Hillary Clinton Deserves Credit for U.S. Role in Libya: View - Bloomberg

Hillary Clinton Deserves Credit for U.S. Role in Libya: View
By the Editors Sep 8, 2011

The unsung hero of the Libya drama in the U.S. is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s actions were critical for several reasons. Most important, she overcame Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s caution about using military force in Libya and his reluctance to support an operation led by France and Britain. Clinton also personally managed the unorthodox partnership with French President Nicolas Sarkozy that proved so crucial to joint action to defeat the Qaddafi regime.

Despite the unusual arrangement in which the U.S. was a supporter rather than a leader of NATO’s military operation, she defended intervention before a skeptical Congress and performed the hard slog of daily diplomacy around the world, helping Arab countries, the Europeans and the U.S. work together with a minimum of friction and a maximum of determination.

Aside from the killing of Osama bin Laden, the decision to support NATO military action in Libya is probably the Obama administration’s most important achievement in international affairs. Although Muammar Qaddafi is still at large and the country is a long way from having a stable, representative government, there is little doubt that the Qaddafi regime has been defeated as a result of an internal revolt led by the Transitional National Council. History will surely judge that, by intervening on the side of the rebellion, the West -- primarily the governments of France, the U.K. and the U.S. -- made a unique and invaluable contribution to the democratic aspirations of the people of the Middle East.
That said, the Obama administration’s decision-making process remains opaque. The veteran journalist Bob Woodward’s next book, due out in the fall of 2012, may shed some light on the question of whose voices were decisive this past March, when President Barack Obama decided to support a United Nations resolution and a NATO military operation for Libya.

Based on our discussions with administration officials, as well as the public record, some preliminary conclusions about the decision are possible. First, while we argued for a more active U.S. military role in NATO’s operation, it is now clear that Obama’s unprecedented approach -- in which Washington supported, rather than led, a NATO operation -- was successful in the end.

Second, by breaking with Gates, Clinton tipped the balance within the administration in favor of action. Without her strong argument to support the Europeans’ call for American help, Washington probably would not have acted. The president’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, was declaring freedom in Libya to be outside the U.S. national interest, and both military and civilian officials in the Pentagon were reluctant to endorse or even opposed U.S. intervention. But Clinton’s push for the U.S. to act in support of Britain and France appears to have been decisive.

In retrospect, the fears of Gates and other military officials that action in Libya would be a slippery slope, perhaps leading to U.S. involvement on the ground in a third war in the Middle East, seem wildly overblown. Obama said the U.S. would play a limited role by offering unique military assets, such as aerial refueling and air-defense suppression capabilities. Congress not only opposed sending in ground troops but mostly opposed any U.S. involvement. Obama wisely resisted.

For better or worse, the Libya model is not likely to be repeated anytime soon. This is not, as some say, because NATO will never again intervene in a situation like Libya’s. After the Kosovo war, many also said NATO would never again act against a dictator to save lives. The Libya model is no guide for the future because such a unique set of circumstances in favor of military action is not likely to happen again.

Think about the conditions: A despised dictator threatened mass murder; an open desert provided a decisive advantage for air power; a rebel army on the ground sought democratic change and espoused Western values; the UN at least loosely endorsed NATO air operations; the Arab League called for the West to intervene militarily in an Arab country; and U.S. allies prepared to do all the heavy lifting. Given those circumstances, it is still hard to explain why there were determined opponents, primarily in the Republican Party, to this mission in the first place.

Throughout most of Obama’s term in office, only a few administration officials have commanded respect and political power on national security matters: Clinton, Gates and General David Petraeus, the most decorated and admired officer of recent times. With Gates now gone and Petraeus in a non-policy role as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Clinton’s power will only increase as the president’s re-election campaign heats up. We hope she recognizes her opportunity and uses it well.

------------------------------------------------------

Now, could she try to run in 4 years time?

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

doubt it, I think she missed her chance and woulda been a better prez than obama but america had to have a man.......

__________________
Give unto Caesar that what is Caesar's, and lie like hell to keep as much of the rest of your shit as you can.

"If you want something said ask a man...if you want something done, ask a woman" Margaret Thatcher

She is a nasty piece of shit but she does seem to have more balls than him...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

I doubt she'd run, shes getting pretty old and shes still pretty polarizing.

At any rate, after the up and downs (mostly downs) in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years, you'd think people would be a bit more reserved in declaring victory in the middle east.

__________________
Righteousness will always be the trap at the gates of hell

Who else have the Dems got though? I can't say I'm among her greatest fans, but I do respect her, and it's difficult to imagine her or anyone being even more spineless than Obama.

Clinton Popularity Prompts Buyer?s Remorse - Bloomberg

Clinton Popularity Prompts Buyer’s Remorse
By John McCormick - Sep 16, 2011

The most popular national political figure in America today is one who was rejected by her own party three years ago: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans hold a favorable view of her and one-third are suffering a form of buyer’s remorse, saying the U.S. would be better off now if she had become president in 2008 instead of Barack Obama.

The finding in the latest Bloomberg National Poll shows a higher level of wishful thinking about a Hillary Clinton presidency than when a similar question was asked in July 2010. Then, a quarter of Americans held such a view.

“Looking back, I wonder if she would have been a stronger leader, knowing the games and the politics and all that goes on,” said Susan Dunlop, 50, a homemaker in New Port Richey, Florida. “I don’t think she would have bent as much.”

Clinton, 63, a former first lady and U.S. senator from New York, fought with Obama for the Democratic nomination until June 2008, in what was often a combative primary that included her questioning his presidential readiness.

While 34 percent say things would be better under a Clinton administration, almost half -- 47 percent -- say things would be about the same and 13 percent say worse.

“Some of her appeal is that she is not Barack Obama,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Des Moines, Iowa-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the Sept. 9-12 poll.

Obama’s Job Approval

Obama’s job approval rating stands at the lowest of his presidency, 45 percent, the poll shows.

Republicans are slightly more inclined than the national average to think the U.S. would be better off with Clinton running the country, with 39 percent saying so. A majority of Democrats -- 57 percent -- say things would be the same.

Clinton’s international sphere of influence offers some of the only areas where Obama scores well in the poll. On Libya, 42 percent approve of his job performance, while 65 percent like his efforts on terrorism, which include the May capture and killing of al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.

A plurality of Tea Party supporters -- 44 percent -- say the U.S. would be better off with Hillary Clinton as president, even though 59 percent of those respondents have an unfavorable impression of her.

“She’s a more stable person who gets results,” said Joseph Cherney, 67, a retired Republican automotive purchasing worker from Mineral Ridge, Ohio. “The president we have now isn’t much of a president because he really doesn’t do anything. He’s pompous and arrogant.”

Women’s Support

Women are no more or less likely to think the U.S. would be better off with Hillary Clinton at the helm than the rest of the population.

She is more likable to women, with 68 percent holding a favorable view, compared to 59 percent of men. All age groups hold favorable views of Clinton, although those 65 years and older are more fawning, with 68 percent in that group holding a favorable view.
Ninety percent of Democrats like Clinton, compared to 35 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of independents.

Those in the northeast U.S. are her biggest backers, with 77 percent there holding a favorable view, compared to 59 percent in the South and West and 64 percent in the Midwest.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee in 2008, does not enjoy quite as much wishful thinking among Americans about what he would have done with a presidency.

McCain Ranking

Twenty-nine percent say things would be better if McCain were president, while 28 percent say things would be about the same and 35 percent say the nation would be in worse shape.

McCain’s numbers are virtually unchanged from the July 2010 Bloomberg poll.
In a Sept. 4 interview on Fox News, former Vice President Dick Cheney praised Clinton as he speculated on whether the Democrats would have been better off if she had been nominated.

“I have the sense that she’s one of the more competent members of the current administration, and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president,” he said.

Clinton was asked about Cheney’s remarks and whether she had any interest in challenging Obama in a primary during a Sept. 9 interview on CNN.

“It’s below zero,” Clinton said, when asked about the chances of a challenge to Obama. “One of the great things about being secretary of state is I am out of politics. I am not interested in being drawn back into it by anybody.”

The Bloomberg poll of 997 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points on the full sample.

To contact the reporter on this story: John McCormick in Chicago at jmccormick16@bloomberg.net.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Hillary Clinton Over Biden for VP? Possible: Jonathan Alter
By Jonathan Alter Oct 14, 2011

Hillary Clinton Over Biden for VP? Possible: Jonathan Alter - Bloomberg

When does “no” not really mean no? When politicians say it. Reporters understand that if the circumstances are right, the answer can always change.

On Thursday, NBC News’s Savannah Guthrie asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the rumor du jour, that President Barack Obama might ask Clinton to swap jobs with Vice President Joe Biden. Clinton said, “I do not think it’s even in the realm of possibility and in large measure because I think Vice President Biden has done an amazingly good job.”
Of course that won’t end speculation about a Great Switcheroo, and not just because it falls short of “Shermanesque,” the standard General William Tecumseh Sherman set in 1884 when he said, “I will not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected.”
When Bob Woodward first claimed on CNN in late 2010 that such a switch was “on the table,” I was skeptical. In a profile of Clinton I wrote for Vanity Fair this year, I doubted her denials about running for president in 2016, but thought that a switch with Biden was outlandish.

Then I heard from an old Chicago friend of Obama’s that Woodward was right. Now, with the economy worse and the president as the self-described underdog, I’d say the odds are long -- but it’s definitely not impossible.

What It Takes

To understand why the idea of Clinton as Obama’s vice presidential candidate and Biden as secretary of state in a second Obama term isn’t just another far-fetched scenario cooked up by bored pundits, consider the DNA of the players.

Obama, Biden and Clinton would not want to do this. But like most politicians, they are genetically disposed to do “what it takes,” to quote the title of Richard Ben Cramer’s seminal campaign book, which included several chapters on Biden. “What It Takes,” published nearly 20 years ago, focused on the character traits necessary to survive a grueling campaign. The concept also applies to the decisions necessary for victory.
Obama, Biden and Clinton are on good terms with each other, and they view the stakes -- a possible conservative takeover of all three branches of government -- as extremely high.
If it’s clear that Democrats need to do something dramatic to avoid losing the White House, the Switcheroo will happen.

A Compelling Argument

Obama would swallow his pride and try to use wit to disarm attacks that he’s acting desperate, cynical and weak. He would admit publicly that he needs the help of both Clintons to restore the good economic times of the 1990s. The Democrats’ message would be: “Vote for Obama if you want the Clinton economy back. Vote for Romney if you want the Bush economy back.” That’s a compelling enough argument to make an imperiled president do something he would hate -- let Bill Clinton drag him over the finish line.
Biden would reluctantly agree because his consolation prize is a job he can truthfully argue he has coveted for 20 years. It would leave him less humiliated than incumbent vice presidents like Henry Wallace, whom Franklin D. Roosevelt dumped from the ticket in favor of Harry Truman in 1944, and Nelson Rockefeller, booted by Gerald Ford to make room for Bob Dole in 1976.

Clinton would say yes because she is dutiful to a fault and because everyone asked to be on the ticket for the last 40 years has accepted, with the exception of Colin Powell turning down Dole in 1996 and John McCain rebuffing John Kerry in 2004 (that’s how liberal McCain was then).

Job switches of this kind are hardly unprecedented. In 1985, Ronald Reagan arranged for Treasury Secretary Donald Regan and White House Chief of Staff James Baker to swap positions. In 1992, Baker reluctantly resigned as secretary of state and returned to the White House as George H.W. Bush’s chief of staff in an unsuccessful effort to save Bush’s foundering re-election campaign. All of these guys do what it takes.

Gender Gap

The biggest reason for a Switcheroo would be if the gender gap that has proved essential to Democrats in recent elections were suddenly to close, sending Obama (whose current approval rating is a paltry 40 percent) even further south in the polls. With white men already lost (Obama got only 41 percent of them in 2008; 9 percent in Alabama), a historic ticket with an African-American and a woman would have little downside.

The president’s more immediate political problem is with independents. We don’t know yet how much Clinton’s presence on the ticket might help with them (especially women) or with traditional Democrats. During the 2008 primaries, Clinton showed more strength than Obama among blue-collar voters in states like Pennsylvania, which is essential to the president’s re-election. (Although Biden, born in Scranton, is also popular there.)

In a larger sense, the move would lend excitement to what will inevitably be a sour and dispiriting campaign. Imagine the unemployment rate doesn’t budge and Obama goes into the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, in early September trailing by six points with a mere eight weeks until Election Day. The Switcheroo may be his only shot.

Neither the Obama campaign nor anyone else I know of has done any polling on this, and even strong public support for the idea right now wouldn’t matter much to the White House. This is a decision for next summer, when the picture will be a lot clearer. In the meantime, don’t let anyone tell you it’s out of the question.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.