Clinton is right. I think the gradual democratization of the world over the past two centuries points up to that.

OK, but in fairness, the US wasn't a pre-eminent leader for that whole time and I'm not sure the rest of the democratic world would agree that people were following the US example- any more than they followed the US example on slavery, for example, or segregation, or female emancipation. US ascendancy really dates back to the World Wars during which the previous European powers and Great Britain trashed each other and were overtaken by a physically removed USA that suffered little if any home damage (I think there were 6 deaths on the US mainland attributed to either war, all six being killed after they messed with a balloon bomb that had drifted across from Japan and failed to explode.)

OTOH, geopolitics is not a beauty pageant and I frankly don't think we should give too much weight to how the rest of the world "thinks" about us as long as we stick to our principles.

To respond in kind: geopolitics may not be a beauty pageant but nor is it a Jackboot-stomp. Surely there is a mutually respectful middle ground, especially when US wealth depends strongly on foreign funding and trade, a dependence that is likely to grow stronger.

IMHO the best opportunity for the US is to trade, trade, trade. There was a time when the "USA" brand meant excitement, innovation and decent quality... something to be coveted and valued. If you can get young people wanting American jeans and American widescreen TVs, it's a heck of a lot harder to convince them that the US is actually the great Satan that needs to be wiped from the earth. ;-) Make yourselves the cool dudes again. If you don't, the Europeans and especially the Asians are poised to take over economically just as the US took over after European nationalism and misplaced pride resulted in too many own-goals last century.