eggs is no longer considered an "experimental treatment" fo inertity. we assess the medical and ethical implications. >> warner: from ads and social media outreach in spanish to appearances on univision, ray suarez reports on an all-out push by the presidential campaigns for a key voting bloc. >> suarez: although latinos make up the country's largest minority, about 9% of the u.s. electorate, in a tight election, these voters could end up providing the winner with the margin of victory. >> brown: judy woodruff gets an inside view of the financial crisis and the government bailout from former fdic head sheila bair. >> warner: and ma shields and david brooks analyze the week's news. >> brown: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. and carnegie corporation. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... friends of the newshou >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

>> brown: lebanon found itself reliving a nightmarish past today after the worst bombing in four years. at least eight people were killed and nearly 80 wounded in a car-bomb attack. the explosion rocked central beirut as afternoon rush hour was getting underway, tearing through a mostly christian neighborhood. streets were strewn with burned- out cars, and the force of the blast blew out windows and doors, and sent bloodied, dazed people into the streets, pleading for help. >> ( translated ): the whole place was destroyed. god saved my life. nothing left-- no roof, no windows. >> brown: other witnesses to the bombing said it brought back grim memories of lebanon's long civil war from 1975 to 1990. >> ( translated ): i heard the sound that everybody heard. the loss of materia things is not a problem-- we are used to replacing the glass windows since 1975, but those who lost a loved one, that

is the real loss. >> brown: among the dead today-- police intelligence chief wissam al hassan. lebanese officials said his convoy had been the target. al-hassan exposed a bomb plot last summer that was linked to syria, and his killing instantly raised questions about a possible syrian role in today's attack. >> ( translated ): the message was to prove what the u.n. peace envoy lakhdar brahimi has been ying, that all the region is on the edge of exploding because of what is happening in syria. so syrian president bashar al- assad sent this message that they can do anything in the region. >> brown: lebanon had had a few years of relative calm, but the conflict in syria has reopened sectarian fault lines. the powerful shiite militia hezbollah, backed by syria's ally, iran, supports the assad regime. lebanese sunni muslims support the predominantly sunni syrian rebels. the divide turned violent in august, when gun battles broke out in the northern city of tripoli.

tensions have also been fueled by a flood of syrian refugees into lebanon. in washington today, state department spokeswoman victoria nuland stopped short of blaming syria for today's attack, but she said lebanon is at risk of being destabilized again. >> we have been, for a number of weeks and, in fact, months now, that we've been concerned about increasing tensions inside of lebanon, particularly sectarian tensions and tensions as a result of spillover from syria. but don'wanto pr-jue before the lebanese authorities have had a chance to declare themselves who was responsible here. >> brown: there was no such reluctance back in lebanon, where sunnis burned tires in protest in cities across the country as news of the bombing spread. a short time ago, i spoke with abigail fielding smith of the "financial times" from beirut. abigail, welcome. tell us a bit more about the presumed target here, a top intelligence official. how has he stirred up

enemies? > well, he waone of the st sior itellence officials in lebanon. and he was associated with a couple of particular things which really targeted syria and syria allies in lebanon. one was the investigation into the murder of former prime minister rafik hariri in 2005 and most recently he was seen as being involved in the arrest of one of the syrian president assad's top allies in lebanon which was seen as a very bold move for the intelligence servicesin lebano >>rown: none has taken responsibility for the bombing yet, i gather. who what is the thinking there? what is being talked about? who is being looked at? >> well, politicians in lebanon who are associated with the sort of anti-assad movement have been very quick to blame assad. for many lebanese the bomb today was a huge blast, was

reminiscent of a string of attacks which took place against anti-syrian politicians in the year 2005 to 08. so there's a lot of pple targeting the syrians for this, although syria has condemned the attack. and described it as an ago of terrorism. but there are protests in areas of lebanon, sort of associated with opposition to the syrian regime today. so the mood on the street at least in those areas is very angry. >> brown: well, you know, as you say, there is a lot of history there between syria and lebanon, how is this, what is going on in syria now, how is it spilling or, how is it playing out in lebanon. what force has that unleashed there? >> well, i think there's been two types of things. first of all there is the sort of literal spillover. there's been a lot of clashes on the syrian lebanese border where a lot

of syrian rebels are believed to be sort of seeking refuge. and also there's been a lot of refugees pouring into lebanon which is quite a small country. they've had about 70,000 refugees. so that's also increased tensions. another way in which it is inreased the sort of political temperature here is that it is made the sort of predominantly sunni opposition of lebanon who are close to the opposition in syria more empowered and more angry with syria's allies in lebanon. so in many ways these tensions preexisted the syrian crisis. but the syrian crisis has inflamed them and you know, particularly when you have things like lebanese citizens getting kidnapped in syria asappened during the smer, it really sor of inflames things and makes the situation in lebanon very unstable. >> brown: and what about the role of hezbollah, the u.s.

recently said it's become part of the syrian government's killing machin was the way they put it, i believe. how much is known about hezbollah's role in what is going on both in lebanon and vis-a-vis syria? >> well, you know, hezbollah themselves deny sending fighters to syria. but there have been these reports of funerals, of hezbollah members who are widely reported to have died in syria. not very much is actually sort of known about it in terms of fact. what we do know is that hezbollah is closely allied with the syrian regime. they see sort of an alliance of interest together. and that has actually costed hezbollah politically in lebanon, being to publicly associated with the syrian regime. >> brown: let me ask you finally, abigail, personally there, what's the tension level at this point? how cse does it fl to a return to the kind of

sectarian violence of the past? >> well, i mean i don't know about sectarian violence but certainly the people i saw today sort of around the site of this massive bomb blast looked, you know, extremely disappointed that their country had gone back to a pattern of failure that everybody hoped had left behind. beirut itself, the central beirut, the streets i have driven in to get to the studio are quiet, much quieter than usual. but i haven't seen any actual sort of burning tires or anything on the streets. i think the coming days will show whether the political leadership on both sides in lebanon is really able to kind of contain the tension provoked by events like this. >> brown: abigail fielding smith of the financial times in beirut, thanks so much. >> thanks. >> brown: immediate reports of the explosion were captured on twitter today. see a timeline of these tweets from journalists who were at the scene on our web site. >> warner: still to come on the newshour: new guidelines for freezing

human eggs; the outreach to latino voters; former fdic head sheila bair on the financial crisis; plus, shields and brooks. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: a roadside bombing in afghanistan today killed 19 people on their way to a wedding. most of the victims were women and children. the group was in a mini-bus, heading to the groom's home in a northern district to congratulate the newlyweds. afghan president hamid karzai strongly condemned the attack. in yemen, suicide bombers in military uniforms stormed an army barracks in the south, killing 14 soldiers and wounding more than 20. the attack came one day aft at lest sevenl qaa militants died in what were believed to be u.s. drone strikes in the same area. a pakistani schoolgirl-activist who was shot in the head by the taliban is now able to stand without help. doctors treating 14-year-old malala yousufzai in britain said today she still has signs of infection. they also released a photo of her, showing a large bruise under left eye. overall, they said, her

condition is "stable." at this stage we're not seeing any deficit in terms of function. she seems to be able to understand. sh has sommemory, she's able to stand. she's got motor control so she's able to write. whether there is any subtle intellectual or memory deficits down the line is too early to say. >> sreenivasan: yousufzai was flown to birmingham, england, on monday. she had advocated for girls' education in pakistan and against taliban atrocities. the militant group has warned it will try again to kill her. new disclosures emerged today about the assault that killed the u.s. ambassador to libya. the associated press reported the cia station chief cabled washington the next day. he cited evidence it was a terorist attack, and not a protest, as top u.s. officials said for another week. today, in a radio interview, republican vice presidential candidate paul ryan called for president obama to say more in monday's final debate. >> they refuse to answer the basic questions about what

happened. you know, and so his response has been inconsistent, it's been misleading. and more than a month later we still have more questions than answered. and so hopefully on monday night they can, that will give the president a chance to explain himself >> sreenivasan: the president pointed out in this week's debate that, the day after the assault, he said: "no acts of terror will ever shake" u.s. resolve. republicans insist he was speaking only generally. in another development today, "the new york times" reported that one of the alleged ringleaders of the attack has yet to be questioned, and is defiantly showing himself in public. the president did not address the subject of libya today, but he did go after his republican opponent, mitt romney. campaigning in northern virginia, mr. obama said romney seems to be forgetting the more conservative positions he took during primary season. >> i mean he's changing up so much, and backtracking and sidestepping. we've got-- we've got to name this condition that he's going through. i think-- i think it's

>> sivasan: ftth cl anecicthe le for that fal debate, monday night in boca raton, florida. wall street had one of its toughest days in months. the market tumbled after microsoft, general electric, and mcdonald's turned in earnings that fell below expectations. the dow jones industrial average lost 205 points to close at 13,343. the nasdaq fell 67 points to close at 3,005. for the week, the dow eked out a gain of one-tenth of 1%; the nasdaq fell more than 1%. european leaders have taken a new step toward dealing with their long-running debt dilemma. after all-night negotiations in brussels, they agreed a plan for creating a central banking supervisor should be in place by january 1. they did not say when the watchdog would begin work. the supervisor would oversee efforts to bail out european ban so hard-preed governnts won't have to. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to margaret. >> warner: we turn to new guidelines and questions surrounding freezing eggs to treat infertility.

doctors started freezing and then thawing eggs for in vitro fertilization, or i.v.f., years ago, but in very few cases, and the procedure has been considered experimental. today, the american society for reproductive medicine shifted its position, saying the process shouldn't be labeled "experimental" any longer. it said babies born from frozen eggs are as healthy as those from fresh eggs. but the committee said the procedure should be limited in its use. it's estimated there have only been about 1,000 births from frozen eggs in the u.s., compared to more than a million babies born through i.v.f. we look at what's changed and the thicket of questions it raises. doctor eric widra co-chaired the committee that made the recommendation change. he's with the shady grove fertility center. and marcy darnovsky is the associate executive director of the center for genetics and society in berkeley, california. welcome, both of you, dr. wid ra-- widra, beginning with you, on what

basis did your group, your committee conclude that this shouldn't be considered experimental any more. that it works as well as using fresh eggs. >> there's been a fair amount of pressure from patients and practitioners over the last years to remove this label of experimental from egg-freezing and thank youing, but there has been very little data published comparing the technique using frozen eggs and fresh eggs and looking at the outcome of the pregnancies. in the last several years there have been studies inly out of europe but some in the the u.s. as well showing near equivalent from fresh eggs from younger woman and frozen eggs in terms of establishing pregnancies and a large series looking at the outcomes of these pregnancies, and the children seem to be doing as wells appears without reproductive technology. >> warner: yet are you limiting its applicable. you're not recommending it for all women who might want something like this. explain the limitations and why. >> sure. what we're saying is three

fairly specific points. one is that we do think we should be remmending is procedu foromenho may become infertile from medical treatment such as cancer and chemotherapy. we think that it is a reasonable technology to use in centers that provide egg donation services to their patients but that we need to monitor that very closely as that still a very young technology. and we think it's premature to recommend that women freeze their eggs to preserve their own fertility for later. but we recognize that there is a strong impetus to do so and if centers proceed with that service that we carefully counsel the paties with the pros and cons. >> in otheror, you' talking about what you would call elective -- >> correct. >> warner: something that is elective. but is this procedure delivers as many babies or produces as many babies and healthy ones, why not, why doesn't it also apply to older women who may want to delay, let's say they are in

their mid 30s and still aren't married and want to preserve the option of having a baby. >> there is no question in our mind that that could be a huge benefit to women and families. if this technology is safe and effective across thege ran,thathat could really be a boon to women who are in a position where they're not prepared to have children yet. but don't have other alternatives. so we would love to say yes, please go and do this. but it comes with both personal and societal and scientific ramifications that we aren't prepared to say we understand yet. >> warner: does the data, and then i want to get to you, ms. darnovsky, but does the data, do you have data showing how safe and effective it is for older women? >> no, we really don't. the relativelymall number of women thout frze their eggs lechively or even for cancer therapy often won't need those egg force many years. and those that have frozen them may conceive on their own. so we have a small subset of women who have frozen their eggs for a reasonable period of time and wanted to use them again.

>> warner: marcy darnovsky, what is your reaction to this-- reaction to this recommendation. >> well, our concern is that a lot of fertility clinics, hundreds, really, are already aggressively marketing this procedure for lech difficult purposes, for what is times called social egg freezing. and we think th thats really not a good thing. it's the spirmental label may be removed which would enable insurance companies to cover the costs for women who might become infertile because of cancer treatments, for example, but it's still an experiment. and as attractive and tempting as it is to, we all want to expand choices for women, so they can ha children when they want to. but i don't think any woman wants to experiment with her own health or experiment with her child's health. and we rlly n't have t data and the new guidelines from the fertility industry organizations say that the data is not adequate to

assess the effectiveness or the safety of this procedure for social purposes. >> warner: so are you saying that you aren't persuaded that for any woman this has been proven to be safe, healthwise. >> right it there are risks to the children. we don't know yet, we hope they are all okay, and they seem to be so far. t they're still very ung. there e rks to wen. because egg extraction is actually a fairly invasive procedure. and surprisingly, and really dismayingly, even though hundreds of thousands of women have undergone it in the year since ivf has become an option for family formation, we don't have adequate data about either the short-term risks or long-term risks of egg extraction. and there are some troubling results that we do have. and that's something that the fertility clinics are often, they put in the fine int. d that's a real concern.

and especially when you look at the situation, it's kind of hard to talk about babies and business in the same breath, i think, a lot of times. but the fertility industry is a business. and this egg freezing if it should become something that young women do in order to have this insurance policy, this really expands the customer base. and a profit centre for the fertility industry. and i really hope that the fertility industry will, you know, step up to the pte d really ke it clear that they're not recommending this at the current time for lechive purposes, and that they hold the toes to the fire of their members who are advertising it that way and marketing it that way. >> woodruff: dr. widra, you are with a fertility clinic. what do you say about the health concerns and the concerns that it will just become a marketing tool now that it's not experimental? >> as a practitioner and representative, i am worried about the marketing aspects there are four important

points that need to be addressed, briefly, one is we are not an industry, we're a medical praice like oncologists and on ste stations. seconds there are hundreds of papers on the outcomes after egg retrieval for women short term and long-term and is generally accepted as safe. and the reality is yes, many medicine has uncertain outcomes down the road but unless you actually do t you don't know so unless we can freeze eggs and see what happens later we will never know whether it's safe or not. >> warner: finally before we go, what about the sort of ethical societal implications. i mean what message is this seing in tes of, rticularly the trend or has been a trend for women to delay child bearing. >> yeah, and i think as a seat that's something we have to step up to the plate about. we shouldn't be asking women to bear these risks just so they can have a family. we should be putting in place policies that make sure women have equal pay for the work that they do,

to make sure that they don't hit glass ceilings, that there are family-friendly policies in workplaces. and that we're not assuming that women are the sole or the major careters for chdren. and all these kinds of policies would really go a long way toward addressing the anxiety that women feel about being able to have children. >> warner: what dow say to that, dr. widra. >> couldn't agree with that more. this is not a technology that should be used to cure societal ills or societal pressures. we do live in an unfortunately complex society where women off done have to make these choices. but the reality is the number one factor in infertility is delayed child bearing. >> warner: dr. eric widra and marcy darnov thank you very much. >> thank you >> brown: and to politics and the battle for the growing hispanic electorate, something

both campaigns believe could push them over the top this year. ray suarez has our story. >> suarez: the assignment is straightforward, and really hard-- getting latino voters to the polls. although latinos make up the country's largest minority-- about 9% of the u.s. electorate- - they are younger, poorer, and less educated than other americans in a country where older, wealthier and better educated people are more likely to vote. but states critical to both campaigns such as colorado, nevada, florida and here in virginia have seen large growth in hispanic population and voter registration in recent years, and they are up for grabs. in a tight election, these voters could end up providing the winner with the margin of victory. how do you talk to a population of 50 million people?

for one thing, in spanish and through a variety of channels. bettina inclan is the republican national committee's director of hispanic outreach. >> there's a lot of diversity within the hispanic community. 20-plus different countries, different, differences in generation-- first generation versus third generation-- so having a message that connects with all of them, but also recognizes a uniqueness and when to be culturally aware is incredibly important. i think that's why a lot of our outreach efforts are so localized. >> suarez: in battleground colorado, that was a juntos con romney-- "together with romney"- - event, headlined by romney's youngest son, craig, who's been hitting big hispanic markets to speak on his father's behalf in two languages. gary segura, a pollster and political science professor at stanford university, says the spanish-language outreach

demonstrates cultural recognition. >> the idea that a candidate would address you in your native language, or if not your native language, the native language of your parents, conveys a level of respect. it's part of symbolic politics. it doesn't have any meaning or any policy meaning per se, but in the minds of the voters, it conveys a sensitivity, an interest in, a willingness to listen to the concerns of the population. >> suarez: but for all their attention to getting the word out in spanish, the campaigns are leaving out a large an obvious constituency, segura says. >> the missed opportunity for both political parties are english-dominant hispanics. english-dominant latinos say they also would kind of like to hear something about latino concerns in the language that they primarily process information in, english. >> suarez: juan sepulveda is the senior advisor for hispanic affairs for the democratic national committee.

he agrees that outreach is more nuanced than just spanish ad buys. his campaign calls itself the first fully bilingual one in history. all the press releases, tweets, and other media go out in both languages. as an example, on the spanish- language web site, they even encourage web visitors to use this calculator to figure out their tax bills under an obama administration and a romney one. that's the same tool available on the english site. >> florida is a place that we know, on the voting side, you can do a lot of work in the spanish media and you will be successful in getting to a majority of our voters. that's not the case in colorado. that's not the case inevada. and in colorado, the numbers are pushing kind of 80%-plus in terms of primarily getting that information from english media. we have to be really smart about kind of breaking it down to all those different pieces and making sure that were kind of having those conversations in

all the different avenues, and its more complicated now. >> suarez: segura says getting it right is more complicated still by the fact that some ads aimed at latinos are simply translations of existing english ads, such as this romney "day one" ad. >> your spanish advertising cannot simply be your english commercials translated into spanish. >> suarez: why not? >> because the message is different. the message is different, the cultural idiom is different. what a phrase means, whether it resonates with the population is different. that has to be culturally bound. >> suarez: both campaigns have opened the spigots on spanish- language ad spending this year. wshour partner kta media/cmag found the obama campaign has spent close to $8 million for spanish-language advertising from mid-april until the beginning of this week. the romney campaign has spent close to $3 million on its

spanish-language ads during that period. on the obama side, ad makers at the democratic national committee are editing testimonial ads like this one from a dominican-american vet who cares for her aging parent. the campaign has also brought star power to bear-- in english, from mexican-american eva longoria, and with cristina saralegui, a top rated talk show host known as "the spanish oprah." currently, romney's spanish- language ads range from celebrating the entrepreneurial spirit in the hispanic community and in the "ya no mas"-- or "no more" ad-- a wide swath of hispanics tell how although they voted for obama four years ago, he "forgot" them and didn't keep his promises. in addition to ads, the candidates took another route to reaching some 50 million

hispanics through interviews with the spanish-language network univision. immigration was one of the front and center issues. romney says he wouldn't deport the dreamers-- those young people who came to the u.s. before they turned 16 illegally- - and after an obama administration ruling this past summer, no longer face deportation provided they register with the federal government. >> i'm not going to be rounding people uand deportg them from the country. we're going to put in place a permanent solution. and unlike the president, when i'm president, i will actually do what i promise. i will put in place an immigration reform plan that solves this issue. >> suarez: and mr. obama says, despite the dream act changes, immigration is one of the greatest failures of his first term. >> and so i am happy to take responsibility for the fact that we didn't get it done. what i promised was that i would work every single day as hard as i can to make sure that everybody in the country, would have a fair shot at the american dream.

and i have... that promise, i kept. >> suarez: latino voters are, by definition, citizens of the united states. yet, segura says, immigration remains an enduring front-burner issue, even as foreclosures and unemployment in latino families spiked, and by one estimate, the community lost two thirds of its household wealth in the recession. >> they might have been born in the united states, but their co- worker, their brother-in-law, their neighbor down the street, the identity with immigration is much, much more proximate. >> suarez: but bettina inclan says the romney campaign is placing a priority on economic issues as it reaches out to latinos. >> they care about jobs, they care about the american dream and how, under this administration, it's become a little bit harder achieve that american dream. >> i think you could get into trouble as a campaign if you only looked at the polling that said, "look, they didn't rank it very high so it must not be very important." >> suarez: both candidates are

making their closing statements. >> this party is the natural home for hispanic americans. >> we are a nation of strivers and climbers and entrepreneurs, the hardest-working people on earth. and nobody personifies these american values, these american traits more than the latino community. >> suarez: a pew hispanic center report out last week showed latino voters support the president by a three-to-one margin, but are still less certain than other groups about actually showing up at the polls. so although new latino registration has so far greatly exceeded new registration among whites, both campaigns are working down to the wire to make sure their supporters will actually cast ballots come election day. >> brown: ray talked political editor christina bellantoni about states where the latino vote can affect other races. that's on the "political checklist" on our home page.

plus, tonight's edition of "need to know" travels to florida to see how the campaigns are courting latinos there. >> warner: now, a new book by a former insider takes a critical look at the government's actions during and after the financial crisis. that fallout from the crisis and those decisions are still reverberating on the campaign trail this fall. sheila bair was a key player as head of the fdic, one of the nation's chief bank regulators. she worked with treasury secretary tim geithner, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke, and former treasury secretary henry paulson before stepping down last year. her new book is called "bull by the hor." judy woodruff sat down with bair yesterday. stheela bair, welcome. >> thank you for having me, nice to be here. >> woodruff: to get background out of the way who and what do you think is

responsible for the financial collapse 26008? >> oh, there's plenty of blame to go around. i think at the end of the day it was greed it was just greed that was unchecked by government and government regulators. this idea that this is all caused because the government wanted poor people to have mortgages, that's just not tre. i think expanngccess to home ownership for low rae raexization. a lot of people making a lot of money, making a lot of irresponsible loans to frank lien the most vulnerable parts that didn't understand it and regulators didn't step in to stop it. >> woodruff: what is it that you believe the bush and obama administrations did right and did wrong to deal with it? >> well, i think the misstep goesing up to the crisis, both the clinton and bush administration, i think the three big ones are we ddn't raise nk cital requirements, we didn't constrain the ability of large institutions, used leverage, borrowed money to support their risk-taking

and instead government took a lot of aptions to allow investment banks in particular to take on even more leverage and expand their operations with borrowed money. the federal reserve board had the authority to set mortgage loaning standards across the board for everyone, banks, nonbank, mortgage brokers. they didn't do that. and then finally, of course, and this is in the clinton administration, congress just said that nobody is going to regulate derivatives. the if, it,-- ftc cldn't regulate them, even state insurance regulators were told hands-off. office change derivatives offices we don't think they need be to regulated. >> woodruff: are you saying government had their own share of responsibility. >> they did. yes, but i would say this is because industry lobbying stopped these kinds of steps from being taken. >> woodruff: what about in response to the crisis once it happened. what was done right and what was wrong. >> i think as i said before i really question the bear stearns bailout, was done in march 26008. we were not in a crisis situation. we were in a cure rating situation. i never have seen a go

analysis to justify that but i i do think when the government stepped in to bail out bear stearns in support its acquisition by jc morgan chase and chase was requested to do that, that that set up an expectation that the gort would heat the other institutions fail. and so that sent a signal to lehman brothers that was having a lot of problems that they would probably get a bailout too and they were bigger than bear stearns. so they decided they didn't really take steps to correct themselves. and because the market had an expectation that they were go stock bail outs people didn't take steps on their own to fix their problems,. >> and you're critical in the book of the whole bailout process. >> right, mi. >> said these banks should have been let go. >> as you know the administration pushes back saying if we had let these institutions go, the problem would have been much morse, and what we've done at least stanched the bleeding we are back, we are growing, it's slow but we're growing. >> i would agree at the end of 2008 we were in a situation spinning out of control. and we needed to do something so we threw a lot of money at it. but the major institutions

that were insolvent were having liquidity problems, they were having a hard time caus everybodwas so fearful, they were having a hard time borrowing money. but they had equity capital they were not insolvent. citigroup was insolvent, merrill lynch, aig was insolvent but the rest could have bumbled through. they might have need liquidity sport but they had enough capital to absurd their losses. but in 2008 we were dealing with a lot of unknowns so we threw a lot of money at it and i guess i can live with that more, but in 2009 we had a stable system at that point and that was really the timwe needed to impose ain and account able. institutions like citi groupe should have been restructured and broken up. we couldn't even get conversations go being that. >> do you feel you did enough to speak up internally against all the -- >> when congress did authorize all this tarp money it was my clear understanding and one of the reasons i participated in these bailouts is that we were going to get a big loan

modification program, woid scale to prevent unnecessary foreclosures from occurring and it never happened. didn't happen under bush. didn't happen under obama. so i do, that does still make me angry. i spoke out about a lot of ias being criticized for speaking out about it. on the bailouts maybe i should have done more. we were asked to guarantee all the financial institutions and we said no, we weren't going do that. there is-- i was recall the anecdote where i felt like i was ambushed and the meeting in hank paulson's office, he and ben were there, they were on the phone and hand me a script that says the fti c will stand behind all liabilities in the financial system. and i wasn't going do that, we dialed that back. they wouldn't even there is an anecdote in pie book where we were at least trying to say let's n bonuses. if we take losses on these bailout initiatives then executive bonuses should be banned. the other regulators wouldn't even support us on that. so yes, i did push. i didn't get much help or support. i was kind of surrounded. we were there by ourselves.

maybe coy have done more, i don't know. how many time cuss run into a brick wall at 90 miles per hour but we did what we did. >> woodruff: going forward what is it that you see in the prescriptions of either president obama or governor romney that will fix the problem as you see it today? >> well, both say they want higher capital requirements. and that's good. but the problem is we're hearing people talk good games but actually getting the rules in place. we have more capital in the banking system now because the market demanded it and we've had this stress testing process which is a discretionary process. but the rules still allow a lot of leverage. we need to get the rules changed. they both say they want to do that but when it gets specifics how much liberty do you think is expect where would you set the capital, you really don't hear details. they both say they want to end too big to fail. ank goodness. evenalan greenspan sayif th areoo big to fail, they are too big. so if they can't fail without hurting the rest of us, they need to be broken up now.

but again dodd frank has provisions to empower regulators to do that now. but will mr. o bam-- obama or romney appoint people who are willing to use that authority who are committed to ending too big to fail. >> if are you a voter trying to make a decision, how do you make a decision based on hearing what you just said. >> that's one of the reasons i wrote the book. i tried to break down some of these issues. i done think this changed. the financial services industry got too big as part of our economy,oo big in theirolitical influence in washington. and it is on both sides of the aisle it is in both political parties so unless people educate themselves i know people are busy and you have got all sorts of things to learn about and prepare for. that is one of the reasons i wrote the book to describe some of these simple concepts is and steps that need to be taken. and make account able for elected officials to for regulatesers willing to do it. are you optimistic this gets figured or not. >> i am not, i really am not. we heard thk y to jim

lehrer there was a dodd frank question, i appreciate that at the first debate. the second debate driven by town hall participants we didn't hear much. and we're not really talking about it on the campaign stump. and my fear is they are both worried about alienated all this political money that comes in from the financial sector so, again i think people have to educate themselves, speak up, get angry, raise this or it's not going to get fixed. >> sheila bair, the book is bull by the horns and we're going to ask you to stick around and ask a few more questions on-line, so ou viewers can hear more of what you have to say. thank you. >> you bet >> warner: and you can watch more of judy's conversation online. >> brown: and finally tonight, to the analysis of shields and brooks-- syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. so david, three days after the second debate, how does it look? >> well, the start of the

first two debate os bama had this huge personality advantage over romney, personal like able. debate one that goes away debate two, there's a strong momentum toward romney, it's back. it's not back, we sort of hit the equilibrium where they are both quite popular now. so now it's who is going to be a better president. there is not a big personal dince there is policy differenceless. and so after second debate where people liked obama's presence, they liked his forcefulness, democrats were cheerd. and so now he goes not third debate and the final whatever it is, 19 days with a slight structural advantage, people are looking at every poll,very 13 secretaries. but that's too much information. he's got a -- >> it is interesting, do you buy it that they are both popular now, because months ago when we were sitting here you are saying there wasn't much enthusiasm for either n a way, you know. >> the enthusiasm is certainly up there for romney at this point. and i don't think you can overstate the importance of

the first debate in the election of 2012. by his unilateral disarmament, disengagement, call it what you want, the president enabled mitt romney to explunge all the negatives that the obama campaign had put on the a about him am and to establish himself, make a dash for the moderate middle to create the old new old or old new myth with sort of an enlightened or progressive position on regulation, on health care, and all the rest of it. and once that's established, okay, and not contradicted, it just gives him an advantage, 70 million people, 70,000 commercials, 70,000, but i mean you don't begin to approach the same number. >> you do in i presidential debate. obama had a tough job in the second debate, jeffrey. he had to, first of all reassure his own supporters that he was the guy he

remembered, admired, worked for, helped-- for. i thought he did do that. in romney's first debate, because obama wasn't even there, he was very even in disposition and tone. and i think in the second debate obama got under his skin and he became peevish, waspish, there was a pet lent side to him, quarrelous. i think that and sort of his outburst and certain hectors of the approximately, i think hurt him. i don't think-- it no way approached the decisiveness of the first debasically i mean the first debate was a rout. but i think this was a solid obama victory. >> brown: now we move to one more monday on foreign policy. now beyond a few areas, have we had much of a deep discussion about foreign policy? what are you looking for in this one? >> we've had a discussion of benghazi and i suppose we will go over that ground agai >> brown: yeah. >> but what i am looking for is not a rehearsal last four years. i think what each candidate

is going to try to do and should try to doing, not some of define what are they going to do on iran or benghazi or china. how hard are they going to bash china. it's to lay out a vision that reflects their personality. frankly i think very few people are voting on foreign policy this year but i do think they are voting on vision for the country and what policy reflects their personality. dick morris, god lover him or whatever god wants tdo with him, did have nice formulation, which is policy as an instration of character. and how you see america's role in the world is going to be reflect-- reflection of your character. so i'm looking for forward looking broad vision more than who said what about again gazee on what sunday show. >> brown: what dow say. >> i stand second to nobody in my admiration for dick morris an david brooks, it san interesting couple. but i will sigh this, i think it's more about values than it is about character. and i think the principles value right now, the principal temptation for governor romney, as the

newcomer, as the chalnger is to go in and try to dads el with figures, nairobi, kenya, and they have a transportation problem. and the g8 nations, i will name them four, i think that is a mistake. i i agree with david, a debate of again gaz-- benghazi does neither any good at this point. i think it particularly complicates governor romney's life. because in order-- hillary clinton who is the most popular public office holder in the country, okay, beyond anybody, even more popular than her husband, i mean together they are off the charts. but 70% andhe' exceedingly popular with women. >> celestial couple. >> exactly. she took up, she stood up and took up responsibility for this week. now for romney to go after obama on benghazi, he's got to go through hillary clinton that is tricky. and i would say this about the president. leaders don't understand. voters really admire and appreciate when someone steps up and says it's my

responsibility it happened on my watch. >> it doesn't seem to have stopped them. even today we saw paul ryan talking more about benghazi. >> i don't think t president, i think the-- the thing they do is stand in defense of susan rice, not give the appearance that she was operating on the information she had. our information was wrong. this is it. but i mean to disa bruise the sort of conspiracy theorist, but also to stand up for one of his own. i don't think quite frankly he has done that. >> is this hurting the president, as it kind of drags on? >> i personally don't think so i think the hardest argument, the argue they could make, the republican kos make is you send four or eight years criticizing dick cheney for misleading the country based on false intelligence and now misleading the country based on false intelligence. it's obviously not the same size issue, but that's basically what they did. they had bad information it was politically convenient for them and they repeated them. i don't think they really

blame them, they were giving cia told them this is what happened, they repeated it it was easy. i generally think don't get in that. obama's weakness on forence policy, his strength is that he does what's politically astute and is alway cautious. he's not throwing the u.s. into anything big whether it's syria or iran. he's trying to do enough but not to commit resources. and so it's a bit of a pass of foreign policy. i would say somewhat realistically but passive. so romney has some room there to say here's my vision. here is what america is going to look like in the 21st century. i think that is where you should go rather than relitigate. >> brown: let me switch gears to the targets of the campaigns. this is the week we heard over and over again women, women, women, women. the first debate, of course we herd abo women in binders. >> well, in the second debate, that's right. i would say this, because of the first debate, it gave mitt romney a chance to

appeal to particularly suburban women who have been an awfully important constituency of the democrats. how important. i was just pointing out this. in neither debate did the president mention minimum wage, collective bargaining, union, working poor, the economic bread-and-butter issues the democratic party, the new deal and post new deal great society were based upon. five times he mentioned planned parenthood. i mean theres with a sense that there is a cultural divide in the democrats, that this is a cultural constituency on social issues, you will pick up on whether it is abortion or same sex marriage or contraception. and so it is a real difference as they go after the women. and i think the women's vote, in particularly, the sense that they were relying upon this. and whatever, whether it's even in some polls suggested, a couple polls, there's been a loss of support. and i think there will be a major, almost frenzied effort to recapture women. >> are they both appealing

to the same group of women or what are you hearing? who do you hear them getting through to. >> we should say that women are more likely to vote democratic but it will still be -- >> rim more likely to vote period. >> and more likely to vote the side than men. these are generalization and they are split. if are you going sqlenize about women as a group. >> brown: why not. >> and why not, there ri a couple of different demographics. it seems all that talk about planned parenthood a peeled re wardollege educated upscale suburban women. where it seems to me the core of this electorate is what the pollsters call waitress moms who are high school educated moms making say 38, 40,000 in ohio, maybe with a kid. and so those women have slightly different concerns, a little more concerned about economic security, a little more concerned about education, but clinton was the master at talking to this demographic. and basically he painted a picture of you're trying to do your best, trying to raise your family but yet all these hostile forces coming into your home and

trying to mess up what you are creating. and so i'm going to protect you from that even things like the v championship if you remember that back in clinton's day that was part of the strategy, school uniforms. i'm helping you get the order that you have built it will not be messed up. that was a great strategy because that appealed to real anxieties. i'm not sure either of these candidates have that sophisticated an understanding of what is driving so much anxiety, especially among that demographic. >> last couple minutes, i wanted to save a little time to talk about george mcgovern, he's in hospice care. his family put out a statement that he is no longer esponsve, at the end stages of his life. the statement, mark, your sthouts. >> i should acknowledge that i was an add mirer of george mcgovern and i worked in his 1972 campaign. but i think what's misunderstood about george mcgovern, and to define him by that loss is to really be unfair. he went off to war as a 22-year-old from south dakota. he blew the-- flew the b-24

which say big lumbering four engine craft t was vulnerable to german aircraft. de 35 combat missions. steven ambrose, the poet laureate of military heroes said george mcgovern was as great a patriot as he ever knew. he had the trust, confidence and love of his crew. and his acts of courage were just enormous. and i think that we owe him an enormous debt, steven ambrose said i just want to show you that don't have to be a hawk to be a great patriots. and george mc2k3w06 earn was that he was a great patriot. he devoted his energy to feeding the hungry and trying to stop the united ates from o ws we shldn have gone into, vietnam and iraq. and i just think he should be remembered for that leadership rather than just the 1972 race. >> the descriptions of the planes he brought back home after they had been shot up were incredible descriptions of things he did. he was an incredibly decent man throughout his senate

and even the presidential runs, just incredibly nice. if i could make a cheap political point, he wrote a piece in 1992 for "the wall street journal" after he retired. he bought a b & b, bed & breakfast in con, and he wrote a piece saying if hi been a small businessperson before i was in the senate, i would understand what a pain all these regulations are. and he said i would have been a better senator if i understood what happens when you are try to live under this. so that is maybe a polit balance-- political point. >> is there a political legacy that either pro or reacting against still or that comes down to liberalism today. >> i would say a lot of the people he brought into the party in 1972 went on to reshape the democratic party to this day. >> bill clinton among them. >> actly. garhartnd oer people. so i think he had a huge legacy within that party. >> brown: you would agree. >> i would agree. i mean he proved that could

you could be paetsful and a patriot at the same time. and the two weren't in any way mud allly exclusive. >> all right, mark shields, david brooks, thanks as always. >> brown: and mark and david keep up the talk on the "doubleheader," recorded in our newsroom. that will be posted at the top of the online "rundown" blog later tonight. >> warner: again, the major developments of the day: a deadly car bomb struck the heartf beirut, lebanon, killing eight people and wounding dozens. it raised fears that syria's civil war is spilling over the border. and wall street had one of its worst days in months after a series of disappointing earnings. the dow industrials lost 205 points. and something for political junkies-- a new e-book chronicles presidential debate moments. hari sreenivasan has more. >> sreenivasan: learn about a new series of videos and books, including an e-book we've created based on the documentary series "debating our destiny." included are interviews between newshour's jim lehrer and almost every presidential and vice presidential candidate since 1976. find out more on the "rundown."

on "making sense," economics correspondent paul solman revisits presidential prediction methods. he talks to one economist who has a pretty good track record picking winners. and on "art beat," jeff talks to writer louis erdrich about her latest novel, "the round house," which was recently nominated for a national book award. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. jeff. >> warner: and that's the newshour for tonight. on monday, we'll talk to voters in florida about what they want to hear in the third and final debate between present ama and mitt romney. i'm margaret warner. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. "washington week" can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online, and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: bnsf >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to

live healthy, productive life. >> 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 aess.wgbh.org