Hillary's Projective Identification

In an editorial yesterday the New York Post made the obvious point about Hillary Clinton’s fatuous foreign policy address—you know, the one that everyone is praising to the skies:

But what she delivered was a 45-minute rant against Donald Trump — with nary a clue about her plans for leading America on the international stage.

Worse, her string of dump-on-Trump quips might’ve worked better if she had substituted her name for his, starting with her attack on Trump’s “series of rants” — a perfect description of her own speech.

Clinton tried to portray Trump as “dangerous.” But what do you call it when a secretary of state, to shield herself from accountability, stores classified emails (some beyond “top secret”) on her private, unsecured server, leaving them vulnerable to hackers the world over?

Or who goes home for the night with a US consulate besieged by al Qaeda-linked terrorists — then later lies to the victims’ families about how a YouTube video was to blame?

Clinton called Trump “temperamentally unfit” to be commander-in-chief. But how would you describe an ex-top official who continually lies to the public and holds herself above the law?

Trump “doesn’t understand” the world, she said — but then denied that the world has laughed at President Obama’s weakness. She even claimed we’re “safer” with Obama’s deal with Iran, which gives the mullahs a clear path to nuclear weapons and hundreds of billions to fund terrorism.

Who doesn’t understand the world?

More: Hillary said Trump would “embolden” our enemies. Yet, like Obama, she can’t even bring herself to call ISIS what it is: “radical Islamic extremists.” How does she think the terrorists are reacting to that?

Clinton’s aides say her speech is just the start of a push to paint Trump as “dangerous” and unpredictable. But maybe America would be safer if world leaders — from Russia to North Korea to Iran — actually worried about how our president might respond to aggression.

As opposed to a president like, say, Clinton — who can’t be trusted by Americans.

In the psycho world this is called projective identification.

The Wall Street Journal makes the same point, advising Trump to attack Clinton on her foreign policy record, you know, the one that is conspicuous for its lack of achievement:

Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State was a key first-term architect who bears some responsibility for the tide of global disorder and proliferating threats to U.S. security and interests.

The rise of authoritarian powers on the Obama-Clinton watch includes China in the Western Pacific, Russia in Europe and Iran in the Middle East. All are bidding to become regional hegemons, and they’ve made substantial gains amid Mr. Obama’s global retreat.

The Obama-Clinton team overthrew Moammar Gadhafi in Libya but then did nearly nothing to restore public safety. Even discounting the terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, this indifference has allowed ISIS to establish a beachhead in North Africa.

Speaking of which, the failure to intervene in Syria has created what former CIA Director David Petraeus calls “a geopolitical Chernobyl.” Along with the total withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011, which Mrs. Clinton championed, this abdication has created the space for Islamic State to thrive and swamped Europe with refugees.

ISIS did not exist when Mr. Obama took office, and Mr. Trump could gain an advantage by proposing a better strategy to defeat the jihadists. The FBI estimates that “thousands” of Americans may have been radicalized online or overseas, and they could soon perpetrate more attacks akin to Paris, Brussels or San Bernardino.

The battle is engaged.