We cats have finally read the oh-so-controversial interview that Hillary Rodham Clinton granted The Atlantic and are wondering what all the fuss was about.
Wait, we know — it was about a Pundit World that wants to dumb-down complex and interesting thought and make it a gigantic Clinton-Obama kerfuffle. Well, move along, everybody. Nothing to see here.
Two examples of what we mean:
Yes, Clinton criticizes the US's failure to arm the Syrian rebels. (This should be no surprise, since she takes the same position in her book.) Then, after she's famously asked about the Obama "Don't do stupid [stuff]" mantra, she says this:
"I think [President Obama] was trying to communicate to the American people that he's not going to do something crazy. I've sat in too many rooms with the President. He's thoughtful, he's incredibly smart, and able to analyze a lot of different factors that are all moving at the same time. I think he is cautious because he knows what he inherited, both the two wars and the economic front, and he has expended a lot of capital and energy trying to pull us out of the hole we're in."
Second example: Clinton says, "When you are hunkering down and pulling back, you’re not going to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward." Everyone has taken this comment on American retrenchment as a slam against the current occupant of the White House. Wrong.
Like Clinton's strong endorsement of Israel, this remark is aimed at Rand Paul, who is clearly (and clumsily) running for President. And Clinton knows there's a big split in the Republican Party between interventionism and retreat — among other things.
We cats could go on, but we don't want to lecture. Our advice boils down to this: Don't let the pundits tell you what you're supposed to think about this interview. Read it yourself. Don't just read about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment