Hillary Clinton has been telegraphing her dissatisfaction for quite some time, but in the dawn after her greatest professional victory, she minces no words:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s revelation that she won’t be staying on if there is a second Obama term may have been news to those who don’t know her, but did not surprise her friends, who say she’s spending an increasing amount of time considering her post-government options even as challenges mount at Foggy Bottom.

Clinton has made similar “I’m not here forever” comments before – but it was the timing of her remarks to CNN on Wednesday that raised eyebrows, coming at a critical moment in her fierce internal battle to push President Barack Obama to join the fight to liberate Libya from Muammar Qadhafi.

She has, by all accounts, been extraordinarily persistent in pushing the administration to support the Libyan insurgents, which in itself is very revealing about what kind of frustrations she's had to, and continues to endure.

A brutal dictator who supports terrorism, and has killed Americans, is opposed by a restive populace yearning to breath free. A limited intervention that doesn't involve invasion or nation-building is supported by the Arabs and prominent European allies. The opportunity to send a message to the oppressive regimes of the world, and more importantly, the necessity of not sending the wrong message by doing nothing. I'm having trouble understanding the reluctance here?

The only push-back I saw from a mainstream media source was the lamentable Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, who addressed not the issue of whether to support a no-fly zone in Libya, but focused on an ad Hominem attack on Paul Wolfowitz who had publicly outlined the case in favor of an intervention in a Wallstreet Journal article the day before.

Normally, when the Progressives don't like something, a Google search will get you five to ten pages of their editorializing before you reading anything supportive, but in this case there was virtually nothing. Clearly Progressives oppose any military effort that might free people from oppression and enhance U.S. prestige, but the narrative on Libya has just not lent itself to left-wing demagoguery. The Daily Kos went so far as to claim that a no-fly zone for Libya was in fact their idea.

Echoing calls among liberals concerned about violence in Libya, Republican neocon Paul Wolfowitz wants President Obama and the U.S. to escalate their response to the Libyan revolution.

No word on who Paul Wolfowitz was in fact, 'echoing'.

So why did Hillary have such a hard time getting the U.S. to commit, almost too late to save the rebellion?

Therein lies the source of her frustration--a woman who 'gets it' in an administration that doesn't appear to get anything except the itch to vacation in exotic locales and play golf.

“She’s tired – she still likes what she’s doing – but she’s tired,” said one longtime Clinton friend, who noted that Clinton is still regarded as a relative outsider in Obama’s tight-knit inner circle.

Hillary has a public image as a ruthless political operator, and I have no doubt that she deserves some or all of that reputation, but there is little doubt that either she or husband Bill have a clear governing agenda that has been informed by past failures and successes. The Rwandan genocide comes to mind, and although Bill Clinton didn't get the blame, it's pretty clear that he wouldn't want to see it repeated through inaction by the U.S. government. One wonders how many times she's failed to persuade the President of the moral and strategic interests of the country should outweigh his political calculus.

The whole thing reminds me of raising adolescents.

No wonder she's tired.