By Bob Stone
Hillary Clinton made a speech recently in which she referenced something she calls “smart power.”
MSNBC said: “Clinton defined the term Wednesday as “using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security,” while “showing respect” for other countries and actors on the world stage – “even for one’s enemies.”
Clinton’s exact words were: “Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”
Interesting maxim. Without getting into what it means in terms of national security, i.e. “know thy enemy” v. “love thy enemy,” are liberals truly capable of taking Clinton’s word to heart?
Let’s find out.
“Sean Hannity and Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton came to blows over Ferguson tonight after Norton told a stunned Hannity that she didn’t read the evidence of the case. Norton said she wants to talk about moving forward and larger issues of race in America, but Hannity didn’t let that slide.
He repeatedly asked her why she wouldn’t read the evidence, accused her of pushing “a narrative that has been proven false,” and asking her bewilderedly, “The truth isn’t your concern?!”
Norton shot back, “My interest is not in what happened, my interest is in what should happen!” (Story here)
Call me crazy, but I have a problem when members of the United States Congress formerly state on record an accusatory remark about an individual with nothing less than reckless disregard for the truth.
So my question is, are liberals willing to empathize with a sworn enemy like Sean Hannity; even for objective reasons? Because when I hear someone who’s not too fond of Hannity say “I can’t believe how well he handled himself in that interview” — the world seems a tad off kilter.