Anyone, particularly in a commencement address to high schoolers, but otherwise in any serious (and it was serious) speech, who is going to quote something to learn from from Mao, MUST know that she MUST couple that “teachable moment” with a full and robust condemnation of all about Mao that is condemnable.
Also it is not like whatever insights Mao had were unique to him and that some other more suitable and less ironic source could not be found.
“Anyone, particularly in a commencement address to high schoolers, but otherwise in any serious (and it was serious) speech, who is going to quote something to learn from from Mao, MUST know that she MUST couple that “teachable moment” with a full and robust condemnation of all about Mao that is condemnable.
Also it is not like whatever insights Mao had were unique to him and that some other more suitable and less ironic source could not be found.”
But all about Mao is not “condemnable”. There is no better exponent of guerrilla warfare I have seen. The USMC apparently recognized some merit there as well, as his treatise on the subject was once part of a line officer’s training.
Anyway, the point of my post eludes you so completely that there is no point in further effort.
Perhaps something somewhere needs to be shephardized, so the day is not a total loss?