You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com 
  
 Starts at 8:50. 
  
 U.S. presidential candidate Herman Cain is trying to recover from an embarassing stumble over the question of the Palestinian Right of Return on Sunday. 
  
  
  
 “Right of Return?,” Cain blankly asked twice in response to being questioned about the vital issue on "Fox News Sunday." The second or two of deafening silence that lasted before host Chris Wallace repeated “The Palestinian Right of Return” to the Republican hopeful seemed to last forever. 
  
  
  
 “That’s… something… that should be negotiated,” Cain finally said, to silence. Cain repeated himself before Wallace cut him off and explained what the Right of Return actually is. ||||| I have the occasional worry that Herman Cain, having never been elected to office before and with no real work in government in his career, may face a tough learning curve in some complicated areas of federal-government policy. 
  
 But the idea that he’s committed some sort of epic gaffe by not being familiar with the phrase “right of return” in the context of the Palestinians strikes me as pretty weak tea as far as campaign stumbles go. Some guy at the Atlanta Journal Constitution goes so far to declare that Cain “forfeit[s] any claim as a legitimate candidate” by not being familiar with the phrase “right of return.” The exchange: 
  
 CAIN: Right of return? Right of return? WALLACE: The Palestinian right of return. CAIN: That’s something that should be negotiated. When asked again about whether he believes in the Palestinian right of return, Cain seemed unclear about the Israeli position on the matter, as well as his own. CAIN: Yes, but under — but not under — Palestinian conditions. Yes. They should have a right to come back if that is a decision that Israel wants to make. . . . I don’t think they have a big problem with people returning. 
  
 (Right of return: The argument that Palestinians who departed territory that became part of Israel in 1948 and 1967 will be able to resettle on the land that was theirs or their ancestors’. In other words, should many, many Palestinians (millions) be permitted to settle on land Israel currently believes is its own territory?) 
  
 Most Americans don’t pay much attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are many reasons for this, but as a result, the notion that the president of the United States is primarily responsible for creating peace between two peoples who have been in a life-and-death struggle for centuries is held only by a small, but vocal, slice of the elites. According to Gallup, only 30 percent think there will ever be peace in the Middle East. 
  
 To the extent Americans think about the conflict, they have a clear favorite: According to Gallup, an entire 15 percent of Americans describe themselves as sympathizing more with the Palestinians than the Israelis; 63 percent describe themselves as sympathizing more with the Israelis. Among Republicans, 85 percent describe themselves as sympathizing with the Israelis more. It’s entirely possible that not knowing “right of return” will not cost Cain a single vote in the GOP presidential-primary process. 
  
 Note the reaction on the left — including sites like the spectacularly misnamed “Moderate Voice” — has been to declare that Cain is a “blithering idiot” based on this. (I’m sure “57 states” and “bitter clingers” were no big deals to these folks.) Over at ThinkProgress, commenters sneer that Cain is merely an ignorant pizza delivery guy. 
  
 And of course, it didn’t take long for this to crop up in the comments on Alan Colmes’ site: 
  
 “Shoeshine boy.” Because he disagrees with you. Why would we expect anything different? 
  
 All Cain’s comment did was reveal that he hasn’t given more than a moment’s thought to what the Palestinians — you know, the folks who elected Hamas to run their government and who danced on 9/11 — are demanding. I suppose that if you cling to the idea that only thing holding back peace in our time is a sufficient number of White House all-nighters on creative cartography, then yes, you would want a president familiar with “right of return” and the whole cavalcade of Palestinian demands. If you think the root of the problem is a culture that celebrates suicide bombers more than doctors and entrepreneurs, then this looks like small potatoes; all the presidential familiarity in the world with the “right of return” argument won’t make much difference. 
  
 You can have your president who has spent a great deal of time studying how to please the Palestinians. I’d much prefer a president who focused more on what Americans want. ||||| Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com" mce_href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a> 
  
 Herman Cain is a self-made black millionaire, perhaps by definition a successful businessman, and an energetic and charismatic figure. These are certainly things to recommend Cain, who officially got into the race Saturday, among the increasingly crowded field of Republican presidential hopefuls. 
  
 However, Cain's appearance on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace and left an impression of a man who needs better advisors, better information, and better answers if he wants to be a serious contender for the GOP nomination. 
  
 The first part of the discussion centered in dealing with American public debt. Cain offered "the Cain plan": pay the debt, pay the interest on the debt first. Make sure we take care of our military and their families. Make sure the people that are getting paid for Social Security checks that they get paid. And then, lastly, make sure that people's Medicare bills get paid, followed by cutting spending wherever possible. 
  
 Although superficial, this plan isn't ridiculous. The problem is that Cain was led by Wallace's questioning to conclude that "the Cain plan can't work now," because our government has waited too long to deal with the issues. That may or may not be true, but is a presidential candidate really beginning a Sunday talk show with a plan for America's biggest issue that he then says within two minutes "can't work now"? If it can't work, then why is it your plan? 
  
 A quick note on the discussion: Wallace asked Cain (though not in the form of a question) "That's going to mean a lot of serious cuts for people while paying we're paying the Chinese creditors first." Cain's response was partially correct: "Yes. If we don't pay the Chinese creditors first, the amount of interest we have to pay will go up. I am sure that there are penalties in there if we don't pay it on time." 
  
 I am not sure there are penalties as Cain describes; I really don't know, though I'd be surprised for the U.S. government or its creditors ever to have worried about default enough to put penalty provisions in our debt's terms. And Cain is right that not paying the debt would cause interest rates to go higher. 
  
 But Cain missed what I thought were a couple of big points: First, the implication that the decision about paying interest on our debt should consider as a factor which nation has lent us the money is reprehensible. It doesn't matter if the creditors are Americans, Chinese, or Martians. Nothing should come before paying our national debt obligations, just as nothing comes before bond holders in private finance (unless you're a bond holder of an automobile corporation during the Obama Administration in which case you come after the unions.) 
  
 If we didn't pay interest based on who it was we owed money to, few foreigners would ever loan us money again, meaning that interest rates would skyrocket and the U.S. economy would crater as the government had to borrow much more domestically. 
  
 The other point Cain missed was to call Wallace on his assertion that China owns a huge amount of our debt. One might thing based on the way Wallace and others talk that China owns a majority of the U.S. debt. As of the end of 2010, fifty-three percent of U.S. debt was owned by Americans, whether individuals, the Fed, pension funds, or other investment entities. Foreigners own less than half -- though not much less -- of our public debt. China itself owns 9.8 percent of the debt, Japan just behind at 9.6 percent, and then England just over 5 percent. 
  
 In other words, less than 10 percent of our interest payments go to China, and we have to stop allowing talking heads and politicians demagogue China for being willing to loan us money at low interest rates. Our government, not the Chinese, is the problem, and including a recognition of this would have made Cain's answer much better. 
  
 Wallace quoted Ben Bernanke, who said that interest rates would go up if we paid the debt but not certain other things. Cain said that Bernanke is "absolutely right." I think that's not right, or at least far enough from being proven to be called "absolutely right." It's entirely plausible that markets would see American budget cutting as the first bit of good financial judgment from the US in at least two decades and react by maintaining or even lowering current low rates. 
  
 I don't like Cain's support of a Fair Tax, though to be "fair" at least he seems to understand what he's supporting. (I much prefer a flat income tax.) Still, it's a difference of opinion and I don't hold it against him as much as these other items. 
  
 I was unimpressed with Herman Cain's response to Chris Wallace's question about the Palestinian "right of return." Cain clearly didn't understand what the term meant, and then when it was explained to him he gave a confusing answer. On the one hand, Cain did emphasize repeatedly and correctly that issues between Israel and the Palestinians must be negotiated between them and not by third parties. But the "right of return" is one of the three biggest issues in the debate (along with borders and the status of Jerusalem, with the former of course the biggest hurdle.) And Cain's statement that "I don't think they have a big problem with people returning" again shows an extremely superficial connection with a huge foreign policy issue. 
  
 Similar, and perhaps more disturbing, was Cain's response to a question about Afghanistan. It's not as if this is a new war that nobody's had time to think about. Cain didn't offer any substantive view of American strategy or tactics in Afghanistan, saying after repeated prodding "The right approach is: the day I'm elected president, I will start on that plan such that the day I was sworn in, I will be able to implement the plan." Wallace tried to follow up: "But that doesn't tell anybody what you're -- I mean, do you support counterinsurgency or counterterrorism?" Cain again dodged: "Chris, let's go back -- let's go back -- let's go back to the fundamental question. We've got to work on the right problem. I think it is disingenuous to tell the American people what I would do when I don't have the intelligence information. I don't have all of the factors that are affecting this particular situation." 
  
 In other words, the blandest of evasive talking points. If Cain were a front-runner, perhaps he could get away with something like this on an issue...on one issue. 
  
 But on Sunday, Herman Cain offered a plan that he says "can't work now", bought into important erroneous implications and claims by his questioner, showed a lack of understanding of an important Middle East issue, and then offered absolutely nothing about a war that last year became the longest war in American history. 
  
 I'm all for political novices, especially someone like Herman Cain (black, self-made, fairly charismatic) getting into major races. Although I do place some value on political experience when running for president, experience is less important than wisdom, intelligence, and judgment. Unfortunately, Herman Cain simply didn't demonstrate those things on Sunday. If Cain can't raise his game, and quickly, he'll soon be another also-ran among the Republican field. ||||| Did I mention that Herman Cain is not a legitimate candidate for president? 
  
 Last week, you may recall, Cain refused to reveal what his policy would be toward Afghanistan. We’ve been fighting there for almost a decade; more than 100,000 American soldiers are putting their lives on the line as we sit here, and Cain, a man who criticizes President Obama for not having a clear foreign policy, says he doesn’t want to “shoot from the lip” by suggesting what course this country should take next. 
  
 He says that once elected, he would talk to the experts and generals and come up with a plan about what to do. As I noted at the time, it’s the kind of answer Miss South Carolina might give in the beauty pageant Q&A. In fact, such a lack of preparation is downright disrespectful. Cain is offering himself as a potential commander in chief and asking people to take him seriously, yet the issue of American troops fighting and dying in a far-off land for almost a decade simply hasn’t been important enough to him to justify study and thought. 
  
 And then there’s this: 
  
 In his announcement speech Saturday, Cain accused President Obama of “throwing Israel under the bus.” On Sunday, Fox News put Cain on the air, sitting him down for an interview with Chris Wallace: 
  
 Cain has clearly never encountered the term “right of return,” a phrase familiar to anyone who has done even 20 minutes of research into the Middle East conundrum. He does not know that the Palestinian claim of a “right of return,” if implemented, would mean hundreds of thousands if not millions of Palestinians now living elsewhere would be allowed to return to live in what is now the heart of Israel. He proudly claims that he would offer the Palestinians nothing, yet in saying that the right of return is something to be negotiated, he offers them everything, right down to the destruction of Israel. Yet in that ignorance, he feels qualified to assert what he calls “the Cain doctrine” regarding the Middle East. 
  
 I’m sorry. You forfeit any claim as a legitimate candidate if you do not even know what the term “right of return” means. As with the Afghanistan issue, it reflects not merely a lack of knowledge, but even worse, a basic lack of interest and respect for the high office that he seeks and for the voters who support him. 
  
 Cain talks a lot about his business career. Well, any job candidate who walked into an interview as proudly ill-prepared as Cain would be bounced out the door immediately. 
  
 – Jay Bookman 
  
 UPDATE: Cain has issued the following “clarification”: |||||
Output:
Herman Cain, the GOP candidate for the 2012 presidential nomination and ex-CEO of Godfather's Pizza, showed a depressing knowledge gap yesterday when Chris Wallace asked him about the Palestinian "right of return" on Fox News Sunday. He "stumbled hard," reports Fox News, and twice haltingly called it "something ... that should be negotiated." A few reactions: Though he did share some accurate points on the Middle East, Ross Kaminsky writes for The American Spectator, the gaffe "shows an extremely superficial connection with a huge foreign policy issue." Even harsher, Jay Bookman for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution says Cain has forfeited "any claim as a legitimate candidate. ... As with the Afghanistan issue, it reflects not merely a lack of knowledge, but even worse, a basic lack of interest and respect for the high office that he seeks." Nonsense, writes Jim Geraghty over at Campaign Spot. "The idea that he’s committed some sort of epic gaffe ... strikes me as pretty weak tea." He continues: "Most Americans don’t pay much attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," and Republicans heavily favor the Israelis anyway, so even though the left is tearing into Cain, it's likely the 'gaffe' "will not cost Cain a single vote." Click for more on Herman Cain.