iOS app Android app More

The End of Hillary's 140-Character Campaign

Chris Weigant   |   March 9, 2015    9:29 PM ET

Hillary Clinton, by some accounts, wanted the luxury of waiting as long as possible before officially becoming a 2016 candidate for president. There were good reasons for her to wait, the most prominent being that she could pick and choose which day-to-day political issues to address, and which she could safely ignore for the time being. So the extent of her campaigning, so far, has largely been an occasional Twitter message. It seems, however, that this luxury is about to come to an end. Hillary's soon going to have to give the public more than 140 characters, whether she officially tosses her hat in the ring or not.

Since the beginning of the year, Hillary has tweeted a grand total of 14 times (or, roughly, twice a week). Most of these were pretty innocuous. Only a handful could even be labelled political in nature, in fact. Two of these stand out, one of which worked perfectly for her, and one which did not. The first was a snarky takedown of the anti-vaccine crowd, and it worked exactly as designed. It thrust Hillary into the debate raging over the Disneyland measles outbreak, staked out a clear pro-vaccine position, and gave the media precisely what they wanted. The second one, however, is turning out to be woefully inadequate. Hillary is now rumored to be about to speak publicly about the whole email fracas, to make up for all the questions those 140 characters didn't answer.

Figuring out when to launch a presidential campaign is always a balancing act that professional political consultants get paid a lot of money to navigate. Hillary Clinton's calculations on this question are more complex than most. She's got a lot of pros and cons to weigh, in other words. Jumping in early would mean she wouldn't have the luxury of ignoring current political events, as she'd be pressured to stake out one position or another on each of them. Jumping in too late, however, would make her look like she expected a coronation rather than a campaign for the Democratic nomination. Or, according to others, jumping in too early would look like she's expecting that coronation. As I said, it's a tricky tightrope for her to walk.

But at some point, dithering over the question of when to jump in begins to look like an overabundance of caution. Call it Clintonian triangulation, perhaps. The average voter wonders why any candidate wouldn't want to get in the race as soon as possible, to let the public fully know what the candidate stands for on any and all issues. Campaign consultants, however, know that this leads to possible pitfalls -- staking out positions which turn out later to either have been not adequately thought out, or just plain wrong. Avoiding taking such positions increases the chances that the candidate won't stumble badly over any of them too early in the campaign season.

So far, this has largely worked for Hillary Clinton. She remains quiet on many of the mini-tempests that the 24-hour political media loves to obsess over, and thus she does herself no harm with either side in any of the micro-debates. This stands in stark contrast to the campaign she ran back in 2008, however, when she was the self-professed "person you'd want answering the phone at 3:00 AM." If a scary phone call did happen at the White House at such an early hour, we were told, Hillary would not only be ready to answer it, but she'd also readily have the right answer to whatever problem the call was about. The ad projected decisiveness, for two tactical reasons. It was meant to portray Barack Obama as indecisive and inexperienced, and it was meant to directly address any qualms the public might have over electing the first woman president. Hillary would be as tough and forceful as any man, even in the wee hours of the morning.

Which is why, to me at least, the whole email "scandal" is notable for how slowly and cautiously the Hillary team has reacted. Put aside any questions raised by her use of a private email server while secretary of state -- we'll all have plenty of time to hash out all those details as they come out. Also set aside any political damage this may do her in the long run. Again, we'll have plenty of time to figure all that out later. What is of interest to me, so far, is the gap between when the scandal broke and when Hillary is going to fully address it.

This gap should be seen as worrisome to Democrats for a couple of reasons, both having to do with the "Clinton brand" (which includes her husband as well). When Bill Clinton was in office, he was often criticized for being "poll-driven," or paying too much attention to "focus groups." Before Bill would take a position, he'd allow his political team to poll-test it within an inch of its life, to divine what the public truly thought about the various options being considered. This was seen as being too influential to the path Bill eventually chose to take. Now, any campaign for a political office is also going to do the same sort of polling, and every candidate is going to pay varying degrees of attention to such data. That's a modern fact of political life. It is inescapable, but at the same time it is usually conducted so far behind the scenes that it is not visible to the public at large. It only really becomes an issue for the candidate if the media chooses to focus on it. And that usually only happens when the media is left hanging because the candidate is being too cautious about taking a clear stance on any issue.

The problem for Hillary now is that Bill was really only accused of being so driven by polls after he got elected president. In his first successful presidential campaign, he had to take bold stances, because he was a relative unknown on the national stage. He didn't have the luxury of waiting to see what the public's consensus was, he just dove in and forcefully stated his various positions. It wasn't until after he was in the White House that the caution began to be a story, in other words. Hillary, to put it bluntly, does not have that kind of luxury. She's been in the public eye for over two decades now, and has been a senator and a secretary of state in the meantime. She is as far from an unknown as can be imagined, in fact. So while her natural inclination (gained through both her own experience and her husband's) is now to step very cautiously, she is going to have to abandon this caution to some degree or another if she's going to become an effective candidate.

The other contrast to the "Clinton brand" that is a bit surprising is how slow to react Hillary has been on an issue aimed directly at her. This is not a question of kids being vaccinated, or even some foreign policy question that Clinton could be forgiven for dodging for the moment. The emails are all about her personally, not some political question with a built-in choice about whether it needs to be adequately addressed or not. And that's what's surprising, considering what a pioneer her husband was in the firefighting aspect of presidential campaigning. Bill Clinton's first campaign is where the term "war room" morphed in meaning from that Pentagon room shown in Dr. Strangelove (where questions of nuclear annihilation were gravely pondered) to a purely political definition, one which boasted a lighting-fast response to any whiff of scandal surrounding Bill. It was damage control on steroids. When there were scandalous stories about Bill's relations with certain women (called "bimbo eruptions" at the time), the Clinton campaign would have a response before that evening's news even ran the story. This way, the public was given both the question and the answer at the same time. It was a brilliant strategy, especially for a man who was eventually shown to be seriously flawed in his judgment in what was proper behavior with women who were not actually his wife (and that's putting it about as politely as I can).

Getting back to Bill's wife, though, it seems that Hillary Clinton needs a refresher lesson in the whole war room strategy concept. This is another drawback to staying officially out of the race for too long, because it means her full campaign structure doesn't yet exist. There are a lot of empty chairs right now at Hillary's war room table, in other words. This might be one reason why the delay in addressing the email situation has been so long. There's another danger to this lack of campaign staff, and it was on full display this weekend. When there are no official campaign spokesmen and spokeswomen, the vacuum is filled by opportunists. Which is why Lanny Davis has been on television for the past few days. When the candidate doesn't speak for herself, there are others ready and willing to unofficially speak for her -- whether she wants such help or not, and whether these efforts ultimately help her or hurt her.

The only way to get control of the situation is to, well, get control of the situation. Hillary Clinton has to take the reins for herself, and get out there and answer questions about the emails. If she weathers the storm successfully, perhaps she can then retreat back (for a while, at least) to waging a 140-character campaign on all the issues not directly involving her, but this episode should prove to her that this is simply not a viable option when the political issue is so personal. Her previous political ad, after all, did not promise that when the 3:00 AM phone call happened that she'd get back to us by noon next Thursday with her answer. Taking political potshots via Twitter is a lot more fun and a lot easier than actually running a presidential campaign, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the luxury of doing so is now mostly over for Hillary Clinton.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:
ChrisWeigant.com

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post

 

COMMENTARY: Palin Criticism of Clinton Private Email Brings Back Memories

Alaska Dispatch News   |   March 9, 2015    9:30 AM ET

By Andrée McLeod

Upon hearing about Sarah Palin's recent Facebook post where she paints Hillary Clinton's use of private email accounts as shady and corrupt, I had to call my friend Zane Henning to get his take. As usual, we were both on the same page: Sarah Palin's hypocrisy knows no bounds.

During Palin's time in office, Zane and I exposed Sarah's abuses of power when we filed ethics complaints. He knew Sarah and Todd personally, and I'd dealt with her since 2002, when she unsuccessfully ran for lieutenant governor. Suffice it to say we knew she didn't belong in the governor's office.

We did not want to shrug off Sarah's Facebook post. It was another in a long line of false utterances within the culture of lies and deception she practiced during her (undeserved) time in office. It reads as follows:

This Clinton email scandal can't be shrugged off. If this doesn't strike you as shady and corrupt, I don't know what will. Didn't anyone in the Obama administration notice that the Secretary of State for "the most transparent administration in history" was only using a private email account for all her government business? And her answer to all these questions is a tweet? Diplomacy (and cover ups) by Twitter continues

Palin's dishonest Facebook post is no small matter to us, since we first "discovered" Sarah's flagrant use of private email accounts for official business in July 2008, before her Yahoo account was hacked a couple of months later. We separately requested and reviewed four banker boxes filled with emails belonging to Palin aides Ivy Frye and Frank Bailey. We then alerted the media after we found, amid the mostly redacted emails, an email that revealed Palin's gov.sarah@yahoo.com underneath a partial redaction because the highlighter used for blacking out the email addresses had dried up.

READ MORE AT ALASKA DISPATCH NEWS

Amber Ferguson   |   January 20, 2015   10:16 AM ET

On Jan. 20, 2007, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced her 2008 White House presidential bid.

“I’m in, and I’m in to win,” Clinton said.

According to The Washington Post, Clinton’s campaign advisers said her announcement was intentionally timed to “come shortly before President [George W.] Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday night” in order to “draw a contrast with the administration's record.”

"As a senator, I will spend two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism," Clinton said.

At the time of her announcement, a nationwide Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Clinton as the Democratic front-runner, with support from 41 percent of Democrats, compared with then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who had 17 percent of Democratic support.

“As we campaign to win the White House, we will make history and remake our future,” the former first lady said.

Clinton is expected to make a decision on a 2016 presidential bid later this year.

Watch Clinton’s 2008 announcement above.

Amber Ferguson   |   January 19, 2015    9:56 AM ET

On Jan. 26, 1982, President Ronald Reagan began the tradition of honoring extraordinary Americans during the annual State of the Union address.

These presidential guests have been called “Skutniks” after Lenny Skutnik, a Congressional Budget Office employee who dove into the icy Potomac River in 1982 to drag a woman to safety after a plane crash.

Reagan invited Skutnik to sit with first lady Nancy Reagan, and during his speech hailed Skutnik for exemplifying “the spirit of American heroism at its finest.”

In the following years, invited guests have included teachers, war heroes, athletes and celebrities.

The White House usually invites guests whose stories “illustrate themes in the president’s speech,” the Boston Globe notes.

During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton invited baseball player Sammy Sosa in recognition for his relief efforts in the Dominican Republic. Later, President George W. Bush invited two flight attendants who helped stop a shoe bomb from detonating. President Barack Obama has invited the parents of Christina Taylor Green and Hadiya Pendleton, two victims of gun violence.

We’ve highlighted the most memorable invited SOTU guests from the past 33 years. Watch the video above.

For a full list of past invited presidential guests, click here.

Hunt Terrorists, Don't Scapegoat Muslims

Earl Ofari Hutchinson   |   January 12, 2015    9:15 AM ET

The instant the horrific news hit that yet another pack of seemingly deranged nut cases debased Islam by shooting up the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish grocery store, nearly every Muslim organization, diplomat, and head of state, no matter their political views, roundly condemned the attacks. All were careful to point out that heinous murders, indeed any killing of innocent civilians, under the pretense of defending Islam, does just the opposite. It distorts it, mocks it, and fuels anti-Muslim hysteria.

The mass killings in Paris are no different. The torrent of chatter on blogs, websites and reader comments, again proved again that anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant groups eagerly exploit the notion that mass murder, terrorism and Islam are one and the same. The murders gave avowed anti-Muslim groups in Germany, Sweden, Holland and France, even more ammunition to tar all Muslims as terrorist.

They've relentlessly whipped up this hysteria to pressure their governments to expel en masse Muslim immigrants and impose the toughest possible laws to completely eliminate all Muslim immigrants from entering these countries. The number of their adherents that back their campaign of hate against Muslims has leaped in recent years. It's in part driven by high unemployment and economic dislocation in the countries. And in greater part from the rising alarm at the wave of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East that have flocked to European countries seeking asylum and economic opportunities

Right wing politicians and anti-immigrant groups in Europe and the U.S. jump on any terrorist attack, even when there's absolutely no evidence the attack is tied to a radical Islamic terror group, to fuel the anti-Muslim flame. This pattern has been well-established since the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing in 1996.

Then President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno had the good sense not rush to judgment and scapegoat Muslims. The swift arrest of Timothy McVeigh squelched the building mob mania against them. But it didn't squelch public suspicions that all Muslims were potential terrorists. The federal building bombing propelled Clinton's 1996 Antiterrorism Act through Congress. Civil rights and civil liberties groups had waged a protracted battle against the bill. The law gave the FBI broad power to infiltrate groups, quash fundraising by foreigners, monitor airline travel, and seize motel and hotel records and trash due process by permitting the admission of secret evidence to expel immigrants. The implication was that present and future attacks would likely be launched by those with an Arab name and face.

President Bush, as Clinton, took the high ground after the 9/11 attack. He did not reflexively finger-point Muslims. The Bush administration publicly assured that profiling was reprehensible and violated legal and constitutional principles, and that it would not be done. But the attack stirred tremors among Muslims that they would routinely be targeted, subject to search and surveillance, and profiled at airports.

The profiling alarm bells went off again after a soldier with a Muslim name Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot up the military base at Ft. Hood in November 2009. The Council on American-Islamic Relations wasted no time and issued a loud and vigorous denunciation of the mass killing. That didn't stop the pack of Fox Network commentators, conservative radio talk show hosts, writers and some officials from again openly shouting for even tighter scrutiny of Muslim groups.

The scrutiny has taken two major forms. One is the persistent clamor to profile Muslims, those with Muslim sounding names, or those who appear to fit the stereotypical type of what a Muslim supposedly looks like.

The second major hit against Muslims has been the indelible stamp in the public mind that al Qaeda, or other assorted, unnamed Muslim terror organizations or individuals perpetrate every act of mass violence in the world. The heads of Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel's arch foes, quickly issued lengthy statements denouncing the attacks. And, as other Muslim groups said, it perverts the tenets and spirit of Islam. It further poisons public opinion against Muslims in Western countries and makes them even more vulnerable to vigilante attacks.

The head of the German Marshall Fund of the U.S. made the same point, noting that the rabid anti-immigrant groups would say "told you so" and further step up their campaign of vilification of and agitation against Muslims in their countries. The obvious answer is for the top political leaders in France, and Germany to follow the example set more than a decade ago by Clinton and Bush when faced with terror attacks in this country and say in the strongest terms that they will wage war against terrorism, not Muslims.

The maniacal terror attacks in France were clearly hate driven acts perpetrated by loose-hinged individuals. But they are just that, individuals. The swift condemnation of the mass carnage they wreaked by countless Muslim groups proved that. The harsh reality, though, is that it didn't and won't stop the anti-Muslim haters from twisting the murders to fuel their anti-immigrant hate campaigns. This makes it even more crucial for governments to hunt terrorists, and not scapegoat Muslims.

--

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KTYM 1460 AM Radio Los Angeles and KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network.

Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson

'Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest Stories of 2014'

Jerry Zezima   |   January 7, 2015    8:10 AM ET

Now that 2015 is here, meaning it will be at least three months before we stop writing 2014 on our checks, it is time for a look back at the top stories of the past year.

These are not goofy little news items dealing with such inconsequential matters as health care, the midterm elections and various conflicts around the world. Rather, they are the kind of important, socially significant and absolutely true stories that are the lifeblood of this column.

So here, without further delay, are the top stories of 2014.

As proof that last year was for the birds, our fine feathered friends made plenty of news. That includes Nigel, a parrot that spoke with a British accent when he disappeared from his home in Torrance, California, in 2010. But when Nigel was reunited with his owner last year, he spoke Spanish.

Nigel's owner, the appropriately named Darren Chick, said the bird seemed happy to be home and that he asked, in Spanish, "What happened?" As Nigel also might have said, everything turned out muy bien.

In other avian news, police in Epping, New Hampshire, sheltered, then released a confused homing pigeon that went the wrong way in a race. But it didn't go far after rainy weather affected its ability to navigate. The birdbrain, a male that obviously refused to ask for directions, could have used a GPS, which stands, of course, for Global Pigeon System.

Not to be outdone, dogs found out that 2014 was a ruff year. One of them was Cato, a Siberian husky that was apprehended after robbing a convenience store in Clinton, South Carolina. According to police, Cato was seen on a surveillance camera taking pig ears, beef bones, dog food and treats.

The four-legged bandit left the store, buried the stolen goods nearby and returned for more. Police filled out a report, but they couldn't get Cato to confess, even though he was caught red-pawed.

Cato never would have been nabbed if Cash had been on the case. That's because Cash, a Belgian shepherd in Cannon Beach, Oregon, was fired from the police department's K-9 unit for dogging it on the job.

"You can't get anything done when you're trying to get him to find dope and he's just barking in your face," said officer Josh Gregory.

Seems like Cash was the real dope.

In dopey human news, a man in Albany, Georgia, contacted the wrong person while looking for marijuana. He sent his probation officer a text message that read, "You have some weed?"

The probation officer notified police and the pothead ended up back in prison. I wonder if his case was tried in a high court?

At least he didn't steal a car to get there, which is more than I can say for an idiot in Sonora, California, who was arrested after allegedly using a stolen car to get to court, where he was ordered to appear on a previous charge of -- you guessed it -- auto theft.

That wasn't the case with two would-be carjackers who almost who got away with a vehicle in Ocala, Florida, but didn't know how to drive a stick shift. I hope they got accelerated rehabilitation.

Other important -- and absolutely true -- stories from 2014:

* A herd of gassy dairy cows nearly lifted the roof off their barn in central Germany when methane released by the animals caused an explosion. Fortunately, they weren't hurt, but it could have been udder devastation.

* A naked Australian man who became stuck in a washing machine as part of an ill-planned practical joke was freed with the help of olive oil. It must have been applied down under.

* A motorcyclist brought traffic to a standstill on one of Madrid's busiest highways after he pulled over to look for his false teeth, which flew out of his mouth when he sneezed. It had to be the first time a chopper lost a set of choppers.

Finally, I am proud to say that one of the best stories of 2014 happened in my hometown of Stamford, Connecticut, where a city man fabricated his own demise to avoid marrying a woman he met in college. Till faked death did they part.

In that same stupid spirit, here's hoping 2015 is another great year.

Stamford Advocate humor columnist Jerry Zezima is the author of "Leave It to Boomer" and "The Empty Nest Chronicles." Visit his blog at www.jerryzezima.blogspot.com. Email: JerryZ111@optonline.net.

Copyright 2015 by Jerry Zezima

America and Iran's Taba Moment

Stanley Weiss   |   December 17, 2014    1:24 PM ET

As President Bill Clinton tells it, Yasser Arafat wanted to wear something controversial to the White House ceremony in which Israelis and Palestinians signed the Oslo Accords in 1993: his handgun. While Clinton convinced Arafat, then chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, to leave his firearm behind--and then convinced Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to shake hands with Arafat--in truth, a gun abandoned only for a few hours is a good symbol of the tortured road that Israelis and Palestinians have traveled ever since. The closest the two sides have come to realizing the promise of a peaceful two-state solution imagined by Oslo was during a two-month period in the closing days of Clinton's presidency that began 14 years ago this week.

In negotiations that started at Camp David and continued in the Egyptian town of Taba, Palestinians were offered a solution that met 97 percent of their demands. Both sides declared that they had "never been closer to peace." But then, negotiations were halted for a looming Israeli election, with the two sides expressing "a shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged." But it was not to be: Israelis elected a prime minister who had no interest in restarting talks, and the hope of Taba died. In the 14 years since, more than 1180 Israelis and 9,100 Palestinians have been killed, Jewish settlers in the West Bank have doubled, and one in four Palestinians remain mired in poverty.

All of which reinforces a fundamental truth: when two sides take political risks and strain to reach agreement, only to see negotiations fall apart, they don't go back to where they were before - they go back to a much angrier version of where they were before. It is a vital lesson to keep in mind this week as representatives from Iran and America reconvene with officials from five other nations in Geneva to restart talks on what has been called, "the sanctions-lifting-and-nuclear-weapon-halting-accord."

While it's difficult to use the word "urgent" about decade-long negotiations that had it latest deadline pushed back for the second time this year, the Iran nuclear talks are entering "now or never" territory. With hardliners on both sides emboldened by the seven-month delay announced on November 24th, it is no exaggeration to say that America and Iran have reached their Taba moment.

It was reported last month that Iran has five times the number of advanced centrifuges capable of spinning uranium into bomb-grade nuclear material than it has previously acknowledged. While Iran claims it only wants to use nuclear power to generate electricity, uranium only needs to be enriched to six percent--and not the near bomb-ready 20 percent that Iran had achieved before diluting it last July to comply with the ongoing nuclear talks. It is also constructing a heavy-water nuclear facility at Arak, which could be used to produce plutonium to make a nuclear bomb.

On these facts, Western negotiators both for and against an agreement largely agree. But from there, the arguments take a sharply different turn.

Those who oppose an agreement with Teheran say:

Iran has been our enemy for 30 years. It is a state sponsor of terror. It is a country responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers. Developing a nuclear bomb has been a priority of its mullahs for decades. The only reason we found out back in 2002 that Iran had secret nuclear facilities was because a dissident exposed it. The United Nations immediately called for a total dismantling of Iran's uranium-enrichment capabilities. When negotiations began 10 years ago, Iran didn't have the ability to build a bomb. But our negotiators abandoned the UN's call and told Iran it could enrich uranium. And today, Iran has the knowledge and the components it needs to produce a bomb. It also has ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons to Tel Aviv or even Europe.
We also know that Iran lies. It agreed to freeze its nuclear program, but then built more advanced centrifuges. It claims to have no interest in building a bomb, and yet we recently learned that it is five times more capable of creating bomb-ready fissile material than it has admitted to. It agreed not to develop its nuclear weapons capacity, but it keeps building the heavy-water reactor at Arak, and it is reportedly developing nuclear weapons at a military facility in Parchin. The worst part is, since Iran won't let inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency into the country to catalog its nuclear program, we have to take its word for it. Yet, Obama is trying to ram these negotiations through--writing a secret letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei --while bypassing America's elected representatives in Congress.
This is a country that now has control over capitals in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. The only reason they are going through with the farce of negotiations is to buy time to build weapons. And if Iran has nuclear weapons, then nobody is safe. We should call off these negotiations, bomb Iran's existing nuclear facilities and intensify our economic sanctions until the country is on its knees, abandons its nuclear program, and lets inspectors in. This is a country that only understands strength, not weakness.

On the other hand, those who favor negotiations argue:

With no agreement, there will be no restrictions on Iran's nuclear program, no leverage to force inspections, and no ability to monitor developments. There will be nothing stopping them from building a bomb. With all the tools at our disposal, why would we leave bombing Iran as our only option? Every President has understood the chain reaction it will set off, not only inviting Iran to retaliate, but inviting Iranian allies like Russia and China to retaliate, too."
What the hard-liners don't understand is that this issue has revealed two different Irans. There are the hard-liners, mostly old men, 35 years removed from the revolution. But they are a minority: nearly 70 percent of Iran is under the age of 35. You might have noticed that in October, a leading mullah died--and despite a state-declared, two-day mourning period, nobody turned out. But in November, when a young pop star died, so many young people turned out in the streets that Iranian authorities were caught off-guard.
These young people want to join the world. Studies show that seventy percent of young Iranians use illegal software to access the Internet and satellite TV. These are the young Iranians who turned out in 2009 to protest Iran's reactionary government, and they provided the winning margin for Iran's moderate president, Hassan Rouhani. Meanwhile, Iranian businesses, the Bazaaris, are tired of bribing the Revolutionary Guard and dream of foreign investment coming to Iran. They are looking for reasons to believe in America. By siding with negotiators, we are siding with them, and a different kind of future. If we turn our backs, we send Iran directly back into the hands of Russia and China.

In other words, one choice is to increase sanctions, threaten to bomb facilities and hope a wider war doesn't break out. The other choice is to accept that the Islamic Republic of Iran may one day have the "breakout capacity" to produce nuclear weapons--knowing that it could start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. So far, there is no third choice.

So which path is better? I lean toward pursuing an agreement.

Turning our backs on Iran now will only hand power back to the hardliners who fear the changes underway in Iran and want to remain on a permanent war footing with the West. On the other hand, a comprehensive agreement would give the West some say over Iran's nuclear program while opening the door to Iran's cooperation in ending the war in Syria and overcoming Islamic State terror in Iraq. It could lead to normalized relations and see Iran pass Russia as Europe's supplier of oil and gas. It could lead Iran to better control Hezbollah, which would be good for Israel. It may also mean that Saudi Arabia becomes more dependent on the U.S., as we would likely assure Riyadh that we would provide cover for them, as we have for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

The Israelis and Palestinians had a chance at Taba for an historic breakthrough--and instead, they made the perfect the enemy of the good. They had a moment, and it closed. And that moment has never returned again: just more violence, more suffering, and more unrest against the backdrop of a global economy that is passing them by.

This is the best chance the U.S. and Iran have had in three decades to create a new and better future for in the Middle East. We should take advantage of it.

--

Stanley Weiss, a global mining executive and founder of Washington-based Business Executives for National Security, has been widely published on domestic and international issues for three decades.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is 25 years old: It's Time for America to Ratify

Samantha Nutt, MD   |   November 20, 2014    6:28 PM ET

New York in November. The zombie masks and ghoulish cut-outs that flooded stores from Bloomingdale's to Battery Park have been displaced by cartoon pilgrims, turkey decals and a seasonal carol or two. Tickets are being frantically booked and kitchen drawers methodically excavated for family recipes splattered with so many generations of cranberry sauce only a crime scene specialist could decipher them. The Rink at Rockefeller Centre is iced over. The holidays are here. Almost.

This year, Thanksgiving coincides with another watershed moment in history and one more reason to be thankful: 25 years ago, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) became the most widely adopted human rights treaty in the world. In its own way, the CRC is also about family -- about protecting and upholding the rights of children and those who care for them. It endeavors to keep children under 18 free from harm, abuse, and neglect by setting standards for their equal treatment under international law. All but three countries in the world have ratified the CRC: South Sudan, Somalia and the United States (which is nevertheless a signatory). In the case of Somalia and South Sudan, both countries have been heavily embroiled in bitter civil wars since the Reagan Administration which, alongside that of George H. W. Bush, helped lead the drafting of the CRC. The difference between signing and ratifying is significant: Signing is an agreement in principle, whereas ratification is a commitment under international law.

President Obama has indicated that he would like to ratify the CRC and still has ample time left in his mandate to try to achieve what President Clinton also supported, but could not deliver on. And there's no good reason not to: Over the past decade, Supreme Court rulings on everything from the sentencing of minors to legislation governing the abuse and exploitation of children have brought the U.S. closer to full compliance on all aspects of the Convention. To flip this negative into a positive, then, if there is no reason not to ratify it, what are the reasons for ratifying it?

The CRC is an ideal, one which is realized imperfectly throughout the world. By articulating this vision for universality when it comes to children's rights, the CRC is in effect a barometer by which countries can measure themselves and in turn be measured by others: How are we doing? It is also an instrument by which groups like Boko Haram, ISIS and others who abuse and exploit children as sex slaves, forced laborers and child soldiers may someday be held to account.

This is not insignificant: When we acknowledge that such atrocities are war crimes committed against children, we are invoking the Convention, and in particular the later Optional Protocol, as well as the Treaty of Rome. War criminals such as Former Liberian President Charles Taylor, The Democratic Republic of Congo's Thomas Lubanga and the Lord's Resistance Army's Joseph Kony were all charged with crimes committed against children in violation of the CRC (though Kony remains at large). So if the U.S. stands behind protecting and upholding the rights of children in all contexts, then it is asserting the moral and legal authority of the CRC -- an authority which is undermined by their non-ratification.

There are other reasons to ratify it, too. The last few years have seen a massive erosion of the rights of children globally. They are being brutalized and killed in parts of Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and in dozens of other "fragile states" with weak or corrupted governments. They are being taken from their classrooms, refugee camps, the streets and even from their family homes to serve as porters, soldiers, concubines and "wives" for rebel and other military groups who prey on their powerlessness and their fealty. They are being trafficked to drug lords, pimps, old rich men and war-lords.

Still, there are some encouraging signs that international governments remain committed to the CRC: extreme poverty has been halved -- a major achievement to realizing that Millennium Development Goal -- and most children in the developing world are now attending primary school. But these gains rarely reach children in "high risk" environments, especially countries at war. According to a 2014 USAID study on extreme poverty, the absolute number of people living on less than $1.25 per day in fragile states has remained unchanged since 1990, at 400 million.

Not surprisingly, half of all child deaths under five in poor countries also occur in these same locales. The war in Syria alone is estimated to have wiped out 35 years of development gains since 2011 that are essential to the survival, education and protection of Syrian children. And there are too many regions of the world right now -- including in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, South Sudan, and Somalia -- where children as old as fourteen have never known what it means to live without abject fear.

What does this tell us? It tells us that ratifying the CRC is a necessary but not sufficient condition when it comes to protecting and upholding the rights of children worldwide. In 25 years, much has changed, but far too much has remained tragically the same or gotten worse. Children locked in a chronic state of war and violence are being excluded from the rights enshrined in the CRC to devastating effect.

U.S. ratification won't change this, but it's a positive step forward. What will change this is a sustained commitment to helping children and their families in war zones rebuild and recover so that the cycle can be broken and the CRC upheld. Not just emergency measures -- food, water, shelter, blankets, health care -- but investments in education, access to justice and economic development. It means shifting our ideas about humanitarian aid as a quick fix delivered by outsiders, and thinking instead about what families need and want for their children over the long term: To keep them safe and to see them thrive.

War and abuse may have robbed children and families of their past, but it should not rob them of their futures as well. Those looking for opportunities for post-partisan collaboration after the recent Congressional election could do worse than starting with ratification of an instrument both parties have already expressed support for.

'Mommy, Are You Eating Chocolate?'

Samaneh Kleopatra Zarabi   |   November 11, 2014   10:33 PM ET

"Mommy... what are you eating?" my son asked.

Damn it, I was busted. He interrupted me exactly at the moment I was just about to bite a crunchy chocolate caramel (one of the only sweets I eat happens to be a Swedish Chocolate, which is a rare find in Cleveland!).

I turned around and with a look of guilt asked if he wanted a bite. Of course he said yes, and while reaching to grab the whole chocolate he said, "I thought we only eat ONE unhealthy snack per day, mommy!"

He was right. This is our rule. We eat our healthy food... and if we have any unhealthy food we choose one per day and hopefully once in a while.

Today, however, my so-many-sleepless nights had caught up with me (and this time it's not because of the news, but because of my sick younger son). My sweet-resistant nature was taken over by my need for any sort of sustenance and I ate three chocolates (which, considering my dislike for sweets, was extraordinary).

However, when interrupted by my son, I tried to encourage myself by thinking that I deserved to treat myself after such a hard week. I just had to indulge my sleep-deprived self, right?

Now wait a minute... anyone who indulges without resistance can make an argument for his or her weak nature. There are perfectly self-regulated people that behave in accordance to well-thought-out plans of action in many aspects of their life; yet, they end up shockingly "will-fatigued" in other aspects.

For example, although President Clinton was absolutely a picture-perfect student and must have had tremendous self-regulation to make his way to the White House, he was nevertheless very weak and unregulated when it came to his intern.

So what happens to those types of people? Right now, who cares about those people, frankly, because really I'm talking about myself here! Have I become the president who prefers to relax with the intern after a long and difficult day?

We always have an excuse for our actions. The feeling of "I deserve some fun because I am entitled to the reward" could be part of the problem faced by people like President Clinton (and, right now, myself). At the end of the day, however, if Clinton had a stronger self-regulation skill and actually used it, it wouldn't matter how entitled he might have felt -- he could have exercised his resistance to "harmful" rewards...1 and he might have ended up going to bed with Hilary and watching John Stewart -- instead of being a joke on the show.

Going back to my problem here, my sleepless nights have given me the right to go for not one but three chocolates because I deserved them. Now this is alarming!!

Why?

Because I set the rules at our home and if I can't play by the rules then how can I expect my children to be conscientious and self-directed?

What if it's not about the chocolate, or cleaning up after myself... washing my hands every time I come home, and not using the phone at the dining table? What if we're talking about things like no texting and driving, wearing a helmet when biking, not cheating when playing, and not hurting another person no matter how stressed or sad my own mood and feelings may be?

What if my children witness my husband or I breaking one of these rules? What if every time I lose self-control, I justify it with some external unrelated or (even related) cause?

Some would argue that this is a perfect example of abusing parental power by creating arbitrary rules that apply only to my children and not to me, the parent. Indeed, this is true, and thank you for pointing it out.

When I broke my own chocolate rule, I showed disloyalty to my own rule and, most importantly, to my son. Every time that I model a positive behavior, I demonstrate strength of character. I reinforce my own set of rules that become common and regular behavior no matter how silly the rule is.

Because if I don't model positive behavior, I shouldn't be surprised when my sons text and drive, get expelled for cheating on a test or become a bully at school. After all, I set the standard -- even if it was with something seemingly less significant like eating extra sweets.

This is not to say that every child that witnesses an erroneous behavior will repeat the unwanted action. But, role models play a great part in everyone's life. And, this is especially true when the model is as loved and respected as parents usually are to small children.

The old-age wisdom of the Greek Philosopher Aristotle defined a virtuous character not only as one that possesses attractive inner characteristics but also one that acts accordingly.2 After all, we become just by acting just repeatedly and consciously.

At the core of virtuous ethics lies moral education and development. 3

2014-11-12-IMG_3669Version2.jpg
Early on, children rely on excellent role modeling to develop moral actions. The virtue of character becomes a stable personality trait by proper guidance, correction and repeated action. The effectiveness of consistency between modeling of our preaching has been documented in recent research as well.*4 Children who were guided by consistency in action as well as verbal guidance were the ones who had more "stringent standards for self-reward."5

One more chocolate today might not harm anyone, but an accident caused by a texting driver could have devastating irreversible effects.

So, maybe the next time my child says, "Mom, you didn't brush your teeth..." instead of answering "yes" with my fingers crossed behind my back, I should just say, "You are right. I was waiting for you to do it together!"

And maybe Aristotle would argue here that I'm on my way to set the stage for true happiness in my children and myself. After all, isn't it the cultivation of the virtues that makes our lives complete?


1.Mischel, W., The marshmallow test : mastering self-control. 2014, New York: Little, Brown and Company.
2.Nicomachean Ethics, BOOK II By Aristotle Written 350 B.C.E Translated by W. D. Ross
3.Virtue Ethics at http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/
4.Effects of discrepancies between observed and imposed reward criteria on their acquisition and transmission. Mischel, Walter; Liebert, Robert M. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 3(1), Jan 1966, 45-53.
5.Ibid.1, p.224

Alison Lundergan Grimes May Have Found Mitch McConnell's Weak Spot

Jason Cherkis   |   October 30, 2014    5:05 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- With Alison Lundergan Grimes down in almost every poll in a tight race against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, her success may hinge on whether she can bring Paducah, a small city more than three hours west of Louisville, into her camp.

Paducah has long been a lynchpin in McConnell's simple but effective "west of Interstate 65" strategy. McConnell, who started his career as a political moderate, has pursued a campaign strategy that depends on winning over the counties west of I-65, the highway that bisects Kentucky from Louisville in the north to the Tennessee border in the south. McCracken County, which covers Paducah, didn't swing McConnell's way when he was first elected to the Senate in 1984. But the county soon fell into McConnell's column and has remained there ever since.

McConnell has relied on a Cold War-era uranium facility for the core of his support. The plant helped put Paducah on the map, and the town's identity has long been tied to it. Paducah called itself "The Atomic City" during the postwar years, and murals celebrating its 1950s heyday still line the town's floodwall along the Ohio River. By the mid-1980s, however, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant had become a relic. As similar facilities were shuttered in other states, McConnell pitched himself as the one man who could work the Senate to keep the plant open.

This is the first campaign in which the plant could be a liability for him. After decades of decline, it finally shut down this year, when the last of its more than 1,000 operators were laid off.

In a recent campaign ad, Grimes used the Paducah plant as a backdrop. "You want to know the difference between Mitch McConnell and me?" she says directly into the camera. "Just look at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant ... He'd just show up at election time and say he'd saved the plant. Now it's shutting down anyway."

Grimes has visited the county at least eight times since launching her campaign, pounding away at Paducah's economic trouble. The city's 7.8 percent unemployment rate is above both the state and national rates, and was nearly 10 percent as recently as February. The old plant workers may be swayed by Grimes' message.

"They are taking a different view of the senior senator," said Jim Key, vice president of the local steelworkers union to which the plant workers belonged.

Paducah isn't a hotbed for hardline anti-government conservatism. Mayor Gayle Kaler praises McConnell for delivering federal dollars to her beleaguered town. McConnell's pitch to the town has relied on the same -- keeping the plant open with federal money, and helping to start a program that provides free health care to workers who had been poisoned working in the facility's hazardous conditions.

In 2013, The Huffington Post outlined how McConnell ignored the toxic conditions that hurt plant employees and polluted the surrounding wells and waterways. In her ad, Grimes cited the story in making a similar point. "Mitch did nothing about the radiation problems for over a decade while workers got sick," Grimes says in her ad.

McConnell actually went much further. The senator voted in 1988 to prevent sick workers from seeking legal redress for being poisoned. The McConnell campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Republicans know McConnell is vulnerable here. The status quo isn't good, and McConnell has been the senator for 30 years. So they're doing all they can to pin the town's economic doldrums on Obama, who is wildly unpopular in the state -- and to tie him to Grimes and any Democrat they can.

Voters are even getting mailers from multiple GOP-affiliated groups attempting to tie little-known state Rep. Gerald Watkins (D-McCracken) to Barack Obama. The flyer claimed "a vote for Gerald Watkins is a vote for Obamacare." The mailers can be seen here and here.

Watkins, who teaches at a community college, thinks the attempt to associate him with the president comes from a single meeting he had with then-Sen. Obama in 2006, after which he told a reporter he thought Obama was intelligent. Watkins told HuffPost that the flyer's Obamacare claim is "ridiculous." "It's a federal law," he said. "I'm at the state level."

Watkins thinks the plant's closure could be a problem for McConnell. "It could very well impact the election, because he's always championed the workers there and helped keep the plant open for all these years," he said.

At a recent visit to Paducah, Grimes brought former President Bill Clinton to stump on her behalf at a campaign event in the McCracken County High School gym. Principal Michael Ceglinski, who attended the event, said the transformation of his gym into a political pep rally was amazing, a temporary spark amid the plant layoffs that he said have affected the school.

Ceglinski said some of his students had to leave the school when their parents were laid off and had to move away. "Some of my closest friends have lost their jobs there, and you struggle with them," he said. "You hurt for them and their families. You go through it emotionally."

The battle for Paducah may hinge not on Grimes' economic message but on the city's nostalgia for Clinton's economic record. Democrats have cited Clinton's appearance on the campaign trail as a key factor in whatever success Grimes may have in her own "west of I-65" strategy. Clinton, who carried Kentucky twice, is one of the most popular political figures in the state. Even Paducah's Republican mayor admitted to admiring Clinton.

"He was actually a good president," Kaler said. "Our economy was going good when he was president ... Actually wish we had more people in government like him."

Do Ask, Do Tell

G. Benjamin Bingham   |   October 27, 2014    9:40 PM ET

Good people have been hurt trying to invest with positive impact in mind because of things they did not know. Maybe they were okay with it because the cause was worth supporting, but if they knew better the losses may have been avoided. Good luck in investing, as in all things, occurs when preparation meets opportunity. Knowing what is knowable is part of that preparation. Curiosity and good questioning is one pathway to knowing; the opposite policy of "Don't ask, Don't tell" leads to the ignorance emblematic of the worst cultural patterns of the 1990's. It was practiced in the financial world as well as in the military, and it was practiced in the Whitehouse. It was an excuse to stay in the dark as if "what you don't know won't hurt you." Now we need to know. Transparency rules.

I came to this line of thought partly because curiosity led me to click on the video of Monica Lewinsky in her first public presentation of the "real" Monica Lewinsky for the Forbes Under 30 Summit. There's an obvious contradiction there since she is presenting herself publicly and virtually, but if she wanted to change her public persona by doing this, she succeeded.

She came across as real, someone with real feelings, someone who accepted that she did harm to others and "that's never right," and someone who had to deal with people trying to shut her up "who would never shut up" as she put it. She appeared to be courageous even. And unless I was projecting, this courage has led to some self-knowledge. This was at moments beautiful to perceive.

Online bullying was her theme and her concern for those who have been hurt, and so many have been hurt, was apparently genuine. She was moved by an individual who took his own life due to public humiliation and this moved her because her own battle with suicide was potent.

As the first to be publicly humiliated on the Internet, Monica presented herself as a kind of historical figure, world-renowned and a victim of public abuse for the last ten years. Her decision to turn it around is admirable whether or not it is fully genuine. Who is to know?

We are all partly real, partly unreal, partly virtual, partly ourselves. Every moment is mixed in that way. We perceive what we think we perceive and remember what we think we remember. What we actually see in reality may not be reality for another. Which things we remember may be very personal and subjective. What seems most real and maybe is most real is something indefinable that rays out from each of us and can be read imperceptibly as genuine, moving, interesting or false and contradictory.

Much of what we perceive is due to attitude and upbringing; much is self-fulfilling prophecy: what we get is what we expect. The virtual humans of the future may have an advantage here since they will likely be programmed to be super achievers with positive attitude and no thought of failure...but then they won't really be human will they?

Our least human trait is our adamant conviction that we know something and will fight for it even if we could with some effort face the fact that we are wrong. Knowing ourselves and knowing the world on the deepest level is profoundly human. It is conceptually powerful. It is generative and healing. It is good luck.

Recently we got up to see the full moon because we knew we would see the eclipse and we live where we can see the starry heavens. It was extraordinary to watch the shadow of the earth cross over the surface of the moon slowly. We know that light shining through the darkness creates warm yellow to red. What we were astonished to see was when the surface was completely covered by the earth's shadow it still reflected light from the warm surface's glowing to create complex colors. The next morning it was called the "blood moon." Now I can barely picture it as it was...so profoundly alive and aligned with my sun and my earth.

We would not have seen the eclipse if we did not know where to look in the sky, did not know what was going on, could not see for the city lights. How much do we miss in life because we do not know about it? How much do we limit experience because we perceive only what we expect or are told to expect.

What we don't know may hurt us. What hurts most is what you don't see coming. This is the case with online bullying, was true when Monica at 22 fell in love with a President, and is true when investments fail.

If you are trying to change the world with money, by investing in products and services that you think are good, you cannot ask too many questions. If you are a fund manager or consultant, an advisor or a pundit, be honest about what you know and don't know. Do tell.

Can the US Seize Would-Be Jihadis' Passports?

Peter Van Buren   |   October 14, 2014   12:27 PM ET

Can the U.S. government seize the passports of American citizens who it believes may travel abroad to join ISIS or other terror groups? Yep. The process is almost no-cost to the government, it's extra-judicial, it can be made secret, and it requires a lengthy court process to even try to contest. No passport, no international travel: the ultimate no-fly tool against would-be jihadis. So why hasn't this process been used more often?

Scary Stories

Leaving aside the not-insubstantial questions about their validity, the warnings are ominous.

With some Americans seeking to join ISIS, there are fears that on their return they may commit terror in the U.S. Unlike foreign citizens, these radicalized Americans would sail through immigration checks and be able to easily disappear into a familiar society. The U.S. is seeking to tackle the problem at the supply end, preventing Americans from departing to join ISIS in the first place, as well as from the other side, blocking citizens from returning freely to the United States.

The arrest at O'Hare Airport of Mohamed Khan, a 19-year-old U.S. citizen, is one example. Authorities claim the young man headed to the Middle East to join ISIS, and, citing a left-behind note explaining his choice, waited at the airport to arrest Khan on charges of attempting to provide material support for a terrorist organization. The operation involved significant law enforcement resources to stop one teenager based largely on suspicion.

Another Tool in the Box

The United States can simply seize passports from American citizens if "The Secretary of State determines that the applicant's activities abroad are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States."

The law allows this prospectively, the "or are likely to cause" part of the law, meaning the person needn't have done anything. The government just needs to think they might.

A Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request revealed that prior to Obama ordering him and his 16-year-old son to be killed by a drone in 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton secretly revoked the passport of Anwar al-Awlaki, alleged al Qaeda propagandist and U.S. citizen. The two would not have been able to travel to the United States without handing themselves over to law enforcement. Indeed, a letter to that effect was allegedly sent to some address in Yemen inviting al-Awlaki to visit the American Embassy to discuss the details.

Al-Awlaki isn't the only person in Yemen to have his U.S. passport seized.

According to information obtained through a U.S. government whistleblower involved directly with U.S.-Yemeni affairs, the American embassy in Sanaa, Yemen seized over one hundred U.S. passports from Yemeni-Americans (some place the number at 500 passports) between 2011 and 2013. Only after several legal battles did the State Department curtail its actions. Though State publicly claims the seizures were an anti-fraud measure, many in the Yemeni community saw them as a pilot program.

A similar case involved the seizure of a Moroccan-American's passport in Kuwait.

The actions at the American embassy in Yemen may fit into a larger pattern. For example, at the same time in 2011 the U.S. was ramping up its actions against Yemeni-Americans, Australia appeared to be doing much the same thing. "Withholding passports is an important means of preventing Australians from traveling overseas to train, support or participate in terrorism," an Australian government spokesperson said. "It may also be used to help prevent an Australian already overseas from participating in activities that are prejudicial to the security of Australia or another country."

How are Passport Seizures Legal?

Restrictions on travel suffered under the British were part of the list of "injuries and usurpations" in the Declaration of Independence. So don't Americans have a right to travel?

Nope. The precedent was set by infamous ex-CIA officer Philip Agee, who in the 1970s exposed CIA officers identities. It was in Agee's case that the Supreme Court coldly affirmed that "The right to hold a passport is subordinate to national security and foreign policy considerations." A lower court put it even more bluntly: "The Secretary [of State] may preclude potential matches from the international tinderbox."

The basic premise is that travel abroad (travel within the U.S. is specifically provided for in the Constitution, though the No-Fly list certainly can limit one's options) is that it is an "aspect" of liberty subject to restraint under due process. In the 1950's, American Communists were often denied passports if their travel abroad was believed to be in support of their political beliefs, a policy later overturned by the Supreme Court. The Court struggled to balance national security and personal liberty regarding travel through multiple cases, but has never concluded that travel -- or having a passport -- is a fundamental right.

Some History

The whole concept of Americans requiring passports to travel has its roots in national security restrictions. With the exception of roughly the years of the Civil War and World War I, Americans did not need a passport to enter the United States. Americans were first required as a group to hold passports at the start of the Second World War. The travel requirements instituted in the past only during times of national crisis stuck around after WWII through the present day, formalized in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. With echoes of current government actions, what was created as a wartime contingency morphed into a permanent peacetime restriction. The history of passport restrictions is not long, but does resonate into the post-9/11, Post-Constitutional era.

While no right to travel per se exists for Americans, there is a basic assumption, rooted in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that Americans have something between an expectation, an entitlement and an implied right to return to the United States from abroad, rooted in the concept of citizenship. The ease with which passports can be seized (or boarding an aircraft denied via the No-Fly list) is not seen in conflict; in al-Awlaki's case, he would have been welcome to come home, albeit in leg irons en route to federal SuperMax. Time is also an issue. How long the government may make a citizen wait before allowing a return to the U.S. under some specific circumstances is not codified and thus can be used as a de facto seizure or punishment without raising a case publicly.

Why Doesn't the Government Seize More Passports?

In short, for an American citizen to travel abroad, whether for vacation or jihad, the government's permission, in the form of a passport, is required. So why then does the government not use such a long-tested authority to deny or seize the passports of those suspected for traveling to join terror groups?

While the real answer is obviously unknowable, several ideas may help explain this. First is that in fact such measures might be taking place. Persons who have not yet applied for a passport may find themselves denied issuance, and applications may have been denied or "in processing" without the applicant knowing the reason. The government is under no obligation to tell the person involved nor the media that national security has been invoked.

More likely however, it is a matter of legal timidity and public relations. Arresting and trying someone for material support for terrorism is something of a set-piece case for post-9/11 law enforcement. There is little legal controversy generated, and almost no danger under present circumstances of any nasty precedent being set. Wide-spread passport seizures could easily create a new chance to bring the issue before the Supreme Court, risky business for a government that much prefers to act as it wishes vis-a-vis Americans' rights.

The other reason for restraint may simply be public relations. The public is familiar and appears supportive of arrests. Law enforcement in these circumstances are the good guys. Passport seizures sound a bit harsh, totalitarian-like, and are technically done under the authority of the Department of State, who does not enjoy the good guy reputation many attribute to the law enforcement people who "keep us safe." It could be as simple as law enforcement not being willing to work with the State Department for bureaucratic reasons.

Regardless, these are dark seas. In a democracy, the right of citizens to depart and return should not on its face be restricted in the interest of the government. The idea of limiting an American citizen's travel proactively, on the assumption that she or he will end up fighting with ISIS based on documents or web postings, scrapes at liberty, even if the tools are there and it is legal to use them.

By KEN THOMAS   |   October 11, 2014   11:27 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House made a public push to defend President Bill Clinton during a series of investigations related to the Whitewater real estate deal to his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, according to thousands of pages of documents released by the National Archives.

The documents, part of 10,000 pages of records from the Clinton administration released Friday, did not appear to reveal any new information that might affect a potential Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign. But the papers focused on a number of painful chapters in the former first lady's time in the White House and described how the president's aides sought to defend her husband against impeachment.

Many records involving Lewinsky are redacted, but one document sheds light on her job: Lewinsky sent an official request to hang a picture of Clinton, signing a telecommunications bill, in a White House legislative affairs office.

Behind the scenes, Clinton officials were adamant that they were not trying to discredit Lewinsky.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that the White House was directing or involved in any campaign against her," Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal wrote in a January 1999 memo.

In another email, Blumenthal derides Linda Tripp, a former White House aide who secretly recorded Lewinsky discussing the president.

But the case caused political tensions. An aide notes in one document that then-Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening, a Democrat, explained "why he felt he needed to distance himself" from Clinton.

The papers touch on the 1993 death of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster, the Whitewater investigation into Bill and Hillary Clinton's land dealings in Arkansas, and pardons Bill Clinton granted in his final hours as president.

With these documents the National Archives will have released about 30,000 pages of papers since February. Both the Obama White House and the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas, signed off on their release.

The papers show that the Republican-led investigation into Foster's suicide infuriated the White House, which tried to recruit bestselling author William Styron to write a piece critical of the probe. It is unclear if the piece was ever published.

Elena Kagan, now a Supreme Court justice, makes a cameo appearance.

As a White House counsel, Kagan defended Bill Clinton in the lawsuit brought by ex-Arkansas state employee Paula Jones. Clinton's testimony for the Jones lawsuit, in which he denied a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, led to his impeachment in 1998. The House approved two articles of impeachment against Clinton, but he was acquitted by the Senate.

In a 1996 memo to then-White House counsel Jack Quinn, Kagan says, "I realize now that I may have really (messed) up" in not passing on word of a conversation in connection with an upcoming appearance related to the Jones case on the CNN show "Crossfire." Kagan used another verb in the memo, one that's more profane. "God, do I feel like an idiot," she added.

Hillary Clinton's influence in the White House is also explored, from her role in Clinton's unsuccessful health care overhaul plan to her 2000 Senate campaign in New York. Bill Clinton left office in January 2001.

The memos offer only a narrow look at her Senate race — discussion among lawyers and staff over paying for political travel.

But some are devoted to one of the Clintons' longest-running political roller coasters: the Whitewater real estate saga. As the case threatened to mushroom into a scandal, the president, first lady and their circle of advisers hatched a strategy to convince the public the Clintons had done nothing wrong — and had nothing to hide.

Some advocates, suggesting the Clintons step before the cameras to make their case, provided a point-by-point primer.

"In this situation, the Clintons' attitude is their message. They must be relaxed, open and forthcoming. Any sense of bitterness, anger or righteous indignation will not work," said a March 11, 1994, memo written by Clinton adviser Paul Begala. "No matter how justified some of our feelings on this may be, this will be the first time most Americans will hear directly from the president and first lady."

"Discussion of plots, pain and personal injustice could strike some viewers as self-serving or just plain weird," he continued. "The most important point to stress is that we have nothing to hide, we are fully complying with an independent investigation."

The Clintons were never implicated in the Whitewater case, but their real estate partners, Jim and Susan McDougal, were convicted in a trial that also resulted in the conviction of then-Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker.

The documents touch on financier Marc Rich, who was indicted on fraud and other charges in 1983. He fled to Switzerland and was later pardoned on Clinton's last day in office. Quinn, who had left the White House by then, suggests in a handwritten note that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak discussed a pardon directly with Clinton.

Past installments of the documents have offered an unvarnished look at Clinton's two terms, detailing his unsuccessful attempt to change the health care system, Republicans' sweeping victories in the 1994 midterm elections and the shaping of his wife's public image.

Hillary Clinton, who went on to serve as a senator from New York and as President Barack Obama's secretary of state, now is a powerful advocate for Democrats in the midterm elections and the leading Democratic prospect for president in 2016.

The possibility of a presidential campaign has heightened interest in the documents by media organizations, political opposition researchers and historians.

___

Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Donna Cassata, Calvin Woodward, Charles Babington, Steve Peoples, Ronnie Greene and Stephen Braun in Washington; Jill Colvin in Toronto; Nicholas Riccardi in Denver; Bill Barrow in Atlanta; and Kelly Kissel in Little Rock, Arkansas, contributed to this report.

Feminism Is on Life Support But We May Be Able to Save It

Melanie Batley   |   September 24, 2014    8:30 PM ET

The Democrats have decided they're going big on "women's issues" this election year. Last week Hillary Clinton, flanked by other female Democratic politicians, called on voters to make it a "political movement." Achieving economic equality and full participation by women in the labor force, Clinton insisted, is the next frontier for women today.

It's unclear whether this is an attempt to engender a new wave of feminism or a political ploy to scoop up the women's vote, but the movement will go nowhere if feminists insist on defining women's issues in this way.

For a start, the vast majority of people don't want to be associated with the feminist movement. A full 75 percent of Americans say they reject the feminist label to describe themselves, including 65 percent of women, according to a recent Economist/ YouGov poll.

On top of that, 26 percent of the population considers the word "feminism" an insult. Even among those who view the term neutrally, the poll found a long list of negative qualities people ascribe to it including, pushy, misguided, stupid, fighters, aggressive, selfish, and crazy.

So why has a movement that gave Western women the right to vote, achieved legal equality, and parity in access to jobs and higher education come to be so reviled?

I have a few ideas.

For a start, maybe feminism has simply lost its femininity. Maybe the strident tone of yesterday's feminists poisoned the attractiveness of the movement today. Maybe some of the ranting and raving during the second wave of feminism made it all seem, well, a little unbecoming.

Whether today's feminists like it or not, many women embrace the softer qualities of our gender and understand they actually contribute to our strength or empowerment as women. Most of us do not feel we are being oppressed by a patriarchy or exploited by men. Some of us, I dare say, quite like men.

In other words, maybe the voices of the few have drowned out the sensibilities of the many.

Now I don't want to belabor the point because I think there is a much larger reason why the women's movement has fallen out of favor.

The messages of feminists simply aren't resonating because they focus almost exclusively on women's roles in the workplace, pay equity, and issues of sexual violence.

Today's feminist thinkers largely refuse to discuss the single most defining struggle for most women today and that is the difficulty of balancing all of our choices. Choices between motherhood and family versus work and career advancement. Choices, ironically, that we were given by the victories of yesterday's feminists.

My theory is that most feminists do not open this dialogue because it would require them to acknowledge there are innate differences between men and women in our preferences and behavior. To do so would undermine the dogma that men and women are the same, and that any differences are due to discrimination, social conditioning, or worse, unconscious submission to subjugation.

The reality is that men and women are not the same. Aside from the wide range of biological and psychological differences proven by scientists across numerous disciples, when it comes to work and family, men and women simply want different things.

For example, one national survey found that a greater percentage of women than men want to work part time. Specifically, 62 percent of American working mothers say they would prefer to work part-time, compared to 72 percent of working fathers who say they prefer to work full-time, even though mothers are now the sole or primary breadwinners in 40 percent of households with children under the age of 18.

Working women were also found to value "family friendly" policies more than working men, and are more likely to prioritize non-financial benefits in jobs, compared to men who prioritize higher earnings.

Meanwhile, feminists remain curiously silent on the critical social roles women have as mothers and wives--roles that continue to be embraced by the vast majority of women.

I've often thought today's movement could benefit from drawing on the wisdom of some of the earliest feminists from 19th century Britain. Separate to the suffragettes, there was a strain of feminism that championed the innate and valuable roles women have as nurturers and caregivers. These activists understood that care-giving in the context of the family is crucial to the well-being of society, the upbringing of children, and the character of generations to come.

Mary Sumner comes to mind as my favorite example. She rallied for motherhood to be recognized as a vocation, equal to, if not more important, than all of the professions then occupied only by men. You will not see her name on the roster of Women's Studies classes.

Judging by the importance many of today's women place on balancing work with family obligations, I wonder whether those feminists were more progressive than today's brigade who continues to fixate on dubious wage gap figures and smashing glass ceilings.

In that vein, I would argue that for all the advances women have achieved, today's feminists will never gain traction if they refuse to address the concerns of the silent majority that is struggling to balance all of its opportunities.

The time has come to write a new chapter for feminism. One that aims to support a wide range of women's choices both professionally and socially, not the narrow ends defined by feminists who insist economic parity and equal outcomes to men are the only desirable goals.

Achieving those ends will involve pushing for policies that support women both at work and at home. I hope it will also mean challenging the entire structure of the modern workplace, giving women the flexibility they need to balance the decisions that are right for them in a society that cares about meeting the needs of children and families.

These are the real areas where the women's movement can make an impact today, and it's time for feminists to start discussing it.

So, where should we begin the conversation? I propose we start with the age old question, "What do women want?"

@melaniebatley