Hillary Clinton’s sudden outburst against President Obama’s foreign policy — or lack thereof — was spot on.
Question is: Why didn’t she say something when she was in a position to make a difference?
In an interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama’s former secretary of state slams her ex-boss and the slogan he recently coined to describe his foreign-policy doctrine:
“Great nations need organizing principles,” Clinton said, “and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
She was right. Any observer today would be hard-pressed to describe Obama’s worldview and America’s role in it, except perhaps to say that he has none.
That’s particularly evident in his reluctance to assert America’s global authority and in his handling of the Mideast, notwithstanding the new airstrikes he ordered in Iraq.
So again, it’s worth asking: Where was Clinton during Obama’s first term?
If she disagreed with some of his decisions during her term at State, she certainly wasn’t effective at changing policy. Nor did she feel strongly enough to resign, as did America’s ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford.
Truth is, on key areas — Iraq, Russia and Israel — Clinton and the president saw eye-to-eye.
But now she no doubt fears having to defend those policies, as she seems likely to seek the White House again.
And she’s reading the opinion polls, which show Obama’s ratings tanking — especially when it comes to foreign policy.
If Clinton means to run for president as a foreign-policy centrist who’s discovered the follies of her party’s hard-left base, fine.
But as the polls shift, voters are left to wonder: Just who is the real Hillary Clinton?