Eisenhower's prescient prophecy as per the ominous growth of the Military-Industrial Complex has come to pass. And with it, our fledgling Democratic Republic has been morphed into a military empire.
Thus, leaders who aim for the proverbial brass ring either act as willing servants of the MIC or don't (in which case, their careers will come to an abrupt halt one way or another). It doesn't matter what labels are used to cover their crimes against humanity.
My comment is in reference to this quote from the article:
"The notion that some of these disaffected neocons might gravitate to Clinton may seem surprising on the surface, but it should not come as a particularly great shock. As two recent New York Times reports, one on her overall foreign policy views and another specifically on the 2011 U.S. intervention in Libya, have made plain, Clinton’s foreign policy instincts are rooted in a fundamental belief that American military power can accomplish great and important things around the world. Her hawkishness can be better categorized as “liberal interventionist” than “neoconservative” (in other words, she believes in the importance of international institutions and in the potential use of American power to achieve liberal/humanitarian aims). The Libya intervention showed clearly that there is a nexus where liberal interventionists and neoconservatives can find common policy ground."
Call it what is it--a water carrier/sycophant for the Military Industrial Complex and the Make-War (into perpetuity) military state/empire.