Be on the right side of history.
Why? Because your vanity requires others to think well of you. And it provides you with the rush of self-adulation which is like a drug to these people.
Other movements that have employed the 'be on the right side of history' reasoning:
1) Romans, who believed that their empire and way would last until the end of time, because it was the height of human achievement.
2) The Enlightenment Philosophes of the 18th Century. They believed that superstition (i.e. Christianity) was a thing of the past, ever since they had 'discovered' reason. They believed this until the greatest philosopher of the time, Kant, said, poppycock! (rather, the German equivalent).
3) Marxists of the 19th and early 20th centuries. 'Nough said?
4) Feminists, who, basically believe that we can and ought to transcend our gender differences. Good luck with that!
The only movement of recent times (the one to which the homosexualist especially look to establish their own credibility) who do not believe that historical progression is their saviour is the Black Civil Right Movement. Because - unlike the above-mentioned 4 - the Civil Rights movement was thoroughly Christian in inspiration, and no Christian would care whether or not the force of history was on his side. 'History', aka, 'the world' in Christian parlance, is precisely that which inhibits the coming of the Kingdom of God. Further, the Civil Rights Movement was based on the Christian principles of (a) original sin - recognizing that people would always want to treat 'the other' poorly, (b) love of neighbour - would not cynically resort to force to make its goals come about by any means necessary.
Clinton's departure from these two principles means that her 'advice' actually constitutes a bonafide threat, along the lines of the Romans, the Marxists and the Enlightenment Philosopher-Kings, Catherine of Russia and Frederick of Prussia.
The coming of the Kingdom of God with which Martin Luther King rightly aligned the Civil Rights Movement was understood to be a thing which God and not man would bring about. If the hearts of men were to change, it would be God alone who would change them. His pacifism was based upon this conviction. Secular movements cannot be pacifistic because they do not look to the mighty and eminently wise hand of God as the vindicator of men but, rather, to the unscrupulous hand of man, though force and through 'conscientizing.'
Why do people care whether they are 'with the times'? It is because they have no hope for real immortality in the presence of God, so they cling to the paltry ambition that is getting a statue erected to themselves in some 'Hall of Humanitarians' somewhere, alongside King, Gandhi and Obama.
But Obama and Clinton are not like King and Gandhi or any real humanitarian. They fit into the category of cynical social engineers, right next to all the worst figures from human history. The difference is great: the humanitarian respects people's freedom (the freedom to disagree, to oppose); the social engineer does not.
And so, to Hillary, to Obama, Lenin, Nero, Diocletian, Bismarck, and Catharine, I say, as all Christians before me have said,
BRING IT ON!