Forget the specifics of Clinton's weepy moment. It's clear that her whole approach in New Hampshire was geared around appearing more humble and vulnerable. It was an inspired calculation — for whatever reason, Americans have this urge to draw blood from Clinton and she finally let herself be seen bleeding a little.

Here's the tricky part — that's in no way antithetical to endorsement by working-class New Hampshireans. In fact quite the opposite. Although Joan Walsh claims that such people are "normally no fool for a watery-eyed wealthy white woman," that's an assertion that doesn't fit the observed behavior of American voters — of all stripes.

We are a profoundly emotional people, highly susceptible to drama in our public life, and the story of the know-it-all goody-two-shoes who gets knocked around, learns a thing or two about life, and becomes a better person in the process is a fundamental trope in our national mythology. It's a huge part of who we all are. Of course it plays well — at least, as long as she can pull it off, which she has been able to so far.

To some extent the commander-in-chief thing is part of the same phenomenon — blanket trust in someone's character is going to translate to positive views across the board. There's something more going on there, though, which definitely bears closer examination.

I'm not certain that it's entirely about Clinton. It may say more about her rivals' lack of credibility in military matters — neither have served in the armed forces, and while Clinton hasn't also she kind of gets a pass on account of being a woman.

If Clinton is merely being seen as the least of evils there, though, that bodes poorly for the Democrats in general, since it points to that lingering, seemingly-indelible association of Democrats with lack of capability in managing military affairs.

So, my question is, why is attempting to stop people who want to form groups to build bombs a bad thing on its face? Free speech has never included intimidation, threats, or building bombs.

At first blush my take was the same as yours — "blah, blah, all of this is boilerplate stuff, nothing that most people don't already agree the government should have the power to investigate."

Except then I got to thinking about that. If going after some random terrorist group is already well within the limits of what our laws allow, why do we need new laws? That question prompted a closer reading of the text of the bill, and I think I have a better idea of where it's going.

Consider that what they want may be the ability to freely act against Muslim groups who are advocating terrorism under the guise of theology. People with such desires generally presume that merely by expressing and disseminating certain theological views, fundamentalists implicitly advocate violent struggle against liberal democracies, without ever saying so or needing to be caught actually building bombs or the like — an onerous requirement, goes the thinking, from a bygone era of boring old police work, due process, and other outdated concepts.

The problem, of course, is that America's "home-grown" terrorists have traditionally been white guys whose outlooks are Christian fundamentalist, Luddite, apocalyptic survivalist, or some other flavor of WASPy moral absolutism.

People turn to terrorism when they feel powerless or desperate in the face of implacable political systems that mean them harm. In the US that doesn't include Muslims — American Muslims are here, generally, because they or their ancestors fled the sectarian violence and oppression of the old world. They aren't ghettoized. They don't constitute a permanent underclass.

Foreign terrorist groups do operate here in the US, of course, and have for a century. Ever since the IRA fled to America to regroup, the US has been a shining beacon of fundraising and anonymity for Irish, Russian, Jewish, Central American, and Muslim terrorists/revolutionaries, who come here to train, relax, raise money, and plan for the day when they'll return to the old country to raise hell.

To the best of my knowledge (and I'd love to be corrected), not one of these foreign groups, with the possible exception of anarchists and even then I'm not sure they really count, have ever turned their ire on Americans. The only exception has been al Qaeda, and for 8 years, between 1993 and 2001, any attempts they made to operate in the US were smacked right down.

Using the laws, and law enforcement, that we already had.

So I have to ask about this new bill, who benefits? Is this some benighted excuse to be seen "doing something" about terrorism? Are we doing it for Israel? (I have no blanket objection to helping Israel, but if this is a crutch to their untenable security policy I don't think it really constitutes help.) Is Congress just twisting in the wind of nativist anti-Muslim hysteria?