Most Recent Posts

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hasn't said whether or not she's running for president in 2016. Indeed, if her husband, President Clinton, is to be believed, she hasn't even told him of her intentions.

Polling suggests, however, that among potential Democratic candidates, Clinton is the runaway favorite — at least at this early stage.

All of which makes the stinging criticism Clinton has received from Republicans over the Benghazi attacks seem, to some Democrats, like a pre-emptive strike against her possible run for the White House in 2016.

The Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Republican critics have laid those deaths at the feet of President Obama and Clinton, accusing them of everything from incompetence to a political cover-up.

A Wednesday hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform placed an inquisitorial spotlight on, among other things, Clinton's handling of Benghazi. It was just the latest marker in GOP efforts to ding Clinton.

Just days earlier, Rep. Darrell Issa, chair of the House panel, accused Clinton or her State Department staff of a "cover up."

That came on the heels of one of the most strident statements from a high-profile Republican. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who is displaying signs of being interested in a 2016 presidential run, recently told a Missouri audience that Clinton has disqualified herself for future public office by her actions.

"I think that her dereliction of duty — I don't question her motives — but her dereliction of duty and her lack of leadership should preclude her from holding any other office," Paul said to a crowd that responded with cheers and applause at a "Spirit of Reagan" award ceremony. (The moment is captured on a YouTube video at the 13:58 mark.)

Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, didn't go as far as Paul in a Wednesday radio interview, but he certainly didn't see Benghazi as helping Clinton.

"I don't know how this doesn't taint her reputation," he said. "She was the one out there real fiery in the Senate with some of those oversight hearings, sort of that famous phrase of, 'What does it matter now?' These details do matter."

But asked if the GOP Benghazi allegations were an attempt to damage Clinton before 2016 rolls around, he said: "Absolutely not.

"These things rise above any sort of partisan element. I mean this is about the response of our government and our responsibility, frankly, to our diplomats, the security that they have with them. This is really about the truth coming out and the lack of judgment that some of these decision makers had to make sure this never happens again."

If Clinton were to decide to run, the Benghazi accusations could conceivably place her on the defensive on national security, an area where Democrats have enjoyed an advantage over Republicans during the Obama presidency.

Clinton actually said: "What difference at this point does it make?" in an attempt to explain at a Senate hearing that getting inside the heads of the killers of the four Americans wasn't exactly her top priority.

From nearly the moment she said it, the line became a weapon in the hands of her political foes. They've used it to accuse her, and the Obama administration, of either not taking a terrorist attack seriously enough or trying to conceal it.

Clinton, who as first lady once accused her and her husband's political foes of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is now being charged by her partisan opponents with being at the center of a left-wing conspiracy.

Democrats made their own accusations about Republican motives in going after Obama and Clinton. At the Wednesday hearing, at which three State Department whistle-blowers testified about the administration's alleged failings in Benghazi, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, said in his opening statement:

"Let me be clear: I am not questioning the motives of our witnesses. I am questioning the motives of those who want to use them for political purposes."

On the types of schools that are particularly trapped in an economic bind

"Most small, private liberal arts colleges in general. I mean, if you look at a map of the country, most of the private colleges in the U.S. are in the Midwest and the Rust Belt and the Northeast, where all the population growth, especially of 18-year-olds, [is in] the South and Southwest. And so part of the problem is that they're having a hard time just attracting students, because students have to fly halfway across the country to pay $50,000 for a degree that they're not quite sure what they're going to do with."

On what higher education will look like in the future

"I still think that colleges are still going to exist — physical college campuses are still going to exist for those who want it. What will be different, however, is that you're going to have many more players in the system. [For example] if you decide to take a MOOC [Massive Online Open Course] ... and you want to transfer credit ... MOOCs might provide a piece of a person's education.

"This idea of competency-based education, which I think is perhaps the most disruptive force potentially entering higher education — so, right now we measure learning by time spent in a seat. They test you on the way in, they see what you know, and you basically focus on what you don't know. What I think the disruption will be is that some students could finish in 2 1/2 years. There's nothing really magic about 120 credits in four years. It's just tradition."

College Comparison Tool

Jeff Selingo and The Chronicle of Higher Education developed this website to allow students and parents to compare colleges' costs, graduation rates and graduate salaries.

College Reality Check

During World War II, the Nazis plundered tens of thousands of works of art from the private collections of European Jews, many living in France. About 75 percent of the artwork that came back to France from Germany at the end of the war has been returned to their rightful owners.

But there are still approximately 2,000 art objects that remain unclaimed. The French government has now begun one of its most extensive efforts ever to find the heirs and return the art.

French law states that at art pillaged during World War II must be publicly exhibited, if its condition permits, so that it can be recognized and claimed.

"Up until now, France put the maximum information at public disposal and waited for reaction. For people to come forward. Now we're proactively tracking down the descendants and families of those who had their art stolen," says Thierry Bajou, who is coordinating the French government's efforts.

Enlarge image i

Movies

Movie Review: 'Love Is All You Need'