captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehrer: good evening. i'm jim lehrer. a federal agency allowed oil companies to drill in the gulf of mexico without the required permits. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. on the newshour tonight, president obama vowed to end what he called the "cozy relationship" between regulators and the oil industry. year. >> it seems permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. that cannot and will not happen any more. >> lehrer: we get the latest on the size of the leak from u.s. coast guard commandant admiral thad allen.

>> brown: then, margaret warner interviews britain's new foreign secretary, making his first official trip to washington for meetings with his counterpart, secretary of state hillary clinton. >> lehrer: judy woodruff reports on a hot primary contest for an incumbent senator. >> woodruff: here in pennsylvania pennsylvania, former republican senator arlen specter is in a fight for survival in the democratic primary, and moderation is on the line. >> brown: and we get the weekly analysis of mark shields and david brooks. >> lehrer: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

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. >> brown: b.p. engineers aimed to start siphoning oil tonight from the blown-out well in the gulf of mexico. while in washington, president obama had harsh words for the companies involved and government regulators. as oil continued spewing unabated into the gulf of mexico for the 25th day, president obama underscored the urgency to stopping the leak

>> i saw firsthand the anger and frustration felt by our neighbors in the gulf. and let me tell you, it is an anger and frustration that i share as president. >> brown: he said there was blame to go around, and focused part of his criticism on the government agency charged with issuing permits to drill for oil. >> for too long, for a decade or more, there's been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. it seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. that cannot and will not happen anymore. to borrow an old phrase, "we will trust, but we will verify." >> brown: new information was revealed today about the work of the federal agency in question, the minerals management service, or m.m.s. "the new york times" reported that m.m.s. gave approval to dozens of companies to drill without first getting required environmental protection permits.

and "the washington post" acquired a may 2009 letter from an m.m.s. whistleblower. he cautioned a separate b.p. rig in the gulf posed a "threat of serious, immediate, potentially irreparable and catastrophic harm" to the marine ecosystem. today, the president said the regulatory system needed a "top to bottom" review. he also chastised oil executives who earlier this week blamed each other for the rig's deadly explosion. >> i did not appreciate what i considered to be a ridiculous spectacle during the congressional hearings into this matter. you had executives of b.p. and transocean and halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else. the american people could not have been impressed with that display, and i certainly wasn't. >> brown: meanwhile, there were new questions about just how much oil is spilling into the gulf. early on, b.p. gave estimates of about 5,000 barrels a day-- that's 210,000 gallons.

this morning, b.p.'s chief operating officer told abc news he stood by that number, but that a precise number is impossible to obtain. >> ourselves and people from noaa and others believe that something around 5,000... it's actually barrels a day is the best estimate. we actually think that's probably a reasonable number, but we know its highly uncertain. >> brown: but scientists and engineers have told the newshour the number could be many times higher. ian macdonald is an oceanographer at florida state university. >> there are two ways to estimate this. one is to hook at the spread of the spill on the ocean and the other is to hook at the escaping oil on the sea floor. until b.p. released that little snip of video the other day, we had no idea how big the spill was, the releaser is, on the sea floor. now we have two different ways of looking at that. i think that the actual spill rate is at least five times greater than the official spill rate of 5,000 barrels per day.

>> brown: scientists caution it's impossible to know for sure without knowing the proportion of gas, water and oil coming out of the pipe, as well as the size of the rupture. estimates now vary from 200,000 gallons to as much as 4.2 million gallons a day pouring from the undersea well. a week ago, the newshour created a ticker on our web site to show how much crude has spilled into the gulf, depending on which estimate is selected. on the water's surface, the slick now covers an area of more than 3,500 square miles. late today, federal regulators approved the use of undersea chemical dispersants to break up some of the oil at the well head after testing the technique weeks ago. a short time ago, i spoke with admiral thad allen, the commandant of the u.s. coast guard. he's overseeing the federal response on the oil spill, and spoke to us from biloxi, mississippi. admiral alep, thanks for joining us. what can you tell us about the latest efforts to contain oil, are there any signs of progress today? >> first i'll talk about the

method we are taking to mitigate the leaks currently in progress. one is the installation of the top hat device which will collect the oil and pump it to the surface. second, we'll be attempting to drill directly into the marine riser pipe, and the third will be the application of subsee disperseants on the discharge itself. that requires to us agree on protocols before we move ahead with that. >> brown: are we days, weeks, months from some kind of resolution? what do you think right now? >> the original plan was to drill a relief well, release the pressure and cap the existing well. that will take until some time in august to do. in the meantime we have to mitigate and stop the leaks so we don't have to deal with the oil on the surface and that is going on right now. >> brown: without wanting to diminish the difficulties here, it looks like from the outside little planning went into what would happen in the event of a catastrophic spill. b.p. said they're making this up

as they go along. does it look that way to you? >> i would separate it into two parts. one is dealing with the spill on the surface and we have taken measures to deal with what could be a catastrophic spill. the second is the consequences of the failure of the blowout preventer and it will take long-term forensics to find that out. >> brown: when i talked to you several weeks ago, days into the spill, you agreed even though you intended to hold b.p. and others accountable, the company was for all practical purposes your working partner. now, today the president sounded very frustrated with that partner. what do you think? are they holding up their end of the deal? >> we've been relentless with british petroleum regardinging their responsibility as a responsible party, but we've also conducted kpepsive oversight. i visited their houston headquarters. secretary salazar has been there secretary chu from the department of energy and augmented their star. i would say we're relentless in our oversight. we are communicating directly with them.

i talked to c.e.o. tony hayward today and we understand they're responsible but we're accountable for the oversight and we certainly intend to do that. >> brown : what about the new questions about the volume of oil leaking into the gulf? b.p. said again today it still believes 5,000 barrels a day is in the ballpark. we've talked to scientists who think it's much greater than that. should we assume now that the figures we've been hearing for the past several weeks might be very far off? >> well, they could be, but i would just caution we're deal with estimates regarding a discharge where there's no human access and the only information zee are two-dimensional pictures from video sent back. whether 1,000 barrel, 5,000 barrels or 20,000 barrels, we have planned from the start this could be a catastrophic and i will we have not been limited by what we thought the discharge was. we are preparing for a worst-case catastrophic discharge. while they settle in on the right numbers that has not prohibited the response which has been ongoing. >> brown: isn't it important to

be accurate about what is happening? how do you know if what you're doing is working if you're not exactly sure how much is spug into the water? >> you're raising a good point and we have a whole bunch of people working on that right now. we understand getting information at that depth is very, very difficult. we're collecting information on what we think has been on the top of the water. and what we have been able to do with burning, skimming, and disperseants and we're coming up with what i would call an oil budget and we've had a team working on that. trying to reconcile all those factors is difficult and if we're going to make supposition on what is out there and what has been removed i want to make sure we know that exactly as possible. when you change the numbers it raises credibility issues so we're working very hard on that. >> brown: one more thing on that-- do you think b.p. or anyone has been underplaying the size and impact of the spill so far in order to downplay potential damage? >> nothing leads me to believe that's happened. i think we've had a very difficult time to get information because this thing is happening at 5,000 feet. the amount of turbid itand mud that was raised by the singing

of that unit and the riser settling in the bottom made it almost impossible to do surveillance for 24-36 hours afterwards and this has been a slow process of discovery. but as we've gotten more information we refined our estimates and strategies and i think that has more to do with it than anything else. >> brown: now the president also today blasted what he called the cozy relationship between the oil companies and the mineral management service, the federal agency that gives permits to drill. were you aware of this relationship ? how well known was it how these things work, how permits were given and what was going on? >> i'd have to defer to the minerals management service and the department of the interior. zee our own regulatory relationship with the industry but it has to do with the floating units above while m.m.s. deals with the weled head and the industry there. that's beyond my realm of regulatory responsibility. >> brown : but as one of the regulators there, what does it look like to you? does it look like there was a

too-cozy relationship? >> i think the facts need to be established between the marine board of investigation under way right now in sdmorlz . we are permitted to gettingal the facts on table associated with this event and making them transplant to the public and i think that will tell us. >> brown: so what's next? what happens in the next few hours or 24 hours, admiral? >> in the next 24 hours , it will be sequentially the top hat attempt to collect oil and transport it to the surface. the attempt to put a pipeline directly into the marine riser and if we get approval to move forward, the disperseant application of the sea floor. following that three things-- the top kill or the blowing of refuse and particles into the preventer so it clogs it up, reduces the pressure so they can fill it and stop the leak. potentially after, that the sever other of the marine riser

and putting a valve in the top that would close the leak or put another blowout preventer on top of it. they're all prepared to do that. somewhere around the 18th which is next week. >> brown: admiral thad allen, speaking to us from biloxi, mississippi. thanks for joining us again. >> my pleasure, thank you. >> lehrer: still to come on the newshour: britain's new foreign secretary; pennsylvania's down-to-the-wire primary contest; and shields and brooks. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan in our newsroom. >> sreenivasan: a standoff in the streets of bangkok, thailand, escalated today. at least eight people were killed, and more than a hundred others wounded in clashes between thai troops and protesters. and some of the violence edged closer to the u.s. and japanese embassies. we have a report narrated by jonathan miller of independent television news. >> reporter: welcome to

thailand, land of the free, where tear gas and live rounds are exploding the myth of a peace-loving people. the heart of bangkok, the heart of the war zone-- this now the deadliest violence in nearly two decades. here the nation's polarized political forces are colliding head on. they have seemingly irreconcilable differences, and there are real fears about what the future might hold. >> ( translated ): this is an illegal use of force as ordered by the government of abhisit vejajiva. they should be responsible for those wounded and dead. this is clearly a use of war weapons on the people. >> reporter: this escalation, triggered by the attempted assassination last night of the red shirt protestors' rambo- esque head of security, a renegade army general. he was shot in the head by a sniper and now lies in a coma. the red shirts want the government, dominated by a middle class metropolitan elite, to resign. but to cast the protestors as made up of rural poor and the urban underclass is too simple. the fissures dissecting society cut through the rich-poor divide. ideology doesn't really come

into this, either-- just two rival patronage networks clashing. there's been no word from prime minister aphisit vejajiva today. he's under huge pressure to end the protests. the army's continued to corral and besiege the protestors, who include women and children, in their fortified camp. >> sreenivasan: the standoff has lasted two months, and in that time, the death toll has reached 37. hundreds of people protested in afghanistan against a nato strike they believe killed afghan civilians. the raid took place overnight in the east. nato officials said eight insurgents were killed, including a taliban commander. but local residents insisted the victims were innocent farmers. afghan president hamid karzai also strongly condemned the operation and ordered an investigation. a suicide bomber killed ten people in northern iraq today. the bomber detonated a car bomb near the entrance to a sports stadium in tal afar. it's a predominantly shiite city. in addition to the dead, another 120 were wounded. it comes on the same day the new

leader of al qaeda in iraq warned shiites that "dark days soaked with blood" lie ahead. the message was posted on militant web sites. a letter from the justice department confirmed a criminal investigation into the explosion at a west virginia mine is underway. 29 workers died in the accident at the upper big branch mine last month. investigators are looking into actions by the mine's operator, performance coal, which is a subsidiary of massey energy company. it owns the mine. the space shuttle "atlantis" left on its final voyage today. the shuttle blasted off this afternoon from the kennedy space center at cape canaveral in florida. its last 12-day mission is to the international space station to deliver fresh batteries and a new russian-built compartment. "atlantis" has flown 32 missions since 1985. nasa plans to end the 30-year shuttle program by the end of the year to focus on getting astronauts to an asteroid and mars. only two shuttle flights are left-- by "discovery" and "endeavor". stocks slumped on wall street today on concerns that deep spending cuts under a european bailout plan will slow a global

economic recovery. the dow jones industrial average lost more than 162 points to close at 10,620. the nasdaq fell 47 points to close above 2,346. for the week, the dow gained 2.3%; the nasdaq rose 3.6%. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jim. >> lehrer: now, the new british foreign secretary made a quick trip to washington today. at the state department, william hague and secretary clinton reaffirmed the close ties between the two allies. margaret warner talked with hague this afternoon at the british embassy. >> warner: foreign secretary, thank you for joining us. >> it's a pleasure. >> warner: as you just said in the press conference with secretary clinton, it has been an extraordinary week in british politics. you were in the thick of it. you were the lead negotiator. what tipped the balance? what made you decide to go into this coalition than govern alone? >> we wanted to have a secure government that could last, we

hope, for a good five years to the next general election, and if we had governed as a mean ort that would have been a very unstable arrangement, probably led to another election very quickly, and we found we could combine socially liberal conservatives with economically conservative liberals into a coalition, which we hope will be a great success. >> warner: this is the first coalition government britain's had since world war ii. >> that's right. >> warner: since the churchill cabinet. what kept them together on foreign affairs and national security was defeating the germans. what's going to keep these two parties, conservatives and progressives, united on foreign kls? >> david cameron and i always said before we contemplated the coalition we would pursue a liberal conservative. that means we have clear values supporting democracy, political freedom, human rights, and we will support these important values in the world. but we're skeptical of grand utopian visions to remake the

world. in that sense, we want to work with the grain of the societys and nations, work with the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be. and i think that will be the right combination. and there's certainly a lot of agreement with relations with the united states. >> warner: so here you are , this is your third day in office. you're already here in washington. why? does this mean the special relationship is alive and well? >> it is very much alive and well. the first person it speak to prime minister david cameron when he entered the door of 10 downing street was president obama, and the first person to call me as i entered the foreign office was secretary of state hillary clinton. so we felt a very warm welcome into the government from the united states. i'm here to recipient that warmth, and to talk about so many urgent issues on afghanistan , iran, middle east peace process. there's no time to lose. >> warner: yet, david cameron has talked about the need to have the relationship-- i think his word was "rebalanced. you have said you want a solid

but not slavish relationship with washington. what does that mean? >> it means we won't always agree. the united states is our indispensable partner. this is, as i called it, the unbreakable alliance, and we're utterly convinced of that. we're very transat lant nick our approach but that doesn't mean we will always agree. we shouldn't be afraid to disagree. but i'm glad to say that we do-- the foreign policy decisions of the obama administration are ones that we strongly support and want to work with. >> warner: nick clegg and the liberal democrats have gone even further. he has said something to the effect of too often the british just put ourselves inab automatically subservient position to washington. is he part of shaping this approach to washington? >> he is he is talking about that, his party, the liberal democrats, opposed the war in iraq. but then so didn't the current president of the united states. and so looking forward, i think

it is possible to approach it in this spirit. we will sometimes disagree. but the vast majority of the time, our national interested coincide. that is the view of nick clegg and the department prime minister. >> warner: what about afghanistan? the liberal democrats opposed that war, too. in fact, the majority of liberal democrats do. will there be anything different-- would you like to see anything different in approach in afghanistan compared to what the obama and brown administrations were pursuing? >> well, we will work closely with the obama administration. we will take stock, but that's not about whether to support the strategy of nato and agree to the-- it's how to support it. of course a new government wants to look at the role of british forces over the coming years. but we will be there. we want this to succeed. it is vital for our national security and america's national security

for operations in afghanistan to succeed. >> warner: do you think the obama administration strategy is the right course? >> yes. we want to give it the time and support to succeed. but,,, at every stage, as the situation develops, we want to be there helping to shape the decisions and be-- and form a close political partnership with the obama administration. again, that's why i've come here so quickly. >> warner: nick clegg has talked about a five-year withdrawal timetable for afghanistan and i think david cameron also talked about 2015. will this new government be seeking some sort of time limit on how long british forces will be there? >> we're not going to set a time limit. certainly, that's not our intention at the moment. as i said, we are urgently taking stock. that's not our intention at the moment. of course we want british troops to come home when the job is done. we want to pursue every possible action to bring forward that time. because our objective , when you

think about why we're in afghanistan, it is to reach the point where afghans can look at after their own affairs without presenting a danger to the rest of the world. but it's at that point, that we can will be ask our troops to come home. >> warner: now let's turn to iran because i know that was a major point of conversation between you and secretary clinton today. again, any difference of policy that you're seeking in the way the obama and brown governments have been pursuing trying to are eign in iran's nuclear ambitions? >> there's no difference at the moment of that. there's a strong continuity of british policy from the last government to the new government. if anything, we have been advocates of tougher european action on sanctions than the outgoing government. but it's a small difference. it's not a fundamental difference, strategy. we're all united now, the u.s. and the u.k., on trying to get's security council resolution that puts more pressure on iran. and then we will again work with the united states

to achieve determined european action. and that, of course, is where we really come in and we have a very important role to play. >> warner: but, again, here, there has been a difference between the conservatives and the liberal democrats. liberal democrats have said no military action ever, even as a threat or an option with iran. the torys, of course, have not said that. what's going to be this government's position? >> we're not in any case, at the moment, calling for military action. if we have a different view of that, at the moment it does not surface. at the moment it does not matter. we are united about the need for stronger sanctions. we haven't ever ruled out supporting military action but we've also been clear we're not advocating military action. we're not calling for that. that's why we want to intensify the peaceful pressure on iran. >> warner: i keep asking about the differences between the two partners, because that's, of

course, been of great concern here in washington. what kind of a partnership is washington going to have? can you name any issue on which nick clegg and the liberal democrats' position are or will around-- round the edges or affect the government's position on a foreign policy issue? >> we're one government. and so, we will develop certain things as we go along, with the liberal democrats. but there is no fundamental difference at the moment with the yut -- united states. nick clegg has had a very good conversation with vice president biden. he also is an atlanticist. the new coalition government in britain will work closely, the whole of it, with the united states. >> warner: and have you and the liberal democrats sort of agreed to disagree or bury your differences on relations with europe or are you concerned -- i mean, the liberal democrats are always wanted greater integration. your party has, if anything,

wanted to take back some powers. could that be an issue on which the coalition fractures? >> well, we did not find it difficult to reach a common position. this is one of the things the negotiations -- the liberal democrats have already come to the view that we do not want to transfer more powers or sovereignty to the e.u., so it was quite easy to agree about that. they've also come to the view that we shouldn't be joining the euro in the near future. so we've agree in the lifetime of this government, this parliament, we're not going to be doing that. so actually, events have moved on, and it wasn't so difficult to bring the parties together. >> warner : so you won on both of those. line, is this going to be a tory foreign policy or blend foreign policy? >> what i'm pointing out is the differences are not so great. when we had debate on foreign policy in our election, most observers thought they were rather uneventful. the differences between the party were really nuances.

and so, on foreign policy, it is not so difficult to assemble a united will be -- british goveme p interest before party interest. >> warner: well, we wish you all the luck, and foreign secretary william hague, thank you very much. >> thankou >> brown: next, an "election 2010" story. it comes from pennsylvania, where, next tuesday, democrats will choose a nominee to run for the u.s. senate in november. judy woodruff has our report. >> woodruff: in the city of brotherly love, it's the time of year when loyal phillies fans head to the parkad on-- or have their hearts broken by but a suddenly competitive political contest in this state has stirred up strong views about more than baseball this spring. >> specter, i think, is a

liberal republican, but very far away from what i believe in, and i haven't liked him since the anita hill hearings. >> he's done a lot for pennsylvania; i think he can do a lot more. >> woodruff: those very different opinions are about one man, arlen specter. for going on 30 years, he has represented pennsylvania in the united states senate, all but one of them as a republican. >> we've got our game plan. >> woodruff: now, he's in an unexpected race for his political life in a democratic primary. >> nice to see you guys. >> woodruff: unlike most in the g.o.p., specter, as a republican, cultivated labor unions and other constituencies typically associated with the democratic camp. >> we've been with him a long, long time. he's never let us down. he's been true to his word, an honest man. >> woodruff: so republican leaders weren't entirely surprised when, one year ago, staring at a primary challenge on his right, the five-term senator announced he was switching parties.

>> i am pleased to run in the primary on the democratic ticket and am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers in a general election. >> woodruff: democrats in washington, from the president on down, were thrilled, as this gave them what was then the crucial 60th vote in the senate to overcome g.o.p. filibusters. but back home in pennsylvania, the news hasn't gone down well with many rank and file democrats. about 40% of the vote in next tuesday's primary is expected to come from here in philadelphia and its densely populated suburbs, where arlen specter has long attracted democrats, even when he was a republican. but now that he's switched parties, he's become a target of some democrats who say he's an opportunist and can't be counted on to support democratic priorities. >> i'd like to shake the hand of the real democrat in the race.

>> that's right. >> woodruff: leading the charge is specter's primary opponent, congressman joe sestak. >> i'm in the democratic party out of core beliefs, conviction; not, as arlen specter said, because he did it for political calculations. we cannot fix washington, which everyone has lost faith in, if you are just going to rely on the same career politicians that got us into this mess. we need a new generation to literally help clean up how we approach the future. this is joe sestak, the congressman running against arlen specter. >> woodruff: sestak, a 31-year navy veteran, starting only his second term in congress, traveled to all 67 pennsylvania counties before announcing last august he'd challenge specter in the primary. >> i respect my democratic establishment, but i don't understand how someone who has advanced the republican agenda that set this nation aground can ever be told, "come on over. show us how its to be done." in the u.s. navy, if a navy captain runs a ship aground,

they relieve him for cause, they don't say, "it's all right. i've got a deal for you." >> woodruff: the move defied democratic party leaders and even the white house, which sestak said had offered him a job in the obama administration if he would stand down. terry madonna, the director of the center for politics and public affairs at franklin and marshall college, says sestak, a former admiral, is an indefatigable campaigner, perhaps only rivaled by the man he's trying to defeat. >> i don't think i've ever seen a politician more driven., personally driven, and to the point where he will go anywhere, stay any amount of time, do whatever he has to do in order to win. and he doesn't care if he's speaking to five people, 500 or 5,000. >> reporter: and many democrats, like monica kline and gregory stewart, who campaigned early

and tirelessly for president obama's campaign in the keystone state, were ready for sestak's message-- that specter's not someone they can count on. >> i was born in 1965. arlen specter has been a republican my entire life i remember coming home and watching the clarence thomas hearings on c-span-- and may... perhaps its my sicilian in me, but i don't forget things, and i just remember being so disheartened and shocked at the treatment of anita hill. and from that moment, frankly, i would hope for a candidate to run against arlen who i could support. >> woodruff: stewart said obama's endorsement of specter didn't deter him. >> i still support a lot of what he's doing, but in this particular place, i think the voters of pennsylvania are going to have to make a decision, and its not going to come from a top down. and the fact that that grassroots movement started in 2008 is really making it easier for someone like a joe sestak to

challenge the establishment. >> woodruff: even so, hardly any at first gave the 58-year-old sestak a chance against the far more senior, better-known specter, who insists that, even as a republican, he voted for democratic values. >> well, sestak may challenge my credentials as a supporter of democratic values, but president obama is a better authority. support of women's right to choose, opposed warrantless wire tapping, for the minimum wage, for unemployment compensation. but the big votes, judy-- the stimulus package, i cast the critical vote, which saved, as president obama says, the country from going over the brink, 1930s style depression. and i was the 60th vote on comprehensive health care reform. >> woodruff: but specter also

finds himself up against a shifting national political landscape. voters have grown more and more fed up with washington gridlock, and politicians they view as not addressing the nations most urgent problems. even specter's biggest cheerleaders, like pennsylvania's democratic governor ed rendell, acknowledge the voters' mood has to be taken seriously. >> i think there is a strong anti-incumbent feeling in the country. i would have a very difficult time if i were running for re- election. you know, there isn't an incumbent governor, senator or even congressman who's in good shape in this country. >> voters are sour, they are cranky, they're frustrated. and that energy level that we saw with president obama in this state-- he won pennsylvania by 10 percentage points, turned out a whole bunch of new voters-- we don't see that. and they have a week to go, or less than a week to go, and i don't think we are going to have a big turnout. >> woodruff: specter himself tells crowds he knows he's operating in a tough political climate.

>> if you don't cotton up to the tea party gang, you're no good. and see where john mccain is today. can you believe it? that john mccain doesn't appear to be conservative enough to be the republican nominee for re-election in arizona? so who can stay in a party-- it's not far right, its far out! ( laughter ) ( applause ) >> woodruff: many political observers say specter made a mistake by waiting, and letting sestak go up with the first round of television spots, mocking specter's party switch. >> i can count on this man, that's important. he's a firm ally. >> woodruff: but now... >> my change in party will enable me to be re-elected. >> ... arlen specter switched parties to save one job-- his, not yours. >> woodruff: these and a few other sestak spots have helped propel him from 20 points behind in most polls last month to even with or slightly ahead of specter today.

specter has come back with his own tough tv spots. >> joe sestak-- relieved of duty in the navy for creating a "poor command climate." >> woodruff: but one of them has backfired-- this one has prompted mdecrater of below-thet tactics, and some undecideds to come out for sestak. the congressman rejects specter's call to release his military records, and says the tv ad is not true. >> arlen specter, what a shame. it says more about him than it says about anybody else. that he will actually pursue a lie. he will actually say what's false. he will actually do anything in smearing someone to try to keep his job. >> i've been in public life for 43 years and no one has ever called me a liar before. >> woodruff: some democrats are telling pollsters they see still another specter liability-- his age, and the fact that he has had two bouts with cancer.

>> to be candid with you, in the interviews that we have done, age and health come up. i mean, the fact that he is 80 years old is a factor for some voters. but to... and you know, why doesn't he go do something else? why cant he find another, you know, way to spend his later years?" >> woodruff: specter, not surprisingly, dismisses that. >> well, i'm fit as a fiddle. play squash almost every day. i've got my strength and full of vim, vigor and vitality, judy. >> woodruff: governor rendell adds that specter has built up influence the state of pennsylvania and its voters rely on. >> arlen specter, over 30 years, has amassed an incredible amount of clout. he knows where all of the... what's stuck in every drawer, where the skeletons are buried, he has an incredible way of getting stuff for the state. he's such a bulldog, but he's a bulldog for us. and that would be the big difference. on votes, on ideology, i think they would be practically no difference.

>> woodruff: but professor terry madonna says, in the current political climate, that clout can work against specter. >> the voters are still in a "change" mood. and so a lot of what normally would be a tremendous asset: longevity, experience,nihe s a of that now becomeneti clinton

won the primary vote against barack obama. >> lehrer: what about mullllan he lost his renom nakz primary race. does this fit in as well? >> it does-- well tdoes in the sense what has always worked in the past for the incumbent-- that is, senator smith, congressman jones, you may not like him, you may not agree with him on everything, but son of a gun, he got the new interchange. he got the contract that kept our factory over. >> lehrer: i'm mispronouncing his name. >> that's all right. 14 terms. he's third ranking on appropriations in the house.andd the emeritus chairman of the appropriationsst virginia had an federal spending. it didn't work for him. his opponent did run on allegations of

ethical or unethical behavior on his part. the question of whether his net worth had-- which had had improved dramatically, and the rnal" did a ece g1on it. it was rea a, -incti-- >> but also antinsactiong1,

a great country out there

with an awful lot pe ile his pool-- i really think it is terribly elitist. it sounds the british ruling class. >> mark anshd that it's all cats and jews on c t.ehrer: you guys are cove. it's easy for you to say!iwantp la bad for exactly that reason. lepeooatit-- ath very fine people but it is true it would bnie o ve up and down ranks and it is ofnarrow slice >> lyndon johnson was rapsidizing about how brilliant

jack kennedy's cabinet was, sam ray burn, all the ivy league pedigrees, sam. >> suarez: burn said he wished somebody had run for sheriff. >> lehrer: david can speak for himself, but, mark, if you ever do run for sheriff , i will vote for you. >> thank you. >> lehrer: will you vote for him david? >> i'll think about it. >> lehrer: thank you both very much. >> lehrer: again, the major developments of the day: president obama vowed to end what he called the "cozy relationship" between regulators and the oil industry, as the u.s. government approved the wide-scale use of undersea chemical dispersants for the leak. and the standoff in the streets of bangkok, thailand, between thai troops and anti-government protesters left eight people dead and more than 100 wounded. >> brown: the newshour is always online. hari sreenivasan, in our newsroom, previews what's there. hari. >> sreenivasan: find more from

scientists about the size of the gulf oil spill. explore different scenarios on the oil tracker you saw on tonight's program. and on "newshour connect," we talk to louisiana public broadcasting about the impact on local economies. plus on "art beat," jeff talks to filmmaker alex gibney about his documentary on disgraced lobbyist jack abramoff. and finally, there's a new program in the friday night lineup on pbs. it's called "need to know." tonight, the program includes a story from texas about the attempt by conservatives there to rewrite some of the textbooks used in the state's public schools. here's an excerpt. >> mack leroy was successful in getting language into the standards that questions the theory of evolution. this year, he's tackling social studies. he says he and his like-minded board members are determined to correct a liberal bias they see in the books. >> it makes me wondering what's happening in our universities. are the young teachers being taught history in a biased way? i think they are. i think it's clearly academia has swung way, way, way , over to the left and they're not

presenting history right in the universitys. >> sreenivasan: that's "need to know", airing on many pbs stations later tonight. and don't forget, you can find our program online at newshour.pbs.org. jeff. >> brown: and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm jeffrey brown. >> lehrer: and i'm jim lehrer. "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:

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