If you have not yet watched and listened to President Obama's speech on Libya tonight (Monday), I hope you will. (Available at Whitehouse.gov). It was a model of clarity and rationality and reminds us why he is the President. I am not an unquestioning supporter of all of Obama's actions, but surely this speech raises the question "who would you rather have in charge" to a resounding silence in response.
To be sure, we have had many disappointments since inauguration day. Those have been widely discussed. But it is hard for me to imagine any other public figure who ever had a real chance of being elected president making a speech of this quality after having successfully navigated the extremely difficult international challenge of what to do in the face of the threat of mass murder of Libyans by Ghadaffi's forces.
President Obama clearly summarized the key events, decisions and actions, explaining the reasoning behind them. He explained how the response to the Libyan uprising is changing . . . with primary responsibility devolving to NATO forces . . . and the reasons and timeline for that change. He credited both the U.S. military forces and diplomats for their work in creating this effective response.
He explained the need to preserve the viability of the UN by supporting Resolution 1973 and the importance of not taking unilateral action, but working with the international coalition to respond to this humanitarian crisis. And he explained how this does not set a pattern for our response to other crises (except for always taking a deliberative, careful approach) and what it was about Libya that demanded action.
None of this is really surprising, of course, given pre-speech speculation, but the manner in which he illuminated the context and reasons for our nation's response makes it hard to understand how people can manage to feel other than proud of having him as our president, and grateful that, for a change, we have a grown-up in charge.
I understand that many people . . . some of whom supported Obama for quite a while . . . are disillusioned and fed up with the lack of strong progressive action. The disappointment is understandable, though I think he receives somewhat more of the blame for that than he deserves. But, really, who -- among viable contenders -- would you rather have handling this crisis and explaining to the public?