President Obama created a stir last week when he reiterated that while he doesn't support gay marriage, he still struggles with the issue. He said his views are "constantly evolving."

In the Republican Party, the fracture over issues concerning homosexual individuals revealed itself more clearly in the vote for repeal of the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevented gays from serving openly in the military.

Of the eight Republican senators who voted for repeal, five are among the youngest in the upper chamber - and they're not all moderates.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Ensign of Nevada and Richard Burr of North Carolina maintain relatively conservative voting records, despite some of Murkowski's recent votes. They are 53, 52 and 55, respectively.

Their colleagues Mark Kirk and Scott Brown have been lumped into the more moderate wing of the party, but they, too, are some of the youngest GOP senators. Both are 51.

Melissa Kennedy, press secretary for Log Cabin Republicans, said that gay issues generally are generational.

"Nearly all young service members supported the repeal of DADT because it simply doesn't matter to them what anyone's sexual orientation is and many happen to know and are friends with gay people," she said.

Kennedy added, "In terms of the recent Senate vote, as we know most U.S. senators are old and many of the Republicans are from a generation that are clinging to old-school thoughts of a time long ago. However, Log Cabin Republicans are always happy and eager to engage those members as we agree on 90 percent of the issues facing this country."

Jimmy LaSalvia, the executive director of GOProud, another Republican organization supportive of gay rights, agrees.

"Conservatives and Republicans in general aren't any different than anyone else in America," he said, adding, "over the past number of years we've seen more and more gay people come out and live their lives openly and honestly."

For that reason, LaSalvia said that younger generations of Republicans are becoming increasingly familiar with issues affecting homosexual Americans. Older generations, he noted, generally don't have the same experience of having as many contemporaries who are openly gay.

In his statement announcing his vote for repeal, Burr presented his decision as a result of generational change.

"Given the generational transition that has taken place in our nation, I feel that this policy is outdated and repeal is inevitable," he said.

Post-vote, there is more evidence that gay issues may continue to show fractures and changes within the GOP: several prominent conservative groups have announced that they will boycott the largest gathering of conservatives in the country, CPAC, in Washington this February, due to GOProud's participation.

And that may foreshadow some clarification on the part of potential Republican presidential contenders, many of whom are slated to speak at the conservative confab, a curtain-raiser to the coming primary.

A new set of poll numbers released on Tuesday reinforced the daunting challenge that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would face in turning the tide in her favor among both Republican primary and general election voters if she were to decide to run for president in 2012.

Perhaps the most discouraging new number as it relates to Palin's presidential ambitions was a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, which showed that 49 percent of Republicans said that they were now "very" or "somewhat likely" to support a Palin presidential bid.

At first glance, 49 percent may appear to be a promising slice of the GOP electorate, but it is down dramatically from the 67 percent of Republicans who said that they were likely to support a Palin run when they were asked in a previous CNN poll conducted in December of 2008.

Sixty-seven percent of Republicans in the new CNN poll said that they were somewhat or very likely to support former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2012, while 59 percent said the same of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

The CNN poll was conducted by telephone from December 17-19 and had a margin of error of plus or minus three percent.

Compounding those dour numbers for Palin was the release on Tuesday of a series of Democratically-affiliated Public Policy Polling (PPP) state surveys, which were conducted over the past couple of months. The PPP polls showed the former Alaska governor with low favorability ratings among voters in key battleground states.

In Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, Palin's overall favorability rating ranged from 34 percent to 37 percent. Meanwhile, her unfavorable rating in those seven bellwether states ranged from 52 percent to 60 percent.

Palin demonstrated in the 2010 election her affinity for the underdog when she backed long-shot candidates from Joe Miller to Christine O'Donnell with mixed electoral success, and she has never been one to be dissuaded by discouraging polls.

Still, the numbers released on Tuesday provided a sober reminder of the lengths Palin would have to go to rehabilitate her image among many voters should she decide to launch a presidential campaign.

Palin and her staff have made a concerted effort to reach out beyond her core supporters in recent weeks, as the former Alaska governor has sat down for an increasing number of interviews with mainstream media outlets.

Palin has declined to provide a timeframe for when she will announce whether she will run for president, but it is widely expected that she will take her time in assessing the field of GOP contenders before deciding whether to jump in.

Republican Joe Miller said that he will not contest the official certification of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski's write-in victory but will continue to press ahead with a federal lawsuit that challenges the results and seeks a full recount.

On Wednesday, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that confirmed Murkowski's general election win over Miller by 10,328 votes. Miller defeated Murkowski in the August Republican primary before the incumbent launched a write-in campaign to keep her seat.

A federal judge ruled last month that the state court system was the appropriate initial venue for Miller to contest the results. Now that the Alaska appeals process has been exhausted, Miller said in a statement late Sunday that he felt it important to have the results certified, in spite of his vow to continue to fight in federal court, so that Alaska would have full representation at the start of 112th Congress on Jan. 5.

"This decision will allow Alaskans to focus on bringing fairness and transparency to our elections process without distraction of the certification issue," Miller said. "We want the end result of this legal action to be for the people of Alaska to not only have full faith in the outcome of this race, but a confidence in the manner in which elections will be conducted in our state in the future. Election integrity is vital."

Miller is asking for donations to continue his federal challenge, which claims that state election officials ignored written law and subjectively awarded imperfectly written ballots to Murkowski, raises questions about possible violations of the Constitution's equal protection clause, accuses officials of counting ballots that were cast by registered felons, and raises other allegations of voter fraud.

Even if all of the ballots that were challenged by Miller observers but awarded to Murkowski were to be discounted, Murkowski would still lead by over 2,000 votes.

The Murkowski campaign and other Alaska political figures have questioned the wisdom behind Miller's decision to keep fighting in court, suggesting that he is waging a quixotic battle which could undermine the reputation of the tea party-backed Fairbanks attorney who pulled off what was perhaps the biggest primary upset of the 2010 campaign.

Despite several public relations setbacks in the general election, Miller's strong primary campaign has helped propel him to the top of a short list of Alaska Republicans who could mount a credible challenge to Democratic Sen. Mark Begich in 2014.

The U.S. Census Bureau today announced its long-awaited final population and reapportionment numbers. The official population of the U.S. as of April 1, 2010 was 308,745,538, up from 281,421,906 in 2000. The Northeast grew 3.2 percent, the Midwest grew 3.9 percent, the South grew 14.3 percent and the West grew by 13.8 percent. Overall, it was the slowest growth in the country since the 1930s.

The apportionment winners were: Texas (4 seats), Florida (2 seats), Arizona (1 seat), Georgia (1 seat), Nevada (1 seat), South Carolina (1 seat), Utah (1 seat), Washington (1 seat). The losers were: New York (2 seats), Ohio (2 seats), Illinois (1 seat), Iowa (1 seat), Louisiana (1 seat), Massachusetts (1 seat), Michigan (1 seat), Missouri (1 seat), New Jersey (1 seat), Pennsylvania (1 seat).

Overall, this represents a continued shift in the Electoral College from blue-leaning states to red-leaning states. If the 2008 election had been held under these census numbers, President Obama's 365-173 victory over John McCain would have become a 359-179 win. For 2004, the numbers are starker still: Bush's 286-251 victory would become a 292-246 win, meaning that even if Kerry had won Ohio, he still would have lost (in 2004, flipping Ohio would have been sufficient to give Kerry the win).

And finally, in 2000, rather than a 271-266 win (with one faithless Gore/Lieberman elector from DC abstaining), the changes of the past two decades would have resulted in a President Bush win of 285-252. While Florida would still would have been the difference-maker, Gore would not have to tell himself that, had he won New Hampshire, Tennessee or Arkansas, the whole Florida debacle would have been irrelevant.

On a late night during the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial campaign, Democratic former Gov. Tony Knowles and Republican-turned-independent candidate Andrew Halcro found themselves sitting next to each other in an exit row on an Alaska Airlines flight back to Anchorage following a debate in Fairbanks.

Halcro and Knowles had a friendly relationship, which was cultivated in part by both men's shared sense of exasperation over their inability to put a chink in the invisible armor that seemed to shield their Republican opponent, the former mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin.

While the two men were making small talk on the flight, Halcro, who ended up finishing third in the race, asked Knowles what was the most surprising indicator he found in his campaign's internal polling.

According to Halcro, Knowles replied that he was most astonished by how well Palin performed among well-educated women, and, perhaps more importantly, with moderate to liberal women.

"But that time has passed," Halcro told RealClearPolitics.

Recent polls indeed indicate that while her support among conservative women remains strong, if Palin decides to run for president in 2012, she will have her work cut out for her in rebuilding her image among the independent female voters who helped fuel her 2006 victory and gave the 2008 Republican presidential ticket a double-digit surge among white women in surveys conducted after Palin's electrifying speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.

In a Quinnipiac poll released last month, Palin outperformed her potential Republican male rivals in a theoretical crowded GOP primary field by winning the support of a formidable 25 percent of Republican women. But former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee performed 7 percent better than Palin among all women voters in a hypothetical general election matchup against President Obama.

Of course, any potential presidential candidate must worry first and foremost about winning the primary battle.

Common sense and early poll numbers confirm that Palin is poised to do quite well with Republican women if she runs in 2012. It is not difficult to imagine the inherent advantage -- in terms of optics, at least -- the former Alaska governor would have standing on a debate stage with eight or nine men.

And Palin's future opponents would have to be particularly careful to avoid any signs of arrogance or patronization. Palin would likely pounce on any perceived slights and effectively use them to her advantage.

Still, the nearly successful presidential campaign that Hillary Clinton ran in 2008 would likely mitigate the novelty factor of a viable female candidate in 2012, and Palin would be the first to admit that she would not be able to count on the female vote just because of her gender.

Halcro, who has remained one of the most vocal Palin critics in Alaska, said that he did not prepare any differently in debating Palin simply because she was a woman and insisted that her record as governor of raising taxes on the oil industry and implementing a gas pipeline deal that has uncertain prospects for success will overshadow any built-in advantage she might have among women.

"I think she's going to get treated like one of the boys," Halcro said. "The debates are one thing, but I think you have to portray her as just simply unqualified."

If Palin were to enter the race and become the Republican nominee, her strategy as Sen. John McCain's running mate in 2008 could offer a preview of how she may try to pull off the complex feat of attracting independent female voters without jeopardizing the unique energy she inspires in her core supporters.

On the day she was announced as the vice presidential nominee, Palin spoke glowingly about Hillary Clinton, who she praised for having shown "such determination and grace in her presidential campaign." But when a second reference to Clinton drew boos at a rally in Pennsylvania, Palin stopped referring in her stump speech to the Democrat who came closer to becoming president than any woman in U.S. history.

A poll conducted by EMILY's List last month of female voters who cast their ballot for Obama in 2008 but did not vote for a Democratic congressional candidate in 2010 showed that two-thirds of them have negative feelings about Palin, while just 12 percent have positive feelings about her. Perhaps even more troublesome for Palin, the poll showed that 62 percent of female Obama voters who defected to the GOP in 2010 would again vote for Obama in 2012 if Palin were to become the Republican nominee.

The Palin camp appears to recognize the serious problem the former Alaska governor has among independent women. SarahPAC, Palin's political action committee, produced a two-minute long video in July called "Mama Grizzlies," which appeared to be aimed directly at those voters.

"A lot of women who are very concerned about their kids' future are saying, ‘We don't like this fundamental transformation, and we're going to do something about it,'" Palin said in the ad, which highlighted images of women at Palin rallies. "It seems like it's kind of a mom awakening in the last year-and-a-half where women are rising up and saying, ‘No, we've had enough already because moms kind of just know when something's wrong.'"

Though Palin has maintained her hardline conservative edge in her speeches, tweets and Facebook posts, she has begun to take some steps that could mellow her image and slowly entice independent women to give a second look at the woman whose tenacity and independent streak first attracted them when she rose to the national stage.

Palin's TLC show puts her family life on display to millions of viewers each Sunday night, and she has recently opened herself up to more interviews from mainstream news outlets, including a hospitable, soft feature on "Good Morning America," in which Palin was shown taking a snowmobile ride with reporter Robin Roberts.

"I believe that her tone will simply be in reaching out to a commonsense independent-minded people because essentially she doesn't see herself as a partisan," Palin aide Rebecca Mansour told RealClearPolitics last month in forecasting the former Alaska governor's potential campaign pitch. "She's not interested in party politics, but she's interested in good ideas."

Democratic leaders and the White House are rejoicing over PolitiFact's assertion that "the biggest lie of the year" is the idea that the new health care reform law is equivalent to a government takeover of health care.

The White House and Democratic congressional offices redistributed the story widely on Friday, and White House adviser Stephanie Cutter blogged about it on the White House's Web site.

After laying out some of the biggest points PolitiFact makes, Cutter notes, "It is also worth noting that this is the second year in a row that PolitiFact's ‘Lie of the Year' revolves around the Affordable Care Act -- last year it was ‘Death Panels.'"

Several months before PolitiFact offered its decision, the White House had an unlikely ally in former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and former heart surgeon who explored a 2008 presidential race.

Frist told RealClearPolitics in an October interview, "Those who call the law a federal government takeover are wrong." He added, "Care will continue to be delivered by non-government physicians and nurses working in non-government hospitals and facilities."

PolitiFact is a non-partisan project of the St. Petersburg Times and is designed to examine the statements of officials and influential leaders in Washington, D.C. Reporters and researchers assess the honesty of major statements and determine whether they are true or false or somewhere in between.

In a lengthy article published late on Thursday evening, PolitiFact rehashes how the Republican Party settled on the talking point that President Obama's health care reform effort equaled a government takeover of health care. It was a suggestion by pollster Frank Luntz.

After noting that Democrats removed the public option from the bill, and therefore the biggest governmental intrusion offered in the reforms, the article states, "But as Republicans smelled serious opportunity in the midterm elections, they didn't let facts get in the way of a great punchline." It goes on, "And few in the press challenged their frequent assertion that under Obama, the government was going to take over the health care industry."

Editors of the Florida-based political site go so far as to say that the takeover propaganda "was a significant factor in the Democrats' shellacking in the November elections."

Indeed, in his interview with RCP, Frist suggested, "Republicans will not repeal the fundamentals of the new law. Because of the law's unpopularity with so many hard-working, centrist voters, who see their health cost and taxes continuing to rise, the mantra of ‘repeal and replace' resonates at election time."

In offering their evidence, the site's writers point out that while health insurers will be subject to more regulations, the changed system is still based in free market principles. They note that in addition to the absence of the public option, the government will not take over hospitals or doctors' offices. And they point out that a majority of citizens will continue to get their health insurance through private insurers, who will in turn insure more Americans than before.

PolitiFact asked Republican leaders for backup on their claims about why they believe the new law is a government takeover, but a spokesman for incoming Speaker John Boehner simply reiterated the belief without providing a reason for it.

The site gives a tally of how many times the phrase was used both officially and politically, and found that the Republican National Committee's Web site used it more than 200 times.

It also points out that while Democrats tried to fight back, leaders in the party conceded that their messaging efforts were too unruly and uncoordinated to work. Indeed, a majority of respondents in national polling say that the law represents a government takeover of health care.

A prominent conservative political action committee is vowing to defeat any Republican senator who votes to ratify the New START nuclear arms control treaty with Russia in the lame-duck session of Congress.

The National Republican Trust PAC is making its pledge in a letter that was obtained by RealClearPolitics before it was set to be delivered on Friday afternoon.

In the letter, the PAC's executive director Scott Wheeler writes to National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Sen. John Cornyn and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele that the group is "fully committed" to defeating any GOP senator that votes for ratification during the lame-duck session.

"We as a country cannot allow our national defense to be greatly undermined by a President and members of a lame duck Congress who are hell-bent on redistributing America's military advantage because of their bizarre belief that the US lacks the moral authority to be the world's lone superpower," the letter says. "Republicans cannot and must not participate in the sell out of our national defense merely because of political pressures applied to them by an extremist President and a liberal media."

In the letter, Wheeler goes on to write that the group will recruit primary challengers and "will be singular in the purpose" of defeating pro-ratification Republican senators.

"Senator Cornyn and Mr. Steele -- we urge you to advise every Republican Senator to prevent this treaty from coming to the Senate floor for a vote," the letter says. "Now is time to put our future before politics. Now is the time to do the right thing and stand firm in our beliefs."

The New START treaty, which President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed in April, would limit both countries' nuclear arsenals to 1,550 warheads, put new caps on missile launchers and heavy bombers, and would establish verification regimes for compliance.

The White House has made ratification of the treaty during the lame-duck session a top priority and has cited extensive support within the Republican foreign policy establishment, including the backing of every living GOP secretary of state and former President George H.W. Bush.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid on Friday vowed to bring the treaty to a vote next week before Congress adjourns.

The National Republican Trust PAC objects to the treaty on several grounds, including its concerns that it could limit U.S. missile defense capabilities.

"Clearly scrapping our missile defense system, allowing Russia to dictate what we can do in that regard, is absolutely foolish," Wheeler said. "Even if Russia did abide by this treaty -- and they have a long history of not abiding by them -- even if they did, it leaves us vulnerable to a number of other threats, including China and Iran."

New START must receive at least 67 votes in the Senate before being taken up by the Russian Duma, where it would be expected to face relatively easy passage. Its prospects for Senate ratification remain uncertain.

Wheeler said that his group was earnest in its vow to mount credible primary challenges, pointing to radio ads and robocalls it launched in Pennsylvania last year against Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) after he voted in favor of the stimulus bill. Facing a Republican primary challenge from Senator-elect Pat Toomey, Specter left the GOP and went on to lose a Democratic primary battle.

Wheeler pointed to Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), both of whom are up for re-election in 2012, as particular targets of his group's open letter.

"I think they should look at what happened to Arlen Specter," he said. "That was us, and this is even more important than the stimulus."

Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels will return to Washington, D.C., next month to collect an award that recognizes his leadership in fiscal discipline.

A nonpartisan trio including David Walker of the Comeback America Initiative, Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and Robert Bixby of the Concord Coalition selected three elected officials to receive the first "Fiscy awards." Daniels, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and North Dakota Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad will be rewarded for their displays of fiscal restraint in 2010.

In an interview on Thursday, Walker, a former United States Comptroller General, explained that the new award was created to credit public officials who have taken action on fiscal issues, and to push more elected officials to do the same.

"We need to move from rhetoric to results" on cutting the deficit, Walker said. "And in order to move from rhetoric to results, you need to have leadership."

The three recipients will collect their awards at the Newseum on Wednesday, Jan. 5, when they will participate in an evening panel discussion. Proceeds for the event will go back into the three organizations, which promote fiscal discipline.

Walker noted that one of the criteria for getting the award was that contenders must be present at the awards presentation next year.

He also laid out the reasons why each of the three recipients were chosen.

Daniels, he said, has balanced the budget in Indiana and has taken steps to reduce the size of the government and make it more efficient. He privatized slices of it to bring more revenue to the state.

"Indiana is in better shape and fiscal position than they were in the past," Walker said.

Ryan was picked largely because he offered the "Roadmap for America's Future," a controversial plan that lays out a set of fiscal priorities.

"It is by no means perfect, and we are not necessarily endorsing it," Walker said. "But he had the courage to offer a specific plan that offers a dramatic change to current government programs."

Conrad's efforts as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to offer plans that would cut the deficit significantly failed, but they were noticed by the Fiscy Awards Committee.

Conrad will be up for re-election in 2012, Ryan could explore a Senate bid, and Daniels may seek the White House, so the trio is under heightened political scrutiny.

Walker noted that the committee is comprised of political independents and that they wanted to recognize officials regardless of party affiliation. He pointed out that none of the three politicians receiving the awards have yet announced campaigns for higher office, but he suggested that their current visibility and accomplishments will further the committee's goals of improving fiscal restraint.

Daniels is the most closely watched of the three, and his appearance in the Beltway in several weeks likely will cause a stir as his potential presidential aspirations come into sharper focus.

The governor said on Wednesday that he may decide whether to run for president before the Indiana legislative session ends at the close of April.

He will collect more intelligence on the pros and cons of a bid when he makes his trip to Washington next month. A spokeswoman for the governor said there are not specific plans yet for the excursion.

President Obama on Thursday cited "significant progress" in Afghanistan, but the administration's own annual review of the situation on the ground in the nearly decade-long conflict indicates a perilous road ahead on an issue that has already become a defining facet of his presidency and could add to his political vulnerability as the 2012 presidential campaign kicks into high gear.

"This continues to be a very difficult endeavor," Obama told reporters at the White House on Thursday. "But I can report that thanks to the extraordinary service of our troops and civilians on the ground, we are on track to achieve our goals."

Obama again made clear that his aim in the continued commitment to Afghanistan was to dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in the region, not to engage in the kind of nation-building that was a focal point of Bush administration foreign policy.

But as other reports have demonstrated slow progress in the region and questions remain over an array of concerns, including the reliability of Pakistan and the Afghan government, the political risks remain extensive in continuing to mount a war that Obama took full ownership of when he increased the U.S. troop presence last year.

"On this politically, I'm not commenting substantively, Barack Obama wants to do no harm," Allan Lichtman, a presidential historian and political history professor at American University, told RealClearPolitics. "He doesn't want Afghanistan to be an issue one way or the other. He wants the war to be drawn down enough - American casualties to be reduced - so it's just not something on the minds of voters."

Lichtman cited Richard Nixon's successful 1972 reelection campaign, which came as he was winding down the Vietnam War, as a model for which Obama could hope to replicate but also warned that modern American political history demonstrated the potential pitfalls the president faces.

"These modern wars are generally not good for the party that wages them," Lichtman said. "If you look at the history from Korea onward, it's not very positive for sitting presidents or the party holding the White House. His best case scenario is to defuse it as an issue and not have his base angry and not give the Republicans an opening."

Most of the recent discourse on the political repercussions that Obama might face over Afghanistan have centered around the possibility that the president could inspire a primary challenge from the left, which might be fueled by antiwar fervor. But while conceivable, the prospect of any Democratic opponent mounting a credible campaign against Obama remains unlikely.

More plausible, and potentially more politically concerning to the administration, is the prospect that mounting American casualties and uncertain indicators of progress in the war will turn the issue into a political albatross for Obama that a Republican opponent might be able to exploit.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Thursday showed that 60 percent of Americans now view the war in Afghanistan as "not worth fighting" - a seven percent increase since the question was last asked in July and a new level of public dissatisfaction on par with the skeptical views of the Iraq War during much of President George W. Bush's second term.

The Obama administration has continued to deemphasize the July of 2011 date that it set for the beginning of troop withdrawals and has talked up the 2014 date set for the end of combat operations, in what has widely been seen as an implicit acknowledgment that progress in training Afghan forces has not gone as smoothly or rapidly as hoped.

Despite the clear progress on the battlefield that the annual review demonstrated, the sustainability of those military gains remains in question, and the sanctuaries that al Qaeda operatives have found in Pakistan continuue to be a critical and difficult challenge.

"If things begin to slide backward, God forbid, I think there will be questions about whether we have pursued the correct policy toward Pakistan and what has been contributing to our inability to stabilize Afghanistan," said Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Aside from advocating a new course on the bilateral relationship with Pakistan, the future Republican presidential nominee might make an issue out of the president's decision to set timelines for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

"I think it's very unhelpful to try to fight a war with deadlines, so I think that's one difference [between the two political parties]," Curtis said. "The Republican leadership has been very clear that you cannot win a war when you tell your enemy when you're going to leave, and that's particularly true in this case."

In an appearance with other top administration officials at the White House on Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton downplayed the significance of the latest poll numbers.

"I'm well aware of the popular concern and I understand it," Clinton said. "But I don't think leaders, and certainly this president, will not make decisions that are matters of life and death and the future security of our nation based on polling."

Still, Clinton repeatedly referred to what she called "the context we inherited two years ago" in citing progress and touted the creation of a coherent strategy and clearly defined mission in Afghanistan that she said did not exist under the Bush administration.

"When we came into office, the Pakistanis had agreed to an ill-conceived peace agreement with the Pakistani Taliban that was consistently and persistently expanding their territorial reach," she said before pointing to Pakistan's decision to reassign troops who were on the Indian boarder and the steps it has taken to combat terrorists hiding within its borders.

But the earnestness of Pakistan's commitment to fighting al Qaeda remains an open question to many experts, and as long as U.S. troops are still in harm's way in the region, the Obama administration's diplomatic track with Islamabad and relationship with the Afghan government appears susceptible to being challenged in 2012.

Ohio Republicans are gunning to win back Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown's seat, but a leading candidate hasn't emerged yet.

Republican Rep. Jim Jordan's name has been floated by some of his colleagues and GOP political operatives in Ohio, but the congressman doesn't sound ready to make the plunge.

In a brief interview on Wednesday, Jordan said he wouldn't dismiss the prospect of running in the 2012 election against Brown, who will be seeking his second term.

"I'm really just focused right now on the new position at RSC," he said, referring to his promotion to House GOP leadership. Jordan will serve as the chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Asked if he would consider it later in the cycle, he was noncommittal.

"We are leaning heavily against it," he said.