Given the electorate’s war-weariness and the likely focus during the election campaign on domestic issues, Hillary may not campaign on such an explicitly “expansive” foreign-policy platform (especially with respect to trade issues). But I suspect these will be the kinds of people who will be asked to serve in senior policy-making posts in her administration. Indeed, I imagine Flournoy may already have a lock on the Pentagon and could be in the running for national security adviser (although Steinberg is probably a strong candidate for the post.)
As for Kagan, he’s certainly as comfortable at this point being described as a liberal internationalist as a neoconservative. I called him a “neocon renegade” last year, and he’s made clear that he, like other neocons such as Max Boot and Eliot Cohen, would support Clinton over Trump. Perhaps Edelman will also prefer Clinton. As a protege of Richard Perle, co-chair of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs’s ultra-hawkish task force on Iran, and a director with Kagan, Bill Kristol, and Dan Senor of the Foreign Policy Initiative, Edelman would be a frightening choice for a senior appointment in a Clinton administration.
Of course, many neocons supported Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in 1992, only to be severely disappointed when only a tiny handful were chosen to serve in senior posts when he became president. We may see a repeat of that phenomenon after the 2016 elections.