research. you can go on the website and look it up. my favorite one was when you look at the map of the united states and you note how many women senators are actually in pairs, from california, washington whatever, and then if you start noticing how many have like one senator and one governor -- it becomes clear that it is not random. i remember in my earlier time thinking, well if you have one woman already and then, if you start noting how many have like one senator one woman senator and one woman governor, it becomes clearly

that it is not random. i remember in my earlier time thinking, well, if you have one woman already in one of those top three positions, then no one is going to want to elect the second one because they will think they're overdoing it, you know? people in the state have gotten used to electing a woman. it could be that there is a role modeling that is going on and more women are really thinking about becoming political. the women themselves, and some of the women in those positions have said, no, actually, i showed the next woman where the pockets of energy or the pockets of money were. it is like bringing the next one along. it is so exciting, because we have to find ways to really expand these numbers. we cannot just keep moving along. it takes 200 years at the rate we are going. i am not kidding. literally. you have to find ways to say, we already have one woman in this state come hell or high water. we are going to run a woman for governor and a woman for senator in that very state. once you get two, it is more likely you will have a third like in new hampshire. >> this is good news for our female gubernatorial candidates.

>> you talk more about it. >> the political parity project is a little bit unusual. if you are from here, our votes cancel out each other's every electoral cycle. and she raised money on several occasions for my opponent when i ran for governor. it is not immediately apparent why we would come together and work together to get more women into politics. we both felt that all of the wonderful efforts that everyone had been working on for so many years and you actually were one of my first as rations to get inspirations to involved with politics, so if you want to know how women become political sometimes it is looking at wonderful mentors like you. we knew that whatever was happening on a partisan basis was not working. republicans have been trying and

democrats have been trying to advance women's careers and it simply had not worked. and so, we needed to recognize that, admit it, and see if there were underlying causes that actually impacted everyone that we could agree on we needed to address. and so we brought together and swannee brought together women from the democratic side. i gathered together some politically active women from the republican side, and we started looking at the underlying causes and trying to investigate them. and doing it nationally. the first thing we looked at was the impact of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment of women candidates and how that impacted them. as a former woman candidate, i can tell you, most consultants would have -- have told me and may have told you as well, that if someone said something negative about you and you believe it may be gender-based you do not mention it. you got -- do not say anything about it. you just take it and go. did you receive that advice?

>> all that advice was wrong. so what we found was in fact, if you push back and recognize sexism when it is coming at you, it not only restores that woman's place in the polls, the numerical hit associated with sexism is very strong, almost nine points in some places. if you push back you not only make that space backup but also some people who even just hear about it think better of you. so it is an advantage to stand up -- for a woman to stand up for herself to push back and push back against sexist characterizations. >> you say in your next speech after something really negative, you will not believe what so- and-so said. and you repeat it.

>> that was one of the first surprising things that we found. and then beyond that, we have done research that shows things that are pretty much validating things that we already know. like women get into politics because they care about something. they want to do something. they want to change something. whereas often men seem to get into politics for reasons that are more personal. or unknown. women generally know the answer to the question about why are you in politics, that never stops them. they know why they are there. they are therefore purpose. we also found the importance of mentors. mentors are very important to women and we need mentors who a little bit ahead. the mentoring cannot be seeing someone. it needs to be very hands-on very involved with that person's life. we are going to encourage everyone to please think about who you can mentor.

you not only have to ask people to run but you have to help them to run. and to model those behaviors. and then finally, part of our next research is going to be looking at why the republican party is lagging so seriously around the ability to elect women. and right now, the democratic party elects twice as many women as do the republicans. >> it is getting worse. >> we are getting better. >> we will find out why that is happening and put an and to them. >> people think -- i thought not people, i thought fewer republican women were running compared to democratic women. turns out that republican women try to run or they do run at the

same rate as democratic women, and they cannot get out of their primary. that is very different from the democratic experience. the reason we had to figure this out is because, i have worked in 60 countries and i have looked at parliament all over the world. if you get enough women, let's say 20% to 40% women in this party and in that party, they create a woman's block. that is our hope for breaking gridlock. i feel so strongly about that. [applause] >> all right. that is a good start for our conversation. i will go back and go forward, if i may. malala, the 16-year-old who was shot in the head and survived.

she said i want to be a teacher because one book, one pen, and one teacher can change the world. she said i changed my mind. teachers are very very important, but i want to be a politician because i can change a community. so to you ladies on the stage to have the -- who have become political, let me borrow from oprah, what do you know for sure about the difference that women make in politics? >> we have done research all over the world is a said. what we have found, with thousands of interviews as well as looking at quantitative data, is that women tend to be much more collaborative. and they are more practical. a woman in liberia says to me, we have these rice wars, i knew the price of a bag of rice. none of the men did. a woman in darfur gets into the

peace talks. they're stymied and she comes in at the seventh round, they are arguing about where the river should be. who gets the river, the different warring factions and she listens and finally she says, that river dried up years ago. [laughter] i will never forget i will never forget when blanche lincoln from arkansas said, when congress reconvened after the summer, they were talking about minimum wage and she said, i went to target and i bought shoes for my twins to go back to school. i bought the notebooks and i bought the pens. you could not buy those on minimum wage. i know the price. that to me is critical. >> so, practicality. >> women are introducing more laws and work hard to get them

past. they care deeply about content. it springs from that reason that they got into the government in the first place. they are committed to projects and have a passion for policy work. that is something that women ring to government. >> i think about, you know, it is not that women are better than men. none of us think that. we do not have our masculinity to prove and this is a huge advantage. so, more and more men, i hope, will be free from the prison of masculinity and we can all be human beings together. until that time -- on the average, we are all talking

about averages and we are not talking about absolutely everything you human being. this is not about biology. this is about consciousness and that comes from experience. on the average, we are much more likely to vote for health education, welfare, against violence. there's is a gender gap on all kinds of issues and that is super-important that we bring that into the mainstream. it is super important. i so want you to take over the republican party. i cannot begin to tell you. [applause] thank you. i promised my college that i would stay out of politics for six years.

i am not going back into politics for six years. >> i just want to say, in the spirit of truth, it was old and terrible right-wing democrats that took over the republican party. it started with jesse helms. i rest my case. >> and strom thurmond. >> after the civil rights act of 1964 was passed, they were very irate that the democratic party was becoming inclusive in all kinds of ways, especially racial. they started to -- 8000 fundamentalist baptist churches took over the republican party levers of power gradually and now, you cannot get through the primaries to get into the general election as a smart, centrist, conservative whatever. a perfectly sensible person.

it is so dangerous to have one of our two parties controlled by extremists. of course we get mad at the democrats. i am mad at the democrats. you find yourself voting for this other party. here's my plan. my plan is that we do what the right-wing democrats did and we go to the local caucuses and so on. even i am willing to look republican. i will take off this belt. >> do you like my jacket? >> yes. we will infiltrate the caucuses. that is what they did. we will take them over. in four years, you have a chaotic and terrible republican convention. and in eight years, you will have a new one.

>> all because of women. >> let me say that i appreciate the framework for this conversation and i asked thomas how do women become political and not just run for elected office. it is important to point that out. i know that women bring a different take a perspective that strengthens every solution and every policy. otherwise, it is being developed through a prism that is monolithic and homogenized. we all have different optics and that respective. we talk about the old boy's network. they have made progress in building the girls network. will we elect more women? women are more likely to elect more women. it is not just who is in the elected position. it is too as the chief of staff and the policy director.

who is the campaign manager and the press secretary? people have an awareness of the biased optic in media and some of the challenges. you have to have people who have the sensitivity and awareness of those things. it is not just planting a seed to encourage more women to run for office. it is saying that we need your perspective at every part of this process. for many first-time candidates the operatives and the pundits and analysts, they will be quick to say that a woman is not viable. who better to trust with your vision and help you actualize this endeavor than other women? we need to the old a bench that is not about winning office. we need to build a bench of operatives who know how to run campaigns and right sound strategy.

that is what we need to do. >> what you have articulated -- articulated and has shown up in your report is that the coming political in the stream and pipeline and going on to elected office. i'm thinking about barbara lee who is trying to vote. she had not voted when she met shirley chisholm. she ran up to shirley chisholm and said, wow, i'm impressed with you and i want to work on your campaign. she said, you're going to have to vote for -- first and let's get signed up. that modeling is very important. carrie lee, i wonder if you

could speak to what makes sense. it is not out here, it is appeared that we feel more in line. likes i think that our generation of leaders and the generation right below us, we have to be aware of the fact that we can change all of this and this is really our responsibility. we have a lot of young people out there in the audience and i urge you to reach out and create those relationships with women who are one or two steps beyond. we need to be really conscious about how we mentor people and the kind of encouragement that we get. so many of the studies around women are concerns about the coming political and they focus on the fundamental sense that they are not qualified and they do not know enough yet. the need to be more well- qualified than the male candidate would require from himself.

people like us and others in the audience would feel more confident. we would be put into contact with that network and could raise that money. >> how do you do it? >> i was blessed to have wonderful mentors and everyone here knows that the most important mentor was mitt romney, who supported my career and gave me a lot of responsibilities as lieutenant governor. i used to attend the governor's council once a week. that was my responsibility. i had a governor who gave me as much responsibility as i could possibly have and did not even want all stop i learned to love them. that is how you grow. >> when the opportunity to put my hat in the ring as ambassador came along, i was because of pat

schroeder, who was the congresswoman in denver. she said, i'm going to washington and i am going to work on welfare reform. she said, stay out of washington. it is going to be a wash with democrats who want -- it is going to be filled with democrats who want to work on welfare reform. i gave a bank -- you know about pat schroeder, i was the wealthiest person in her district and she never asked for a cent. i said, i am so rich and people will think that if i have an ambassadorship and given obscene amount of money to the clinton campaign, they will think that i

bought my way in and it is because of my money. pat looked at me and said, they already think that about everything else you do. get over it. just get over it. this is something that you should do. wow, boy, is that strange. >> that is part of the change. pat schroeder had many campaigns and had to run against the democrat because she was not the person at the party thought would win. she won reelection by creating her own force and going door to door. even after she was elected in her first term, the party still put somebody up against her as

an incumbent. so, you know, we need, in many cases, to do it through neighborhood movement groups and not necessarily the party. >> this is always a sensitive topic when you talk to women in business or in high-power positions. i was moderating a panel with the former governor of texas ann richards. we talked about women in politics and she said that what stops women is the inability to embrace the personal and political power. i'm interested. she said, there is this "i don't want to seem ambitious" thing. >> there is a bit of a dance there. as i said earlier, is a struggle for women to have their own power.

i think entitlement has a negative connotation and the goal is for girls and women to operate with a better sense of entitlement and say that they are deserving and the opportunity. that they are qualified. there are all these other nagging insecurities and doubts. the data says it takes seven people to convince a woman to run for office. how many does it take for a man? >> himself. >> it is not a joke. so -- everyone can say that i was recruited to run for office and that was the case for most women. i was not calculating my political ascension. i had been a to senator john kerry for 11 years and then was enjoying being “the person behind the person.”

prior to my election, there had never been a person of color on the council. >> how many people did it take to convince you? >> more than seven. more than seven. it seems herculean and boston is a parochial town. i had attended boston university and worked for kennedy and kerry. i was seen as an outsider and it is a difficult tribe to break into. if i can be frank, the reason it took that long for a woman to get elected despite the great progress was that there was a question on whether or not a

black woman could represent the entire city of boston. [applause] >> anybody else want to speak to that? >> i do not think we should blame ourselves so much -- we have to get out and support ourselves out of it. that is what psychologists call internalized depression. half of the human race would not have been in the situation that it is now if we did not come to believe -- and the same thing happens with race, class sexuality -- it is internalizing a lesser feeling. that is why we need each other and need to support each other out of that. it is not just that women lack confidence. there has been a lot of effort

in making us lack confidence. >> i looked at 13 countries and i did all of these interviews in these 13 countries. and -- number one, when i would say, why are the numbers so low in your parliament? they would say, well, and our culture -- in our culture. you look deeper and see all sorts of impediments. the nonprofit world, and huge numbers, 80%, 85%, 90%. the women felt that the political world was a man's space and rightfully so.

there were so many barriers. in most countries, you vote for the party. i remove her one-woman in bosnia who said, when i left my home, i was number seven on the list. when i got to the capital, i was number 17. only 15 won the seats. >> also, we have to challenge those terms and, in a real way what happens to me is politics what happens to men is politics and what happens to women is culture. that is another way to keep us from changing. >> exactly. >> what comes up for women who are elected is the gender attacks that happen that are

vicious and ongoing. i can in the attacks directed at the women on the stage. here's a quote from nancy pelosi. i am probably the most reviled woman in america. they leave the people who are not effective along. if women -- alone. if women can come forward, we need them to do that. she goes on to say that when of the big blockages are, in her opinion, is that they are stopping women from proceeding

on and engaging in politics. she says there is a lack of civility. what you say to a woman who is on the outside and saying, you know, i can do some thing else with my time and have other people have names thrown at them. >> this is an issue that we come together on. as long as republican women tolerate any kind of attack on democratic women or democratic women tolerate attacks on republican women and, you know think about the lightning rod that sarah palin and hillary clinton have been. think about, if we tolerate any of those attacks, we will never get past this. we cannot get past this. so, and that is why i am here today.

[applause] i want to model that behavior for people and say, we need to reach out across the aisle on these issues. whether it is criticisms based on gender or these impediments that we all share as women getting into the process. in particular, these kind of attacks, we need, as women, to say that that is unacceptable and is always unacceptable. if we do that and stand together, it will go away and it will become not politically correct. as long as we still laugh at one or the other, we are lost. we are all lost and we are hurting ourselves we do that. if you can take away one message

from me today, that would be my message. you can never attack another woman who is in politics. >> this is what we are talking when i say gender attacks, i mean attacks. what do you say? >> i just want to say that there are a lot of organizations -- i guess they are women's organization -- that are devoted to doing what you say and one of them is the women's media center. >> that started with jane fonda. >> it started with jane fonda. i think that we have places to turn where we underline each other's research. your research is so important.

it turns out to be parallel to the research about bullying and it is the same principle. how important it is that bystanders object and that the person, themselves, stands up for themselves. the standards are really different. for a man to be called ruthless, yes to takeover a another country or a job. for a woman to be called ruthless, she has only to put you on hold. >> right. i would just say that that is the challenge. the gender-based attacks are very real and demonstrative. it is these moments that you are referencing that people are not as privy to. i work in a place that deals

with complicated social ills. the thing that people always say is, i just want you to smile more. it seems to me that that is one of those examples. it is not my job to be a cheerleader. i am not sally sunshine all the time. there are cultural biases and an expectation when tackling complicated issues. we will not smile all the time. we have so much more work to do when it comes to parity in government. every woman is breaking new ground are breaking a ceiling. there is a tendency to treat that woman as an anomaly feminist victory and as an outlier.

and this has everything to do with people wanting somebody who has a powerful message and a good campaign. people are quick to marginalize the success and exoticize it. >> how you deal with the questions? a great quote from blanche lincoln who said, i can talk about whatever issue i want to talk about but, if i run in my pantyhose, nobody hears what i am saying. this is one of the challenges. >> comment on my parents, i comment on theirs. it's not like we are bad things

about each other. they are startled that i would define how he physically looks. when they call you ruthless, say "thank you." >> the conversation has to be about who is in the pipeline. how do you keep people in the pipeline? >> can i just say, has anybody ever heard of men trying to fill a pipeline? is not that i do not believe that there has to be a pipeline but, again, i would question this notion. it is just like culture. culture is how we behave and it changes.

>> would you say that the old boys network is the pipeline? >> steve jobs was not in the pipeline. >> he started his thing with his friend in the garage. you know -- >> i don't think that there are endless -- and i think that we do need them -- endless training programs to get that pipeline. will they run for school board and will they run for city council? we have all these tiered -- by the time that they get to the senate, they have been through so many layers and they are much older than the men. they have fewer terms and they

will have less seniority. in a sense, that is a real hold back. we have to get women to think beyond -- and you hear them say all the time, i do not really know what i need to know about running for congress and i want to get some experience to work my way up. >> you have done the reporting. the other part for young woman as their making decisions is, "i want a family and i want to do something else first. then, i will come to this.” >> that is why we need men in the pipeline to be parents. >> i would say that that is fine and women to do a whole lot of different things during the course of their life.

you don't have to be political when you are very young. the first thing i did was join now in 1973 and my parents were not so pleased. i took a big hiatus from local activity between 20 and 38. i was not politically involved. i voted. i was not an activist. i finished my education and i worked in a nonprofit. i did all kinds of things. i was not politically active. it was not until i was 38 that i felt like my children were old enough and i was ready. i was passionate about talking about criminal justice issues and was effective in changing my current position. i was a consultant for the department of justice and writing reports and articles about the messy violence, child abuse, drugs, and gangs.

i was not getting anywhere and nobody was listening. it was frustrating. i was old enough and my kids were old enough. i know enough to really make a difference. i do not know that you really have to -- i do not think you have to start on day one and keep going. you have different phases in your life. >> we ought to be able to do exactly what you did or what schroeder did when she came on the floor of congress. she said i have a womb and a brain and i'm going to use both. thank you very much. it would be much easier, you know, -- not just easier, that is too small a word -- kids need to see nurturing and loving fathers to know that that is possible. needless to say, if you are not the only advanced democracy with

no advanced system of child care that affects everybody -- i think we try to solve this problem in a vacuum. >> i would add that we are speaking in broad terms and very often, men are seen as running on a resume and women are seen as running on emission. -- a mission. if they are, as am i, single and unmarried, there's a tabulation about the narrative that they need to develop in order to engage and earn the support of the electorate. i want to challenge us to be receptive to diversity in the family model and life experience, as well.

[applause] this is, you know, you are no less of a mother if you are a stepmother and you are no less of a woman if you are not a mother. i cannot tell you how many times, when i was running the first time, it will wash and what my commitment to children in the public school system would be the guys i did not have any children in the public school system. i do not feel less of a burden to those children because i did not biologically bear them. [applause] i can assure you that i was the only woman in the 15 candidates who was asked repeatedly if i was married. finally, i came up with the answer of, i am married to my job and you can be my baby. i hope that legitimizes me as a woman.

boaters are intolerant of a diversity narrative when it comes to female candidates. we have to challenge ourselves to do better. >> with sarah palin was first announced and came out, when the first questions asked of her was, who is going to take care of your children? these are national correspondents. >> gloria said something at lunch about someone in the movement. >> i was talking about my partner. flo kennedy. we were lecturing at a time when a white woman and a black woman

together was so is our that people would ask if we were lesbians. flo would say, “are you the alternative?” [applause] [laughter] >> this is about women becoming political. each of you have told your stories about how you became interested. i wonder if you could share the moment, if there was a single moment, when you had accomplished something in your political career and you felt it. like, wow, if it were not for me, x would not be happening right now. we talked about the negativity but i want to talk about the positive. >> yeah. it is hard, you worked, and

worked, and worked. the undersecretary of state for global affairs sent out a cable, that means a telegram, that said, should we include the report on the status of women in the human rights report that congress requires the state department and each country. i looked at the responses to him. it was things like, -- from different ambassadors -- our embassy is so stretched and we do not have the people power. another said, women can walk around at midnight and it is not an issue. another said, to include the status of women would be to trivialize the human rights

reports. and then i got mad. and then i got mad. i said to cancel the next three meetings and i sat there and typed. beijing had just happened. i did this cable from hell. tim told me that everybody went from his office to a retreat. he got there and he read it. he took it to the retreat. they had decided not to include women in the human rights report. he read out loud. since that year and for ever the status of human rights for women is included in that report. [applause] >> what a moment! >> it would have to be the passage of melanie's law. how many of you know what the

law is? is the change in the drunk driving laws that we accomplished in 2005. for many years, every year, the mothers against drunk driving gave massachusetts a "f" on our laws. we have personal injury lawyers in our legislature and they refuse to have any changes that would cut off the cash cow of all these people who drink drive, get arrested, and get off. they're are numerous people who've been arrested for drunk driving 10, 12 times in a row. they are time bombs waiting to go off and we have 200 people a year getting killed by drunk drivers. think about that. over 200 people a year. many more are being injured by drunk drivers.

you'd think about the misery caused by that problem and it touches thousands and thousands across the commonwealth each year. we have never change the laws to make them stricter. i finally met an amazing family. their daughter, melody, was a 13-year-old girl who got run over by a drunk driver in. daylight when she was coming back from a birthday party as a cheerleader. she was a lovely and sweet young girl. she was there young child. a woman had too many drinks at lunch and was a repeat drunk driver. she ran her over and killed her. the family, instead of pulling into themselves and becoming overwrought by it, they wanted to change the law. i took the energy and my office and the people around me decided to go and visit every single

legislator that would see us to get the law out there. we pounded and pounded and pounded. there was opposition from the legislature and a got stopped in committee and watered-down. they would send us a version that was named the same and did not change anything. we had to go back and eventually, we created enough of a public platform around it that various newspapers started getting interested. legislatures -- legislators started highlighting the fact that beautiful young people were being killed on the roads. after a bloody fight any legislature, we got this passed and it was a wonderful feeling. >> it is hard to pick.

i am the volunteer person and not the person out there. it is when i see -- i remember seeing and richards and the governor's office and seeing her sitting behind that desk after all the work. i was just -- i was so -- i could not believe it. walking through the streets with bella, people were hanging out of trucks and saying, give them hell, bella. the one that was the most rewarding was the -- was when shirley chisholm was running for president. she was voted out of the primary debates and was not allowed in the primary debates.

there was only one day to put her positions and her words into a speech that was her one national speech on television. i did that. >> oh really? >> i did that. i sat there in my living room watching her on television. >> wow. that is great. that is great. >> before you speak, let me tell people who are lining up at the microphone to ask questions. >> this is the most rewarding thing i could ever do in my life. i think one of the most gratifying moments is was after a three-year sojourn and a broad coalition of advocates at the municipal level that finally, a

comprehensive sex education curriculum will be part of the wellness policy for boston public schools. i am especially proud of that because these are the issues that people considered to be "third rail." when you talk about a curriculum that goes beyond abstinence and increases access to condoms, no one is asking you to go there. i am humbled to be elected official. beyond electoral victories, what i want is to play part in a moral victory. access to this information inside our schools was ad hoc. now, will close the disparity gap and set our people on a pathway to make informed and healthy choices. i am proud of that.

[applause] >> there are two microphones in the aisles. ask your question. we do not want your comment. we want your question. >> i have a question from twitter. the first question -- she has a two-parter. can you please run for president? [applause] and, the second part, had we engage those who do not see politics as affecting them question mark -- them? >> we have to trace each issue you know -- i mean, how many

kids are there who are graduating in debt? the main reason they are graduating in debt is because state legislatures have defunded universities and build prisons instead. this is affecting everybody. we have to take the issues -- issues are a bad word -- the hopes, the dreams, the daily concerns, the problems. we have to increase them. >> we have to have civics education. [applause] i think that we need to bridge actuate -- perpetuates and cultivates -- perpetuate and cultivate. does anybody care about creating good citizens?

you cannot wait until they are 18 and think that they will spontaneously combust and care about government. we need to build that relationship earlier. >> i had a question. i am from texas. i was wondering if you could speak, gloria, to the fact that texas was the first date to adopt the equal rights amendment and you had a coalition of women who attacked women. that is why it did not succeed. ann richard was elected in 1990 and wendy davis does not have a chance. >> is not a straight line of progress -- it is not a straight line of progress.

surge forward and a backlash if we did not have a frontlash we would not have a backlash. they had women out here campaigning. it was actually a financial interest, as you described with your legislature in the case of that law, the most common occupation of a legislate for is insurance. is the last industry that is radiated state-by-state, instead of federal -- regulated state- by-state, instead of federal. >> we had and richards -- ann

richards. i can talk like this if we have to. we had richards and hutchison. don't forget that there was a top-level person as a woman. now, i think if you look at the research that we have done, is interesting to see -- if you ask people if it is important to them to have a woman, the percentage of hispanics and blacks is much higher, men and women, in those minority communities say that it is important. wendy davis will be determined by the turnout in those communities.

not because, necessarily, they are democratic. but, because those two, african- american and hispanics, and much higher percentages, say it is better to have a woman in office. i think that outsiders tend to support outsiders, anyway. -- in a way. >> senator warren's mentor any senate is bob corker from tennessee. what would you say is the role that men play in how women become political? >> that was the point that i was making and i did not close that comment properly. it is important that men mentor women, as well. they have a critically important role to play it does, in many cases, women do not have role

models in the positions that they need to travel. if you need to go in a place where no woman has gone before you need male mentors to get their. -- there. we need to talk about the importance of mentoring women. >> hello. it is truly inspirational to be in front of you today. i'm the student government president for college. i wondered that if you are in college today, i'm sure that was not long ago, what would you be doing to have more equal pay for women? what can we today as college students? >> asking for it. i mean, it is true that

sometimes we are so grateful to get a job, a summer job, a part- time job, it is asking for it and the most mega-form is to point out how important it is. if women were paid equal he to the man -- equally to the men, there'll be $200 billion more in economy every year and that would be a greatest economic stimulus to this country. much better than giving it to the banks. we will not put a swiss bank account. we will spend it and create jobs. to do the micro and the macro at the same time. >> i should add that edward murphy was in this audience. what are the key points is that women do not negotiate and they

just accept whatever is offered to them. at a something that has to change. -- that is something that has to change. simmons is one of the top negotiators for women. >> this is for all of you. what advice would you give to young girls to help them repair to contribute to the world? >> i have something. the head of girl scouts is here and i learned that in eastern massachusetts, there are 40,000 girl scouts and there are 12,000 people working with them. that is almost 60,000 people strong. what a force!

i would say to every girl, join that force. >> the girl scouts. >> i was a girl scout. >> i was a girl scout. >> were you a girl scout? >> i don't want to brag, but i still more cookies. -- sold more cookies. >> a few things involving women are practical, productive, and indecisive. what are the things that i have done through my young adult life is be more decisive and stand firm for what i believe in. i learned about a topic in college, the gray area between right and wrong, left and right.

coming upon that realization, i realized that i, myself, am a bisexual woman. [applause] i have looked ahead to become more political. the pushback that i get is that, you do not understand your place, left or right, right or wrong, men or women. how do we, as women, were thoughtful, try to take in as many opinions as possible, try to survey the land, had we stand firm in these decisions that we make we are often pushed to choose a side? i am also registered as an independent. as you can see, i struggle with how i can make a stand in the world and feel it there is no place.

>> we spoke about the liabilities in being a woman. the point that you are raising is not a liability. it is one of the innate and intrinsic assets of being a woman. we are deliberate, thoughtful, we consider the cumulative -- sort of all of our experiences and apply that to the situation. what is right is your personal truth. if you say that you care more about electoral victories than a moral victory, the fact that i fought for increased access to condoms, for many people that is not moral. i had to stay true and on that. -- own that. there are many who sure that truth and will coalesce around you.

i challenge you to recognize that is a male-dominated culture and we should not feel pressured to contribute in the same way that men do. we should not try to assimilate and all and how they lead. that is what is -- and own how they lead. that is what is different about us. >> if you look at our political discourse, there is so much polarization. people are sure that they are right on both sides and our political discourse would be balanced by people like you, who see truth in both sides and people like you can build the bridges that we need. >> thank you. that was the right answer. >> thank you. we are coming to the end. >> all right.

the question i have for you is i know the lawyer was talking about operating at a macro and micro level at the same time. my personal level, something that i find difficult, what about what i want to see in the world and how to find my place i trace the micro to the macro and he gets overwhelming to talk to tweak them and see where my place is where i can add leverage to operate at the micro level. i wonder if any of you have thoughts on that? >> the little picture is the building block. many philosophers have failed because they thought the end justifies the means. in fact, the means are the ends. the china means we choose our the end we achieve.

i find it helpful to think about that. to live in the present and say let's behave as if everything we do matters and let's instill our values and everything we do. >> i wish we would require that anyone in a policy-making position would have to of had grassroots experiences. we have no right to be making policies for people we have not worked with and lived with. [applause] >> let me apologize. you are the last question from the audience. thank you -- >> thank you. i can attest to being told to

smile more and i'm an outsider to the boston political world. how do you think we can change the political landscape in boston to increase political power to other minority groups? i think it is a problem. >> that is a big, big question. it is a big question. the simple answer is demonstrated in your proud example right here. you cannot change laws until you change people's minds. the benefit of the power and diversity is to shift and elevate the discourse and the dialogue.

everyone benefits from that. what is getting in the way -- sometimes we get in our own way, let me just say that -- is the stereotype of candidates neighborhoods, and voters. we have to stop that. when i ran the first time, again, people cap recycling my political resume and who i work for. they didn't want me to tell the story of being raised by a single parent. they did not want me to talk about being a survivor of sexual violence and abuse. they felt that to the electorate, i would stereotype and pigeonhole myself. my story is a normal life story for many people. they make an assumption of who that story will resonate with. you can change minds when you

have a diversity of perspective and we challenge all of ourselves collectively to not stereotype. >> thank you. [applause] >> i'm would ask you to thank our panel and we have one more thing. we are going to thank them now. [applause] thank you. thank you, panel. >> stand up. >> wow! >> goodness gracious! [applause]

>> pretty amazing. >> it has been a rich and textured dialogue. we will bring it to a close with a woman who is become become political. >> wow, what an honor to be here this evening. gloria, i have followed you this entire career. we have had some important discussions from inspirational leaders. politics affects everything.

i'm honored to be here to address you tonight. in my career, i am frequently the only woman at the table. now i am the head of the table. [laughter] [applause] i brought an awful lot of other women to that table. when i first decided to enter politics it was one of the hardest choices i ever made. with so many challenges, i have been asked many times to run for office. i said i couldn't afford it. as you here tonight, women still face these challenges. women are considered to be too emotional and not good candidates for public office. i do not have a problem having a tear in my eye when something affects me. women will not be able to make

the tough decisions. take a look at the decisions i have made. women are held to a very different standard than men. this is not ok. this is where i have been fighting against my entire career. i know what it is like to be the only woman at the table. it is very difficult. i will admit that i was hesitant to run for office until i decided that it was time for a change. when i first was sworn into the senate in 1993, i was only the 16th woman ever elected to the massachusetts senate since 1790. pretty disgusting, isn't it? [laughter] when i was elected president of the senate in 2007, i am the first woman ever to be elected to lead a legislative body in massachusetts. [applause] today, only about 25% of our

legislature consists of women. the number has only grown to 13 in the senate. this is not just the problem of massachusetts. only 18% of the 535 seats in congress are made up of women. there is not enough progress. we need to do everything we can to encourage and support women who are dreaming of running for office. those who are fema legislatures have to set an example for future generations of women i showing them that it can be done. when i was head of the national women's project, i always said when you go through the door that you pushed open, don't close it behind you. keep it open. [applause] the bottom line is, women deserve to be in office. it is not because of the fact that they are women. but they are just as qualified

and hard-working as men. too many young woman did not feel they have enough credentials to run. you heard that tonight. they resign themselves to be content in the background. often behind men. a similar who've achieve the level of public office have begun their careers later in life, later than they would have liked. any more women want take the initiative to run unless they are directly asked many times. consider this my official request to you. we need you to get involved. work the candidates. support a woman candidate. be a woman candidate. ron the school committee. act locally. act nationally. call your representatives. weigh in on issues of concern. all issues are women's issues. the time to make this decision to get involved is not in a few months or years. it is now. when the makeup over -- women

hold 52% of the sky. we do. it is our turn to lead the city and towns. it is our turn to leave the state in the nation. it is your turn to do it now. well behaved women rarely make history. get out there and misbehave. thank you. thank you all for being here. [applause] >> good night. ♪♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> more from our q&a series. dr. tom because of growth is ceo of the cleveland clinic. he talks about the debate over health care. looking at some of our prime time programming across the networks, tonight we will show you president lyndon johnson speech to the nation following the assassination of john kennedy. a discussion on the use of genetics and forensics in the criminal justice system. and on c-span three, clinton administration intelligence gathering and policymaking during the 1992-1995 bosnian war. >> the 60s were different.

there were a lot of things happening involving race. i was out of the seminary and in new england. there were no rules. things were falling apart. without structures, it is difficult to navigate. i was extremely fortunate. to have a residuum of the way i was raised. i was also extremely fortunate because i had already been in predominantly white schools. i was the only black kid in my high school. the transition to a school with very few blacks in a different set of circumstances, i had a jumpstart.

i was ahead of the game. i had something. it allowed me to continue to do well, even though it was difficult. >> thanksgiving on c-span. hear from to some -- hear from two supreme court justices. on c-span three the 150th and her bursary of the gettysburg address. james mcpherson commemorates the 10 sentences lincoln spoke of the dedication at gettysburg. >> potential presidential candidate rand paul said former secretary of state ellery clinton should be disqualified from running for president because of the benghazi affair. he made the remarks at the citadel in south carolina.

his comments are 25 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you, thank you. i understand you guys have a big game on saturday. who is going to win? all right, all right. i'm glad to see there is no debate on that. it is an honor to be with you today at the citadel. i want to thank general rosa for inviting me and having me at the citadel. i went to knowledge the chairman of the board and cadet colonel colin hicks, resident -- regimental commander. on a more serious note, some of

you may one day be called to defend your country. if you choose to serve, you will do it willingly, as a volunteer. our military is second to none and our excellence stems from having professionals who serve voluntarily. since 1843, cadets like yourselves have been coming from the citadel and answering your nation's calling. of last year's class, 40% of you chose to serve and accepted commissions in the armed forces. you will serve, if you do, bravely and with purpose. you follow in the footsteps of graduates like colonel myron harrington in the u.s. marine corps, citadel class of 1960 who during the tet offensive in 1968 lead a courageous assault against a heavily fortified

anomie stronghold, disregarding extreme personal danger. he led his marines in overrunning the enemy position. or that access -- action, and all harrington received the navy cross, the second-highest military award for valor in combat. colonel harrington is with us today, and i would like to thank him for his service. all of us should thank him for his service and his bravery. [applause] some people in washington think war is a chess game. you can ask colonel harrington he would tell you differently. those of us in washington must make decisions. you will fight the wars, but we have to make decisions about whether we go to war. we owe you something. we are you something i think is sometimes lacking in washington. we owe you a full and proper

consideration of the pros and cons of war. we owe it to you to follow our constitution and for congress to debate and authorize all wars. we owe it to you to clearly show our national interest before we go into war. we'll it to you to have a sound strategy and an achievable goal, and most of all, an exit plan so we don't get stuck in quagmires from decades on in. above all, we should demand a formal declaration of war before we ask you to risk and ask our soldiers to risk their blood and their lives. i have taken an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies. i consider the primary and foremost duty of the federal government to defend america defend our bill of rights, and defend our god-given liberties. as a senator, i will, if i have to, not hesitate to vote for war. if war is needed to defend the

united states. once war is declared, it is the duty of a commander-in-chief to fight safely and execute victory. america can't shrink from its role in the world. we have been, and should continue to be, a shining example of god and at times a superpower -- good, and at times a superpower of last resort to maintain peace and prosperity -- prosperity. america must be engaged with the world, diplomatically, commercially, and when necessary, militarily. but to be engaged is not always to be -- does not mean always to be engaged in war. reagan believed in peace through strength. his defense secretary, caspar weinberger, insisted that war occur only as a last resort, only when a vital national interest was at stake, and only when our objective was complete victory. for inspiration and guidance, i often look to america's greatest military leaders.

some of our best observations on war and diplomacy come from the president who is one of our most decorated generals, dwight eisenhower. in david nichols' book, he writes that ike believed with good reason that once the violence begins, everything changes and you can throw your plans in the trash. it is too bad war in washington more in washington don't heed his advice today. in egypt we recently saw a military coup that this administration says was not a coup. in a highly unstable situation our government continues to stand at-16's and tanks and american-made teargas to egypt when it was against the law. my guess is those protesting for freedom in egypt who were on the receiving end of tear gas made in pennsylvania don't harbor warm, fuzzy feelings about us.

before helping the generals, we send billions of dollars in aid to a government they just overthrew. the president morsi and the muslim brotherhood. before that, we send billions in planes and tanks to hosni mubarak, a dictator we called our ally. common sense tells us we should not be sending dictators or the muslim brotherhood our money our treasure. common sense tells us that we should not be delivering advanced weaponry into unstable situations where the outcome is completely unpredictable. i will tell you one thing. one thing of which i am certain. we should not be sending foreign aid to nations that burn our flag. without question, it is a mistake. [applause]

in 2012, i introduced a bill in the senate that calls for holding -- halting the transport of weapons to egypt, pakistan, and libya. in february i introduced an amendment that would have prevented the shipment of weapons to the muslim brotherhood. i think the american people are with me. they realize we have limited resources and should not be sending weapons to people who hate us. but the senate defeated this legislation. this past summer i introduced another bill to prevent the sale of weapons to egypt after the military coup. it is what the law says. we should not even require another bill. u.s. law states all foreign aid must be suspended when the military -- when there is a military coup. what did this administration do? it simply pretends there is not a coup and continues to send weapons and arms egypt. in egypt, the regimes keep changing but our system of foreign aid stays the same. after several months of ignoring the law, finally the president did, the obama administration finally agreed to stop military

aid. i say, too little, too late. we are either a nation of laws or we are not. unlike eisenhower and earlier generations, we too often don't think before. many in washington do things in foreign policy to accomplish short-term goals but ultimately hurt our national interest and our allies. as we continue to aid and arm this product regimes -- despotic, we are aiding rebels in syria. according to a recent poll, 70% of americans are against arming islamic rebels in syria, yet the administration continues to arm these islamic rebels. this is unacceptable. the assad regime is no friend of ours, no friend of freedom, but it doesn't mean the enemy of our enemy is always our friend. there are many rebel groups in syria, including extremist groups such as al qaeda.

they are eager to send weapons they want not fall into the arms of the enemy. does anybody believe that? we have trouble telling friends from foe in afghanistan. 100 of your fellow soldiers have died from friendly fire, from people we can figure out whether they are friend or foe in afghanistan. you think we will be able to figure out the difference in syria? it is 1000 fold more competition. even our joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey, says it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell friend from foe in syria. what eisenhower buy into this nonsense? regardless, the united states government should not, even if indirectly, the arming al qaeda. this administration is currently moving ahead with plans to do precisely that, without any authorization. i will not get a vote. the president just as he will

arm the syrian rebels. how can we ask our brave young men to fight around the world against al qaeda while in some countries actually arming al qaeda? it makes no sense. i, for one, am not inclined to make america the air force for al qaeda. there is the very real possibility that these weapons may be used against 2 million christians. 2 million christians that live in syria, protected by assad. we have no legitimate national interest in syria. it is certainly not in our interest to arm extremists who may one day use those weapons against americans or to kill christians within their country. why do we armed dictators and the muslim brotherhood? why do we arm allies of al qaeda and in danger questions -- christians? why do we reward pakistan as they continued to imprison the man who helped us catch bin laden? he was given 30 years in prison. i say, no more aid to pakistan unless they release them. this administration keeps

sending good money after bad. the first and primary function of our government is a strong national defense, bar none. [applause] but so much of what we do in washington today is more like an irrational offense. how do sending foreign aid to egypt, syria, pakistan help national security? does it make us stronger, less likely, more likely to get drawn into some war in the middle east? in egypt, they burn our flag. i say, not one penny more. in egypt a mob was on top of our embassy and almost got our embassy. where was the egyptian military to defend our embassy? it is inexcusable. we used to do -- opposing the market -- muammar gaddafi.

responsible for the lockerbie bombing, killed american school kids. then, someone decided to make him an ally. member said, let's give qaddafi weapons. interestingly, the same members said not much later, supporting money to the rebels to overthrow qaddafi. which is it? why are we arming both sides. a year later, we have a tragedy in libya where our ambassador and other diplomats are murdered in the streets of benghazi. was this done by some of the rebels we assisted in overthrowing gaddafi? why did we ever get involved with this? why did we ever help gaddafi? most importantly, when hillary clinton was asked for more security, she turned ambassador down. under cross examination, i asked her, "did you read the cables?"

she said someone beneath her should have been reading those cables. i find it a clear dereliction of duty. i find it a dereliction of duty, a clear dereliction of duty. she wants to blame it on somebody else. it is absolutely a responsibility, and her failure to revive the ambassador and his mission with advocate security should preclude hillary clinton from ever holding high office again. [applause] amidst the chaos in the middle east, we have always had one friend, a friend that never leaves our side, israel. as an ally, israel has never wavered. one thing you can know for sure and i visited there -- you will never see an israeli burning an american flag. america has never backed down from a fight, but we should never be a nation that is eager to get involved in a fight.

the veterans i have talked to are not eager. when you have more veterans in congress, you are less likely to have war. president eisenhower said, i have one yardstick for which i test every major problem. that is, is a good for america? is our current foreign policy good for america? is our engagement or involvement in egypt, syria, pakistan, to our benefit or detriment? i think we must have the strongest military on earth. not because we are eager to use it, but because no one would ever dare to challenge us. i think reagan. it right when he said -- got it right when he said, as are the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is our highest aspiration. we will negotiate for it. we will sacrifice for it. but we will not surrender for it. now or ever. our forbearance should not be misunderstood, our reluctance

for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. when action is required to preserve our national security we will act. we will maintain sufficient strength to avail if need be knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength. there is probably no clear or disposition of what it means to have peace through strength. for our countries -- country's sake, for our soldiers'sake for every veteran that ever fought for his country or her country america's mission should always be to keep the peace, not police the world. an america that does not seek to be involved in every conflict around the world would do things that make us safer. we could modernize and strengthen our military. in a few weeks, i will be announcing a task force to do just that, to bring together great minds from our national defense and put forward a plan to modernize our military so we

have the most modern, highly technological, highly capable military and strengthen our defenses. we will begin by an audit of the pentagon. not because i dislike the military. because i like the military. i want to cut out waste and fraud and make the military stronger and direct the resources where they need to go. but it means you have to have the strength to look even at military spending and say, nobody gets a blank check. with the savings for modernization and a more reasonable foreign policy, we will do something we are failing at right now. we will make and take better care of our nation's greatest resource, our servicemembers. we will train them better, i quit them better, fit -- fix a broken v.a. system. as a physician, when i visited walter reed i was profoundly impacted by the young men and women there. close in age to my own kids, receiving care for injuries sustained in battle. it reinforces my worldview about the need to prevent conflict

unless it is absolutely necessary. those injured in our most recent conflicts in iraq and afghanistan will require a lifetime of care. we must work together to provide for that, to protect those who protected us. [applause] we must be more prudent in our foreign policy. eisenhower was right to observe that the wars can lead to big wars. reagan was right that america's purpose is to promote peace through strength. reagan once said, above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of a free free men and women. it is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. we do ourselves no favors when we ate our enemies, when we aid

the enemies of freedom around the world. america has always stood tall as a shining beacon of hope and freedom to the world. america's guiding light is made possible by those willing to wield the sword and the shield unwavering, steadfast. the american soldier, a volunteer in defense of liberty. for you we are grateful, for your service and your sacrifice. thank you very much. [applause] thank you.

>> thank you, senator paul, for those inspiring remarks. we have time for three questions from the corps cadets. instead of the normal practice of bringing the microphone to you, we ask you come to the microphone located on the floor. >> good morning, senator. i am cadet logan morris and vice president of our society of libertarians. i would like to ask you, what is the number one issue facing america in the coming years, and how can the republican party combat this issue9 is -- issue? like it is the debt. people say your generation will inherit the debt. it is already a problem. i economists say the burden of debt right now is costing one million jobs a year. while some of you will serve in the military, 60% of you will be looking for jobs. there are do not jobs because of the burden of debt. there are to nudge him because we are over-tax and overregulated. -- not enough jobs because we are over-taxed and overregulated.

we need a smaller federal government and larger private economy. [applause] >> thank you, senator. >> cadet john vogel -- fogel. you talked a lot about dwight eisenhower. our first president, george washington, was also a military commander. but in the constitution we believe the military should be headed by a civilian. how do you feel about the importance of military service in presidents past and future? >> one of the things i mentioned, the more people we have who have been in combat or in the military service in the government, it is interesting that during those times when people look at it, we were less likely to be involved in war. if you talk to some of our bravest soldiers, they would probably say that they are not eager for war. we need to have a certain

reluctance for war. people who have been involved in combat are more circumspect than people who have never fought. is it a prerequisite for serving or being president? no, i don't think it is. it is useful to have many people involved. the idea of having civilians is very important. even when we elected a general like eisenhower, we are like today civilian. it makes as different than other countries. you see other countries led by generals. they are usually autocracies totalitarian regimes. something i'm very worried about, having an active duty military person. i think our tradition is very good that we separate civilian from the military. >> thank you, sir. [applause] >> this will be our last question. >> senator paul, on the subject of holding the current administration accountable, do you think we should pursue incidents such as ping ghazi -- what -- benghazi -- what do you think the final outcome should be?

>> yes -- it is my opinion, and this is an opinion that needs to be supported by interviewing those involved, it is my opinion that i cannot believe that a military commander did not send reinforcements. i fully believe that in thing ghazi -- benghazi a politician was involved, i will not name any names, but someone was involved in the decision. there was a lot of discussion going on that night. there is some debate whether they have gotten from italy. they were still soldiers in tripoli. i know a lot of of you are from military families. if you have ever known someone involved, marines, army, or otherwise, they rescue their dad, their wounded. there were still people alive and fighting for hours upon hours, and there were some people in tripoli who could have gone. i don't think that decision was made by a military person. i think it was made ultimately by a politician, and i think we

need to know that. so i think everybody needs to be interviewed. they need to come in, and the question needs to be asked, who was it that made the decision not to send soldiers from tripoli to reinforce those under attack in benghazi? to my mind, we should never have a commander-in-chief who is unwilling to send in troops for reinforcement or in the six- month time, did not send adequate security when it was asked for repeatedly. to me, that should preclude you from ever holding the high office. [applause] >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senator paul, for coming to the siddall -- citadel. as a token of our appreciation i present you with something that has a great deal of symbolism for this institution. a picture of one of our most identifiable icons. [applause]

that concludes our program. please join me in one more round of applause for senator paul. [applause] i ask everyone to please rise or remain in your places while our speaker and special guests depart. upon dismissal, cadets are to return to the barracks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> join us later today for more from our q&a series. dr. toby cause grove is president and ceo of the cleveland clinic and talks about the ongoing debate in health care -- dr. toby cosgrove. looking at some of our prime time programming across the c- span networks, tonight at 8:00 eastern, we show you president lyndon b. johnson's speech to the nation following the assassination of president kennedy. on c-span3 clinton administration intelligence gathering and policymaking during the 1992 through 1995 azmi and more -- bosnian war. next, a discussion assessing the agreement reached last weekend

concerning iran's nuclear program and current sanctions against the country. speakers include the former assistant deputy secretary for iran. it's an hour and 10 minutes. >> thank you for braving the weather and the pre-pre-holiday traffic to join us tonight or what i'm sure will be a fascinating discussion. before we begin, i would like to take a couple of minutes of your time to take -- to talk about some upcoming events and about the council year-end campaign which begins next week. on december 4, the town so hosts dr. henry kissinger for a luncheon at the fairmont hotel. dr. kissinger's topic will be the a ship hit it -- asia pivot strategy.

also on december 4, the council's annual international holiday affair. we will be honoring the ambassador of rozelle and his diplomatic team at the 2014 global education gala in march -- the ambassador of brazil. this kicks off what will be an extended series of activities with brazil in the coming years. the annual giving campaign gets going next week, and i invite you to consider supporting the international and affairs and global education program especially our programs with high school teachers and students to bring a much-needed global education into our classrooms. there are many ways you can help . become a sponsor of our global education program, sponsor one teacher or one student or tend to attend one of our events, or

the easiest of all, and i hope one that everyone here who shops online will consider, if you purchase items on amazon.com, please do so via our website. go to our homepage, click on the icon for amazon, and shop as usual. we will receive 3% of every purchase. it's seamless anonymous, and it really helps, and it is no additional cost to you. i thank you for considering support of the world affairs council in these ways. before adam gives us the signal that we are ready to begin, let me remind you that this rogue ram is being filmed for c-span and for later broadcast -- this program is being filmed for c- span and for later broadcast. please turn off your phone at this time. welcome to the world affairs council, washington, d.c.. i am president of the council and on behalf of the board of directors and advisory committee, i welcome you here this evening to our foreign

policy series discussion on the recently signed interim agreement between iran and the p5 plus germany and geneva. we have gathered a distinguished panel of experts who will walk us through what just happened and what may lie ahead. headlines during the last 48 hours have run the entire spectrum from victory for iran and historic mistake to obama achieves historic measure. most comments have followed what has become a redeemable republican/democrat divide, but recent polls indicate that nearly 2/3 of all americans support an agreement with iran at would lift sanctions for iran in return for tehran restricting its nuclear program. what is undeniable is that there are many layers to this cake and we look forward to hearing from our panelists as they discuss whether the agreement brings new hope for nuclear negotiations with iran or

further disappointment. our panelists are no strangers to the world affairs council audiences. we welcome back all three. ambassador john bloomberg is professor at the united -- professor of international affairs at the united states naval academy -- ambassador john limbert. he served in tehran at the u.s. embassy where he was held captive during the iran hostage crisis. his last postings at state were as dean of the forest institute language studies. dr. trita parsi is the founder and president of the national iranian american council and author of two books "treacherous alliance," which won the silver medallion from the n foreman mutations, and "a single roll of the dice," which

was selected by foreign affairs as the best book of 2012 on the middle east. our moderator is a washington correspondent and a senior fellow at the atlantic council where she focuses on iran. she is a regular commentator on u.s. foreign policy and iran. she is the author of the 2007 book "bitter friends, bosom enemies." ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our panel. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you for coming out on a cold and nasty night, but i think the news of this past weekend is sufficient enough to pique everyone's interest. i guess you will have to do another book called "another roll of the dice" or "several roles of the dice."

we put out a report last march that made a number of recommendations, and i'm very pleased to say it appears that people were listening. if you go back and look at that report, you will see that the agreement that was reached and some of the other measures that were part of this agreement were all recommendations of the atlantic council task force. enough of a commercial for our efforts. i promised i would play devil's advocate a little bit because as you will see, i think we generally agree that this is a positive development. let me briefly sketch some of the main elements of the deal. iran stops producing uranium that is enriched to 20%. this is very close to weapons grade. iran will stop it and take the stockpile and has an turn it into a form that cannot easily be made into weapons. this puts time on the clock in terms of whether iran could break out and make a nuclear weapon. iran also will stop most of its

work at a place called arak, which is a heavy water reactor. if completed, it could yield plutonium in its spent fuel, and iran has basically agreed to pause on this as well for six months. iranians are not going to add any new centrifuges to the 10,000 that are spinning away. they are going to give the international atomic energy agency daily access to their enrichment facilities. right now, the iaea gets to go about once a week. i understand there will also be remote monitoring cameras installed. at least according to one account. more transparency and limits on the program and turning the stock piles into less dangerous forms. the iranians will continue to enrich uranium to five percent -- 5%. they say they will not increase their stockpile. they will take their excess and turn it into again at how to

form, a form that cannot be readily turned into weapons, but they will still have a stop aisle, which could give them a half dozen nuclear bombs -- but they will still have a stockpile . putting on my hat is the devil's advocate here, this agreement does not force iran to dismantle a single centrifuge or enrichment plant -- i'm sorry, you cannot hear? do you hear me now? do you hear me now? ok. everybody else seems to be able to hear me. i thought i was talking in a loud enough voice, but let me continue. to play devil's advocate, this agreement does not oblige the iranians to dismantle a single centrifuge or take apart any of their nuclear infrastructure. what it does is it pauses the program, and it events iran from

continuing to advance -- prevents iran from continuing to advance to the point where it could make nuclear weapons. the united states and the rest of the perm five and germany are supposed to negotiate an agreement with iran that will be more long-lasting. although how long-lasting is something that is not clear. my general take from this is that this is an excellent first step. i think the reason why i'm pleased about it is because it resulted from the most intensive one-on-one negotiations between the united states and iran that we have seen since the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when we did have such talks. those of you who have read my book know that we did have such talks with the iranians after 9/11 for about a year and a half. however there were more talks this time. they were at a higher level

between our deputy secretary of state and others from the iranian government, and the result is certainly historic. we have not seen an agreement like this ever between the united dates and the islamic republic of iran. if it works it means we may see progress on other issues in the middle east where iran has taken a different side from the united states and we may begin to see real progress on bilateral relations between the u.s. and iran. if it fails, though, it will be an enormous disappointment, and we will hear not only u.s. congress calling for more sanctions, but we will hear the israelis, prime minister netanyahu talking about military action against iran. hopefully all of you can hear me. that's where we are now. i want to turn to our very excellent speakers. first to trita parsi because trita was in geneva for this

round -- actually two rounds, so he really knows what the drama was like, what the tdm was like, and can set the scene of how this came about. was it because of the personalities of john kerry and the iranian foreign minister? was it because of the back channel work of no burns? was it because of wendy sherman and baroness ashton? you tell us. >> thank you. it is a great pleasure being here. it is always a great pleasure to be here with my two good friends who i owe both quite a lot to when it comes to understanding this issue. you did not play that much of a devil's advocate, i think. you were quite positive about this deal, and rightly so in my view. it was a very interesting atmosphere in geneva. the last day was actually quite tough. there were some long moments where a large number of journalists were actually sitting in the lobby of the

intercontinental hotel in geneva as negotiators were on some of the upper floors, and they were starting to get a sense that this may actually not work out. in the beginning, i think the vast majority were quite optimistic for a very simple reason -- the cost of failure is so great for both sides. there is a symmetric situation in the sense that neither side can feel particularly comfortable walking away inking "even if there is no deal we are in a pretty good situation here cup -- situation." because of the difficulty for the rouhani government to retain the current position that they have, if they cannot deliver on negotiations, they have presented themselves -- and i think rightly so -- to be dramatically different from ahmadinejad's crowd, and to be able to handle diplomacy and a

sophisticated way, but they need to be two to tango, and if they could not tango, they would not be able to get some of the sanctions released that they were looking for, which means the economy would continue to suffer. at some point within the next year or year and a half, much of the popular support for the president would be lost, which would eliminate his real leverage within the in the. ultimately i think we know that very well over here -- once the proclamation -- once the population grows disillusioned with the idea or the hopes the president puts forward, the support amongst the population tends to erode, and this will definitely happen to the iranians at some point to the rouhani team if they could not get a deal. from the president's perspective, if there is not a deal, if they actually finally made a real effort, a determined effort at diplomacy and still, they could not get to it, then the arguments that diplomacy had been exhausted would for the first time, actually carry some degree of truth in it.

that would create a scenario in which the voices in favor of military action would quadruple. the president just had a very bad experience trying to push for war, and he got quite a lot of pushback from the population. this would certainly not be a route he would like to go down again, but more importantly this is not a winnable war, and this is a president who kind of got a nobel peace prize on credit. now he is looking for an opportunity to create a legacy. if you are now looking around the middle east and asking yourself which one issue could i potentially get some success on in the next year, two years and a half before i have to leave office to at least leave some sort of a legacy, something positive, paradoxically, iran is now the lowest hanging fruit in the middle east. syria is a disaster.

israel-palestine is always not looking particularly good iran has a process of success. that is one of the major factors as to why the president has committed political will and his own name towards this process in a way that he has not done since he took office. that is why they are creating a genetically different situation than has ever had existed. it did not mean that it was easy. the talks were supposed to end friday but they continued on to saturday. that is when john kerry showed up. a lot of