than what the republicans wanted. >> ifill: so the urban/rural bed follows, that partnership is what got this through? >> this has been passing farm bills since 1977 when you saw the declining farm population as well as a desire for more social justice, more social welfare programs when you had a democratic-controlled congress. when welfare reform happened in 1996, you saw a lot of erosion of the social safety net. food stamps to a lot of folks is the biggest game left in town. they want to protect that program. >> ifill: but there are a lot of people with a lot of dogs in this hunt, including corporations, agribusiness. this wasn't just helping out poor people or kids with school lunches. >> well, absolutely. and when you take a look at who the big power players are in the farm bill, we learned at bloomberg that 325 companies have been lobbying this bill in the first nine months of 2013. that's the fifth-most lobbied bill in congress. >> ifill: how much money are

we talking about there? >> this isn't specifically on the farm bill but these are entities that in the same period spent almost $112 million. this is heavy hitting. this is up there with health care, with defense, with the major lobbies in town because the farm bill, even though it really only rises to prominence every five years or so literally affects every person everyday. everyone eats. >> ifill: what do these businesses get for all of their effort in this bill? >> well, if you're a crop processor. say you're archer daniels midland or cargill, what you get is a regular crop supply at possibly a consistent price. the programs tend to even out supplies. if you are, say, a grocery store, a wal-mart or kroger, again, the snap program, food stamps, subsidizes a lot of food purchases. if you are a crop insurance company, wells fargo has a very profitable unit. this also gives you possibly a little more security in your bottom line. >> ifill: this used to be a done deal. everybody agrees that the farm bill every five years had to be renewed but it became controversial this time.

why. >> well, the farm bill has always been more of a regional bill than a partisan bill. you will often see a refighting of the civil war every five years where you have corn and soybean guys on the northern plains going up against the cotton and rice guys in georgia. but in the end they'll build their coalition and bring it together. you saw more partisanship this time around. you saw a farm bill being a partisan issue in a way it had never been before, very much a symptom of the congress. but as congress seems to be getting more things done, the farm bill is systematic of that as well. >> ifill: close vote ahead? >> could be. there's still a lot of democrats who don't want to vote for the food stamp cuts and a lot of republicans concerned about the spending but you have leadership behind it this time. there's a desire to get this off the plate and then the consensus is we'll probably is a bill in the next couple weeks. >> ifill: the biggest controversy nobody has ever heard of. alan bjerga from bloomberg news, thank you for helping us out. >> woodruff: in ukraine today,

there were more concessions by the government of president viktor yanukovych. but as jonathan miller of independent television news reports, protesters are looking for yet more. >> reporter: as the embers of ten days of violent protest still smoldered in kiev's ice-bound streets today, the dawn wind brought the distinct scent of political blood. the president had made offers he thought the opposition would never turn down, but they did. and by this morning, out in the cold, his supporters knew viktor had lost. >> (translated): our president, he has no choice, he has been put in a position where he can only concede or put ukraine on the brink of war. >> reporter: the president's convoy swept from palace to parliament for an emergency session just after 9:00 a.m. the radha, as it's called, was voting on whether to repeal the draconian anti-protest law which is triggered the violence which

has left five protestors dead. inside the radha, the president's own party voting with the opposition to reject what protesters brand it had dictatorship laws. >> (translated): the positive thing is that we have managed to cancel the shameful amendments to laws which have been adopted in an unacceptable way. we've never seen such a thing happen before. it's a small step but it's a really important one. >> reporter: a humiliated prime minister then threw in the towel, appearing on the t.v. to announce his resignation before he risked being stripped of his powers in a vote of no confidence. among opposition protesters manning the barricades in a burned and battered independent square, it's all gone down rather well. >> (translated): it's very good the prime minister has resigned. he should have done it a long time ago. now we're waiting for the president to do the same thing. >> reporter: but does all this bring ukraine back any closer to europe? well, not if russia can help it.

so far now, a welcome deescalation and the riot police out in the cold in the square look a little more chilled. >> woodruff: to help us understand what the latest developments mean, i'm joined by steven pifer, former u.s. ambassador to ukraine. he's now a senior fellow at the brookings institution. welcome back to the program. so so much happened today, the prime minister stepped down, the anti-protest laws have now been repealed. does this represent a real change of heart on the part of the government? >> well, i think what you've seen now is president yanukovych has realized that he's in a very precarious situation and so he's starting to make some significant concessions. one of the ironies is, had he made these offers, say, three weeks ago, this might have been a way out. but i think because of the events of the last ten days, particularly the violence, the opposition is going to be demanding more. >> woodruff: does the opposition have the upper hand? we also understand there's some division? they're not completely united, the opposition?

>> i think the opposition has gained in strength over the last week. the problem the opposition has is you have the three opposition party leaders. but it's not clear if they speak fully for the people who are out on the swear protesting. and, in fact, after the first set of concessions offered by president yanukovych on saturday, when those leaders took those to the square and said "this is the offer" they all said no and denied it. >> woodruff: what do we know about what the protesters want, at this point? >> you have a group out there that's pretty amorphus. remember, the demonstrations began originally because they wanted to see ukraine proceed down this pro-european path. but i think you have other people out there now, ones who are tired of corruption, they're tired of economic stagnation, they're tired of the authoritarian practice of the government. so you've got a large group with fairly diverse demands which may make it more difficult for the opposition to come up with a coherent set of positions to put forward to the government. >> woodruff: so do they have the ability to translate what they're doing on the street into changing governments? >> that's the challenge that

they have there. and there have been some offers now. i think there still is a sense on the part of the opposition that, for example, accepting the offer that was made on saturday for one of the heads of the opposition to become prime minister, that that could be a trap. and one of the things i think they'll push for is to say well, if he gets that position does he also have some real authority so that he can actually influence policy? and that negotiation is continuing. >> woodruff: we also see that the opposition -- or at least the protests have spread to other parts of the country where yanukovych was considered to be politically strong. >> this has been one of the stunning things. for most of the last two months the actions took place in kiev but in the last week it's spread into the western your crane and then eastern ukraine which is typically seen as the home base for mr. yanukovych and i think this is one of the things that has probably brought him to recognize that his situation is a very risky one. >> woodruff: what about the role of russia? of vladimir putin? we know it wasn't all that long ago that he extended an economic

lifeline. he was giving a loan to ukraine, very much needed. but they haven't said a great deal in the last few days. what is known about their position? >> well, there are a couple things going on. i think mr. putin is on good behavior because he's worried about having a good show for the olympics and that may impose limitations on his actions. i think ten days ago mr. putin was pretty pleased with events in ukraine because of the thuggish behavior by the police ukraine was seen as actually moving away from european values and you were probably seeing some europeans saying "gee, is ukraine ready to draw closer to us?" and also to the extent that you saw chaos and violence in the streets and that was being broadcast on russian television. i think subliminal message in russia was we have calm stoblt here. i think now, though, mr. putin may be concerned because events are moving to a point where it's not sure that mr. yanukovych can control them and the russians may find that they're -- they don't have a lot of leverage and that they are spectators for what's going on. >> woodruff: so the protesters themselves are aware of the

olympics and the pressure putin is under to make it look as if everything is calm. >> i think there's an opportunity now for ukraine to work some things out perhaps with the russian attention elsewhere for the next several weeks. >> woodruff: stephen pifer, where do you see things going from here? what are you looking for? >> i hope what's happened today-- i think there's room for greater optimism today than, say, three days ago. i hope you see the beginning of a real political dialogue that can find a way to a peaceful settlement here that's going to involve a measure of power sharing with the opposition. i think mr. yanukovych is going to have to make further concessions. for example, is he prepared to share control over the ministry of interior? the guys who control the police, the guys who control the guys with guns. that would be an important step. and i think on the other side for the opposition they've got to be careful and they can't overreach too much. they have to at the end of the day leave a way out for mr. yanukovych because if he feels cornered, he could order large-scale violence. i think that would probably hasten his departure from office

but it could also do a lot of harm and a lot of violence to people. >> woodruff: these next few days could turn out to be crucial. >> it will be interesting to watch. >> pelley: stephen pifer, we thank you. >> thank you for having me. >> ifill: now, a remembrance of folk legend pete seeger, his distinct voice, his music and his influence. jeffrey brown has an appreciation. ♪ >> brown: pete seeger lived the life of performer, folklorist, and activist for more than 60 years, with his trademark five- string banjo nearly always close at hand. over those decades, he wrote and co-wrote a long list of songs that became american standards, and left a lasting mark on several generations. ♪ if i had a hammer, i'd hammer

in the morning ♪ i'd hammer in the evening all over this land ♪ i'd hammer out danger i'd hammer out a warning ♪ i'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters all over ♪ this land >> brown: seeger got his start in the late 1930's, and by 1940, he was performing with woody guthrie and others as the almanac singers >> i had a good ear and i could accompany him on anything. i didn't have to hear it once. the first time i heard it i could hear a chord change coming and i didn't play anything fancy. i just gave him a good solid backing. i didn't try and play fancy breaks or anything.

♪ irene goodnight >> brown: after world war two, seeger helped form the weavers, the group that gave rise to a folk music revival across the u.s. along the way, he joined the communist party, then renounced it. but in 1955, he confronted the house un-american activities committee and was blacklisted for ten years. liberal activism, to a series of instead, he played for college crowds and, in later life, said it was the high point of his career. >> i tell people nobody can prove a thing but obviously if i didn't think music could help save the human race, i wouldn't be making music. >> brown: as the 1960's dawned, seeger turned his music, and liberal activism, to a series of causes, from social justice and vietnam, to conservation, notably the clean up of the hudson river and civil rights. ♪ we shall overcome >> brown: in doing so, he helped make "we shall overcome" an

anthem for the civil rights movement. >> no one can tell what a song can do. all you can do is quote people who said well that song changed my life or something like that. and leaders like dr. king have testified how important music is to a movement. john l. lewis said a singing movement is a winning movement. >> brown: years later, bruce springsteen's album, "we shall overcome: the seeger sessions", helped introduce the folk icon to an entirely new audience. the two also performed in 2009 at a washington concert for president obama's first inauguration. ♪ this land is your land the president issued a statement today, saying:

seeger was still pursuing that goal late in life. he joined an occupy wall street march in 2011, and walked through the streets of manhattan with the help of two canes to protest what he saw as corporate greed. last year, in one of his final interviews, he spoke with "mountain lake p.b.s." in plattsburg, new york at his home and hailed the value of traditional folk music. >> i think we learn the history of our country by knowing some of the old songs. whether they are love songs, or satirical songs, or adventure stories put to verse. i think you learn history. and to learn the history of your own country is an important thing. >> brown: pete seeger died of natural causes monday night in new york. he was 94 years old.

>> brown: now some thoughts about pete seeger and his work from his long time friend, peter yarrow of the famed folk trio, "peter, paul and mary". their recording of seeger's "if i had a hammer" was a top 10 hit in 1962. he was with pete seeger in the hospital last night before he died. well, thank you so much for joining us and perhaps i'll ask you to put it in personal terms first. how would you describe pete seeger's influence on you? >> he was, as mary said about pete seeger and the weavers, we were seeger's raiders. he gave our life direction, he was our inspiration. he lived his ethic and his whole perspective which was that music was there to bring people's hearts together was really the basis for peter, paul, and mary's doing what we did and always using the music when we were called upon to be a part of

the march on washington in '63, the selma/montgomery march, the antiwar movement. and even through today. and it never stopped and pete was always there, he was a beacon of what was possible if you made that kind of commitment. he was extraordinary. >> brown: how did he -- did he see himself with a mission, if that's the right word? >> well, i think he did. i think he believed he had a mission. but i don't think he was -- it was presum chief justice. it was just the way things were. remember, he came out of a period in the blacklist when he and the weavers were just not allowed to perform anywhere and it was a very, very difficult time and it destroyed their career when they had actually ushered in the beginning of what could have been the folk renaissance in the '50s with "irene good night night" and hut

hitses so for him the struggle was just what he did. and he saw himself, i think, in those terms but it wasn't a sense of arrogance or presumption about it. he was the most humble guy you ever met. >> brown: that folk tradition, it was interesting to read that he was not born to it, certainly not to the rural tradition but he learned it, he took to it, he clearly wanted to foster it for many generations. >> well, it was his passion and it wasn't -- whatever it was that brought him into it-- and i know there was a kind of an -- a verier you diet background from which he came and his father charles seeger was a musicologist and it was -- you

had the strong background, but to pete it meant not just the music, it was living the commitment. you know, pete was did receive a sentence, it was never served, from the house un-american activities committee. he refused to answer. he took his sta and he never faltered. so you know his immersion in it was a love for common human beings and he wrote that way and he wrote about it and you can understand his words they were very simple, you know it was ♪ where have all the flowers gone ♪ long time passing that's not hard to understand. or ♪ if i had a hammer --

it was there. it was easy, easy to grasp. never, never a part -- apart from the most common, decent kind of communication between people. >> brown: all right, well, that's a wonderful way to end. thank you so much, peter yarrow on the life and work of pete seeger, thanks so much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: and online, you can watch peter yarrow pay tribute to seeger with a full performance of "if i had a hammer" that he sang just for the newshour. >> ifill: and we again turn our attention to tonight's state of the union address, with some pre-speech analysis from shields and brooks. that's syndicated columnist mark shields and new york times columnist david brooks. so, mark, what are you expecting tonight? >> i'm expecting a real uphill struggle on the part of the president. this is the first time the president who has been personally popular in spite of his programs is less popular

than the ideas he's pushing. and his numbers are underwater. he's below 50% and democrats are nervous and scared and the country pessimistic. so he's got to -- he's got a tough task tonight. >> woodruff: david, what do you expect and what does he need to do? >> thereby there will be a lot of modesty tonight. he gave an interview to david remnick, he said "being president is like being a runner a relay race." you pass the baton, you pass chase it a long. so i don't think we'll see radical proposals but i would like to see a radical definition of the problem. we know he will talk about e inequality and lower social mobility so we would like to see the description of that and maybe some gesture towards bigger solutions even if in the interim he's proposing a few executive actions. >> woodruff: we have a couple excerpts that have been prepared for delivery and one thing he says is that inequality has deepened an upward mobility has

stalled and our job is to reverse these tkaoeudz. is it possible to reverse tides in the midterm of the second term? >> it's tough but there's no place like the presidency, it's the bully pulpit, to lead. the numbers are staggering. the president made in the speech in early december. productivity of the country has increased 90% in the past 35 years yet the average family's wages are up only 8%. there's been a widening, widening gap and it's not only bad ethics, it's bad economics. the lack of buying power is slowing down the greater economy. so i think you can make an argument in the national interest that this is not simply the right thing to do morally but it's the right thing to do economically and nationally. >> woodruff: so he's laid out these ambitious goals, david, but he's limited himself by saying "i plan to do this with executive actions if i can't do

--". >> the problem with the lack of social mobility is such a gigantic problem that you need them to blare forth with a gigantic set of solutions and he doesn't have access to that because of the way washington is. he's come to accept that. so raising the minimum wage on future federal contractors, that won't reverse the tide. it might be a positive step; might not be. but what you have to do to reverse the side is there's a whole series of recently radical reactions which are left and right together. wage subsidies that will please liberals, social policies that will please conservatives and you have to do it in a way that breaks the orthodox barriers we have. and you need something that breaks the orthodoxsies and it's unlikely he'll be able to get something like that. >> ifill: i asked jay carney about this. yesterday roy blunt told judy "he's abandoning congress." he said "i'm not abandoning congress, congress has abandoned the president." which is it? is there any way to turn that around? >> well, the president can't

abandon the congress if he hopes to get an immigration law and i think that certainly remains a hope. sort of a growing hope now with action -- activity on the republicans. some resistance from david's former colleague bill krystal who's arguing that it would not be in the republicans' interest to bring this up in an election year but if they don't address that issue before 2015 they're not going to address it and they go into 2016 with their presidential nominee disabled again. so the president has to have an olive branch in that sense but he doesn't expect -- his level of expectation of the congress and the congress' level of expectation of him i think are considerably lower than they were a year ago. >> woodruff: other than immigration, david, where are the areas you see the potential for real working together, cooperation. >> other than immigration? i don't see any. this has been a problem with the obama administration-- maybe an insoluble one, but i think it was soluble. there were a core of tea party people who were not going to cooperate with anything.

i think at some point in the administration it would have been possible to build a governing majority center right and sort of try to isolate the tea party people and get the other republicans into son-in-law sort of governing coalition. they never quite could do that therefore we're stuck with the polarization we have now and it's unlikely we'll see big legislation any time in the next few years. >> ifill: who does the president speak to in a night like tonight? is he just talking to himself? is he talking to his supporters in the american people who might be watching something else on d.v.r.? >> this is the biggest audience he's probably going to have this year. it's before the 2014 elections and democrats are hoping that he can bring some passion, some intensity, some purpose back to the administration. as i pointed out earlier, the issues are very much -- the primary issues are very much in the democrats' favor. but when a president is below 50% approval and this president is now, the average loss of house seats in a six-year term is 36.

when a president is above 50%, the average schloss 14%. now, democrats don't want to lose 14 seats but that's a significant difference and so democrats are hoping that it's a resurgence on his part that he can be a more popular leader for their party going into the 2014 elections. >> it's certainly not the people in the room. david west of the "wall street journal" pointed out today that the lasted a dress he had 42 asks of congress of which three happened. and so that's not a great batting average. so it's not them. but it is the people in the country. for the reason, mark, this is the last campaign speech he can make for the midterms and it's the administration. this is mostly about setting the agenda within the administration, not so much what he says but the act of composing the speech. >> woodruff: we look forward to talking to both of you when it all begins in just a few hours. >> ifill: all night long. >> woodruff: all night long. >> ifill: again, the major developments of the day.

president obama prepared for his 2014 state of the union address tonight. he planned to announce executive actions to boost jobs and wages. and a deep freeze descended on the deep south, bringing snow, ice and bitter cold to the region. >> woodruff: on the newshour online, we want to hear from you. immediately following president obama's address tonight, we'll be collecting your reactions via youtube, tell us, in a video, how well you think the president addressed the issues important to you. instructions on how to submit your response are on our website, on the rundown. an added bonus: we'll be selecting the best videos for air on tomorrow's show. all that and more is at newshour.pbs.org. >> ifill: and that's the newshour for now. we'll be back right here at 9:00 p.m. eastern for a two hour special with live coverage of the state of the union, the republican response, and analysis. i'm gwen ifill. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. for all of us here at the pbs

newshour, thank you and see you later tonight. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> charles schwab, proud supporter of the pbs "newshour." >> and the william and flora hewlett foundation, helping people build immeasurably better lives.

>> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> this is "bbc world news america." >> funding of this presentation is made possible by the freeman foundation, newman's own foundation, giving all profits to charity and pursuing the common good for over 30 years, and union bank. >> for nearly 150 years, we've believed that a commercial banks owes its client strength, stability, security. we believe in keeping lending standards high. capital ratios high, credit ratings high.