It is a sure bet that Hillary Clinton will be the Democrat’s nominee for president in 2016. It is an even surer bet that Secretary Clinton will not run on her record. If she does, the much-touted Hillary is toast. After all, the best she can say about her record is that she traveled a lot of miles during here time as secretary of state. In fact, Hillary claims to be the most-widely traveled secretary of state in America’s history, but as is typically the case with liberals she applies fuzzy math to validate her claim. She did put more miles on the odometer than her predecessors at the State Department, but she was out of the country fewer days than several of them. It’s all in how you measure the claim is it not?
However, for the sake of argument, assume for the moment that Hillary Clinton is the most-widely traveled Secretary of State in America’s history. To paraphrase Ms. Clinton, what does it matter? Should secretaries of state be judged on the basis of how many miles they travel or by how well all that travel served the interests of the United States? In other words, should Hillary be evaluated according to process or results? She, like most liberals, would argue on the side of process, but conservatives and other thinking Americans evaluate on the basis of results, and rightly so. After all, if secretaries of state are not effective in carrying out their duties on behalf of our country who cares how many miles they traveled (except perhaps the taxpayers who had to foot the bill for all that jet fuel that was wasted)? Speaking of wasted jet fuel, Hillary’s carbon footprint must be a monster. Jumbo jets are not solar powered, but that’s another topic for another day.
Not only does Hillary claim to be the most widely-traveled secretary of state in America’s history, she also claims—imagine this—to have done an outstanding job in that position. Testifying before Congress on the Benghazi debacle, before making her now infamous statement, “What does it matter…,” Ms. Clinton indulged in a little self-serving overstatement when she claimed: “ Today, after four years in this job, after traveling nearly 1 million miles and visiting 112 countries around the world, my faith in our country and its future is stronger than ever.” I am pleased that her faith in America is stronger than ever, but I wonder about her faith in its future. Of course, she did not claim that America is stronger than ever—just that her faith is.
It is good she didn’t make such a claim because during her time as secretary of state, in spite of traveling “…near 1 million miles” she did little to strengthen America’s position on the global stage or to ensure our national security. In Benghazi she allowed Islamist thugs to get away with murdering an American diplomat and members of his staff, burn our embassy, and make off with sensitive files. Then, when asked about this tragedy by a Congressional committee, she responded: “What does it matter?” In Korea she did nothing to reduce the threat of a nuclear holocaust perpetrated by a madman who thinks he is Elvis and idolizes Dennis Rodman, aka the “Worm.” In Syria she stood by as President Assad used poison gas on his own people. In Iran she watched impotently as a nation run by Muslim fanatics inched ever closer to becoming a nuclear power. Guess what Madam Secretary, all of this does matter.
Hillary will run in 2016 and she will probably get the nomination. But because of her dreary record and her close association with one of the worst presidents to ever hold the office, she will do what most liberals do when pursuing higher office: obfuscate about her record. Instead of running on her record, Hillary can be expected to turn the campaign into a People-Magazine type affair that will appeal to unthinking Americans who are addicted to inane sitcoms, absurd “reality shows,” and tabloid journalism. Expect Hillary’s campaign to be about gender, the historic significance of having the first female president, and the irony of having Bill back in the White house as first spouse. What a country.