>> lehrer: and mark shields and michael gerson offer their pre- speech analysis. >> ifill: then, margaret warner examines the power shift in lebanon that has ignited protests in the streets. >> lehrer: and betty anne bowser has a cancer conversation with a doctor turned storyteller. >> it would cure... the word cure is such a productive word, such a tand liesing word. the implication is two things. number one is there's one cancer so that you can cure all of it and the second thing is that it's a curable disease. >> lehrer: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> okay, listen. somebody has got to get serious. >> i think... >> we need renewable energy. >> ...renewable energy is vital to our planet. >> you hear about alternatives, right? wind, solar, algae... >> i think it's going to work an a big scale. only, i think it's going to be affordable. >> so where are they? >> it has to work in the real world. at chevron, we're investing millions in solar and biofuel technology to make it work. >> we've got to get on this now. >> right now. >> for three hours a week, i'm a coach, but when i was diagnosed with prostate cancer, i needed a coach. our doctor was great, but with so many tough decisions, i felt lost. united healthcare offered a specially trained r.n., who helped us weigh and understand all our options. for me, cancer was as scary as a fastball is to some of these kids, but my coach had hit that pitch before. >> turning data into useful answers. we're 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. united healthcare. >> bnsf railway. >> the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. >> 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. >> lehrer: spending, jobs, and deficits will be on the agenda as president obama addresses congress and the nation tonight. kwame holman begins our coverage. >> reporter: as the president worked putting the finishing touches on his second official state of the union address today, details began to emerge about what he plans to propose. the president reportedly intended to call for a five-year spending freeze on non-security discretionary spending and a ban on earmarks, money inserted by lawmakers for home state projects. the president also was he is spekted to highlight a handful of targeted investment areas including education, infrastructure and innovation. house republicans urged the president to stay away from policies that would grow the size of government. >> until we look forward to finding ways to work with the president to create more jobs and less spending in washington. but the american people, every time they hear somebody in washington say "investment" all they hear is let's go out and borrow 40 cents on the dollar and send the bill to our children. and no one, no one believes that you can make a great nation more competitive by somehow bankrupting future generations. >> reporter: hours before the president was to deliver his speech, house republicans moved forward with an effort to reduce non-security federal spending to pre-2008 pre-bailout levels. the measure was aimed at fulfilling a g.o.p. campaign pledge last year to cut tens of billions from the budget. the chair of the house budget committee, paul ryan of wisconsin who will deliver the official republican response tonight, said it was time to get the country's fiscal house in order. >> the days are over of unlimited spending of no prioritization and the days of getting spending under control are just beginning. this is a first step in a long process. this is a minimal small downpayment on a necessary process to go forward so we can leave our kids with a better generation. >> reporter: democrat jim mcgovern of massachusetts said the republican proposal lacked specifics. >> don't tell me you're going to freeze to a level. that usually is a very inefficient way of doing it. tell me what you're going to cut. as i urged my colleagues to reject this misguided resolution, i ask my republican colleagues what's the number and what are you going to cut? >> reporter: the debate over spending also was playing out over in the senate today where members returned from a two-week break. republican leader mitch mcconnell connell said he welcomes the president's attention to the issue. >> i'm all for the president changing his tune, but unless he has a time machine he can't change his record. and if we're going to make any real progress in the areas of spending, debt, and reining in government, the president will have to acknowledge that the policies of the past two years are not only largely to blame for the situation we find ourselves in but that unless we do something to reverse their ill effects, the road to recovery and prosperity will be a bumpy one. >> reporter: majority leader harry reid said upcoming debates over deficits raising the debt limit and health care should be based on facts not empty rhetoric. >> the american people voted in november for a divided legislative branch of government, a democratic senate, a republican house. they didn't elect houses led by competing political parties because they want us to compete. they did so because they want us to cooperate. we cannot cooperate without an honest debate. we cannot have an honest debate if we insist that fiction is fact. >> reporter: in one of the first signs of renewed bipartisanship, a plan to have lawmakers sit with colleagues from across the aisle was taking hold. the idea offered by senator mark udall a colorado democrat has proposed dozens of pairings including senators john thune of south dakota and kirsten gillibrand of new york and in the house majority whip kevin mccarthy of california and his democratic counterpart steny hoyer of maryland. udall said he hopes the gesture would prove to the american people that their elected officials can work together. >> i'm an old mountaineer. i think the aisle that divides us has become as high as a mountain. and it's time to climb that mountain and look out upon america altogether. >> reporter: the idea to jettison the traditional seating arrangements gained momentum in the aftermath of the tucson shootings. on capitol hill today, black-and-white ribbons were being handed out to members of the house and senate in remembrance of the victims. >> thank you so much. >> reporter: among first lady michelle obama's guests tonight will be the parents of nine-year-old christina taylor greene who was killed in the attack, daniel hernandez, the intern who came to the aid of the congress wam after she was shot, and university of arizona trauma surgeon peter reed who cared for giffords. bipartisan seating and civility aside, president obama will confront a new political reality tonight as he delivers his first state of the union address since republicans won control of the house last year. >> ifill: republicans and democrats began sparring in advance about tonight's speech. white house press secretary robert gibbs gave us a preview a short time ago. robert gibdz, welcome. we understand the president is going to propose a budget freeze against non-discretionary spending tonight, discretionary spending, that is, tonight. how is that different from what he proposed exactly one year ago. >> gwen, what the president will discuss tonight is not just a couple or two or three years but a longer-term freeze on our spending to the tune of bringing the share of government spending down to the lowest that it's been since eisenhower was president. we are not going to have a debate about whether we have to get our fiscal house in order. i think the debate and the discussions over the course of the next couple years are going to be about how to do that. certainly the president will open that up tonight by making some very hard choices. >> ifill: robert, i'm sure by now you've already heard that many republicans, once getting wind of this, said they won't settle for anything less than a roll back to 2008 or pre-obama spending levels. what do you say to that? >> well, look, let's be clear that we did not get into this overnight. understand that the deficits and the debt we're dealing with are... have been accumulated over the course of many years not just in the last one or two years. but, gwen, we have to make some improvement investments in innovation and in technology. we can't simply take a knife or a meat axe to the budget. we have to do this in a way that's smart. i think what e president is going to talk about is not again... not whether we cut but how we do that. how do we maintain investments in things like clean energy, manufacturing that will create the jobs of tomorrow? how do we continue to reform education, to continue to innovate and export overseas? again creating jobs here in america. i don't think we want to throw the baby out with the bath water. >> ifill: when you say "investments, targeted investments," republicans hear spending. how do you find a middle ground on that? >> again, what i think you'll hear the president talk about is we're going to reduce overall spending in those spending reductions there may be some targeted increases in, again, say clean energy, research and development, creating the jobs of tomorrow. that means we'll have to make deeper cuts in other things that the president might think are important but not as much of a priority as research and development. so again we're not having a debate about whether we make some cuts. we're having a debate about whether how we do it. look, if we're going to compete with china and india, if we're going to have america continue to win the future, we're going to have to continue to invest in our work force development, invest in our students so that we can create those jobs here, not see them created overseas. >> ifill: when you talk about making deeper cuts elsewhere, does that also include entitlement programs like social security? you know, that paul ryan who will be giving the republican response tonight is very high on that idea. >> look, i think what is going to be incumbent upon republicans going forward is to spell out exactly what they would like to see happen as part of deficit control here in washington. you'll hear the president tonight talk about ways in which he believes we need to address social security and strengthen it for future generations. i don't think when he looks at it as a deficit mechanism as much as he looks at it as the obligations that we have to current and future retirees that quite frankly simply have to be met. >> ifill: much talk tonight about the fact that so many members are going to cross the aisle to sit together. at least the illusion at least of bipartisanship. how do you balance this desire to signal bipartisanship and everybody getting along against committing to a set of core principles in which you basically disagree with the person sitting next to you? >> gwen, i think that each party and each individual brings to these debates their core beliefs in the values that animate those beliefs. the president-- and i don't think anybody as a republican in congress thinks or wants to see that change. you'll hear the president say that's our democracy. but i think if you look back at what we were able to accomplish in december, working together, democrat and republican, to move this country forward, that gives us a road map for how we can reform our educational system, cut our corporate tax rates. increase our exports and pay free trade agreements again that create jobs here in america. we have a road map for how we can get that done. i think the test, gwen, is not just where each member sits tonight, though the president is supportive of the idea of democrats sitting next to republicans. he'll say quite clearly the test honestly is whether or not tomorrow we can sit next to each other and work together. >> ifill: mitch mcconnell, the senate minority leader, told reporters today that this is... that november 2, the date he likes to point to, was a national restraining order that was issued against democratic policies. he thinks he sees things heading in his direction. do you see that? >> i'm not sure i'd use a restraining order analogy to discuss an election that is called for in our constitution but i'll leave analogies to mitch mcconnell. i think what the republicans and democrats and the electorate sent the message to washington that we have shared responsibility in governing this country. right? not one party controls everything. so it's incumbent upon democrats and republicans to put forward solutions. quite honestly that's why we saw so much progress in december. that's why we saw a tax agreement that doesn't see taxes go up on middle class families. that's why we saw a new treaty that reduces nuclear weapons. that's why we passed a law that finally does away with banning gays in the military because democrats and republicans put aside their partisan differences to focus on what's best for america. we just had an election, gwen. there will be plenty of time to have the next election. let's focus now on working together, sitting side by side, and most importantly working side by side to make progress for this country. >> ifill: i know this will be your last state of the union in this role at least. congratulations and good luck. >> thank you. >> lehrer: we'll have more on the state of the union coming up, including bipartisan seat mates senators durbin and kirk, and mark shields and michael gerson; plus, the power shift in lebanon; and a very human look at an often deadly disease. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: thousands of anti-government protesters marched in the streets of egypt today in what was dubbed a "day of rage." the clashes broke out in cairo and elsewhere around the country and killed at least three people. demonstrators called for an end to president mubarak's 30-year- rule, inspired by recent protests that ousted tunisia's leader. we have a report from jonathan rugman of independent television news. >> reporter: it began in tunisia and now egypt is tasting its own dose of people- power. waves of protesters braving tear gas on the banks of the river nile this afternoon. freedom, they chanted. and down with hosni mubarak. egypt's president for the last 30 years. marching past cairo's world famous archeological museum until water can non-pushed them back. (screaming) we watched the crowd disperse in panic as the water cannon truck charged towards them. protesters responded by chasing it and trying to climb on board. one police estimate put the number of demonstrators at 15,000 inside the capital with more protests in other towns and cities. not on a tunisia scale, yet such defiance here is rare and could mark the beginning of something bigger. egyptians were brandishing the tunisian flag shouting down poverty, corruption and the seemingly unending rule of one man. >> it is a failed government. they can't achieve anything. prices are rising. so is poverty. so is unemployment. why? >> reporter: a reported six egyptians have set themselves alight in the last few weeks while the poverty here is more than a match fortune itia. egypt's population being eight times the size. in the market the price of basics has gone up by around 20% in the last few months. and one of the organizers of today's protest says egyptians are desperate for a better way of life. >> sreenivasan: today's mass demonstrations in egypt were also organized with the help of youtube, facebook, and twitter. but by late afternoon, it was widely reported the country's access to the twitter web site had been blocked. in russia, prime minister vladimir putin vowed "retribution is inevitable" for yesterday's suicide bombing at moscow's largest airport. at least 35 people died and 180 were injured, but there has been no claim of responsibility for the attack. putin and russian president dmitry medyedev visited the wounded today in a moscow hospital. meanwhile, mourners gathered to place flowers at a makeshift shrine to the victims near the site of the blast. the first guantanamo detainee tried in a u.s. civilian court was sentenced to life in prison today. ahmed ghailani was convicted last fall for his role in the 1998 terrorist bombings of two american embassies in africa. he was found guilty of conspiracy to destroy government buildings, but was acquitted of all other charges, including 224 counts of murder. in new york today, a judge denied ghailani's request for leniency, citing the "suffering and horror he and his confederates caused." former white house chief of staff rahm emanuel is back on the ballot in chicago. the illinois supreme court granted him a stay, a day after an appeals court found him ineligible to run for mayor. the state's top court ordered city election officials to print ballots with emanuel's name. it is still considering the appellate court's decision on an expedited timetable. that court ruled monday that emanuel did not meet the requirements to run for office, since he did not live in chicago for the year before the election. in economic news, u.s. consumer confidence hit an eight-month high in january, with americans feeling more optimistic about the job market. meanwhile, new data showed home prices are falling across most of america's largest cities. the mixed reports caused stocks on wall street to finish flat. the dow jones industrial average lost 3 points to close at 11,977. the nasdaq rose more than a point to close at 2719. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to gwen. >> ifill: as kwame mentioned, the atmospherics at tonight's joint address to congress are likely to be a little different than in years past. among other things, some republicans and some democrats will be seated together, among them this bipartisan pair. judy woodruff has that. >> woodruff: and they are the two senators from the president's home state of illinois, newly elected republican mark kirk and democrat dick durbin. he serves as the senate's majority whip. gentlemen, thank you both for being with us. senator durbin, to you first. i don't mean to be too personal, but how did this all come about? who approached whom? >> i can't remember who started the conversation. >> you did. >> i'll take credit for it. i thought it was a good idea. mark kirk was elected back in november on election night. we spoke on the phone. i said the campaign is over. let's try to do this together. we've been working together ever since. he was sworn in early. we've worked on a lot of issues involving our state. we're going to continue to. i think tonight sitting next to one another is an indication of that spirit of cooperation. >> woodruff: senator kirk, why did you think it was a good idea? some of your fellow republicans are saying this is a stunt. >> it's not. for example i'm wearing a ribbon that many of us will wear remembering congresswoman gabrielle giffords and praying for her recovery and those of the other victims. after the arizona shootings i think it's indumb bept as all of us to sit as patriots not as partisans. we've decided to sit together to make sure the people of our state see we agree on more than we disagree on. yes, it extends beyond tonight. senator durbin and i just introduced bipartisan legislation to ban sewage dumping in the great lakes as part of this bipartisan cooperation. >> woodruff: i ask you about that because this morning the senate minority leader, your leader, mitch mcconnell, told a group of reporters, he said, seating arrangements during the state of the union in the end is going to mean absolutely nothing. you apparently don't agree with him. >> no. i think that symbolism often times can lead to progress. many times disagreements on the house or senate floor come from personal pique. i always think there's always a good time to have good manners. >> woodruff: and you mentioned for stopping sewage dumping in the great lakes. what about other national issues that you think you and senator durbin might be able to work on, that the two pears milt be able to work together on. >> for example, the president will call for a no earmark spending. i agree with him on that. he'll also call for a new line item veto that will reduce federal spending. i agree with him on that as well. >> woodruff: you think this has staying power, senator durbin? what about you? do you agree with that. >> i think so. i do have to say a word about congressman giffords. what happened to her was a national tragedy but it has inspired many of us. i hope that tonight she's strong enough to watch the state of the union and to see the seating arrangements and the ribbons which i'll be wearing as well. really understand she's inspired us to try a little harder to work together. i think the lame duck session where we accomplished quite a bit, working with the president, democrats and republicans, i hope it set the tone for what we're going to be embarking on in the next few weeks. >> woodruff: senator durbin, what does the president need to say tonight? >> well it's an interesting balance he has to strike. i think we all agree that the nation's deficit and debt are major challenges. i was on the deficit commission that the president created. but we have to find a way to strike the right balance. so that the cutting of spending is not at the expense of recovery. so that we don't kill the jobs that we need to have in illinois and across the nation. secondly, i know that this has been debated back and forth. but we've got to find out how to put more resources into education and innovation so that america will truly be competitive in the decades ahead. you know, the president of china came to chicago last week, and he came there in a new capacity. america's major creditor and major competitor. i think senator kirk probably agrees with me, we have to find a way to make sure america is more competitive in the decades to come. >> woodruff: we are hearing the president is going to talk about investments in education and infrastructure, research and development. his argument being that this is all about the future, that you have to spend now to have a better future. is that an argument that makes sense to you? >> we can reallocate items in the budget as long as overall federal spending is going down and going down by quite a bit. what is left of federal spending, if it's reallocated more towards helping america's economic future has a strong bipartisan support. by i think the message that we did hear in november is we are worried about trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. it's utterly unsustainable. we need to in the long run cut federal spending dramatically starting almost right away. >> woodruff: that's not inconsistent with talking about spending on so-called investments as the white house describes them? >> remember, even if we balance the budget tomorrow, the federal government would spend over $2 trillion. so the question is first we need dramatic spending reductions. and then secondly with what's left, if we reallocate it towards america's economic future, there can be strong possibilities for bipartisan cooperation. >> woodruff: senator durbin, we also know the president will talk tonight about a five- year freeze on non-security discretionary spending. robert gibbs was talking to gwen about that just a moment ago. do you have a worry though that that will necessitate in short order deeper cuts in other domestic spending? >> i do. i do. i try to imagine what it will mean to freeze it and what kind of cuts will take place. and you really have to play this out. last night i met with the chiefs of police and sheriffs from major cities across the united states. we talked about mental illness in light of what happened in tucson. these chiefs of police said to me, you know, right now the first line of defense against unstable people with meantal illness is the police department. it's the young officer. it's the jailer. and we have to understand that putting resources into caring for the mentally ill is not only the compassionate thing to do but important for us to have stability and civility in our society. so these are going to be some tough calls. it won't be easy. i believe we have to bring the deficit down but i hope we do it in a humane, sensible way. >> woodruff: what about that, senator kirk? this idea of cutting what would amount to benefits that go to local or state governments to help those who are mentally ill? >> if you're cutting overall federal spending, then you can have a strong chance to get by partisan support. if on the other hand we're not really cutting spending, i think we're taking the country in a direction of greece, that said yes to everyone and no to its economic future. i think the principal danger to the u.s. economy is federal spending and trillion dollar deficits. if we focus our attention on that number one problem first, there's a lot of room for bipartisan cooperation on everything else. >> woodruff: gentlemen, we'll be watching the two of you sitting together in the gallery tonight. senator mark kirk, senator dick durbin, thank you. >> lehrer: and now, the coming of tonight's state of the union address as seen by shields and gerson. that's syndicated columnist mark shields and "washington post" columnist michael gerson. david brooks is away tonight. michael, what do you make of this mixed seating arrangement? >> well, i think it's symbolic and sweet and a little bit like junior high school. but i think the principle is an important one. not just in the congress but actually in our lives. that we should associate with people that we don't always agree with. that's why i like mark so much. but i think that's important. i've always hated that aspect of the state of the union address which is the competitive applause aspect which i think has undignified and in so far as this undermines that trend that's a good thing. >> lehrer: mark? >> i think, jim, before we walk together or work together we have to crawl together. i think this is an important step that mark udall, the senator from colorado is to be commended for. it's positive. i think once you sit next to somebody and talk to them and get to know them as human beings it's a locality tougher to demonize them. and i think that's good for the legislative process. i think it's good for the country. >> lehrer: speaking of what's going good for the country, what are your expectations about what the president is going to say tonight. >> i don't think there's many expectations that haven't been played out pretty graphically by the white house. education, innovation and what else? acceleration i guess. >> lehrer: maybe cut the budget a little bit. >> exactly. that's right. but i'd say the biggest concerns americans have, at least expressed in the wall street journal snrb/nbc poll and elsewhere as well, about america in the future is the decline of the middle class. the flight of jobs overseas. and their sense that the american education... public education system is not working. i think that those have to be addressed. jobs are the overriding concern to people. there's never been, know my judgment in the first two years of a president's term, an overarcing economic definition or really narrative of what this administration is about and where it wants to go. >> lehrer: he should do it tonight. >> i think he has to do it tonight. people have to walk out of that speech tonight or leave that speech and say i understand jobs are his passion and preoccupation. he knows what he's doing about it and he's going to do something about it. >> lehrer: how do you see it? >> i think a major electoral loss like he experienced in november is also a chance to restart your message and prove, i heard, i listened. for the last few months he's been doing that quite well. the tax deal showed there was some prospect of bipartisan cooperation if you give in that process. tucson recovered some of the tone, the post partisan tone of 2008 for the president. and his staff changes a lot of bringing in a lot of old clinton people who are very good on these deficit issues and pro business messaging. so tonight could continue that progress. he has to be credible on a optimistic pro growth economic message but he has to be credible on the deficit not just... and that's much more difficult. it's very hard to get a long- term deficit without dealing with entitlements which he doesn't seem to want to do. but people are going to take a real measure on that, on how serious he is. >> lehrer: do you the real measure will be taken on thematic things he says or on programmatic things? >> on the deficit, the words don't matter at all. i mean, you know, it's all policy in that. people are going to add it up. a five-year domestic discretionary freeze which seems to be in the speech tonight is not going to solve the long-term problem of the deficit. no one believes it will. you have to get at particularly a medical entitlements. there's no way around it. >> lehrer: paul ryan, the new chairman of the important house budget committee and from wisconsin, he's going to give the republican response. what do you expect from him? >> i assume that paul ryan will address the deficit problem which has been the central theme of the republicans, of cutting the size, scope and spending of government. maybe in reverse order. one of the great problems, jim, that the two parties have is that the democrats are a party increasingly of have-nots. that is, a party that depends upon public services, public education, public expenditures. the republican base is an older, white, retired base of voters who are not interested in really in cutting entitlements. that's an awkward thing. the democrats don't want the budget cut because their constituencies really look to the government for help, assistance, whether it's in medical care, its in education, wherever. they really do believe it's an active partner whereas the republicans philosophically want government cut back but their most reliable constituency, older white retired voters who were the most dependable in 2010 and 2008 are not particularly interested in tampering with those entitlements michael mentioned. >> lehrer: you see it the same way maybe not specifically the same way but what's at risk here or what is at issue here are philosophies rather than programs. >> there is a difference in philosophy here. paul ryan will say we're in an emergency, a fiscal emergency. that's going to require serious measures, probably beyond what the president is proposing. ryan is a big advocate of reform of medicare, for example. i believe if... coming out of that the administration really attacks that and demonizes it, that's not a good sign. eventually that problem has to be confronted and has to be done in a bipartisan way. there's no way around it. mark is exactly right. neither side has much of a political interest in doing this. it's entirely a substantive need. it's a test of our political system in many ways. >> lehrer: a test of the system in a word? >> i think it is. i do think the president is in a stronger position on reforming the entitlements in the sense that he can make the case, "i am the representative and leader of the democratic party. these are our programs. we care about them. we want to improve them while the other side has been historically their opponents. who do you want making these cuts if the cuts need to be made?" >>. >> lehrer: to coin a phrase, stay tuned. >> we will. >> ifill: next, hezbollah and the shifting political landscape in lebanon. margaret warner has the story. >> warner: lebanon's president appoints hezbollah-backed candidate to be prime minister today asking him to form a new government. he, a billionaire businessman, also won a majority of parliament votes, defeating the western backed caretaker prime minister. demonstrations erupted on the street with angry sunnis protesting hezbollah's rising power. >> we do want a prime minister imposed on us. we.... >> warner: today hariri who has refused to join the new government asked his supporters to remain calm. >> i would like to announce my total rejection of all the riots that accompany the protests and distorted the national and noble aims for these movements. >> warner: his opponent did the same. >> i call on the people to restrain themselves and not get drawn into con flick with anyone. last night i told you all i had extended my hand to everyone. we are communicating with everyone. >> warner: his ascendency is a giant step for hezbollah, a shiite dominated group backed by iran and syria and considered a terrorist organization by the u.s. he is a sunni. hezbollah, which began as a resistance group fighting israeli occupation in southern lebanon in the '80s, was blamed for the 1983 bombing of u.s. marine barracks in beirut. more recently hezbollah and israel waged a five-week conflict in 2006. and then as now the movement was led by nazalah who addressed a rally of supporters today. >> today the lebanese have a good chance to unite under the condition of no winner, no loser. let us cooperate. >> warner: today's events were triggered two weeks ago when hezbollah pulled out of the government bringing it down. hariri had refused the group's demand to stop cooperating with the united nations' backed tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of his father, former prime minister. hezbollah denies any role in the killing but sealed draft indictments issued last week are reported to name some hezbollah members. in washington secretary of state hillary clinton expressed misgivings at the prospect of a hezbollah-led government. >> a hezbollah-controlled government would clearly have an impact on our bilateral relationship with lebanon. our bottom line remain as they always have been. first we believe that justice must be pursued and impunity for murder ended. we believe in lebanon's sovereignty and an end to outside interference. so as we see what this new government does, we will judge it accordingly. >> warner: the united states has given $1.2 billion in economic and military aid to lebanon in the last five years. and the obamaed administration had requested $246 million more this year. for more on all this, we turn to mark perry, an independent analyst. he's spent years dealing with and writing about hezbollah. his new book is "talking to terrorists: why america must engage with its enemies." and andrew tabler, a fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. a former journalist, he's reported widely from the middle east. his coming book is "in the lion's den: inside america's cold war with assad's syria." andrew tabler, i'll begin with you. what are we to make of the fact that it seems the next prime minister of lebanon is going to be hezbollah's hand- picked candidate? >> definitely in the short term it is a setback for the obama administration policies. they a tremendous amount invested in former prime minister hariri. but in a number of ways this is a crisis that has been long in coming. the reason why this all broke down is because of the special tribunal for lebanon. and a lot of the incoming government's decisions are going to be measured against lebanon's participation with the tribunal going forward. >> warner: what do you think is the significance of this? >> the united states has to get used to this. we've seen in new reports today troubles in tunisia and egypt. now we have lebanon. what's the irony is lebanon may turn out to be the most stable of any of these governments because it's a confessional democracy. >> warner: explain confessional democracy briefly. >> the muslims and sunni muslims and shia muslims hold one part of the parliament eke equal to seats with the christians. they're evenly divided. it's a very tenuous... there's a quota fof for each confession in the country. and this government, led by hariri, collapsed as sometimes happens in a parliamentary democracy. now a new government is being formed. this is something i think we can live with. yes, it's uncomfortable as the secretary of state made clear but it's something we can live with. >> warner: he said this did amount to a coups. you saw people in the streets. this is a country that has had a real history of violent, sectarian conflict. do you think that that... do you agree with mark perry that this will be very stable? >> i think that that's unclear at the moment. the government was brought down constitutionally but it wasn't without a lot of threats and intimidation by hezbollah on certain factions inside of lebanon. and a lot of arm twisting by hezbollah as well as their backers syria. >> warner: are you talking about political intimidation or threat of violence? >> political intimidation although there were some reports of threats of violence. but i think the most important thing now going forward is how does hezbollah react to the coming issue of the indictment? and where does the lebanese government come down on all of this? >> warner: i just want to ask mark perry. does this mean that hezbollah, which the u.s. calls a terrorist organization, is now or has become the dominant political player or faction in lebanon? >> they are the dominant political player and faction in lebanon. the question is how closely tied are they to iran and syria? are they a... my belief is that they're not. they've made very clear to me in their discussions and they said so in public. they are a lebanese party and movement. they're committed to the future of lebanon. they're not acting on behalf of anyone. we're either going to take them at their word and see whether they keep that word or we're going to oppose them. >> warner: do you agree they've become the dominant faction. >> hezbollah's power inside of lebanon has grown over the last few years sneeb is that because the shiites are a dominant majority? i mean populationwise? despite this quota system that they have for government. >> not exactly. there are internal reasons for that but the other thing is that-- and i think majorly that the united states is viewed inside of lebanon and also other parts of the region as lacking a strategy and how to protect its allies moving forward whereas hezbollah and syria have been very good at putting the obama administration into dilemmas that they find a hard time getting out of. hezbollah and syria have won this round unfortunately. >> warner: what will this mean for the tribunal which seems to be on the verge of issuing public indictments. >> they are on the verge of issuing public indictments. i think they will be issued. the united states has backed the issueance of these indictments. the question is how serious are the dims? who do they name? do they name hezbollah officials? we don't know that yet. it's clear i think that they probably do. it may be that hezbollah will say there are the indictments so come and arrest the people if you can. and they'll ignore it. i think the best policy for hezbollah is to ignore this for the indictments to go forward. of... and the then the united states will make a demand that will not be fulfilled and allow lebanon to reach political stability. >> warner: the previous government fell because the previous government wouldn't denounce and pull out of this whole tribunal. it bears repeating or it bears mentioning that officially lebanon requested, quote unquote, this tribunal, correct, from the u.n.? but you don't think the new government will try to somehow cripple this whole process? >> it's unclear. incoming prime minister has not put forward a clear position, but according to press reports that, yes, killing off or strangling off the tribunal is part of the plan going forward. but even hezbollah has directly said that it will cut off the hand of anyone who tries to come an issue an indictment against any member of the party. so it's pretty clear where hezbollah stands in all this. >> warner: it might be hard to find process servers in that case. >> definitely. >> warner: back to iran and syria. how do you feel about what mark perry said that really the u.s. has miscast hezbollah and by calling it iranian or syrian-backed, we're kind of missing the point. the u.s. government. >> i think that hezbollah and the hezbollah is definitely syrian- and iran-backed. the obama has thrown a lot of resources into trying to get syria to distance itself from iran and hezbollah. of course it's very early in the stages. they were using the peace process to do so. so far they haven't made a lot of headway both because of a lack of progress in the peace process but also because of a doubling down by pat assad with hezbollah concerning weapons transfers. the situation there is not going forward as the obama administration had planned. >> warner: to what end? i mean, okay, if there's a hezbollah-led government, what would syria like that to mean for it? let's just take syria. and then iran. >> you know, we always lump these movements and groups together. hezbollah, syria and iran. it's clear from my discussions with hezbollah that hezbollah does not want the syrians back in lebanon. they would like to run a very independent government. they have an independent foreign policy. they have a strategic relationship with iran? of course they do. and with syria? yes. there's a lot of pressure on syria now because the united states is pressing them to accept these indictments. hezbollah, their allies, pressing them not to. they're having talks with mitchell that they want to maintain their independence and their ties to iran it's a very complex relationship that we have in the region. >> warner: briefly, makadi, is he a fire brand or a moderate? >> a very moderate voice. he's harvard educated sunni. this is not a revolutionary. this is a bridge to syria. this is a point for stability. >> where the rubber hits the road for him concerns what his position will be on the tribunal. and whether his cabinet, whatever he puts together-- and's this is the next step is the government formation in lebanon-- where they come down on the special tribunal. the situation regarding the united states and the western allies is called into question. there are a lot of other question marks around that. >> warner: do you think u.s. aid to lebanon will continue? >> it had in the short term i think but again it's something that will be called into question especially on... in a republican-controlled congress. >> it's been difficult. even in a democrat-controlled congress. this aid package. it's going to get more difficult in the days ahead. >> warner: we have to leave it there, mark perry, andrew tabler, thank you both. >> thank you. >> lehrer: finally tonight, a book conversation about our understanding of cancer and the search for breakthroughs to treat it. health correspondent betty ann bowser has the story. >> reporter: this year more than half a million americans were diagnosed with cancer. and although it is no longer an automatic death sentence, cancer is still the second leading cause of death in the united states. one doctor knows that reality well. he's an oncologist and cancer researcher at the columbia university medical center in new york city. in a new book called the emperor of all maladies, he writes a history of cancer. he tells the stories of people he's treated and those of leading researchers who dedicated their lives to a disease for which the doctor thinks may never have a complete cure. we sat down with him recently in his lab. first of all, thanks very much for being with us today. >> thank you for having me. >> reporter: so why did you decide to write a book about the history of cancer? >> well, i really decided to write the book and started writing the book when i was in training in cancer medicine. i wrote the book really to answer a question that was raised by a patient. this was a woman whom i was treating for abdominal cancer. she at one point in time during her therapy, she said i'm willing to go on with what i'm battling but i need to know what it is. i need to know its history. she was not the only person. this question kept on coming over and over again in different forms. and the book is an attempt to answer that very basic cancer. what is cancer? it's a disease that clearly affects all of our lives but what is its history? what is its past? i put it altogether in the book. >> reporter: you make it almost a biography like cancer is an individual. a person. you use terminology like "it's immortal." whereas human beings aren't. >> cancer is not one disease but a whole family of diseases but all these diseases are linked at a very fundamental level, at a biological level and they're characterized by the abnormal, uncontrollable growth of cells. it's in this very feature the fact that the cells keep dividing that gives them what i call their immortality. if there's one really chilling realization at the bottom of this book is although cancer can be unleashed by chemicals and various things from the government, the fundamental genes that control cancer cells are very much part of the human genome. >> reporter: you start the book by talking about a patient whose name is carla. you come back to her throughout the whole book. you more or less end the book with her. what was it about this particular patient that drew you to do that? >> well, i think she... she was an emblem to me of everything that goes into making or into facing cancer. she was resilient. she was brilliant. she was inventive. she was... she brought every bit of her resourcefulness to this moment in her life. >> reporter: she had leukemia and a very dreadful form of leukemia. >> absolutely. a very dramatic, aggressive form of leukemia. the one other piece of it of course is that her history which is happening... which started happening in 2005 was of course linked to sydney farber, the other major character in the book who eventually bit by bit by bit by bit finds a cure for a particular form of leukemia, the same kind she had. carla was very reminiscent to me of the connection through so many historic years between a time present and a time past. that's why i thought she would connect the book together. >> reporter: when you were doing your research, it was interesting. a lot of the things that people learned that led to break throughs in cancer were unexpected. >> yes. >> reporter: they weren't aha moments. >> yes. you know, a surgeon was walking through the highlands in england, and he heard some shepherds saying, oh, you know, when we remove the ovaries of cows and goats the pattern or the breasts of these animals changes, the pattern of milk production changes. so this was a time when no one knew about estrogen. what is the connection between ovaries and breasts? he said if ovaries are connected to breasts then maybe they're connected to breast cancers. he took out the ovaries of three or four women with breast cancer and had these amazing remissions. it was... this is the basis for the drug that actually blocks estrogen and thereby affects breast cancer. who would have thought that walking through and talk to go a shepherd in scottland would affect a billion dollar drug which is very, very powerful against breast cancer today. >> reporter: where are things today with cancer in the united states of america? >> i think this has been remarkably important progress. that's not true for every form of cancer. there are some forms of cancer which are still lagging in terms of the attention paid to them but overall there's clearly a record of progress. >> reporter: what are some of the most disturbing where there has not been a lot of progress. >> pancreatic cancer is a great example. we still don't know very well why it is that pancreatic cancers respond so poorly to chemotherapy. we know a little bit about it but not enough about it. esophagus cancer. we still don't know very much about exactly why that cancer is so hard to treat. one last example, a very worthwhile example, lung cancer was a big disease. cancer of the lung was considered one big entity. we know now that even that cancer can be subdivided. some sub portions of lung cancer respond very, very well to this one medicine. so that gives you a direction as to where we're going next. even a single cancer will be broken up into smaller entities and specific medicines will be designed as prevention mechanisms to those particular entities. >> reporter: a lot people when they have children will say when they're very proud of their child, oh, he or she is going to grow up and find a cure for cancer. do you think that's a commonly held belief? among americans? that all of these can be cured? >> the word cure is such a seductive word. it is such a tand liesing word. in 1969 a group of advocates who i talk about in the book brought out an advertisement in every newspaper in every major newspaper it said mr. nixon, you can during cancer. the implication was two things. number one is that there's one cancer. so you can cure all of it. the second thing is that it's a curable disease. you know, this is a time when men landed on the moon, you know, the manhattan project had been an incredible success. there was a real feeling that if you poured resoors resources in, money, brains, et cetera, you would find a single magic bullet cure. the reality is that that's unlikely to happen. that said, there will be many many many advances which will, you know, convert cancers into dying diseases. >> reporter: do you think writing this book has been the kind of experience that makes you a better doctor? >> i think so. i think, you know, i think one of the most important things that the book made me realize is the narrative aspect of medicine. that is that medicine is about story telling. if you stop hearing a story, the fundamental activity of medicine will change. i'm told... there's a wonderful anecdote, a study that was performed several years ago in which they ask the question, when a patient begins to tell his or her story, how quickly and on average does a doctor... what would you get? a surprising number. 18 seconds. less than a sentence opens in medicine before the doctor interrupts. the doctor starts putting in his or her own story, intervening. one of the best things to do with medicine is first listen. shut your mouth until the full story has been told. actually i'm told that it is up to 21 seconds now. >> reporter: thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> ifill: again, the major developments of the day. president obama will call for a five-year freeze on some government spending in his state of the union address tonight. at least three people were killed when thousands of anti- government protesters clashed with riot police in egypt. and ahmed ghailani, the first guantanamo detainee tried in a u.s. civilian court, was sentenced to life in prison. and to hari sreenivasan, for what's on the newshour online. hari? >> sreenivasan: you can ask dr. mukherjee your questions about cancer on the rundown blog or by sending an e-mail to health at newshour.org. on art beat, jeffrey brown talks to renowned architect frank gehry about his latest design, a new symphony hall in miami. plus find extended coverage of tonight's state of the union. watch a live stream, hear from experts in our annotated version of the speech, and tell us what you think on our facebook page. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. gwen? >> ifill: and that's the newshour for tonight. on wednesday, we'll get state of the union reaction from our public media colleagues around the country. i'm gwen ifill. >> lehrer: and i'm jim lehrer. we'll see you online, and here at 9:00 p.m. eastern for live coverage of the state of the union, and again tomorrow evening. thank you, and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> oil companies have changed my country. >> oil companies can make a difference. >> we have the chance to build the economy. >> create jobs, keep people healthy, and improve schools. >> ...and our communities. >> in angola chevron helps train engineers, teachers and farmers, launch child's programs. it's not just good business. >> i'm hopeful about my country's future. >> it's my country's future. and by united healthcare. bnsf railway. and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org vo:geico, committed to providing service to its auto insurance customers for over 70 years. more information on auto insurance at geico.com or 1-800-947-auto any time of the day or night.