There's been a lot of speculation this last week about how the take down of bin Laden might affect Obama's re-election chances in 2012, with the usual emphasis on how it helps him with the right and hurts him with his base. But, what if there were a joker in the deck?
There is a story out there, that it was, in fact, Leon Panetta, Obama's CIA head, who had to give the order to kill bin Laden while Obama dithered. Now if it could be credibly proven that this was true, without compromising national security, who might benefit from the damage it would do to Obama, especially if it were coupled with Panetta's endorsement of say...Hillary? After all, Panetta served as President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff for three years.
But, to paraphrase the Bard, Hillary says she is not running, and Hillary is an honourable woman.
Update: Scenario Number Two: Panetta establishes his bona fides as the decision maker on the bin Laden kill, and then, in 2012, joins Mrs. Clinton in a "resignation of conscience" prior to the election. If Hillary has to bail to run, Panetta bails, too. (If this is all too Machiavellian, remember, I'm just trying to think like a Clinton!)
Cross posted at Proof Positive
More "Hillary Watch" here.