Garance Franke-Ruta

Garance Franke-Ruta is a senior editor covering national politics at The Atlantic. More

She was previously national web politics editor at The Washington Post, and has also worked at The American Prospect, The Washington City Paper, The New Republic and National Journal magazines. At The Prospect she won the 2007 Hillman Prize awarded to its group blog, "Tapped."

In 2006, she was fellow at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge, Mass., and in 2007, a summer fellow with The Iowa Independent, based in Des Moines, Iowa.

Garance has lectured at the Kennedy School, the Harvard Art Museums, Williams College, Wellesley College, Brandeis and Georgetown Universities, and taught in Georgetown's Master of Professional Studies in Journalism program. She also has made numerous appearances on national and regional television and radio programs.

Born in the South of France, Garance grew up in San Cristobal de las Casas in Chiapas, Mexico; New York City, New York; and Santa Fe, New Mexico. She has resided in Washington, D.C., since graduating from Harvard in 1997.

2012 Election Winners and Losers

The short version.

obama winObama supporters celebrate his win. (Reuters)

Winners: President Obama, the new crew of women senators, pro-choice women, gays, Nate Silver, fact-checkers, the emerging Democratic majority, DREAMers, Jim Messina, Joe Biden (the literal and The Onion versions), Chris Christie, Bill Clinton, Lena Dunham, pot smokers, Mother Jones, Obamacare, Medicare, community organizing, data-mining the vote, Big Bird, Super PACS.

Losers: Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Paul Ryan's Time magazine bicep curls, Paul Ryan's budget, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, random old white men with a lot of money, Dick Morris, Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi (she'll never be speaker again), Mitch McConnell, Stuart Stevens, the Tea Party, True the Vote, Wall Street, Staples, The Daily Caller, Jennifer Rubin, Republican legacies, Super PACS.

How to Tweet Responsibly During a Breaking-News Event

Yes, people put out false information and tweet incorrect things during major news events. There are ways to avoid being one of them.

tumblr_mcorkk1svB1rfineto1_1280.jpg

Since Monday night's tweeting on Hurricane Sandy, there's been a great debate in social-media circles over whether Twitter is self-correcting, or whether misinformation spread there and on other social-media platforms can then flood into the real world, outside the range of any pullback. "What happens on Twitter doesn't stay on Twitter," warned Bloomberg's Jared Keller. Writing on GigaOM, Matthew Ingram had a contrary view, hailing Twitter as a "self-cleaning oven" for news. The Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal got into the fact-checking business here on this site, knocking down fake Sandy photos and pondering ways to counter misinformation on the viral web. And Poynter's Craig Silverman even proposed that his organization and other groups should "work together to secure a grant and test whether a centralized, non-profit organization could act as a (mis)information clearinghouse during breaking news and other big events, as well as a source of best practices for knocking down misinformation."

But I wonder almost if this is over-thinking the issue. "When we get mad at others for fooling us, we should also be mad at ourselves for fooling our readers," the Guardian's Heidi Moore wrote. She's right.

There are some best practices people on Twitter can maintain on their own to break the chain of infection of bad viral material. Call it building up information-age immunity.

1. Follow every link back through the Web to its source and evaluate the original material for yourself. This is the single most important thing you can do.

Don't retweet links you haven't clicked. Don't do this from sources you know, and don't do it from sources you don't know. Just don't do it -- ever.

If you follow the chain of information back as far as it goes, as often as you can, you'll be more accurate -- and more interesting. For example, very often a link will go to an aggregation of a story that links to another original piece that contains additional information or has a different emphasis. That original report may be more important and worth sharing than the thing you'd first considered retweeting, which summarized it. But even if it isn't, at least you'll know what you're onpassing, and who and where it came from.

The whole point of blogging and a certain kind of news tweeting is to assert individual editorial judgement over the roiling Internet and re-present information in a new way. Bloggers often make news by taking someone else's 17th graf and making it their lede, providing new avenues for storytelling and reporting. That's not curation -- that's an assertion of news judgment.

Tweeting is akin to that. Reporters tweeting pieces of their own will tweet their toplines. But sometimes their "tweetable" is down deep in the piece, and not the thing they thought it was.

2. The corollary of this for visual media is to never tweet or retweet a video you haven't watched. And if you're aggregating from a video, never use the quotes someone else has in their story about what was said in the video. Watch the video yourself -- you'll often find things that things have been elided, or small words have been dropped, in the summary reports. Sometimes it's because someone has edited from raw material into story form, making a decision about what not to include for space or emphasis reasons, and sometimes it's because reporters are human, too. No matter how well-trained they are, or how prestigious the outlet where they work, humans can make mistakes, especially when they are working fast and for an editorial product with a thin editing structure. You can protect yourself from repeating other people's mistakes by confirming everything you can against available original video sources yourself.

3. Consider the source. Your best friend during a breaking-news event is a local reporter or area expert who is independently evaluating the scene or occurrence and tweeting as they go. Agencies you've never heard of but which are important to the news event are also great. If you've never heard of someone, you can Google their Twitter handle without the @ sign and you'll often get to a real identity, as people tend to use the same handles in more than one place. From there you can get a biography and begin to evaluate credibility. If someone appears to have been a troll before they began news tweeting, approach their news tweets skeptically -- they may still be trolling. Also, if someone is purportedly tweeting news about an official agency they appear to have no relationship to, compare that information to tweets coming from the agency in question. If there's no confirmation from the agency, be skeptical.

Finally, just because a major media organization has tweeted something doesn't make it true. Sometimes media outlets are themselves aggregating something from somewhere else; this is why it's important to follow the chain of information back to the original source, if you can. When CNN tweeted that the NYSE was flooded, it was in fact tweeting the misinformation of Internet troll @comfortablysmug, as passed through the Weather Channel. This was a coup for the troll, but got the news organization in trouble.

4. Don't retweet photos that show obvious violations of the laws of physics or wildly improbably events involving animals (unless you can confirm the latter). Be cautious with tweets about areas you know nothing about that are coming from sources who are unverifiable. But do use information you're receiving outside of social media to inform your thinking on what's happening. For example, despite the real-time debate on whether they were real or not, I could tell the flooding pictures of the corner of 8th Street and Avenue C were true on Monday night because I have friends who live one block from there, have gotten to know the neighborhood, and also used to live on 7th between C and D and know how close the East River is. As well, I was getting reports from my sister uptown that there were three to five feet of water on the FDR Drive and from my parents over on the Hudson side of the city that the water was coming up over the waterfront park, over the West Side Highway and up their street. My knowledge of the geography of the city and what was happening elsewhere in it made me ready to believe there would be several feet of water at 8th and C too, no matter how shocking it appeared. Also, you can't fake the tiny little yellow "tree grows in Brooklyn" tree leaves floating in that water in one of the shots. In contrast, I held off tweeting the picture of water pouring into the World Trade Center site until I found a tweet that sourced it to the AP, because the way the water looked -- too perfect, like a waterfall -- made me suspect it. By the same token, photos that have obvious filters on them are ones that have already been manipulated and need to be considered more skeptically.

Often it's easy to second-source a user-generated image, and nothing is lost by waiting a few minutes until you can surface it. Anything that's striking is something people will photograph from multiple angles if it happens in an urban space. Something that's tweeted by multiple people from multiple angles with on-the-scene commentary is more likely to be real than something tweeted only by one person who is clearly retweeting information second-hand.

Finally, when in doubt about the provenance of a picture, you can always check where it came from using a Google Images search. To do that, go to Google, click on Images, and then upload the image in question using the little camera in the search bar. Then press search. If the photo is actually from another news event, the original source should be apparent somewhere, though you may have to scroll and click around a bit to find it.

Chris Christie's Executive Order Rescheduling Halloween in New Jersey for Nov. 5

He said he'd do it and now he has, by the power vested in him by the Constitution.

eocc105

Romney's Delicate Challenge: Campaigning the Day After Sandy Hit the East Coast

The Republican presidential campaign's plan to hold a series of "relief" events in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin could backfire.

NYChurricanesandyLower Manhattan went dark during the worst hours of Hurricane Sandy on October 29. (Reuters)

The images on national news television this morning are of fire, flood, wind, rain, snow -- and also New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The two leaders of states devastated by Hurricane Sandy have been making frequent press appearances to inform the public and reassure beleaguered residents that help is on the way and areas devastated by Hurricane Sandy will be repaired.

Into that mix of nonpartisan horror footage will stride Mitt Romney, a man without an elected office, looking for a way to stay relevant and appear presidential while the real president has ceased campaigning to monitor coordination of response efforts.

Romney's campaign declared Monday that it would stop campaigning "out of sensitivity for the millions of Americans in the path of Hurricane Sandy," as Romney Communications Director Gail Gitcho put it in a midday statement. Events in Wisconsin with Romney and Paul Ryan in Melbourne and Lakeland, Florida, were scrapped.

"We are also canceling all events currently scheduled for both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan on Tuesday," Gitcho added. "Governor Romney believes this is a time for the nation and its leaders to come together to focus on those Americans who are in harms way. We will provide additional details regarding Governor Romney's and Congressman Ryan's schedule when they are available."

By Tuesday morning the new schedule was in effect -- and it involved a fresh array of events in swing states, this time with a hurricane theme. "Gov. Romney is scheduled to attend a storm relief event at the James S. Trent Arena in Kettering, Ohio, where he will be joined by Richard Petty and Randy Owen and help collect donations for storm-relief efforts," the Romney campaign announced. Randy Owen is a country music artist and Richard Petty is a former NASCAR driver.

Ryan, for his part, will visit two Romney "Victory Centers" in Wisconsin to "thank volunteers who are delivering or collecting items for storm relief efforts."

In the evening, Ann Romney will "attend a Victory Rally at the Temple for the Performing Arts in Des Moines, Iowa" -- an explicitly campaign-related event -- after visiting Romney "Victory Centers" in Iowa and Wisconsin earlier in the day for "Storm Relief Collection Efforts."

The danger for Romney is that by holding "storm relief" events in parts of the country rather far from the most devastated patches, and by having his wife and vice-presidential running mate go only to Republican events, he will look like he is continuing to campaign after having said he wouldn't just the day before. An even greater risk is that the Romney campaign events at these locations will inevitably appear partisan at a time when even politicians like Christie are praising the president and working with him to respond to the disaster as one unified national team. Americans like to pull together in times of tragedy and disaster; what they don't like is when politicians appear to seek advantage from their suffering without doing anything to provide substantive aid.

Shirtless Jogger in Horsehead Mask Photobombs Hurricane Sandy TV News

The first sure to be viral photo of Hurricane Sandy, posted to Twitter this morning by D.C. literary agent Howard Yoon:

A6YNU8iCcAAjuEJ.png

What's a catastrophic incoming storm-of-the-century without a little levity? Evan McMorris-Santoro finds and post video of the jogger.

Update 11:09 a.m. Jimmy Kruyne is taking credit for the stunt, tweeting out this picture. horsehead.jpg Earlier in the day he tweeted:

Mitt Romney in 2011: 'We Cannot Afford' Federal Disaster Relief

As Hurricane Sandy looms and flooding begins, the Republican presidential candidate's primary remarks are getting a second look.

Mitt Romney said America shouldn't be in the business of providing federal disaster relief and that it would be better for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's functions to be handled by individual states or even the private sector.

Queried directly on the topic by CNN's John King during the June 13, 2011 Republican presidential primary debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, Romney said the federal government "cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids."

Here's the exact Q & A:

KING: You've been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I've been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it's the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we're learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better.

Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut -- we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we're doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we're doing that we don't have to do? And those things we've got to stop doing, because we're borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we're taking in. We cannot...

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all. (emphasis added)

The Huffington Post reported that a Romney spokesperson Sunday night sought to clarify his present position: "Gov. Romney wants to ensure states, who are the first responders and are in the best position to aid impacted individuals and communities, have the resources and assistance they need to cope with natural disasters." That doesn't sound like a walk-back.

What Will Hurricane Sandy Do to Early Voting?

The massive storm is already leading to shutdowns and extensions at the polls.

early votingThis is what the early- and absentee-voting map should look like, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Hurricane Sandy is already messing with the map.

Updated 7:38 p.m. Snow, wind and rain could keep voters in the path of Hurricane Sandy from early or in-person absentee voting, delay mail delivery of absentee ballots, and cut into early-voting days by forcing states battered by the storm to halt early balloting. Here's what we know about what's happening so far:

Connecticut: Voter-registration deadline extended.

Maryland: Early voting suspended on Monday. "Due to the potential impact of Hurricane Sandy, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has declared a State of Emergency and ordered all Early Voting Centers in Maryland closed on Monday, October 29, 2012." Early voting had only opened on Saturday, October 27.

A6U_koeCAAApDTi.png

Washington, D.C.: Early voting suspended Monday. The federal government is closed Monday for all non-emergency personnel. All Metro service for Monday -- rail and bus lines -- has been suspended. Early voting across the city had begun on Saturday, but the D.C. Board of Elections has "has suspended the operation of its early voting sites on Monday October 29, 2012 due to the forecast arrival of Hurricane Sandy."

Virginia: Kaine says to bring those yard signs indoors. Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Tim Kaine is asking supporters to uproot campaign signs and bring them indoors so they don't become wind-borne projectiles.

The storm could potentially slow the pace of of early or in-person absentee voting in the three swing states of Virginia, Ohio, and North Carolina -- and is already leading to major changes in the campaign schedules of President Obama and Mitt Romney.

Developing ...

Richard Mourdock, Mitt Romney, and the GOP Defense of Coerced Mating

Rape and abortion have become major flashpoints this election cycle because they are where two incompatible views of women's place collide.

romneymourdock.banner.jpg

Mitt Romney and Richard Mourdock are doubtless both hoping we're nearing the end of the news cycle in which the Indiana U.S. Senate candidate's remarks that pregnancies from rape are "something that God intended to happen" exploded into the national conversation. But if Democrats have any say in the matter, that won't be the case, as the president and his campaign have highlighted the remarks repeatedly in an attempt to create a wedge issue for women voters 11 days before an election that could be decided by the size of the gender gap.

Discussing his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest while speaking at debate against Democrat Joe Donnelly, who also opposes abortion, though with exceptions, Mourdock said Tuesday night: "I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

He went on to use his opposition to all abortions, except to save the life of the mother, as a wedge to attack Obamacare for impinging on "religious freedom" by requiring insurance to cover contraception for women. Mourdock, the state's treasurer, beat incumbent Senator Richard Lugar in the Republican primary this past spring, and he's since received the support of both Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, which he has featured prominently on his Facebook page.

On Monday, Romney released a TV advertisement endorsing Mourdock -- the only such video he has cut for a Senate campaign since being nominated as the Republican presidential standard-bearer.

Mourdock has tried to walk back his remarks to some extent while defending his hard-line anti-abortion views. "Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think God ordained or pre-ordained rape? No, I don't think that anyone could suggest that. That's a sick, twisted -- no, that's not even close to what I said," he told reporters immediately following the debate, according to the Evansville Courier & Press.

"It is a fundamental part of my faith that God gives us life. God determines when life begins," Mourdock said. "I believe in an almighty God who makes those calls. ... There are some things in life that are above my pay grade."

The Romney campaign has tried to distance itself from the Indiana conservative without alienating its own base, which has left it in the awkward position of disavowing Mourdock's views without in any way stepping away from him. "Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr. Mourdock's comments do not reflect Gov. Romney's views," Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul said. "We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him."

Screen Shot 2012-10-25 at 4.02.05 PM.png

Summarizing the views of many frustrated pro-choice women, comedian Tina Fey told an audience at a benefit for the Center for Reproductive Rights Wednesday night: "if I have to listen to one more gray-faced man with a two-dollar haircut explain to me what rape is, I'm gonna lose my mind!"

While the Democrats push the issue to turn out pro-choice women -- President Obama tweeted about it three times Wednesday and told Jay Leno "I don't know how these guys come up with these ideas.... rape is rape," then returned to the topic Thursday in remarks and in tweets (at right) -- and the Romney campaign stands by its anti-abortion man out of its own need for the anti-abortion base to turn out on November 6, it's worth taking a step back to examine what it is we're really talking about and why it is that rape and abortion have become such flashpoints during campaign 2012.

* * *

Coerced and not entirely voluntary mating have occurred throughout human history. I had a friend many years ago whose mother was a prize of war in a national conflict; it made for complicated family dynamics. But one sees rape, forced marriage and war go hand in hand throughout the ages, including our own; it is another form of conquest to create the next generation in your image from the bodies of the conquered. Violating women is a way of subjugating a population -- sowing fear among the women, blocking the men from access to the future, and rupturing and weakening all the social bonds that made up the society that fought and lost. But for this to work there must also be children of rape. "If one group wants to control another they often do it by impregnating women of the other community because they see it as a way of destroying the opposing community," former head of the Gender Unit at Amnesty International Gita Sahgal has explained. Women must learn to love the image of their conquerors written in the faces of the children they suckle, and to despise themselves, and their weakness. If captives come to identify with those who hold them, it is only a tale as old as our ability to survive by orienting our beings around whoever has power over us.

This is one reason Missouri Republican U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin's mid-August comments that "if it's a legitimate rape the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down" set off such a firestorm -- his beliefs showed deep biological and historical ignorance about the way rape-created pregnancies have been used to transform and dominate whole populations. But in his denial of the possibility of rape-created pregnancy he was acknowledging the truth that would erupt again into public view with Mourdock's remarks: Post-rape pregnancies are where blanket anti-abortion views become de facto support for coercive mating and the legally sanctioned denial of agency to women not only on the question of whether to have a child, but who the child's father should be.

"If I have to listen to one more gray-faced man with a two-dollar haircut explain to me what rape is, I'm gonna lose my mind!"

Outside of the context of war, rape historically has been something more akin to a property crime than a crime against women per se -- the injured party was the husband or father to whom the woman belonged, and recompense for the crime was made to him for the injury to his standing and damage to the marital or social value of the woman. It was also an honor crime, and in large parts of the world rape continues to be seen as one for which women bear primary responsibility. As such being raped is viewed as a female sexual transgression that creates a justification or even obligation for male relatives and community members to shun the assaulted, or, rarely, even avenge familial honor by killing victims.

In contemporary America we reject rape because we believe that women have rights as individuals, and our present-day understanding of rape owes much to the successful efforts of Second Wave feminists in the late 1960s and 1970s to reform rape laws and transform American thinking on the topic as part of expanding women's rights and capacity for independent living in general. The right to privacy is what created the legal framework for access to contraception in America, but the push for reproductive rights came more from a feminist demand for respect for bodily integrity and individual autonomy. This same push for individual control of anatomical processes -- and against regulations that were harming women, as those that made abortion illegal did by forcing women seeking abortions into potentially deadly facilities -- underlay the movements for abortion rights and against rape. There is "no full human dignity and personhood possible for women until we demand the control over our own bodies," Betty Friedan declared at the First National Conference on Abortion Laws in Chicago in 1969.

That rape violates women's rights is not a universally agreed-on proposition. There are cultures in which women are married off against their will to men they do not chose, and cultures in which women who are raped are salvaged socially only if the rapist marries them, thereby taking their damaged goods out of the sexual marketplace. There are cultures where grown men marry female children, and cultures where girls who have not yet learned to speak are pledged to others of their parents' choice. There are cultures where women remain property, and are bought and sold, even by their parents, because the culture accords them only sexual value.

In America, we object to and do not permit any of these approaches, because of what they violate: the right to be free from harm, the right of bodily integrity, the right to sexual autonomy, and, most importantly, the right of a woman to belong to herself and not be able to be claimed as property by a masculine act against her, or by anyone, ever.

Screen Shot 2012-10-25 at 5.11.23 PM.png

Men fought against those who advocated women's rights for close to 500 years in the West by calling them and their vision of female access to these rights -- along with the right to be educated, critically, and to have the same suffrage and property rights as men -- a violation of nature, or even, as one late-19th century American jurist described the idea of a woman lawyer, a "treason against nature." And the critics were not entirely wrong. Women's rights are unnatural, if you think about it -- our natural lot the world over through most of documented human history has been subjection without autonomy or freedom. Coercive sexuality and rape are part of that system of subjection, and sexual coercion occurs in nonhuman primate populations, as well, where -- depending on the species -- it may well persist because it is an effective male reproductive strategy.

But what is natural and what is good and just are not the same. America itself is a rejection of nature, if you believe what many have argued, that the natural form of human social organization is the unjust rule of the few over the many, as the natural aristocracy of talent gives way to rule by heirs. America's genius has lain in moving away from the rule and exploitation of the many by the few toward a more equitable mode of social organization in the name of justice and equality and universal rights.

But as with the Divine Right of Kings that for centuries gave power to monarchs, too often we still see what is natural and avaricious and what is godly conflated.

According to Mourdock's thinking, a man who forces a woman to have sex with him against her will is a criminal, but a man who forces a woman to bear his child through forced sex should be permitted to do so, because abortion is murder and every conceived child is a gift from God.

The idea that coerced reproduction is God's will is of a piece with the belief that the subjection of women is God's will. The two ideas are inextricably intertwined historically, and the former is stubbornly resilient relic of the latter. To unpack this a bit more: According to Mourdock's thinking, a man who forces a woman to have sex with him against her will is a criminal, but a man who forces a woman to bear his child through forced sex should be permitted to do so, because abortion is murder and every conceived child is a gift from God.

Do we want to live in a country where any man at any time can decide he wants to bear children with any woman and she has no right to stop that from happening if he can overpower her by force? If we do -- and that's the society Mourdock is advocating -- then we have immediately left the society the feminists constructed and re-entered one where coerced mating is rewarded reproductively.

Women's advocates -- a group that today includes a substantial fraction of the country, whether they know it or not -- believe that women can decide on their own if they feel strong enough in the wake of a rape to care for a child that is part them and part the person who sought to depersonalize them and take pleasure in their suffering and humiliation. After all, pregnancy is no easy business despite modern medicine; giving a child up for adoption is potentially traumatic; and to unexpectedly become a single mother (80 percent of women sexually assaulted are under 30 and the average age of women at first marriage in this country is almost 27) is hugely life-altering, not to mention expensive, proposition.

In addition to increasing female autonomy, the major issue behind the drive for legalized abortion was how unsafe the procedure was on the underground market; everywhere in the world where abortion is illegal it takes place, even so. But it is often a deadly or physically damaging operation because of this. The question for feminists was how much risk and suffering women who were going to seek abortions anyway were required to undergo to obtain the relief they sought. Feminists succeeded in legalizing the procedure with a legal strategy that did not fully encompass the philosophical underpinnings of their support for abortion rights, but which made it markedly safer. Abortion-related deaths plummeted after abortion laws were liberalized in 15 states in 1970 -- declining dramatically even before Roe V. Wade was decided, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The drive to restrict abortion in the United States in recent years has done little to decrease demand but has effectively ratcheted up the misery quotient for women who seek the procedure in many states. People who share Mourdock's views believe it is right and ethical that women should suffer even more should they wish to have control over whom they bear children with.

Romney has said he supports exemptions for rape and incest in the abortion-rights rollbacks he also seeks; Paul Ryan shares the Mourdock view but as Romney's vice-presidential running-mate has said it is Romney's view that matters.

If the experience in this country with Medicaid-funded abortion in case of rape is an example -- and it may not be -- the whole issue of rape exemptions is a red herring, because the exemptions don't really work to help the women seeking abortions under them. Only 37 percent of women who quality for Medicaid funding for abortion under rape or health exemptions ultimately have procedures funded by the program.

It's all well and good to talk about respect for Mourdock's beliefs as he proclaims his ambition to impose them on people who disagree with him. But we ought also to recall the vision of women's place in the world they would to resurrect, if ever permitted to become law.

Lena Dunham's New Obama Ad—as Controversial as Everything She Does?

The HBO show creator and actress talks about her first time -- voting.

Well, she's certainly become "a voice, of a generation." The video "Your First Time" from the Obama campaign features Lena Dunham, creator of Girls, delivering a short monologue about losing her voting virginity.

Screen shot 2012-11-11 at 10.59.36 AM.png

Right wing bloggers are already experiencing agita, proclaiming the video "DISGUSTING."

"They've finally sunken to a new low trying to get the youth vote by comparing voting for the first time to having sex for the first time," says the RightScoop crew.

And yet, I am pretty sure the writers and readers of that site are not the Obama campaign's target demographic with this video, at this late point in the campaign cycle.

The Best Lady GOTV Video of 2012, Starring Lena Dunham and Lesley Gore

A bunch of gorgeous young women revive an old message: "You Don't Own Me."

If you followed the amazing outpouring of citizen-generated political content during the 2008 presidential contest, 2012 has been rather disappointing. Sure, there was the anonymously recorded 47 percent video released by Mother Jones, and there have been some fun videos by the Gregory Brothers. But it feels like there's been much less artist-created content this cycle -- and much more put together by people involved with campaigns for either politicians or web companies, many of which are entering the political marketplace as part of a broader branding play rather than because they have strong belief systems.

So how exciting is this new video from a bunch of gals who look like they just stepped off the set of HBO's Girls -- including that show's creator, Lena Dunham? 

The ladies lip-sync and vamp to the 1964 hit "You Don't Own Me" in this get out the vote PSA released Monday by Sarah Sophie Flicker, a New York-based performer with the The Citizen's Band, and others in the clip.

"A bunch of us gals, including Maximilla Lukacs, Tavi Gevinson, Alia Penner, Tennessee Thomas, Alexa Chung, Rebecca Fernandez, Leith Clark, Erika Spring, Karen Elson and I had all been horrified by the news, the repeated attacks on women's rights, and the anti-women sentiment pouring out from the GOP generally," Flicker told Paper magazine. "We decided we wanted to make a PSA.

"Personally, I'm struck by the fact that we are teetering dangerously close to a situation where my daughter won't have the same rights I've enjoyed my entire life and that scares the heck out of me. Women constituted 60% of last elections voters. We can win this thing. We just have to agitate, motivate, and get out the darn vote!"

Lesley Gore herself joined the video project and ends it with this message: "I recorded 'You Don't Own Me' in 1964. It's hard for me to believe, but we're still fighting for the same things we were then. Yes, ladies, we've got to come together, get out there and vote and protect our bodies. They're ours. Please vote."

The list of ladies in the video, via The Cut and Paper, follows this video of Gore singing her song the year it came out:


Alexa Chung
Alia Shawkat
Amy Rose Spiegel
Ana Calderon
Anna Fitzpatrick
Arrow and Ada
Barb Morrison
Becky Stark
Brodie Lancaster
Brooke Williams
Carlen Altman
Carrie Brownstein
Cassie Carello
Chapin Sisters
Courtney Hall
Courtney Martin
Elle Wagner
Erika Spring
Hannah Johnson
India Menuez
Judith Iocovozzi
Kate Nash
Kate Urcioli
Katy Goodman
Kime Buzzelli
Krista Bachmeier
Kristina Uriegas
Leah Siegel
Lena Dunham
Lesley Gore
Lisa Mayock
Lucy Moffatt
Madelyne Beckles
Mae Whitman
Mallyce
Maria Valencia
Meg Olsen
Melissa Coker
Mia Moretti & Caitlin Moe
Mia Lidofsky
Miranda July
Natalia Czajkiewicz
Natasha Lyonne
Petra Collins
Rachel Antonoff
Rain Phoenix
Ruby Karp
Ryan Roche
Sarah Sophie Flicker
Shae Detar
Sia
Sophie Buhai
Tavi
Tracee Ellis Ross

Is the World Ready for Mitt Romney?

That's not up to him to decide, really, is it?

Mitt Romney talks a lot about wanting to restore America's standing in the world and perceptions about its strength. But the reality is that the world is going to consider him on its own terms and his calls for a posture of greater American toughness -- even while continuing Obama's policies on the ground -- seem likely to rankle global leaders who are less prepared even than hardcore Democrats in America for a possible Romney win. From the Washington Post:

From Europe to China to the Middle East, perceptions of the contest have lagged behind indications that the two men are in a virtual dead heat. Obama remains widely popular abroad, and there are signs that many leaders are unprepared for a Romney presidency.

In Western Europe, few people can imagine Romney in office. In China, officials have been focused on the intrigues of their impending leadership transition, though many worry that both American candidates have been beating up on their country instead of pummeling each other. And in the Middle East, political chaos has kept many activists and officials from contemplating the election much at all....

One survey last month from the German Marshall Fund found Europeans breaking 75 percent for Obama and 8 percent for Romney....

A mid-October Emnid poll for the Bild newspaper found that 82 percent of Germans expected Obama to win, compared with 11 percent expecting a Romney victory....

In Britain, Romney is viewed as representing a party that has swung further and further to the right on social issues, thus sharing less affinity with his counterparts on this side of the Atlantic than Republicans once did. The coalition government headed by Prime Minister David Cameron, a Conservative, has embraced the cause of same-sex marriage and vowed to vigorously combat global warming.

America's closest allies may be in for a rude awakening on November 7th, should Romney pull off a win. Their lack of preparation for a Romney presidency and sharp ideological differences with him seem likely to immediately complicate any Romney moves to do what he is saying his election would in terms of improving America's standing globally. The problem under Bush wasn't just that America was disliked by the Arab world because of the Iraq War and the administration's support for torture techniques like water-boarding -- it was that our standing with our European allies tumbled. It's hard to see how Romney could improve upon what Obama has done to repair those relationships in the near-term, given his well-demonstrated disdain for European social attitudes and economic policies, and what a shock an Obama loss would be to European citizens.

Hillary Clinton Wants None of Your 'Whining' About Having It All

The secretary of state blasts Anne-Marie Slaughter's Atlantic article about women in the workplace.

HRCThe Texts from Hillary meme was based on the idea that no one can mess with her. (Texts from Hillary)

It is a truism about the contemporary workplace that women, even feminists, who are bosses may not be any more sympathetic to their female employees' concerns for work-life balance than men because they have had to work so hard to get and stay where they are, and they hold their own capacity to burn the candle at both ends as the standard. It's also a truism that high-powered U.S. government jobs are burn-out positions that men frequently leave after two years, and that few save those with extraordinary physical constitutions and a great deal of personal help on the home front can manage some of the toughest of them for much longer.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has finally weighed in publicly on Anne-Marie Slaughter's July/August Atlantic cover story, "Why Women Still Can't Have It All," and in the process reminded me of both understandings of Washington life. Slaughter's article detailed how she found "juggling high-level governmental work with the needs of two teenage boys was not possible" and stepped down from her role as Clinton's director of policy planning in order to save her family. After leaving State, Slaughter wrote, she realized her complicity in the system that makes it so hard for other women to succeed:

All my life, I'd been on the other side of this exchange. I'd been the woman smiling the faintly superior smile while another woman told me she had decided to take some time out or pursue a less competitive career track so that she could spend more time with her family. I'd been the woman congratulating herself on her unswerving commitment to the feminist cause, chatting smugly with her dwindling number of college or law-school friends who had reached and maintained their place on the highest rungs of their profession. I'd been the one telling young women at my lectures that you can have it all and do it all, regardless of what field you are in. Which means I'd been part, albeit unwittingly, of making millions of women feel that they are to blame if they cannot manage to rise up the ladder as fast as men and also have a family and an active home life (and be thin and beautiful to boot).
In a long article by Ayelet Waldman for Marie Claire posted online today, Clinton spoke frankly about her thoughts on Slaughter's piece:
She reminded me that she has spent her career advocating on behalf of women, that she is committed to the idea that "it's important for our workplaces ... to be more flexible and creative in enabling women to continue to do high-stress jobs while caring for not only children, but [also] aging parents." But, she said, Slaughter's problems were her own.

"Some women are not comfortable working at the pace and intensity you have to work at in these jobs .... Other women don't break a sweat. They have four or five, six kids. They're highly organized, they have very supportive networks." By all accounts, this was precisely the kind of mother Clinton was to Chelsea -- hands-on, prioritizing her child, and yet ever committed to work.

Clinton has very little patience for those whose privilege offers them a myriad of choices but who fail to take advantage of them. "I can't stand whining," she says. "I can't stand the kind of paralysis that some people fall into because they're not happy with the choices they've made. You live in a time when there are endless choices .... Money certainly helps, and having that kind of financial privilege goes a long way, but you don't even have to have money for it. But you have to work on yourself .... Do something!"

Certainly Clinton has had occasion to whine if she wanted to, and faced a great deal of pressure to stop pushing herself forward professionally from the moment she became first lady all the way through her failed 2008 presidential primary campaign. But she didn't whine; she went on and kept going. One can see the personal necessity of the philosophy she outlines, even if she sounds dismissive of the important structural constraints on women's success that Slaughter outlined.

Update 6:03 p.m. Slaughter tweets:

Stay tuned, she says.

Update 10/19/12, 10:38 a.m. Clinton's spokesman Philippe Reines points out that Clinton was not actually speaking specifically about Slaughter in her "whining" comments, but about the character of Holden Caulfield of Catcher in the Rye. Marie Claire is sticking with its story though, saying the quote was "part of a larger conversation about women in the workplace and striking a work-life balance."

The Welsh Security Contractor Behind America's Benghazi Consulate Guards

A new report reveals the local Libyans it hired weren't armed and didn't have security experience.

Screen shot 2012-10-18 at 10.51.01 AM.png

It is, as my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg has noted, to be lamented that the conversation around the attack on the U.S. consulate and nearby annex in Benghazi, Libya, has become so focused on who said what when instead of on the underlying security and foreign-policy issues. Today, American Crossroads, the Karl Rove-backed Republican super PAC, is out with a Web video criticizing the Obama administration's repeated mentions of an American anti-Muslim video that sparked riots and protests in dozens of cities around the globe, leading to at least 49 deaths in 10 days and injuries to hundreds.

The video focuses on the administration's repeated repudiations of the anti-Muslim video that sparked a riot in front of the American embassy in Cairo, including statements made after the attack on the consulate in Libya when the film was continuing to roil international waters.

Meanwhile, the story of what happened with the consular security in Libya is continuing to come into view as journalists, such as a most excellent team at Reuters, have dug into the practices of Welsh security contractor the Blue Mountain Group, which was brought on by the State Department to oversee the new and potentially temporary consular compound in Benghazi. What the reporters found is astonishing, considering how many armed guards one finds in much less dangerous environs in the United States: "Blue Mountain guards patrolled with flashlights and batons instead of guns."

According to its website, Blue Mountain, run by a former member of the British special forces named David Nigel Thomas, had "recently operated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, the Caribbean and across Europe," and worked with corporate clients, such as "BAT, BG Group, Cadburys, Cannon, CapGemini, DHL, Excel, Google, Jaguar Landrover, Lufthansa, Motorola, Orange, OSCE, Romec, Sealed Air, Sony and Viacom."

Reuters' key passage:

The State Department contract for "local guard" services in Benghazi took effect in March 2012. Several of Blue Mountain's Libyan employees told Reuters that they had no prior security training or experience.

"I was never a revolutionary or a fighter, I have never picked up a weapon during the war or after it," said Abdelaziz al-Majbiri, 28, who was shot in the legs during the September 11 assault.

The Libyan commander in charge of the local guards at the mission was a former English teacher who said he heard about Blue Mountain from a neighbor. "I don't have a background in security, I've never held a gun in my life," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity out of fear for his safety.

When hired, the commander said he was told "you have great English and get along with everyone and are punctual; we want you to be a guard commander."

The unarmed guards were told to sound the alarm over the radio and then run for cover if there was an attack, a Libyan who acted as a supervisor for the Blue Mountain local guard team at the mission said during an interview with Reuters ....

Despite their inexperience, the Blue Mountain guards said they feared the Americans were not concerned enough about security.

"We used to tell the Americans who spoke to us on many occasions that we needed more support in security, because it felt thin on the ground. But they didn't seem to be so worried, and (were) confident that no one will dare to come close to the consulate," one guard said.

Thomas, the CEO of Blue Mountain, is also the "chief training officer" of Tough Mudder, a "hardcore 10-12 mile obstacle courses designed by British Special Forces to test your all around strength, stamina, mental grit, and camaraderie."

Screen shot 2012-10-18 at 10.57.44 AM.png

Reuters reports that "British authorities used a different contractor for security protection in Libya."

Binders Full of Women: A Meme That Means Something

Romney's turn of phrase wasn't just a Tumblr waiting to be born, it was an insight into his views on the importance of promoting women.

tumblr_mc0v6awoDC1rj8amio1_1280.jpg

HEMPSTEAD, New York -- Asked about pay equity for women, Mitt Romney launched the meme of the evening with his reply during the presidential debate Tuesday night.

It was "an important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state," he said, "because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men."

"And I -- and I went to my staff, and I said, 'How come all the people for these jobs are -- are all men.' They said, 'Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.' And I said, 'Well, gosh, can't we -- can't we find some -- some women that are also qualified?'" he continued.

"And -- and so we -- we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet," he recalled. "I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks,' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

The Boston Phoenix's David Bernstein says the story isn't true -- that women's groups had been pushing these binders and that they were created by a bipartisan coalition of women's advocates:

What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

Regardless of who served as inspiration for creating the binders, Romney used them and MassGAP today says they got results:
In 2002 women held approximately 30% of the top high-level appointed positions in the Commonwealth, even though they compose 52% of the population. To rectify this inequity, more than 25 women's organizations banded together to form the bi-partisan MassGAP Project for the purpose of increasing the number of women in high-ranking appointed positions in Massachusetts and achieving fairer representation of women. MassGAP sought to eliminate the difficulty that state executives say they experienced whenever they tried to find qualified women for high-ranking positions. MassGAP did this through providing names and resumes of qualified women for top appointments.

Between January 2002 and July 2004, 42% of the new gubernatorial appointments made by Governor Mitt Romney were women. Massachusetts was widely recognized for that achievement and MassGAP was given credit for it. In a survey by the State University of New York (SUNY), Massachusetts was ranked first in the nation in the percentage of women holding top state positions. As the Boston Globe noted at that time, "Women fill 10 of 20 top positions in Governor Mitt Romney's administration, making the Commonwealth one of five states that come close to matching the percentage of top women appointees to the proportion of women in the overall population."

This accomplishment is significant. Nowhere else in Massachusetts government--not in the legislature, not in statewide offices, and not in municipal offices--are the numbers for women anywhere near as good. This fact was acknowledged by the Women's National Republican Club, which presented Governor Romney with its 2005 Exemplary Leadership Award for his work in recruiting and promoting women to cabinet and senior-level positions in his administration. At the dinner in Manhattan at which the governor was feted, he attributed his success in attracting "top-level women to serve in [my] Administration to the MassGAP program spearheaded by the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus shortly after the 2002 gubernatorial election."

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe reminded, "There were no women partners at Bain Capital during Romney's tenure."

And that's the heart of the issue. Romney did a good job appointing women to high office in the context of a bipartisan statewide push to get him to do so as a new governor, but a terrible job in finding and promoting women to senior roles in the context of the high-paying private-sector business he built himself. That may be why, by his own admission, his social power network when he came into office led to an all-male pool of job applicants. And as any woman with a job knows, getting the job is not the same a being paid the same amount as male colleagues for it -- the question on the table before Romney Tuesday night, and one he ultimately punted on.

That led to what could have been one of the strongest lines of the night for Obama in reply, though he didn't fully realize the potential of the rejoinder. "I've got two daughters and I want to make sure that they have the same opportunities that anybody's sons have," the president said. The meaning was clear: If Malia and Sasha Obama don't have the same opportunities (even without being the children of a president) as Tagg and Josh and Craig and Matt and Ben Romney, America is not living up to its potential.

"Binders full of women" was also exactly the sort of slightly awkward Romneyism that inspires the Tumblrsphere, and Veronica De Souza of Brooklyn was quick to turn it into a crowd-sourced meme-generating project, Binders Full of Women. A self-described "social media pro," she also described herself as in search of work.

The American Bridge PAC, meanwhile, jumped on the non-Tumblr URL and snapped up BindersFullOfWomen.com "to educate voters on Romney's REAL record on issues important to women & his record on (not) appointing many female judges," according to the group's Chris Harris.

On Facebook, Binders Full of Women by Wednesday morning had garnered 242,000 likes and inspired a slew of imitators -- Binders Full of Men, Binders Full of Gays, etc. -- with fewer.

Obama Brings the Fight

The president wins his rematch with Mitt Romney by knocking him off his game on Libya, of all things.

debate2crosstalk.banner.reuters.jpg
Reuters

HEMPSTEAD, New York -- It was supposed to be a set-up for Mitt Romney's toughest gotcha. Instead it provided an opening for Obama up to give his best answer of the evening during a thrillingly feisty town-hall style presidential debate before an audience of undecided Nassau County voters. The questioners' rich Long Island and outer-borough accents served as a reminder of how unusual it is to see New Yorkers treated as politically relevant "real Americans," and their questions showed that -- when combined with the tough love of moderator Candy Crowley -- they'd been doing their homework. Kerry Ladka even got his "braintrust" in Mineola to help him out with a question on security in Libya.

Obama used his reply to take responsibility for the September 11 foreign-policy disaster in Benghazi. "I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home," the president said. "You know that I mean what I say."

And then he ripped into Romney's suggestion that "his strategy is unraveling before our very eyes" and the Benghazi attack "calls into question the president's whole policy in the Middle East."

"Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me," Obama said. "I'm the president and I'm always responsible, and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do. The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime.

"And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.

"And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as commander in chief."

His eyes flashed. It was Obama at his most commanding. But he wasn't done yet.

CROWLEY: Governor, if you want to ...

ROMNEY: Yes, I -- I ...

CROWLEY: ... quickly to this please.

ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.

It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me call it an act of terror...

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

And that was that.

Lifecasting With Mitt Romney

Between his boys and his body man, who needs the press?

The Romney pool reporters, shuttled from hold location to hold location, have nothing on the family and aides of the Republican presidential candidate when it comes to documenting his pre-debate moves. And boy do they like to document his evenings before big debates.

Matt Romney tweeted a pic from "Backstage before the debate."

A5XjxOrCQAALx0d.jpg

From Mitt's body man, David Jackson, we got the view "On our way to the debate. Going to be a great night."

A5Xdcq3CQAANg9t.jpg

Tagg Romney ‏tweeted some "Pre-debate fun. Mom looks good in pink. Stuart wearing a tie -- somewhere pigs are flying."

A5XYvszCYAAWF-s.jpg

Josh Romney was "Hanging out pre debate. You may notice that @CraigRomney is not a big crust eater," he tweeted.

A5XH8oPCYAAM0TO.jpg

It's not the first cycle we've seen this kind of candidate lifecasting, nor the first campaign in which the very social media-friendly Romney boys have been doing it. But the strange mix of inside glimpses and formal distance these snapshots provide is always striking.

The Amazing Story of What Happened in Libya

Before you watch the foreign-policy portion of the presidential debate Tuesday, you must read the State Department's riveting tale of heroism in Benghazi.

Benghazi
The Benghazi consulate after being set on fire in a photo dated September 12. (Reuters)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday said the first line-of-duty death of a U.S. ambassador since the Carter Administration was on her. "I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN's Elise Labott during a brief trip to Lima, Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."

"What I want to avoid is some kind of political gotcha or blame game," she said, adding: "I know that we're very close to an election."

While Republicans continue to charge administration cover-up and denial, the State Department's moves have repeatedly undermined both charges. Not only has Clinton taken responsibility for what happened on her watch, but senior State Department officials a week ago laid out for reporters in extraordinary detail what went down in Benghazi on the night of September 11 and morning of September 12. Posted online late last week, the on-background briefing makes clear that it might not even be adequate to call the assault on the U.S. consulate in Eastern Libya an act of terrorism -- the compound and a nearby American annex, according to State, came under sustained military attack by a non-governmental armed force.

But no one died in their sleep. Contained within the briefing is an amazing tale of heroism as a vastly outnumbered group of American diplomatic-security personnel and rapid-reaction forces fought back against attackers of uncertain affiliation and sought repeatedly to locate the American ambassador in a burning, smoke-filled building before retreating to a second location. There's even an armored-vehicle escape, under fire, on two flat tires, going the wrong way in traffic. One could say the account is self-serving given the extent to which Ambassador Chris Stevens's death has become a political football, despite his father's pleading that "it would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue." But this isn't how you put out a self-serving account. And I have read no story so far talking about the heroism of the American forces, including of the two former Navy SEALs who gave their lives in combat to protect an American outpost. There are real and important diplomatic-security strategy questions to answer going forward (such as why there's been no mention so far of emergency filter or other masks in the consulate's safe haven of the sort homeland-security officials once recommended for all Americans at home). But that doesn't negate that what Clinton said is right: The ambassador and the others on the ground in Benghazi signed up for a dangerous job, and we should all be so lucky as to have the courage they showed on September 11 and 12.

"Chris Stevens understood that diplomats must operate in many places where soldiers do not or cannot, where there are no other boots on the ground and security is far from guaranteed," Clinton said Friday in a speech at the "Maghreb in Transition" conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "And like so many of our brave colleagues and those who served in our armed forces as well, he volunteered for his assignments."

Before you watch the debate tonight, read the State Department account of what happened in Libya. And then weigh the words you hear against this full account.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL NUMBER ONE: All right. Let me proceed. I'm going to give you as much information as possible about the events of that night, but I am going to start with a scene-setter.

So let me set the stage. On April 5th, 2011, a small Department of State team headed by Chris Stevens arrives by chartered boat in Benghazi. They set up shop in a hotel. This is at a time when Benghazi was liberated, Qadhafi was still in power in Tripoli, the war was going on, our Ambassador had been expelled from Tripoli by Qadhafi, the Embassy staff had been evacuated because it was unsafe. So Chris Stevens coming back into Benghazi -- coming into Benghazi on April 5th, 2011, is the only U.S. Government people in Libya at this time.

They set up shop in a hotel, as I mentioned. A few weeks later in June, a bomb explodes in the parking lot in front of the hotel. The group in Benghazi makes a decision to move to a new location. They move to a couple of places, and by August they settle on a large compound which is where the actual activity on 9/11 took place. So they're in a large compound, where they remain.

The compound is roughly 300 yards long -- that's three football fields long -- and a hundred yards wide. We need that much room to provide the best possible setback against car bombs. Over the next few months, physical security at the compound is strengthened. The outer wall is upgraded, its height is increased to nine feet. It is topped by three feet of barbed wire and concertina wire all around the huge property. External lighting is increased. Jersey barriers, which are big concrete blocks, are installed outside and inside the gate. Steel drop bars are added at the gates to control vehicle access and to provide some anti-ram protection. The buildings on the compound itself were strengthened.

The compound has four buildings on it, and you guys are going to have to get used to this, because I refer them to -- as Building C, Building B, Tactical Operations Center, and a barracks. So Building C is a building that is essentially a large residence. It has numerous bedrooms and it is -- it has a safe haven installed in it, and I'll talk more about that in a minute. Building C ultimately is the building that the Ambassador was in, so keep that in your heads.

Building B is another residence on the compound. It has bedrooms and it has a cantina. That's where the folks dine. The Tactical Operations Center, which is just across the way from Building B, has offices and a bedroom. That's where the security officers had their main setup, that's where the security cameras are, a lot of the phones -- it's basically their operations center. So I'll call it the TOC from now on.

And then there was a barracks. The barracks is a small house by the front gate, the main gate of the compound. In that barracks is a Libyan security force which I'll describe in a minute. Security on the compound consists of five Diplomatic Security special agents and four members of the Libyan Government security force, which I will henceforth call the 17th February Brigade. It is a militia, a friendly militia, which has basically been deputized by the Libyan Government to serve as our security, our host government security. In addition to all those, there is an additional security force at another U.S. compound two kilometers away. It serves as a rapid reaction force, a quick reaction security team -- a quick reaction security team, okay?

Now we're on the day of, and before I go into this discussion of the day of the events of 9/11, I'm going to be -- I want to be clear to you all. I am giving you this -- you my best shot on this one. I am giving you what I know. I am giving it to you in as much granularity as I possibly can. This is still, however, under investigation. There are other facts to be known, but I think I'm going to be able to give you quite a lot, as far as I know it. I have talked to the -- to almost all the agents that were involved, as well as other people.

Okay. The Ambassador has arrived in Benghazi on the 10th of September. He does meetings both on the compound and off the compound on that day, spends the night. The next day is 9/11. He has all his -- because it is 9/11, out of prudence, he has all his meetings on the compound. He receives a succession of visitors during the day.

About 7:30 in the evening, he has his last meeting. It is with a Turkish diplomat. And at -- when the meeting is over, at 8:30 -- he has all these meetings, by the way, in what I call Building C -- when the meeting is over, he escorts the Turkish diplomat to the main gate. There is an agent there with them. They say goodbye. They're out in a street in front of the compound. Everything is calm at 8:30 p.m. There's nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.

After he sees the Turkish diplomat off, the Ambassador returns to Building C, where the information management officer -- his name is Sean Smith, and who is one of the victims -- the information management officer -- I'll just call him Sean from now on, on this call -- and four other -- four Diplomatic Security agents are all at Building C. One Diplomatic Security agent is in the TOC, the Tactical Operations Center. All of these agents have their side arms.

A few minutes later -- we're talking about 9 o'clock at night -- the Ambassador retires to his room, the others are still at Building C, and the one agent in the TOC. At 9:40 p.m., the agent in the TOC and the agents in Building C hear loud noises coming from the front gate. They also hear gunfire and an explosion. The agent in the TOC looks at his cameras -- these are cameras that have pictures of the perimeter -- and the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people -- a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound. One special agent immediately goes to get the Ambassador in his bedroom and gets Sean, and the three of them enter the safe haven inside the building.

And I should break for a second and describe what a safe haven is. A safe haven is a fortified area within a building. This particular safe haven has a very heavy metal grill on it with several locks on it. It essentially divides the one -- the single floor of that building in half, and half the floor is the safe haven, the bedroom half. Also in the safe haven is a central sort of closet area where people can take refuge where there are no windows around. In that safe haven are medical supplies, water, and such things. All the windows to that area of the building have all been grilled. A couple of them have grills that can be open from the inside so people inside can get out, but they can't be -- obviously can't be opened from the outside.

The agent with the Ambassador in the safe haven has -- in addition to his side arm, has his long gun, or I should say -- it's an M4 submachine gun, standard issue. The other agents who have heard the noise in the -- at the front gate run to Building B or the TOC -- they run to both, two of them to Building B, one to the TOC -- to get their long guns and other kit. By kit, I mean body armor, a helmet, additional munitions, that sort of thing.

They turn around immediately and head back -- or the two of them, from Building B, turn around immediately with their kit and head back to Villa C, where the Ambassador and his colleagues are. They encounter a large group of armed men between them and Building C. I should say that the agent in Building C with the Ambassador has radioed that they are all in the safe haven and are fine. The agents that encounter the armed group make a tactical decision to turn around and go back to their Building B and barricade themselves in there. So we have people in three locations right now.

And I neglected to mention -- I should have mentioned from the top that the attackers, when they came through the gate, immediately torched the barracks. It is aflame, the barracks that was occupied by the 17th February Brigade armed host country security team. I should also have mentioned that at the very first moment when the agent in the TOC seized the people flowing through the gate, he immediately hits an alarm, and so there is a loud alarm. He gets on the public address system as well, yelling, "Attack, attack." Having said that, the agents -- the other agents had heard the noise and were already reacting.

Okay. So we have agents in Building C -- or an agent in Building C with the Ambassador and Sean, we have two agents in Building B, and we have two agents in the TOC. All -- Building C is -- attackers penetrate in Building C. They walk around inside the building into a living area, not the safe haven area. The building is dark. They look through the grill, they see nothing. They try the grill, the locks on the grill; they can't get through. The agent is, in fact, watching them from the darkness. He has his long gun trained on them and he is ready to shoot if they come any further. They do not go any further.

They have jerry cans. They have jerry cans full of diesel fuel that they've picked up at the entrance when they torched the barracks. They have sprinkled the diesel fuel around. They light the furniture in the living room -- this big, puffy, Middle Eastern furniture. They light it all on fire, and they have also lit part of the exterior of the building on fire. At the same time, there are other attackers that have penetrated Building B. The two agents in Building B are barricaded in an inner room there. The attackers circulate in Building B but do not get to the agents and eventually leave.

A third group of attackers tried to break into the TOC. They pound away at the door, they throw themselves at the door, they kick the door, they really treat it pretty rough; they are unable to get in, and they withdraw. Back in Building C, where the Ambassador is, the building is rapidly filling with smoke. The attackers have exited. The smoke is extremely thick. It's diesel smoke, and also, obviously, smoke from -- fumes from the furniture that's burning. And the building inside is getting more and more black. The Ambassador and the two others make a decision that it's getting -- it's starting to get tough to breathe in there, and so they move to another part of the safe haven, a bathroom that has a window. They open the window. The window is, of course, grilled. They open the window trying to get some air in. That doesn't help. The building is still very thick in smoke.

And I am sitting about three feet away from Senior Official Number Two, and the agent I talked to said he could not see that far away in the smoke and the darkness. So they're in the bathroom and they're now on the floor of the bathroom because they're starting to hurt for air. They are breathing in the bottom two feet or so of the room, and even that is becoming difficult.

So they make a decision that they're going to have to leave the safe haven. They decide that they're going to go out through an adjacent bedroom which has one of the window grills that will open. The agent leads the two others into a hallway in that bedroom. He opens the grill. He's going first because that is standard procedure. There is firing going on outside. I should have mentioned that during all of this, all of these events that I've been describing, there is considerable firing going on outside. There are tracer bullets. There is smoke. There is -- there are explosions. I can't tell you that they were RPGs, but I think they were RPGs. So there's a lot of action going on, and there's dozens of armed men on the -- there are dozens of armed men on the compound.

Okay. We've got the agent. He's opening the -- he is suffering severely from smoke inhalation at this point. He can barely breathe. He can barely see. He's got the grill open and he flops out of the window onto a little patio that's been enclosed by sandbags. He determines that he's under fire, but he also looks back and sees he doesn't have his two companions. He goes back in to get them. He can't find them. He goes in and out several times before smoke overcomes him completely, and he has to stagger up a small ladder to the roof of the building and collapse. He collapses.

At that point, he radios the other agents. Again, the other agents are barricaded in Building C and -- Building B, and the TOC. He radios the other agents that he's got a problem. He is very difficult to understand. He can barely speak.

The other agents, at this time, can see that there is some smoke, or at least the agents in the TOC -- this is the first they become aware that Building C is on fire. They don't have direct line of sight. They're seeing smoke and now they've heard from the agent. So they make a determination to go to Building C to try to find their colleagues.

The agent in the TOC, who is in full gear, opens the door, throws a smoke grenade, which lands between the two buildings, to obscure what he is doing, and he moves to Building B, enters Building B. He un-barricades the two agents that are in there, and the three of them emerge and head for Building C. There are, however, plenty of bad guys and plenty of firing still on the compound, and they decide that the safest way for them to move is to go into an armored vehicle, which is parked right there. They get into the armored vehicle and they drive to Building C.

They drive to the part of the building where the agent had emerged. He's on the roof. They make contact with the agent. Two of them set up as best a perimeter as they can, and the third one, third agent, goes into the building. This goes on for many minutes. Goes into the building, into the choking smoke. When that agent can't proceed, another agent goes in, and so on. And they take turns going into the building on their hands and knees, feeling their way through the building to try to find their two colleagues. They find Sean. They pull him out of the building. He is deceased. They are unable to find the Ambassador.

At this point, the special security team, the quick reaction security team from the other compound, arrive on this compound. They came from what we call the annex. With them -- there are six of them -- with them are about 16 members of the Libyan February 17th Brigade, the same militia that was -- whose -- some members of which were on our compound to begin with in the barracks.

As those guys attempt to secure a perimeter around Building C, they also move to the TOC, where one agent has been manning the phone. I neglected to mention from the top that that agent from the top of this incident, or the very beginning of this incident, has been on the phone. He had called the quick reaction security team, he had called the Libyan authorities, he had called the Embassy in Tripoli, and he had called Washington. He had them all going to ask for help. And he remained in the TOC.

So at this point in the evening, the members of the quick reaction team, some parts of it, go to the TOC with the Libyan 17th Brigade -- 17th February Brigade. They get him out of the TOC. He moves with them to join their colleagues outside of Building C. All the agents at this point are suffering from smoke inhalation. The agent that had been in the building originally with the Ambassador is very, very severely impacted, the others somewhat less so, but they can't go back in. The remaining agent, the one that had come from the TOC, freshest set of lungs, goes into the building himself, though he is advised not to. He goes into the building himself, as do some members of the quick reaction security team.

The agent makes a couple of attempts, cannot proceed. He's back outside of the building. He takes his shirt off. There's a swimming pool nearby. He dips his shirt in the swimming pool and wraps it around his head, goes in one last time. Still can't find the Ambassador. Nobody is able to find the Ambassador.

At this point, the quick reaction security team and the Libyans, especially the Libyan forces, are saying, "We cannot stay here. It's time to leave. We've got to leave. We can't hold the perimeter." So at that point, they make the decision to evacuate the compound and to head for the annex. The annex is about two kilometers away. My agents pile into an armored vehicle with the body of Sean, and they exit the main gate.

Here it's a little harder to understand because I don't have a diagram that you can show -- that I can show you. But in a nutshell, they take fire almost as soon as they emerge from the compound. They go a couple of -- they go in one direction toward the annex. They don't like what they're seeing ahead of them. There are crowds. There are groups of men. They turn around and go the other direction. They don't like what they're seeing in that direction either. They make another u-turn. They're going at a steady pace. There is traffic in the roads around there. This is in Benghazi, after all. Now, they're going at a steady pace and they're trying not to attract too much attention, so they're going maybe 15 miles an hour down the street.

They come up to a knot of men in an adjacent compound, and one of the men signals them to turn into that compound. They agents at that point smell a rat, and they step on it. They have taken some fire already. At this point, they take very heavy fire as they go by this group of men. They take direct fire from AK-47s from about two feet away. The men also throw hand grenades or gelignite bombs under -- at the vehicle and under it. At this point, the armored vehicle is extremely heavily impacted, but it's still holding. There are two flat tires, but they're still rolling. And they continue far down the block toward the crowds and far down several blocks to the crowd -- to another crowd where this road t-bones into a main road. There is a crowd there. They pass through the crowd and on -- turn right onto this main road. This main road is completely choked with traffic, enormous traffic jam typical for, I think, that time of night in that part of town. There are shops along the road there and so on.

Rather than get stuck in the traffic, the agents careen their car over the median -- there is a median, a grassy median -- and into the opposing traffic, and they go counter-flow until they emerge into a more lightly trafficked area and ultimately make their way to the annex.

Once at the annex, the annex has its own security -- a security force there. There are people at the annex. The guys in the car join the defense at the annex. They take up firing positions on the roof -- some of them do -- and other firing positions around the annex. The annex is, at this time, also taking fire and does take fire intermittently, on and off, for the next several hours. The fire consists of AK-47s but also RPGs, and it's, at times, quite intense.

As the night goes on, a team of reinforcements from Embassy Tripoli arrives by chartered aircraft at Benghazi airport and makes its way to the compound -- to the annex, I should say. And I should have mentioned that the quick reaction -- the quick reaction security team that was at the compound has also, in addition to my five agents, has also returned to the annex safely. The reinforcements from Tripoli are at the compound -- at the annex. They take up their positions. And somewhere around 5:45 in the morning -- sorry, somewhere around 4 o'clock in the morning -- I have my timeline wrong -- somewhere around 4 o'clock in the morning the annex takes mortar fire. It is precise and some of the mortar fire lands on the roof of the annex. It immediately killed two security personnel that are there, severely wounds one of the agents that's come from the compound.

At that point, a decision is made at the annex that they are going to have to evacuate the whole enterprise. And the next hours are spent, one, securing the annex, and then two, moving in a significant and large convoy of vehicles everybody to the airport, where they are evacuated on two flights.

So that's the end of my tick-tock.

Whatever was said by senior administration officials in the immediate aftermath of the attack, a few things are clear now. There is no cover-up. There are lingering questions about security strategy. And there is one hell of an amazing tale of heroism and bravery on the part of the diplomatic security personnel and rapid reaction forces on the ground during the attack.

Did Biden Hang the State Department Out to Dry at the Debate?

His use of a very restricted "we" in talking about Libya sure seemed to point a finger at Foggy Bottom.

hrcReuters

Everyone loves Hillary Clinton these days. She's got an approval rating way higher than that of Joe Biden or of President Obama, who can barely muster 50 percent on a good day.

But what if the most politically significant foreign-policy failure of Obama's presidency is actually due to a failure of the diplomatic-security strategy at the Clinton-run State Department?

That's certainly what all the evidence suggests.

Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary for international programs at the State Department's Bureau of Diplomat Security, told a House committee Wednesday that she personally rejected a request for additional diplomatic security in Libya, though what she rejected was not a request for Marines (as Paul Ryan mistakenly appeared to suggest during in the vice presidential debate last night in Kentucky) but extending the presence of a different kind of military personnel specifically detailed to the State Department, as Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin makes clear. As well, the forces were requested for the U.S.'s Tripoli outpost, not the satellite consulate in Benghazi U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens so fatefully was visiting on September 11. The U.S. Embassy to Libya is based in Tripoli, the nation's capital.

There were five members of the State Department's Diplomatic Security forces at the four-building, 30,000-square-yard compound in Benghazi on Sept. 11, Lamb testified, as well as three members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade. Confronting them were "dozens of attackers," she said. One of those American security officers attempted to evacuate Stevens from the main building's safe haven after it was set on fire with diesel fuel but lost him and information officer Sean Smith in the thick smoke. As the attack continued, the American security agents regrouped and searched the building, locating Smith's body before having to call off the search when the team of approximately 40 Libyans from the 17th February Brigade who had provided reinforcements "advised they could no longer hold the area around the main building and insisted on evacuating the site." The Americans retreated to a nearby "annex" which was most likely a CIA outpost. A U.S. team arrived from Tripoli, Lamb testified, and proceeded to this second location, which came under assault as well. It was during this confrontation at the second location -- not the consular compound -- that former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed and two other America security personnel "critically wounded," according to Lamb and others. Stevens's body was located later that morning at a local hospital, where he had been taken by Libyans at some point.

During the lively opening round of the vice presidential debate, Biden said the issue of diplomatic security in Libya never reached his desk. "We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there," he said. Rogin has confirmed Biden was speaking only for himself and the president, and not using "we" to include other parts of the Obama administration.

The Cable asked Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications Ben Rhodes whether Biden was speaking for the entire Obama administration, including the State Department, which acknowledged receiving multiple requests for more Libya security in the months before the attacks. Rhodes said that Biden speaks only for himself and the president and neither of them knew about the requests at the time.

The State Department security officials who testified before House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa's panel Wednesday never said they had made their requests to the president, Rhodes pointed out. That would be natural because the State Department is responsible for diplomatic security, not the White House, he said. Rhodes also pointed out that the officials were requesting more security in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the State Department is its "security and law enforcement arm" and is overseen by Eric J. Boswell, who earlier served at State under President Clinton and was the Assistant Deputy Director for Security in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for the final three years of George W. Bush's presidency. Lamb is a former police officer and Medal of Valor awardee who has been with Diplomatic Security since 1987, when she became a special agent in San Francisco. She later oversaw a huge team in Beirut during the Civil War in Lebanon, and served in a wide variety of front-line diplomatic security posts overseas before rising through the ranks to her current position under Clinton.

At the House Oversight Committee hearing convened by its chairman, Darrell Issa of California, Lamb defended her decision-making.

"We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon," she said.

"To start off by saying you had the correct number and our ambassador and three other individuals are dead and people are in the hospital recovering because it only took moments to breach that facility, somehow doesn't seem to ring true to the American people," Issa retorted.

How could it? The death of the U.S. ambassador is a res ipsa loquitur failure of the diplomatic-security apparatus. The thing explains itself: If the ambassador is dead, there was a failure of the security set-up.

That's an administration failure. But more than that, it's a failure of the diplomatic-security strategy at Hillary Clinton's State Department. As Ernesto Londono reported of the Benghazi compound in The Washington Post in late September, "They had not reinforced the U.S. diplomatic outpost there to meet strict safety standards for government buildings overseas. Nor had they posted a U.S. Marine detachment, as at other diplomatic sites in high-threat regions."

Biden's statement last night was the first administration one I've heard so far to acknowledge that some people were more responsible for that set-up than others.

What Joe Biden Knows About Paul Ryan's Type

A man elected to the U.S. Senate at age 29 should be quite familiar with the young vice presidential contender's unique mix of cockiness, competence, ambition, and nerves.

BidenC-SPAN

Joe Biden, 69, was elected a United States senator when Paul Ryan was not yet three years old and first took part in a presidential debate in 1987, when he was older than Ryan, 42, is now. The vice presidential showdown in Kentucky Thursday night is going to feature a difference in years greater than the age of your circa-2008 Obama-voting college student, even four years later.

Pouring into this gap in experience will be all the standard tropes about whippersnappers and graybeards, callow youth and bumbling age. It's not every day you get a contest featuring a Gen X guy proud of his pecs and his PowerPoints going head-to-head with a senior-citizen model of pre-Baby Boomer vitality and old-school political glad-handing. Biden's taken part in 18 presidential or vice-presidential debates in his lengthy career; Ryan has debated only a handful of times, during his first congressional race in 1998, when he faced off against a Democratic alderman, a woman 19 years his senior, for his Wisconsin district. He even has less experience debating before a major audience than Sarah Palin, having never run a statewide race before being plucked for the vice-presidential slot by Mitt Romney, who saw in him a kindred spirit.

Biden, meanwhile, is a gaffe machine. From BFD to his recent -- and not inaccurate -- statement that the middle class has been "buried for the last four years," he says what he's thinking, whether it's politic or not. His style of speaking is so mannered that the New Yorker recently hilariously reimagined his tropes as a waiter's pitch for the evening specials.

Where Biden is loquacious and even a little sloppy around the edges, Ryan is studious and fastidious, and like a diligent student has been boning up on Biden's debate history. But Biden has something going for him Ryan can't get out of a briefing binder, and that belies the difference in their ages: the memory of his own younger self, the hot-shot senator who won his place in that august body at the ripe age of 29 and was even more ambitious than Ryan in his early 40s. I mean, look at this 1987 clip of then-Senator Biden during his first presidential run:

What a brittle, arrogant mess -- and what a compelling case he made that the Democratic Party needed someone with the charisma and narrative abilities to compete on a Reagan level, instead of getting stuck in the weeds of policy debates that go above the heads of the American people (which is exactly what Obama did in his debate with Romney). It's always been Biden's fate, however, to not be that person, even as he could see the need for him. It's what -- along with the ticket-balancing experience he brought to Obama's 2008 campaign -- made him so perfect for the vice presidency.

Now compare that to Ryan's interview with ABC12 in Flint, Michigan just recently:

Where young Biden responded with bombast and boasts when feeling defensive, Ryan's impulse is to shut things down. But emotional tendencies aside, there's a remarkable similarity to their journeys. Paul Ryan, the wunderkind elected to the House at 28, is on a journey few men can appreciate like Joe Biden.

Claire McCaskill's Brutal New Ads From Rape Survivors

The Democrat from Missouri has enlisted three survivors to help press her case against Todd Akin.

In the final weeks of the hard-fought battle to keep her U.S. Senate seat from Missouri, Claire McCaskill's campaign today released a Web video touting her record as a prosecutor of "predators," along with three ads featuring rape survivors talking about their opposition to her challenger, Rep. Todd Akin, because of his stance against the provision of emergency contraception to victims of rape.

"I've never voted for Claire McCaskill, but because of Todd Akin, I will now," says a woman identified as Diana in one of the spots. She described herself as "a Republican and a pro-life mother and a rape survivor," and, like the other women featured, does not give her surname.

Joanie, who describes herself as a "pro-life mother and a survivor of an extremely violent sexual assault" say that her faith means she must forgive Aikin for what he said, but that it's not something she can forget:

And Rachel says she took emergency contraception after being "brutally raped in a home invasion." Todd Akin's policies "would criminalize emergency contraception for women who are raped," she adds.

McCaskill has a small lead over Akin in the contest, according to recent polling, but RealClearPolitics still ranks the state a toss-up.

The Biggest Story in Photos

Protests Spread Across Brazil

Subscribe Now

SAVE 65%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)