By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Commentary: Benghazi incident wont leave a lasting scar on Clintons 2016 campaign
0203Jim Cottrill
Jim Cottrill

It’s possible that Hillary Clinton may decide not to run for president in 2016, but there is very little reason to believe such a decision would be a result of her handling of the Benghazi attacks.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal poll, Clinton is leaving her post as secretary of state with an “eye-popping” 69 percent approval rating.

This is nearly 20 percent higher than President Obama’s average approval rating this month, according to Real Clear Politics, and nearly 50 percent higher than Congress, which the Public Policy Polling firm recently found “is less popular than cockroaches, traffic jams, and even Nickelback.”

If Secretary Clinton’s approval numbers are this high during a month in which she endured a hostile congressional grilling over Benghazi, there is no reason to expect that the incident is going to plague her in any meaningful way.
Furthermore, the historical evidence suggests that Americans are not inclined to punish their leaders for a failure to anticipate and prevent attacks on our citizens.

In the wake of surprise attacks we tend to be much more interested in national unity than in recriminations, as seen in the case of Pearl Harbor and the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Ronald Reagan won a landslide re-election in 1984 only a year and a half after the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, which killed 241 American servicemen, and George W. Bush was re-elected handily despite having failed to anticipate or prevent the 9/11 attacks — and recall that he had received a memo on Aug. 6 titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” While playing the “blame game” is a perennial favorite of politicians, the American people have never demonstrated much enthusiasm for it.

Clinton’s response to Benghazi is another factor working in her favor. Clinton directly answered tough questions from Congress in her recent testimony, and she forcefully argued that the State Department was doing everything within its power to address the problems and to hold the people responsible accountable.

Clinton has not dodged the issue and she has demonstrated a willingness to accept responsibility for mistakes that were made and to work to fix the problems that have been identified.

Most important, she has not engaged in a cover-up. Historically, this type of response satisfies the American people, and polling suggests that this is the case in this instance as well.

Recent polls from CNN and Fox News confirm that a majority of Americans do not believe there has been a cover-up of the Benghazi incident and a plurality, 49 percent, approves of the administration’s overall handling of foreign policy.

A leader’s legacy is rarely dependent on a single event, regardless of how significant that event may seem at the time.

The continuing confidence that the American people have shown in Clinton’s leadership of the State Department reflects an appreciation of the overall record of success during her tenure, which saw the spread of democracy in North Africa during the Arab Spring and a general restoration of American prestige abroad.

But perhaps the strongest evidence that the Benghazi incident will not harm Secretary Clinton’s legacy is the decisive re-election of President Obama. If Benghazi wasn’t sufficient to prevent Barack Obama’s re-election, despite repeated attempts by the Republicans to make it an issue, it is hard to imagine that it would prevent Hillary Clinton from running in 2016 if she chooses to do so.

Clearly, there is still a significant level of support for Clinton throughout the country and, barring some unexpected revelations in the future there is little reason to expect that support to diminish due to the Benghazi attacks.

Jim Cottrill is an assistant professor of political science at Santa Clara University.

Regional events