Hillary Clinton has some explaining to do. But first, a profound apology is in order. If she wants to fulfill her dream of becoming one of the oldest world leaders in history, Hillary must accept responsiblity for the widespread geopolitical chaos that has erupted since she quit her job at the State Department.
The American people, and every citizen of the world, deserve to know why Clinton chose to deprive them of her stalwart leadership as Secretary of State, just so she could make millions of dollars speaking to financial executives and wear muumuus in the Hamptons with her guide dog.
Why did Clinton, who claims to be predisposed to public service, reject the president’s request for her to stay on as Secretary of State, when quite clearly it was her steady hand, and her ability to make "hard choices," that was the only thing preventing President Obama from fulfilling his own dream of weakening America’s influence in the world?
As Secretary of State, Clinton served as a much-needed check against some of Obama’s worst instincts—America is just another country, using chemical weapons against your own people is fine as long as you promise not to do it again, maybe we should negotiate with terrorists, tyrants like Vladimir Putin will back down in the face of strongly worded expressions of concern, and so on—with respect to foreign policy. As Clinton rightly summed it up in an interview with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg: "Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle."
Unlike Obama, Clinton is "hepped-up" about the dangers of jihadism and Russian nationalism. According to VOX DOT COM, this makes her a weak candidate in a Democratic primary, because most liberals think the threat from groups like ISIS are overblown, and that the U.S. should pursue negotiations with the more moderate elements of the Islamic Caliphate. At the same time, many liberals actually favor a nuclear Iran, which could serve as a much-needed check against Israel. This only underscores the selfishness of Hillary's decision to quit, and to allow herself to be replaced by a known soccer enthusiast:
At this point, it's beyond dispute that the widespread geopolitical unrest we're seeing now—in Iraq, Libya, Gaza, eastern Ukraine, etc.—would not have happened under Hillary’s watch. Her belief in American exceptionalism and the benefits of military intervention—a major reason why influential neoconservatives like Michael Goldfarb are reportedly lining up to endorse her in 2016—could have forestalled the chaos and the bloodshed. She needs to explain why adding another $12 million to the Clinton family fortune was more important than global stability.
The American people deserve better. The people of the world deserve better. And when voters cast their ballots in 2016, could you really blame them for siding with the candidate who never quits?
