Whether Political Animals works at all will hinge on who ends up playing the FLOTUS-turned-Secretary of State. I adore Judith Light, who is a year younger than Hillary and can also rock the hell out of her haircut, and would love to get her back on television, so she’d be my vote. Greg Berlanti, who created Political Animals, hasn’t had a hit in a while, but he at least exhibited some creative thinking in Jack & Bobby, a futuristic reimagining of the childhoods of John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. Lots of details remain, but I’m feeling cautiously optimistic.

The Wall Street Journal’s Alan Cullison reports that the Kremlin is falling back on anti-Americanism as a useful tool to both smear opponents as “puppets of the U.S.’s CIA and State Department” and bolster Putin’s images as a fierce nationalist. A degree of hostility to the U.S. has always been a staple of Putin’s leadership but the new campaign has gone further, branding his political opponents as American puppets.

A documentary titled “Foreigners Will Help Them,” aired on Russian television last week. The film features supposed secret tapes of opposition leaders accepting instructions from U.S. officials in Moscow and Washington.

On Saturday, Russia’s veto of a U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at ending the 11-month Syrian uprising drew harsh words from Washington — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton characterized that veto as “a travesty” during a visit to Bulgaria this weekend — but Russian obstinance at the U.N. may serve Putin domestically as evidence that he is unafraid to stand up to the U.S. and the West.

News this morning that Putin will send proxies to represent him in upcoming presidential election debates came as a surprise since he had explicitly told journalists on December 28 that he would debate his challengers. Putin, speaking to the journalists, slammed his political opponents, telling them that “the point is that the opposition doesn’t carry out practical work and it always demands the impossible, and then usually nothing is implemented.” He continued, “[Dialogue is required,] and I will decide what form it will take exactly.”

Baer reiterated the American government’s objection to Russia’s pending anti-gay propaganda bills — arguing that such measures violate international standards of freedom of expression and undermine the freedoms of society as a whole — and pledged to partner with different countries in expanding opportunities for gay and lesbian people. The State Department is also “in conversations right now about how best to engage the private sector” in other nations to take a bold stand for LGBT equality, he revealed.

“We will support and work with partners, those who are interested in having technical conversations about how you develop laws so that they are inclusive and nondiscriminatory,” Baer said and acknowledged that the United States must “lead by example” in recognizing the human rights of all people. Watch the conversation:

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transexual Rights UAE penned a letter “detailing the continued persecution facing the gay and lesbian community in the Gulf emirate,” in December. UAE law bans “obscenity and homosexual activity” and suspected gays and lesbians can be imprisoned for up to 14 years, receive the death sentence for “consensual sodomy” or be subject “to a medical procedure with no scientific basis, just for expressing their innate, human tendencies that are protected under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” the letter notes. It goes on to quote from Clinton’s landmark speech on LGBT rights before the U.N.: “On December 6th, 2011, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton pointed out a fact that has been confirmed by a vast majority of the international, scientific community: ‘Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality.’ She further articulated how ‘gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world.’”

The group’s founder, Abdullah, has condemned the video, noting, “It angers me no end, but it also saddens me, this video would have been devastating if my 16-year-old self had watched it.” The video “brought flashbacks to me how on endless hot Friday afternoons I was forced to observe how men interact, or how they drink coffee by my father, so that I should emulate to make him proud,” he said.

[T]he government’s information minister, Given Lubinda, assured that the country’s leaders would not bow to outside pressure to respect and tolerate homosexuality in the nation. He reminded western nations about the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and Accra Agenda of Action, which guide development aid distribution and do not mention acceptance of same-sex marriage as the basis for offering aid to the poor nations. Rev. Gibson Nyirenda, spokesman for the Pentecostal bishops’ council, urged Zambia to reject any donor aid that comes with conditions.

“For us as a nation, we cannot go in that direction because it is indecent and can erode our morals as society. Let’s remain a Christian nation by ignoring such assistance,” Rev Nyirenda said.

Homosexuality is considered a felony in Zambia, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, although the country’s constitution does include a general non-discrimination clause and few have been prosecuted for the “crime.”

During her landmark speech in Geneva, Clinton specifically addressed the concerns of religions leaders. “For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people,” she said. “And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.”

Now, questions are being raised outside Egypt, too. Both the U.S. and the United Nations weighed in on the clashes in statements. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released as statement yesterday expressing “concern,” urging protesters to remain peaceful and accountability for government violence:

I am deeply concerned about the continuing reports of violence in Egypt. I urge Egyptian security forces to respect and protect the universal rights of all Egyptians, including the rights to peaceful free expression and assembly. We call upon the Egyptian authorities to hold accountable those, including security forces, who violate these standards. Those who are protesting should do so peacefully and refrain from acts of violence.

Also on Sunday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a statement of “alarm” at the “excessive use of force” deployed by the authorities:

The Secretary-General is highly alarmed by the excessive use of force employed by the security forces against protesters and calls for the transitional authorities to act with restraint and uphold human rights, including the right to peaceful protest.

The Secretary-General underlines the importance of an atmosphere of calm to support Egypt”s electoral process as part of its transition to democracy and the early establishment of civilian rule.

Over the weekend, the government denied that security forces were using violence, even as a first-hand report from the New York Times spoke of people both with and without uniforms chucking pieces of concrete down on protesters outside the Interior Ministry. Now, an officer from Egypt’s ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces says the protests are a “systematic” attempt to, as the BBC put it, “sabotage the country’s security and provoke the army.”

Clinton also announced that the administration is launching a $3 million global equality fund to support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. The fund will help human rights groups “record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs and forge partnerships with women’s organizations and other Human Rights groups,” Clinton said.

Some highlights from the speech:

- “Like being a woman, like being a racial religious tribal or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are gay rights.”

- “Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes, and whether we know it or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends and our neighbors.”

- “Some believe homosexuality is a Western phenomenon… but gay people belong to every society in the world…. Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality.”

- “In all countries, there are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities and ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other whether they are women, racial or religious minorities or the LGBT.”

- “Our commitment to protect the freedom of religion and defend LGBT people come from a common source… Human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.”

- “It should never be a crime to be gay.”

- “To LGBT men and women worldwide: Wherever you live and whatever your circumstances… please know that you are not alone.”

- “Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them… We are called once more to make real the words of the universal declaration. Let us be on the right side of history.”

CLINTON: Good evening, and let me express my deep honor and pleasure at being here. I want to thank Director General Tokayev and Ms. Wyden along with other ministers, ambassadors, excellencies, and UN partners. This weekend, we will celebrate Human Rights Day, the anniversary of one of the great accomplishments of the last century.

Beginning in 1947, delegates from six continents devoted themselves to drafting a declaration that would enshrine the fundamental rights and freedoms of people everywhere. In the aftermath of World War II, many nations pressed for a statement of this kind to help ensure that we would prevent future atrocities and protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people. And so the delegates went to work. They discussed, they wrote, they revisited, revised, rewrote, for thousands of hours. And they incorporated suggestions and revisions from governments, organizations, and individuals around the world.

At three o’clock in the morning on December 10th, 1948, after nearly two years of drafting and one last long night of debate, the president of the UN General Assembly called for a vote on the final text. Forty-eight nations voted in favor; eight abstained; none dissented. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It proclaims a simple, powerful idea: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them.

In the 63 years since the declaration was adopted, many nations have made great progress in making human rights a human reality. Step by step, barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity have fallen away. In many places, racist laws have been repealed, legal and social practices that relegated women to second-class status have been abolished, the ability of religious minorities to practice their faith freely has been secured.

In most cases, this progress was not easily won. People fought and organized and campaigned in public squares and private spaces to change not only laws, but hearts and minds. And thanks to that work of generations, for millions of individuals whose lives were once narrowed by injustice, they are now able to live more freely and to participate more fully in the political, economic, and social lives of their communities.

Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment, that reality, and progress for all people. Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country’s record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

The first issue goes to the heart of the matter. Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity.

This recognition did not occur all at once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.

It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.

The second issue is a question of whether homosexuality arises from a particular part of the world. Some seem to believe it is a Western phenomenon, and therefore people outside the West have grounds to reject it. Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors.

Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do. South Africa’s constitution, written in the aftermath of Apartheid, protects the equality of all citizens, including gay people. In Colombia and Argentina, the rights of gays are also legally protected. In Nepal, the supreme court has ruled that equal rights apply to LGBT citizens. The Government of Mongolia has committed to pursue new legislation that will tackle anti-gay discrimination.

Now, some worry that protecting the human rights of the LGBT community is a luxury that only wealthy nations can afford. But in fact, in all countries, there are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence, and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities, in ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other, whether they are women, racial, or religious minorities, or the LGBT. Former President Mogae of Botswana pointed out recently that for as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS. Well, that holds true for other challenges as well.

The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn’t cultural; it’s criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.

In each of these cases, we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing.

Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights. Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings. It was not only those who’ve justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.

The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion. Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true. They are also unlikely to disappear if those who promote or accept them are dismissed out of hand rather than invited to share their fears and concerns. No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so.

Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all.

Reaching understanding of these issues takes more than speech. It does take a conversation. In fact, it takes a constellation of conversations in places big and small. And it takes a willingness to see stark differences in belief as a reason to begin the conversation, not to avoid it.

But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.

Many in my country thought that President Truman was making a grave error when he ordered the racial desegregation of our military. They argued that it would undermine unit cohesion. And it wasn’t until he went ahead and did it that we saw how it strengthened our social fabric in ways even the supporters of the policy could not foresee. Likewise, some worried in my country that the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would have a negative effect on our armed forces. Now, the Marine Corps Commandant, who was one of the strongest voices against the repeal, says that his concerns were unfounded and that the Marines have embraced the change.

Finally, progress comes from being willing to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. We need to ask ourselves, “How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love? How would it feel to be discriminated against for something about myself that I cannot change?” This challenge applies to all of us as we reflect upon deeply held beliefs, as we work to embrace tolerance and respect for the dignity of all persons, and as we engage humbly with those with whom we disagree in the hope of creating greater understanding.

A fifth and final question is how we do our part to bring the world to embrace human rights for all people including LGBT people. Yes, LGBT people must help lead this effort, as so many of you are. Their knowledge and experiences are invaluable and their courage inspirational. We know the names of brave LGBT activists who have literally given their lives for this cause, and there are many more whose names we will never know. But often those who are denied rights are least empowered to bring about the changes they seek. Acting alone, minorities can never achieve the majorities necessary for political change.

So when any part of humanity is sidelined, the rest of us cannot sit on the sidelines. Every time a barrier to progress has fallen, it has taken a cooperative effort from those on both sides of the barrier. In the fight for women’s rights, the support of men remains crucial. The fight for racial equality has relied on contributions from people of all races. Combating Islamaphobia or anti-Semitism is a task for people of all faiths. And the same is true with this struggle for equality.

Conversely, when we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won’t suffer any consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message. Right here in Geneva, the international community acted this year to strengthen a global consensus around the human rights of LGBT people. At the Human Rights Council in March, 85 countries from all regions supported a statement calling for an end to criminalization and violence against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

At the following session of the Council in June, South Africa took the lead on a resolution about violence against LGBT people. The delegation from South Africa spoke eloquently about their own experience and struggle for human equality and its indivisibility. When the measure passed, it became the first-ever UN resolution recognizing the human rights of gay people worldwide. In the Organization of American States this year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a unit on the rights of LGBT people, a step toward what we hope will be the creation of a special rapporteur.

Now, we must go further and work here and in every region of the world to galvanize more support for the human rights of the LGBT community. To the leaders of those countries where people are jailed, beaten, or executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all citizens are treated as equals under your laws, because let me be clear – I am not saying that gay people can’t or don’t commit crimes. They can and they do, just like straight people. And when they do, they should be held accountable, but it should never be a crime to be gay.

And to people of all nations, I say supporting human rights is your responsibility too. The lives of gay people are shaped not only by laws, but by the treatment they receive every day from their families, from their neighbors. Eleanor Roosevelt, who did so much to advance human rights worldwide, said that these rights begin in the small places close to home – the streets where people live, the schools they attend, the factories, farms, and offices where they work. These places are your domain. The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are.

And finally, to LGBT men and women worldwide, let me say this: Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people.

The Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. In our embassies, our diplomats are raising concerns about specific cases and laws, and working with a range of partners to strengthen human rights protections for all. In Washington, we have created a task force at the State Department to support and coordinate this work. And in the coming months, we will provide every embassy with a toolkit to help improve their efforts. And we have created a program that offers emergency support to defenders of human rights for LGBT people.

This morning, back in Washington, President Obama put into place the first U.S. Government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. Building on efforts already underway at the State Department and across the government, the President has directed all U.S. Government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination, and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons.

I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs, and forge partnerships with women’s organizations and other human rights groups. We have committed more than $3 million to start this fund, and we have hope that others will join us in supporting it.

The women and men who advocate for human rights for the LGBT community in hostile places, some of whom are here today with us, are brave and dedicated, and deserve all the help we can give them. We know the road ahead will not be easy. A great deal of work lies before us. But many of us have seen firsthand how quickly change can come. In our lifetimes, attitudes toward gay people in many places have been transformed. Many people, including myself, have experienced a deepening of our own convictions on this topic over the years, as we have devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established personal and professional relationships with people who are gay.

This evolution is evident in many places. To highlight one example, the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality in India two years ago, writing, and I quote, “If there is one tenet that can be said to be an underlying theme of the Indian constitution, it is inclusiveness.” There is little doubt in my mind that support for LGBT human rights will continue to climb. Because for many young people, this is simple: All people deserve to be treated with dignity and have their human rights respected, no matter who they are or whom they love.

There is a phrase that people in the United States invoke when urging others to support human rights: “Be on the right side of history.” The story of the United States is the story of a nation that has repeatedly grappled with intolerance and inequality. We fought a brutal civil war over slavery. People from coast to coast joined in campaigns to recognize the rights of women, indigenous peoples, racial minorities, children, people with disabilities, immigrants, workers, and on and on. And the march toward equality and justice has continued. Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them. Those who tried to constrict human rights were wrong, and history reflects that as well.

I know that the thoughts I’ve shared today involve questions on which opinions are still evolving. As it has happened so many times before, opinion will converge once again with the truth, the immutable truth, that all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights. We are called once more to make real the words of the Universal Declaration. Let us answer that call. Let us be on the right side of history, for our people, our nations, and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the work we do today. I come before you with great hope and confidence that no matter how long the road ahead, we will travel it successfully together. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

The religious scholars are from Saudi Arabia’s top institution of religious study and worked with a university professor to draft a report on the potential impact of women drivers. The group said women drivers would lead to a “surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce,” and complained that, after ten years of women driving, there would be “no more virgins” in the kingdom. The report was prepared for and delivered to Saudia Arabia’s unelected advisory Shura Council, which holds no power in the country’s absolute monarchy.

Global Post highlighted an anecdote from the report that dealt with the personal experience of one its authors:

In the report Prof Subhi described sitting in a coffee shop in an unnamed Arab state where “all the women were looking at me“.

“One made a gesture that made it clear that she was available,” he said. “This is what happens when women are allowed to drive.”

This summer, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised a civil disobedience protest movement of women drivers and a group of U.S. Senators asked the king to overturn the ban. This fall, one of the demonstrators was sentenced to 10 lashes for driving, though the sentence was overturned by the King under pressure.

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that bans women drivers, leaving one wondering why there have not been more news reports on how it’s the only country left with virgins. (HT: Sarah Wildman)

Afghan Pres. Karzai and Clinton, 2010

The New York Times reports that in a meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Karzai raised comments made by Cain proudly professing ignorance about Uzbekistan and mocking the country’s name. Cain said a few weeks ago he didn’t know the “president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan,” then categorized the Central Asian country — a crucial supply route in the U.S.-led war to support Karzai’s government in Afghanistan — as “small and insignificant.”

The Times reports that in Karzai’s meeting with Clinton:

Mr. Karzai was asking Mrs. Clinton about remarks Mr. Cain made recently in a television interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. [...]

“He’s a former pizza company owner,” she said to Mr. Karzai.

“Is he that?” He replied, speaking in English.

“Oh, yes. He started something called Godfather’s pizza,” she said.

“Yes, I see, I see,” Mr. Karzai said.

Mrs. Clinton then turned to the American ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, and went on, laughingly. “The president was saying he saw a news clip about how Mr. Cain had said I don’t even know the names of all these presidents of all these countries, you know, like whatever …”

“All the ’stans whatever,” Mr. Karzai interjected, referring to the countries of Central and Southern Asia, including his.

“All the ’stans places,” Mrs. Clinton repeated.

Mr. Karzai did not seem to take offense, displaying what appeared to be an astute understanding of campaigning in a democratic country. “That wasn’t right,” he said, “but anyway, that’s how politics are.”

Cain later laughed off his Uzbekistan comment, bizarrely blaming liberal African-American commenters Harry Belafonte and Cornel West for not “want(ing) a lot of people to wake up, especially black people.”

After a series of gaffes like the “Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan” comment, Cain’s faced scathing criticism about his foreign policy bona fides. But he still insists that he’s “not as foreign policy dumb as they think,” and that really he is just lying in wait to — at some undetermined time in the future — wow everyone with knowledge from his months of studying crucial international issues.

But if his statements are so outlandish that even foreign leaders are picking up on them and declaring, “That wasn’t right,” a potential future President Cain may already be causing relationships with U.S. allies to deteriorate.

Buried at the end of today’s must-read Washington Post piece, “Obama allies’ interests collide over Keystone pipeline” is this bombshell:

On Oct. 11, in an interview with the Associated Press, [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton said she realized “this is a very emotional decision” for some but emphasized that she had not been involved in the process yet because “originally, two and a half years ago, this had been delegated to the deputy.”

State Department officials have said they will issue a final decision on the permit by the end of the year; on Nov. 6, McKibben and other activists plan to ring the White House with placards of Obama’s words from the 2008 campaign, including his pledge to free the United States from “the tyranny of oil.”

Hmm.  Is she distancing herself from the process because it was unbelievably flawed — see Bombshell: State Department Outsourced Tar Sands Pipeline Environmental Impact Study to ‘Major’ TransCanada Contractor?

My sources say there is a possibility the White House will delay the decision (until after the election), which would be a semi-victory.

The full transcript of the Clinton interview does shows her leaving the door open for such a delay.  Amazingly, she says, back when she delegated the decision, “This was not something that the Secretary was going to decide”:

QUESTION: I need to get a quick one in on Keystone (inaudible). So there are environmentalists –

QUESTION: Time’s up. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: I was waiting for that (inaudible). You’re slow off to start (inaudible).

QUESTION: Too bad. He started talking. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah, right. Okay.

QUESTION: There’s been a lot of allegations from environmentalists that there’s a conflict of interest, that this TransCanada guy who worked in the campaign has somehow gotten sort of a cozy relationship with the Department then. So the question is, one, I mean, is there – was there a conflict? Do you see any conflict of interest, any problem here? Do you still expect a decision to be made sooner than the end of the year? Will make it yourself? Will you delegate it to someone? How does all that work?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Matt, first, I think that the Department, both here in Washington and in Ottawa, has been very much in listen-and-outreach mode, and they have met with, talked with, received information from a very large group of interested parties – some for, some against, as you know. They recently concluded six public sessions that were held gave a forum for people, and you just can’t – this is a very emotional decision. You have people who feel very strongly on both sides, as has been evident. You have states that are welcoming it, states that are rejecting it, all of whom, I think, are governed by Republicans. Or maybe one isn’t but – (laughter) – it’s quite – this is a very local – this is an issue that raises very local concerns. So I have been just having our team go forward and do what they’re supposed to do, so I have nothing more to say at this time because until a recommendation comes up the chain and – originally, two and a half years ago, this had been delegated to the deputy. This was not something that the Secretary was going to decide. But there is no recommendation, and when there is a recommendation, there’ll be a decision, but it’ll be very much rooted in all the work that has been done. And I think people have tried to be extremely careful and thoughtful, and it’s a process that I am trying to respect until it reaches its conclusion.

QUESTION: But you don’t see any merit to this conflict of interest (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. I mean, I haven’t – I have no reason to believe that.

So, she can say “yes” and put it on her deputy or she can say “we need to take another look at this” and call for a new review, a new Environmental Impact Study.  Until recently, most people thought this was a certain “yes.”  But now there appears to a chance, however, small, of an outcome that is wiser.

On a party-line 23 to 15 vote, the committee passed a bill restricting funds for the U.N. that would likely forbid the U.S. from giving any money to the 55-year old United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). It’s unclear when the legislation will come before the full House.

Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that the bill endangered U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq, and urged President Obama to veto it. The legislation would cut the U.S. contribution to the U.N. by half — from $500 billion to $250 billion — unless the world body submitted to a system where most of its programs were voluntarily funded.

Mark Leon Goldberg of U.N. Dispatch checked out the fine print and found a provision in the bill that would put such onerous demands on U.N. agencies that they’d be unlikely or even unable to meet them:

Several UN agencies like UNICEF and the World Food Program are already funded on a voluntary basis. In other words, donors pay what they can, when they can. Presumably this legislation would not touch these popular UN agencies. And after all, it would be deeply immoral and politically un-savvy to take food out of the mouths of starving children, right?

Or at least that’s what I thought until I read the fine print.

In fact, there is provision tucked into the United Nations Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act of 2011 which would effectively end all American contributions to UNICEF. Section 202 reads “no funds made available for use as a United States Contribution to any United Nations Entity may be obligated or expended if—(1) the intended United Nations Entity recipient has not provided to the Comptroller General within the preceding year a Transparency Certification.”

A “transparency certification” would guarantee access for Congress and the GAO to the nuts-and-bolts business of each agency. But, Goldberg writes, “neither UNICEF, nor any UN agency would ever agree to such a provision. Once you start privileging one country, other countries are going to want the same level of access and treatment.”

According the Associated Press, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also against the legislation, probably because he knows it could drive the U.N. right out of New York. Earlier this yeah, Ros-Lehtinen took a similarly provocative step when she proposed the U.S. break some of its hosting treaty obligations to the U.N.

“We cannot depend on United Nations missions … to help American troops return home safely and successfully, while taking actions that will decimate the budgets that underpin those important missions,” Clinton wrote to Rep. Ileana-Ros Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “In the end, engagement through the United Nations comes at a fraction of the cost of acting alone.”

Democrats have warned before that they oppose Ros-Lehtinen’s bill on United Nations reform but have not until now warned the bill could threaten troop safety overseas.

Ros-Lehtinen’s committee will markup the bill today. It would require the U.S. to withhold 50 percent of its funding to the U.N. until the international organization moves to a voluntary funding arrangement for most of its programs.

Clinton said that if the bill is presented to President Obama, she will recommend that he veto it.

What Goldberg didn’t mention is the historical and conceptual context for Gates’ remarks. Indeed, Gates is not the first senior American official to express concern that the protraction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — and the perception of U.S. favoritism toward Israel on this issue — was offering few, if any, dividends for U.S. security or its own regional interests.

Back in March, 2010, Gen. David Petraeus made waves when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had immediate implications for the U.S.’s ability to pursue its interests in the Middle East. He named some of these problems:

Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.

Israel hawks quickly denounced Petraeus’ comments and have continued to attack a straw man argument that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict wouldn’t solve all challenges facing the U.S. in the Middle East.

But Petraeus wasn’t the only senior U.S. official to endorse the concept of “linkage” between resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the longer-term strategic interests of the U.S. in the Middle East. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CENTCOM commander Gen. James Mattis, and Adm. Michael Mullen — via a WikiLeaks cable — have voiced endorsements of this concept.

While Jeffrey Goldberg — who has a history of rejecting linkage — carefully reports on Gates’ anger with Netanyahu for delivering “nothing in return” for security guarantees, access to weapons, and intelligence sharing, he is careful to sidestep the obvious next question. Why does Gates feel strongly about Netanyahu refusing to “grapple with Israel’s growing isolation and with the demographic challenges it faces if it keeps control of the West Bank”?

Goldberg doesn’t engage that topic. It might be because Gates shares the emerging consensus of the U.S.’s top military and political leadership that Israel’s continued settlement expansion and intransigence at the negotiating table is doing real damage to the Obama administration’s attempts to pursue a wide range of military and political interests in the Middle East.

I went down to the site of the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline protest today with Bill McKibben.  No, I didn’t go to get arrested — though over 100 people did — just to cover the event.  The energy of the crowd was amazing, so to speak.

Oscar-nominated director Josh Fox (Gasland) was there, and  I will post a video of his remarks tomorrow.  McKibben invites all Climate Progress readers to the big final rally in DC at the White House this Saturday.

I interviewed McKibben on the pipeline and among my questions was one about the role of Hillary Clinton.  I did not raise the counterfactual question — which has become popular among some liberals, though not Salon’s Joan Walsh — but McKibben did.

I’ll have more to say on it below the jump, but first here’s the video of the full interview:

I do like counterfactuals, perhaps because reality, at least in DC, is so … well, counter factual.

But there really is no way to know if Hillary Clinton would have been more progressive on climate than Obama.  There are simply too many confounding variables.  First off, she lost for a reason.  She ran a poor campaign at every level, including her messaging.  In particular, she ran as the establishment candidate in a change election.

Now, if you are examining the counterfactual, you have to ask whether she would have continued to run that poor campaign in the general election — indeed,  you have to figure out if you are assuming Obama never ran or merely that he ran a poorer campaign (since, after all, he beat her for a reason or, rather, more than one reason).

In all likelihood, she would have beaten McCain once Wall Street melted down, but probably not so resoundingly since she was inherently a divisive figure — one reason why many progressives didn’t support her in the first place.  That’s particularly true if she kept running the same type of campaign she had run for the nomination.

McCain could never figure out how to run against Obama.  He never decided whether he was running as a maverick (trying to beat Obama on the “change” message) or as the tried-and-true veteran vs. the too-inexperienced upstart.  Had Hillary run as the establishment candidate, McCain might well have positioned himself as the maverick.

On the bright side, had Hillary been the nominee, McCain probably wouldn’t have picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, since that would have been too obvious,  so she never would have become famous.  But then again, that decision also probably hurt him in the end.   Also, he might not have desperately suspended his campaign.  Who knows?   Too many variables.

Now, if Hillary had won but not with as large majorities in the House and Senate, then she probably could not have had a larger stimulus bill and might even have had a smaller one.  Also, health care reform was her signature issue, so it’s even less likely that she would give precedence to climate action than healthcare.

Yes, she might have played the DC game tougher than Obama — heck, my 4-year-old daughter might have negotiated better than Obama — but it still doesn’t change the fact that Republicans in the Senate in particular would have, from day one, been trying to destroy her presidency, much as they did with her husband, much as they did with Barack.  And it wouldn’t change the fact that getting 60 votes for any climate bill would have required a president to make it the priority issue — even above health care reform — from the moment the stimulus bill passed.  And that still might not have worked.

Plus, as McKibben notes, we now do have a pretty strong piece of evidence that Hillary isn’t prepared to take a stand on the climate issue if there is a moderate political cost — or at least the perception of a political cost (among moderates).

So it’s time to move beyond the counterfactual.

You go to war against climate change with the president you’ve got.  We need to figure out how to buck him up — figure out how to deliver a message that a significant part of his constituency are single issue voters on the climate.  And I can’t think of anybody who’s doing better work in that area than McKibben.