Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry is going to give a major speech on Cuba on Friday, the 6th of November, at Boston University.

Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-MA) -- who has been doing much of the heavy lifting on the Freedom to Travel (to Cuba) bill is also going to be at this important conference.

What has been interesting to watch in Senator Kerry's speeches this past year is a tendency to define challenges more clearly than the White House -- to articulate the costs of inaction or poor focus -- and to assimilate different policy alternatives with a candid discussion of opportunities and costs.

Kerry did this the other day at the Council on Foreign Relations with a respectful critique of the administration's Afghanistan policy. He has done the same on US-China policy and on climate change among other issues.

But why is Senator John Kerry about to give a major speech about Cuba??

Inquiring minds want to know -- and I'm going to call Senate Foreign Relations Committee spokesman Frederick Jones and ask for some direction here.

If John Kerry is planning to simply validate the White House's still too timid openings to Cuba and reinforce the pleas that President Obama and his national security council staff have been making to Raul Castro to engage in domestic reforms before the US can do more -- then that would be out of character for the Foreign Relations Committee Chairman.

My hunch is that Kerry is emerging as a key constructive, respectful truth-teller to the administration, and I hope this holds in US-Cuba relations too.

Conditionality as a requirement of relaxing the embargo has failed for five decades -- and Obama's national security team should know that. NSC Latin America Director Dan Restrepo should know that -- so too Denis McDonough, Ambassador Susan Rice, Tom Donilon and General Jim Jones.

Obama-style people to people engagement would lay the most opportune foundation for the kind of potential reforms the administration hopes to achieve. But continuing to push conditionality is a very good way for the Obama administration to make sure that the lowest hanging fruit in foreign policy opportunities remains hanging on the tree when the Obama team leaves the White House.

I hope that John Kerry encourages great "strategic depth" and thinking in the White House on Latin America in general -- and that he calls for an end to restrictions on the "human right" of Americans to travel.

I still can't believe that a Democratic President -- the first African-American president of the United States -- is content with removing all restrictions on travel for Cuban-American families while discriminating against all other classes of Americans.

That is just one benchmark of the domestic legal perversities that American society acquiesced to because of the Cold War.

The Cold War is over -- and the American government should stop doing what Communist governments do in trying to restrict the travel of its citizens. Americans can go to North Korea, Iran, Vietnam, China, Russia, and just about everywhere else in the world if they can get the visas -- but they may not go to Cuba.

I really don't know what John Kerry is going to say on November 6th -- but I'm counting on something significant.

I am hoping C-Span will cover the speech and that readers in Boston attend the Boston University conference.

-- Steve Clemons

Amidst the debate in Washington surrounding the P5+1 negotiations with Iran over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program, the conventional wisdom is that "engagement" with Iran cannot go on forever. If the Obama administration's talks with Iran don't bear fruit soon, we must "try something else."

But just what is that "something else." The only two tactical suggestions I have come across are either the use of military force to take out Iran's nuclear facilities or "crippling sanctions" that would starve Iran's economy.

The problem is that neither of these "options" is really feasible. A military strike on Iran would have disastrous consequences for the stability of the Middle East and is a recipe for three more decades of antagonistic relations between Washington and Tehran.

Meanwhile, the idea that either the Chinese or the Russians will support "crippling sanctions" against Iran is a delusion.

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett sum up the United States' strategic position in their article, "What serious diplomacy looks like -- in Turkey," which appears in today's Politico.

America no longer has the economic and political wherewithal to dictate strategic outcomes in the Middle East. Increasingly, if Washington wants to promote and protect U.S. interests in this critical region, it will have to do so through serious diplomacy -- by respecting evolving balances of power and accommodating the legitimate interests of others so that U.S. interests will be respected.

That means engaging in creative diplomacy and understanding that negotiations will likely be a long and difficult process.

How the Obama administration reacts to Iran's response to the IAEA - which will likely be made public tomorrow - will go a long way toward demonstrating whether it is prepared to exercise the kind of strategic patience necessary to reorient the United States' relationship with Iran and reverse the decline of American influence in the broader region.

-- Ben Katcher

Perhaps no one is better positioned to sift through the complicated and interrelated questions surrounding "peak oil," renewable energy, climate change and energy security, than Cambridge Research Energy Associates Chairman Daniel Yergin.

Yergin won a Pulitzer Prize for his book, The Pize: The Epic Quest For Oil, Money & Power, published nearly twenty years ago - and has recently written a new epilogue for the book on the current state of the great energy game.

Yergin will be sitting down for a chat on the future of global energy with Steve Clemons today from 12:30pm - 2:00pm at the New America Foundation.

The event will stream live here at The Washington Note.

-- Ben Katcher

My good friend and former Palestine presidential candidate Mustafa Barghouti appeared on The Daily Show tonight.

In addition to trying to generate a new peaceful equilibrium between Israel and Palestine, Barghouti is an occasional guest blogger and commenter at The Washington Note.

He appeared with Anna Balzer who is author of Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories.

-- Steve Clemons

Wow.

The U.S. lost a whopping vote at the United Nations on bringing rationality back to America's Latin America portfolio and finally ending the last refuge of the Cold War.

187 nations voted against the United States. Israel and Palau voted with the U.S. Micronesia and the Marshall Islands abstained.

Looks like America is the isolated party here.

President Obama needs to turn this around.

-- Steve Clemons

Increasing numbers of national security leaders of the likes of Brent Scowcroft and George Shultz have said that the US embargo of Cuba makes no sense and harms American interests.

Republican Congressman Jeff Flake -- the hunky Arizona Congressman who recently spent five days alone on a remote Pacific island -- has reminded Americans that it is COMMUNIST governments that are supposed to get a kick out of restricting the movements of its people -- not DEMOCRATIC governments. Congressman Bill Delahunt has been leading in the House along with Byron Dorgan in the US Senate in calling for an end to all travel restrictions on Americans.

President Obama himself is a believer in people to people exchange -- and that opportunities arise from engagement -- not from isolation.

And yet, the United States today is going to vote in the United Nations against a measure condemning the US embargo of Cuba.

But the United Kingdom, France, Australia, China, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, Japan (yes. . .even Japan!!), Poland, Iceland -- about 185 nations give or take a few -- will vote AGAINST THE UNITED STATES position.

Israel and a couple of island nations will vote with the United States. The Israel vote is amusing as Israel votes with the US but turns a blind eye to Israeli firms operating Cuban citrus franchises inside Cuba.

Represenative Jim McGovern (D-MA) has a great suggestion for US Ambassador to the United Nations -- just say "abstain."

Clever idea -- and would signal the possibility of change without going further than the White House incrementalists want to go.

Won't happen -- but darn good idea.

Here is the pdf of McGovern's thoughtful and constructive letter.

The text reads:

23 October 2009

Ambassador Susan E. Rice
U.S. Representative to the United Nations
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
140 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017

Dear Ambassador Rice:

As you are aware, on Wednesday, October 28th, the United Nations will once again take up the annual resolution calling for an end to the embargo against Cuba. Judging from years past, the UN General Assembly will cast a near unanimous vote in favor of the resolution, with very few members opposing the resolution, including the United States.

I am writing to suggest an alternative: for the United States to abstain.

I do not make this suggestion lightly, but rather to use what has, in general, been a moment to castigate or mock U.S. policy towards Cuba and Latin America as an opportunity to signal that the United States is considering all options in how it will conduct its relations with Cuba in the coming years. Such an action -- and explanation -- would only reinforce the statements already made by the President and the Secretary of State: that the door is open to mutual cooperation, confidence-building, and more. It would also signal to the rest of the hemisphere that the United States has indeed listened to the voices of Latin America, as expressed earlier this year at the Summit of the Americas and at the first general assembly meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS), and is responsive ans sensitive to the concerns raised regarding U.S. policy and posture towards Cuba.

Finally, it would signal to the Cuban government and its people that if they enter into a process of mutual regard and cooperation, the United States is serious about changing its posture over time towards the island.

I realize that even abstaining on this vote is a radical departure from past policy -- but I believe that's exactly what is needed at this current moment in history. We can take advantage of the opportunity provided by this annual debate and vote to underscore and emphasize in concrete terms for the international community the open-minded review of US-Cuba policy that the President and his foreign policy teach are currently undertaking.

I urge the most serious consideration of this suggestion, and I would be happy to discuss it further with you prior to the October 28th vote.

Sincerely,

James P. McGovern
Member of Congress

cc: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State
Thomas A. Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs

-- Steve Clemons

As I reported last night at the J Street Gala Dinner at which former US Senator Chuck Hagel was giving a keynote address, the President has now announced officiall that former Senators Hagel and David Boren will co-chair the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.

The announcement follows here:

Tevi Troy has called out three political icons in a Politico essay -- Bill Maher, Farrakhan and Glenn Beck -- for irresponsible commentary about the swine flu virus and public health, and I applaud Troy for doing so.

Tevi Troy, who is now at the Hudson Institute and previously served as both Deputy Domestic Policy Advisor to GW Bush and then served as Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, supports the seriousness of President Obama's calling the upcoming flu season a national emergency.

Troy writes in Politico:

What do Bill Maher, Louis Farrakhan and Glenn Beck have in common? Usually not much, but this flu season, they have all been irresponsible voices who could potentially constitute a greater public health threat than the H1N1 virus.

As we enter what could be a difficult flu season -- President Barack Obama just declared a national emergency -- we face a number of challenges to our public health infrastructure. Some of these challenges are typical and expected, such as the difficulties of distributing materials across a huge country with more than 300 million people in it or the complexities of producing in a short time frame a new vaccine that is safe and effective.

Others, however, are surprises, such as public skepticism from commentators like Maher regarding both public-safety measures like vaccines to prevent the spread of the illness and messages from public health officials. How elected leaders -- and public commentators themselves -- respond will determine our ability to be successful in facing the challenges of both seasonal and H1N1 influenza, as well as other potential biological events in the future.

He concludes:

As we look to the future, it is time to declare potential bio events a "neutral zone" -- a place beyond politics that should be entered by both parties together.

This approach would be far more likely to grab Americans' attention, as the public knows all too well that on most issues, our politicians are constantly at war. But on public health issues essential to the safety of the American people, we need elected leaders who understand the skepticism of citizens and reach out in a bipartisan way with an intelligent, informative, respectful message that helps turn hard government work on preparation and education into successful execution.

Tevi Troy is sounding a lot like Barack Obama on the public health front -- or better yet, Obama is sounding a lot like Tevi Troy. . .and that's a constructive step towards the kind of neutral zone that is needed in some parts of America's policy establishment.

-- Steve Clemons

Editor's Note: Hat tip to intrepid news hound and TWN reader Daniel Lippman for forwarding Tevi Troy's Politico article.

Tomorrow, the New America Foundation is giving back up support for a large conference in the US Senate organized by the RAND Corporation focused on American policy options toward Afghanistan. I think the event is sold out at this point -- with more than 500 attendees -- but the videos will be posted at a later time here at The Washington Note.

But what do Afghans think about their situation?

The Asia Foundation has just released the results of its 2009 Afghan Public Opinion Poll on the subjects of security, reconstruction, and governance.

The most surprising result that jumped out at me was that 42% of Afghans think the country is moving in the right direction (although 64% thought this in 2004) while 29% thought Afghanistan was going in the wrong direction.

The survey showed that insecurity -- attacks, violence, and terrorism -- were the country's biggest challenges.

This is good resource material for those digging into the way Afghans view their circumstances now.

-- Steve Clemons

General Jim Jones, President Obama's National Security Advisor, addresses J Street's first national conference from Isaac Luria on Vimeo.

National Security Adviser Jim Jones emphasizes the importance of getting beyond the status quo in the Israel-Palestine conflict. He commits that President Obama and his team would participate in J Street's work every year -- which is a strong vote of confidence in this new American Jewish organization.

And his commentary on Iran was constructive -- not full of the kind of implied bullying that we have heard from other senior Obama administration officials -- that does little to move the policy needle on Iran's course.

I was not pleased, however, with Jones' characterization of the Goldstone Report -- but I do applaud Jones' focus on the Israel-Palestine challenge and to a viable two-state solution.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Chuck Hagel has a great sense of humor, and he loves Halloween.

Two years ago, just before Halloween, Hagel showed up at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing chaired by then Committee Chairman Joe Biden in a "Joe Biden mask" urging those there to vote for him.

According to senior Hagel senate staff alumni, Hagel used to wear a chicken costume at Halloween years ago -- and once dressed up as Colin Powell in a meeting to go see General Powell when he was serving as Secretary of State. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had to personally intervene to get Hagel into the building.

Hagel also wore a John McCain mask at a McCain event -- and did this with Senator Pat Roberts too.

So, I returned the favor last night -- appearing in a Joe Biden mask to introduce Senator Hagel to offer some levity in what was a very important dinner focused on Israel-Palestine issues at J Street's big gala event.

Taylor Marsh loved it. So did Zbignew Brzezinski and House International Relations Committee Chairman Howard Berman -- at least that's what they said. The Tablet's Jesse Oxford thought it went over like a dead weight.**

Nonetheless, humor helps Washington move forward even when so many policy issues appear gridlocked and hopeless.

It takes political leaders like Hagel who can both be serious and focused -- as well as fun -- on both sides of the political aisle to make Washington a more constructive place.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: Just got a note from Jesse Oxford who said that whether or not there was a "humor error" at the J Street dinner, his team had a "production error" and that Allison Hoffman actually wrote the piece.

Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel gave an outstanding speech outlining the imperative of American leadership in the Israel-Palestine dispute at the J Street Annual Conference Gala Dinner last night.

I had the privilege of moderating the discussion and having an exchange about US foreign policy with the Senator who teaches at Georgetown University and now chairs the Atlantic Council of the United States.

During my own remarks, which I offered humorously wearing a "Joe Biden mask" (long story. . .for later), I announced that Chuck Hagel would soon be officially announced as the new chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, a post that has recently been held by Stephen Friedman, former NY Federal Reserve Board Governor and national economic adviser to President George W. Bush.

Former US Senator and Oklahoma University President David Boren will serve as co-chair with Hagel of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.

Previously, Brent Scowcroft, Les Aspin and former House Speaker and US Ambassador to Japan Thomas Foley chaired this intelligence advisory body.

Hagel is also scheduled to meet President Obama today in the White House.

This is a great move. Hagel represents the brand of pragmatic Republican national security decisionmaking that President Obama needs to hear much more from.

-- Steve Clemons

On the 17th of October this year, I interviewed Hamas leader Khaled Mashal in his offices in Damascus, Syria on a wide range of topics. I did the interview as part of a launch effort for a new political blog, The Palestine Note, which is releasing the interview today.

The questions I asked Meshal to reflect on were:

1. How had Meshal's father influenced his course given that his father recently passed away? I linked this discussion of Meshal and his father's vision to Barack Obama's own revelations about his father and his goals in Obama's first powerful memoir, Dreams From My Father.

2. I asked Meshal to articulate his vision for a united Palestine, particularly after the occupation.

3. What would life under a Hamas-led government would look like. What are the views on diversity, heterodoxy, secularism? Some people fear that a Hamas-led government hasn't shown the ability to handle diversity and accept people that are different. What is Meshal's answer to those who think that minority rights will be abused? I discussed concerns about the shuttering of private schools in Gaza, forcing women to wear the hijab, and prohibitions on swimming unless wearing prescribed clothing.

4. What are Hamas' views on the Goldstone Report and whether the criticism of Mahmoud Abbas on his stumbles on Goldstone reflected a willingness by Hamas to abide by international law covenants, particularly about targeting innocent civilians. (I found Meshal's response quite interesting but should have pushed him on the subject of suicide bombers which I was unable to at the time.)

5. Is Khaled Meshal a Palestinian patriot or a Muslim patriot? I asked him to differentiate Hamas from other Islamic fundamentalist and Salafist groups, including al Qaeda.

6. Could Hamas be an active and constructive player in peace negotiations with Israel in a way that does not totally violate Hamas' basic charter?

7. Finally, what advice did Meshal have for President Obama as he approaches the next steps of the Middle East peace challenge?

The "transcript" of the entire exchange -- my full questions and Khaled Meshal's responses appears after the break. . .

Browsing Haaretz this morning, I saw this top of the column story about Israeli settlers muscling Palestinians for harvesting olives from their orchards -- because of the fear that the Palestinians could be gathering intelligence on the settlers.

This is perverse. The settlers should be removed from the site near the Palestinian village and/or arrested for the harassment of the Palestinians.

This kind of behavior is consistent with ethnic cleansing efforts -- which have been going on too long without serious comment. The IDF's role in simply separating both sides rather than punishing the provocations by the settlers -- and actually allowing the Israeli settlers to protest inside the Palestinian village -- is wrongheaded.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by Sarah Stephens, Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas

On October 28th, the United Nations General Assembly is expected to vote on a resolution condemning the United States embargo against Cuba.

If past is prologue, it will pass resoundingly. The General Assembly has adopted similar measures in each of the last seventeen years; in 2008, by a margin of 185-3. But that was a condemnation of an embargo enforced, energetically and unapologetically, by the administration of George W. Bush. The vote this year takes place for the first time on President Obama's watch, and so has special significance.

The Secretary-General has prepared a public report that catalogues what UN members and UN organizations say about the embargo.

This document is a powerful reminder that the U.S. embargo is viewed internationally with great seriousness and in ways that are deeply damaging to U.S. interests and our image overseas.

Lest anyone think this policy is only provocative to nations in the non-aligned world, its opponents include Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Egypt, the European Union, India, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Russia.

They are plain-spoken in their opposition. Australia reminds us it votes "consistently" against the embargo. Brazil says it is the "Cuban people who suffer the most from the blockade." China says the embargo "serves no purpose other than to keep tensions high between two neighboring countries and inflict tremendous hardship and suffering on the people of Cuba, especially women and children." Egypt and India condemn the extra-territorial reach of our sanctions, which Japan says run "counter to the provisions of international law." Mexico calls these measures coercive. Russia "rejects" the embargo. Nations across the planet have enacted laws making it illegal for their companies to comply.

Our policy is especially controversial in our own hemisphere, where the U.S. alone is without diplomatic relations with Cuba, and where forum after forum -- including the Rio Group, the Ibero-American Summit, the Heads of State of Latin America and the Caribbean, and CARICOM -- has rejected the embargo and called for its repeal.

Beyond our diplomatic interests, the report forces us to move beyond the stale, political debate in which the embargo is most often framed (where every problem on the island is blamed on either Cuba's system or U.S. policy) and to confront the significant injuries this policy inflicts on ordinary Cubans.

It reminds us:

• The embargo stops Cuba from obtaining diagnostic equipment or replacement parts for equipment used in the detection of breast, colon, and prostate cancer.
• The embargo stops Cuba from obtaining patented materials that are needed for pediatric cardiac surgery and the diagnosis of pediatric illnesses.
• The embargo prevents Cuba from purchasing antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV-AIDS from U.S. sources of the medication.
• The embargo stops Cuba from obtaining needed supplies for the diagnosis of Downs' Syndrome.
• Under the embargo, Cuba cannot buy construction materials from the nearby U.S. market to assist in its hurricane recovery.
• While food sales are legal, regulatory impediments drive up the costs of commodities that Cuba wants to buy from U.S. suppliers, and forces them in many cases to turn to other more expensive and distant sources of nutrition for their people.
• Because our market is closed to their goods, Cuba cannot sell products like coffee, honey, tobacco, live lobsters and other items that would provide jobs and opportunities for average Cubans.

This list, abbreviated for space, is actually much longer, more vivid and troubling, as the report documents case after case of how our embargo affects daily life in Cuba. And for what reason? Because it will someday force the Cuban government to dismantle its system? As a bargaining chip? These arguments have proven false and futile over the decades and what the UN has been trying to tell us since 1992 is that they should be abandoned along with a policy that has so outlived its usefulness.

And yet, it is now the Obama administration supporting and enforcing the embargo -- still following Bush-era rules that thwart U.S. agriculture sales; still levying stiff penalties for violations of the regulations; still stopping prominent Cubans from visiting the United States; still refusing to use its executive authority to allow American artists, the faith community, academics, and other proponents of engagement and exchange to visit Cuba as representatives of our country and its ideals.

To his credit, President Obama has taken some useful steps to change U.S. policy toward Cuba. He repealed the cruel Bush administration rules on family travel that divided Cuban families. He joined efforts by the OAS to lift Cuba's suspension from that organization. He has opened a direct channel of negotiations with Cuba's government on matters that include migration, resuming direct mail service, and relaxing the restrictions that Cuban and U.S. diplomats face in doing their jobs in each of our nation's capitals.

This is a start, but more -- much more -- needs to be done. Not because the UN says so, but because our country needs to embrace the world not as we found it in 1959 -- or in 2008 -- but as it exists today.

President Obama can do this. Our times demand that he do so.

-- Sarah Stephens

I am really enjoying journalist Kati Marton's new book -- an expose on her own family -- titled Enemies of the People: My Family's Journey to America.

The book is a poignant red flag for what people, seemingly decent citizens, can do to each other in a paranoid national security state. Marton was writing about her family's travails in Hungary -- but the book could be about a future, even a present, America.

I enjoyed this conversation with Kati Marton, who is a board member of the New America Foundation -- and despite that affiliation, I feel quite unbiased about recommending the book highly.

And for another perspective on the book, read Jonathan Yardley's superb review.

-- Steve Clemons

In contrast to a number of progressives I know, I was generally supportive of and applauded the early stripes of foreign policy realism that former Massachusetts Governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney displayed during the beginning of his campaign.

Romney had a first rate national security advisor in former State Department Policy Planning Director Mitchell Reiss and had others I respect like Nixon Center President Dimitri Simes on his formal advising team.

And then Romney said that America not only didn't need to shut down Guantanamo but needed yet another Guantanamo detention facility. He lost me there with that gratuitous flick and other flippancies he uttered that seemed to compete with how much fear he could stir up in the audiences he was speaking to.

Romney, who is a likely candidate for the GOP presidential race in 2012, is again out pumping up fear. I just received this request for funds to the GOP this morning in which he starts out with an empathetic comment towards Israelis living in fear -- and then paints the Iran government as completely fanatical. This is not realism -- nor even sensible on any level. Iran may have radicals -- very true -- but the country as a whole is shrewdly run to maximize its interests.

We need to understand that Iran is calculating that the US is weak, disorganized and unserious about our objectives. To counter Iran's course, we need to respond to the way in which the regime is reading the mixed signals the US and West are sending. That would have been a smarter Mitt Romney comment -- something akin to what the pre-candidate Mitt Romney would have said.

I too feel for Israelis that live with some level of fear -- but I also have seen first hand what the perversities of Occupation have done to the Palestinians.

Note to Mitt Romney: Watch the tape above of the treatment of a Palestinian by Israeli border police.

Fear-mongering is a crappy way for the GOP to raise money or to animate a new presidential run.

-- Steve Clemons

Editor's Note: This is the Mitt Romney note that his folks sent this morning:

Friend,

I have been to Israel twice -- most recently in 2007. I came away encouraged by what I saw. If we lived in a neighborhood like Israel's, with suicide bombers crossing into our country to kill children in school buses, I'm not sure we could tolerate it. That people actually immigrate to Israel, rather than fleeing from the violence of the Middle East, is a testament to their courage, faith and character. But there is a clear and present danger, above all other threats in the region, and that's Iran.

Iran represents the biggest threat to Israel and peace. Here's how I describe Iran in a column I wrote last week for Human Events:

"The Iranian regime is unalloyed evil, run by people who are at once ruthless and fanatical. We should stop thinking that a charm offensive will talk the Iranians out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It will not. And agreements, unenforceable and unverifiable, will have no greater impact here than they did in North Korea. Once an outstretched hand is met with a clenched fist, it becomes a symbol of weakness and impotence. President Eisenhower said it well: 'The care of freedom is not long entrusted to the weak and timid.'"

Please help us spread the message about Iran, its reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and what that means for Israel with your most generous contribution of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or even the maximum $5,000, today.

Thank you again for your continued support,

Mitt Romney

P.S. We've recently launched a new SMS text messaging program, and as one of our most dedicated supporters, I hope you'll sign up today to receive exclusive, real-time updates by texting "Go" to GOMITT (466488).

(photo credit: Matt Duss)

Anti J Street Protesters express their views outside the Grand Hyatt Hotel this morning.

-- Steve Clemons