1. Clendinnen may be post-modernist, but the vast majority of people in the state probably didn't study her, and so we have to form impressions based on the source alone.
2. Rubbish. As I mentioned elsewhere, she was discussing history as a whole. Show me one empiricist that believes that we can only extract ONE truth from the record of human history. 'Useable truths' seems to me to indicate relativism at the most (surely a postmodernist would argue in favour of useable fictions?) Also her affirmation of history as a teaching and learning aid seems explicitly non-pomo, or if it is it's a much less radical form of pomo than I've ever studied.
EDIT: Done me some research, and it does seem to appear than Clendinnen has, at the very least, post-modernist sympathies:
The point is, I fail to see how we could have got this out of the source without at least some background knowledge of Clendinnen. It's entirely possible that the BOS took her out of context and intended to present her as a moderate empiricist, you know