James Fallows on Hillary's Atlantic interview

[MBS]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/two-ways-of-looking-at-the-hillary-clinton-interview/375906/

There are two ways to think about the political and policy implications of Hillary Clinton’s deciding to say what she did, during this strange limbo period when she is clearly preparing to run for president but has more to lose than gain by officially saying so.
• One approach would be to think that we’re primarily witnessing a media event—journalists doing what journalists do. . . in fairness, anyone who reads the whole transcript will find that the tabloid version of her comments—weakling Obama lost Syria!—is cushioned in qualifiers and complexities. If this is the way the Clinton camp feels about our presentation of the interview, they are perfectly well versed in all the the formal and informal ways of getting that message across. . .
• The other approach is to think that Hillary Clinton, as experienced a figure as we now have on the national scene, knew exactly what she was saying, and conveyed to an interviewer as experienced as Goldberg exactly the impression she intended to—including letting the impression sink in through several days' worth of op-ed and talk-show news cycles before beginning to offset it with an "out of context" claim. That impression is a faux-respectful but pointed dismissal of Obama's achievements and underlying thought-patterns. . .
If the former interpretation is right, Clinton is rustier at dealing with the press than we assumed. Rustier in taking care with what she says, rustier in taking several days before countering a (presumably) undesired interpretation.
I hope she's just rusty. Because if she intended this, my heart sinks. It sinks for her, that she thought this would make her sound tough or wise; it sinks for the Democratic Party, that this is the future foreign policy choice it’s getting; and it sinks for the country, if this is the way we’re going to be talked to about our options in dealings with the world.
. . . She appears to disdain the president for exactly the kind of slogan—"don't do stupid shit"—that her husband would have been proud of for its apparent simplicity but potential breadth and depth. (Remember "It's the economy, stupid"?) Meanwhile she offers her own radically simplified view of the Middle East—Netanyahu right, others wrong—that is at odds with what she did in the State Department and what she would likely have to do in the White House. David Brooks was heartened by this possible preview of a Hillary Clinton administration's policy. I agree with Kevin Drum and John Cassidy, who were not. . . .But really, go read the interview. Either way, the presumptive nominee has, under Jeffrey Goldberg's questioning, shown us something significant.

[yurbud]

1. Both could be true. She meant it, and she is rusty or has a tin ear

For what the public wants.

[CJCRANE]

2. She's telling us what she wants.

She said a few weeks ago that she wants to tell a "story" and run on a "theme" (if she runs).

I immediately had a hunch about what she was hinting at and the approach she wanted to take. Recent interviews and opinion pieces have just confirmed my suspicions.

[yurbud]

4. what's the suspicion? Joe Lieberman in a pants suit?

[Chan790]

3. I think more the first than the second.

Further, I think it's the old thing about the media hating non-horse-race elections...if you have a strong consensus candidate that is going to make the election non-competitive...that candidate's electability must be destroyed as early as possible.

I'm biased in interpretation and outcomes because I don't like Clinton...but much like the Dean scream I don't think any of this is dying down, or the next incident or the next--until Hillary drops out or it destroys any chance of her running away with this race, this is the new reality.