It’s good that liberals have no sense of the ironic. They wouldn’t be nearly as funny if they did.

Hillary Clinton, in full campaign mode, was discussing the recent shutdown during an interview and the concerns of business owners that the United States would “default” on its debts.

“All the business leaders wanted to talk to me about,” she said, “was, ‘was the United States going to default on its debt?’ And I kept saying, oh, of course not. We would never do that, and just hoping and praying that I was right.”

Then Clinton flipped over to the international outlook, pointing out that some countries, led by China, have been distancing themselves from America and our economic policies.

“As I talked to people around the world,” Clinton said, “there was a sense like, ‘if you guys can’t get your act together, we need to de-Americanize the world.’ Which was a phrase used by a high-ranking Chinese official. That is not good news for us. That is a very unfortunate conclusion. So we have to pull ourselves together. We have to stand up, solve our problems.”

If Clinton truly expects people to believe that she feels “de-Americanization” of the world is bad news, then she needs to answer some questions about her participation in the Administration that has been most responsible for dragging America down until it’s just one of the U.N’s club members instead of a world leader.

The admonition that we need to “stand up, solve our problems” is a real zinger in Clinton’s case. Solving our problems would seem to imply a willingness to take responsibility for our part in creating them.

This coming from Ms. “What Does It Matter?”

Clinton’s refusal to be honest about Benghazi, and the Administration’s lying about that and dozens of other scandals call into question her fitness to lead an agency, not to mention a country.

We wouldn’t have so many economic problems in the first place if liberals like Clinton hadn’t been busy for decades trying to create a socialist welfare state.

So what’s Clinton’s solution for America’s problems that she helped create? Why, compromise and sacrifice, of course.

“Everybody is not going to get everything they want,” she said. “We have to get back to good old fashioned compromise and we have to make those decisions that reassure America’s leadership at home and abroad.”

Since that’s the prescription, how about we start by having the Left compromise on its plan to re-create America as a Marxist dystopia, bring some jobs back from China (since they’re so concerned about our economy), and stop threatening to invade countries like Syria only to back off in front of the whole world?

Then we could make some decisions to ensure our leadership at home and abroad, like getting rid of all the people who’ve put us in our current position and making sure they never hold office again.

Somehow, I doubt that’s what Clinton meant.