Hillary Clinton outburst in Congo: the real reason she lost her temper.

[shireen]

The media made a big deal about Hillary Clinton's outburst in response to a mis-translated question.

Want to know the real reason for her short temper? The first clue was her appearance; she was exhausted. She was also upset, but it wasn't because of her husband or the mis-translated question.


Here's what most of the US media DID NOT report about her trip, from The Australian,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25920499-32682,00.html

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, visibly moved by first-hand evidence of the brutality of war in eastern Congo, yesterday delivered an impassioned appeal for action to end rampant sexual violence she called "evil in its basest form".

Mrs Clinton announced a package of $US17 million ($20.6m) in aid to respond to an epidemic of rape and other sexual crimes directed mainly at women and girls by government troops and rebels fighting in the region.

Her offer came after a harrowing meeting with victims of violent gang rapes in a crowded refugee camp on the outskirts of Goma.

"It is almost impossible to describe the level of suffering and despair," a shaken Mrs Clinton said afterwards. She toured the Magunga Camp, a dust-choked warren of tents and tin-lined huts, listening as officials and camp residents described the horrors of gang rapes and a litany of deaths from malnutrition, malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhoea.


Meanwhile, Fox news questions her diplomatic skills? If those shit-heads had bothered to learn about the ordeal she had just undergone and if they had even a smidgen of compassion, they would have kept their mouths shut.

Hillary Clinton is a human being, a woman, who is deeply upset about the sexual violence against women in Congo. That's why she lost her temper. How does anyone stay calm and collected, conducting themselves with "diplomatic skills" after listening to first-hand accounts of slaughter, violent gang-rapes, rampant disease, and what she calls evil in its basest form.

Hillary, here's a hug for you. Thank you for being a powerful advocate of womens' rights. :hug:

[polichick]

1. Thanks for the post - NPR pointed this out today. Who could blame her? nt

[karynnj]

55. NPR likely spoke of the purpose of the trip, but the OP is wrong

The town hall preceded the trip to Goma.


From the State Department web site:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/map/?trip_id=14

This shows the town hall, click on next stop.

[Toucano]

2. Thank you for sharing this.

I will look for the NPR report, too.

[aquart]

3. How could people know when the news ignored that part of the story?

And after seeing how women were routinely mistreated, to be asked her HUSBAND's opinion must have been very much a final straw. After what she'd seen, she had no reason to suspect a mistranslation. It must have seemed business as usual.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

4. Makes even more sense now. Thanks for posting! K&R

[tbyg52]

5. Neither my husband nor I found anything wrong with the response even without the previous experience

Sure, in a perfect world she might have asked herself if the translation could be wrong, but it's not a perfect world. Making a perfectly reasonable assumption that a professional translator did in fact translate it correctly, her response was completely understandable, IMHO.

[havocmom]

6. HRC is a fine SoS. A human being with human feelings better than cold rice

K&R

[Gold Metal Flake]

7. If the media were "liberal", it would have ignored the temper and reported the meeting with victims.

[Gin]

9. keep up the good work S.O.S. Clinton

g

[xultar]

8. This is what I've been trying to say. Her trip was about womens issues...

then she get's that question.
Perfectly appropriate response she didn't know it was mistranslated.

[immoderate]

10. Hillary is a fine Secretary of State.

She was not my choice for the job, but I am pleased with her performance. She will be thought of as one of the best.

--imm

[Control-Z]

11. I knew something was wrong.

One look at her and it was obvious. I thought perhaps she was physically ill. I'm happy her health is fine and so very grateful that she cares so much about women and justice.

edit: clarity

[karynnj]

56. Except - it was not the trip to Goma - which had not occured yet

From the State Department web site:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/map/?trip_id=14

This shows the town hall, click on next stop.

[bettyellen]

59. so gosh she'd only been briefed about the violent gang rapes and prepping to meet the victims...

big difference, ha.

[karynnj]

65. She had been briefed well before on that

She certainly was given the SFRC hearing that Boxer and Feingold held on it in May. Boxer has taken these issues as the focus of her committee, which is a newly created committee.

Now, I agree - and I said so 2 days ago - that the Goma visit deserved far more attention and wrote it was important she did this. The fact though is that HRC over reacted and was not good in that portion of the town hall. (But from the first, I did argue that there might be an explanation we did not know.)

The fact also is that HRC herself has never accepted excuses for minor lapses of others - other than Bill. She was always the first to roll her eyes and join in the criticism. So, it is hard to have that much sympathy for her when - as here - the problem was totally of her making AND it had little or no consequence to her. Even in your own 2008 posts, you didn't give Obama a break on anything. I never see you asking that Biden be given a break when he has been in similar circumstances.

The facts are - on the big things, this is an important trip that she should be commended on, but on this small issue, HRC was not good. Why not just accept it and put it in perspective - which Beacool did in her post a couple of days ago?

[bettyellen]

73. LOL, your stalking old posts because I make one comment? Wow you really have nothing better to do?

Gosh maybe you could send me a link to Beacools posts and I'll feel differently about something I already saw with my own eyes. Maybe the question won;t seem offensively sexist to me then,,, Not.

Maybe you need to get off line if this is your only frame of reference. And stop stalking me.

[karynnj]

76. How paranoid

I praised a Beacool thread that was posted the day before yours containing an abundance of information on the Goma visit. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8580438 My point was rather than try to stand on your head to excuse what, for many, cannot be excused, simply change the subject to the good, serious, commendable parts of that trip. I ave Beacool links to Boxer's complementary work there.

In my opinion, wrong as the questioned sounded (the questioner had actually asked President Obama's position), her reaction was unpleasant and not diplomatic.

As to stalking you, I really do not remember your user name. I don't think I've responded to you recently - if ever. If you are going to make such an asinine charge, then show me a series of my posts to you. Don't flatter yourself. I do have a life offline that I do not have to explain to you.

In fact, it might be that I responded to you once and you responded to me once.

[bettyellen]

85. How totally fucking creepy: " Even in your own 2008 posts, you didn't give Obama a break...."

go away, and stay there, please.
:hi:

[karynnj]

86. I looked back because I couldn't get where you were coming from with your

attack on my comment that simply corrected the timeline. The rudeness was surprising, so I used Search and saw what I described.

Now, as I spent less than 5 minutes looking at posts, they may have not been representative. It does seem like you are not proud of what you wrote back then.

[bettyellen]

87. oh gosh karen, i know you're just dying to post it and i couldn;t give a damn if you did - so whats

stopping you from more creepy harrassment? oh yeah, the DU rules.
i don't know or care as to what your referring to, and i have to say of you need to look up someones history everytime they disagree with your nitpicking (yes it was nitpicking that i took issue with) you need to get over yourself and get a life.

i saw hillary take issue with a very sexist question during a trip that was very much focused on maltreatmeant of women. i thought it was appropriate for her correct the questioner. i saw people who never liked her anyway blow it out of proportion. big shock there.

[karynnj]

88. It would not have been against DU rules to link to any previous DU thread

You are the one who needs to get a life and get over yourself. Your first comment to me was insulting. The problem is that the timeline was not "nit picking" it destroys the argument. I looked back because I wanted to see where you are coming from because I didn't recognize your user name and did not want to just assume something that was not true.

Had you done the same, you would see that my comments on HRC's Africa trip included both praise for what had to be the very difficult witnessing of the consequences of evil and comments on her reaction to what was a pretty innocuous question, that could easily have been handled well. I had posted on the Goma visit - on Beacool's thread, where she had an excellent set of articles on the substance of the the trip, and on the undiplomatic comment. The problem with HRC's response is that it took away the focus from the maltreatment of women, which in the Congo is severe, and made it for some here the "maltreatment" of HRC and her undiplomatic response.

I actually do not think the question was necessarily sexist. It happened because she is married to Bill Clinton, who is a former Presidents and, as all the Clinton supporters would likely agree, a rock star. A similar question would not have been asked of any female diplomat, such as Madeline Albright or Susan Rice, the UN ambassador. The question should have been the Obama administration's position. Had HRC won, it would have been entirely appropriate and non-sexist to ask any male SoS what HRC's opinion was. The error was that Bill Clinton is not part of the government any more - which might not have been completely understood by the student. HRC could have answered the student's question, deftly referring to the Obama administration and her own position.

Clearly HRC is sensitive to havin been in Bill Clinton's shadow, but as much as he does cast a shadow, he also brought those near him into an intense spotlight. HRC was very happy to use that star power in her campaign. It is very much a mixed blessing.

As to you, if you want, I will put you on ignore and not look at any of your comments, old or new.

[bettyellen]

90. I'm not nutty enough to spend time looking at old comments or worry about if I knew someone merely ....

because they disagreed with me. who in the world are you with your dumass freeper hunts? yes, put me on ignore if you need to do some exhaustive search to try and find a gotcha moment or distrust everyone whose name you don't recognize (again- get a life) posters like you make me nauseous with your self important high post count nonsense.
so, seriously get over it. asking a professional woman her husbands opinion on her job- instead of her own- it's the very definition of sexist. and i'm glad she looked at him askance for the inappropriate and insulting question.

[karynnj]

93. If your husband is in the same field, it happens all the time

and usually is not met with the type of anger and disgust that HRC showed.

I worked a company that was the leading research company in the world. There were many couples, where both people met working together and both still worked for the company of in the same field. I saw many instances where, even in formal meetings, people brought up or were asked the spouse's view. Whether it was asking "Sally" about "Sam" or "Sam" about "Sally", it happened and it was not a problem. Here, the difference is that rather than two scientists or mathematicians, it was a former President of the United States and a current Secretary of state. Now had HRC's husband been a scientist, doctor, musician etc the question would not have been asked. It was because they are in the same "field".

Here the questioner was wrong, but the response was worse. Why worse? The difference in what should be expected of a student in a third world country and what is expected of the woman, who is likely the most powerful world in the world?

PS You are out of line with "freeper". The fact is that freepers make stuff up, rather than research anything. I notice you do not dispute what I said and it did not accuse you of anything nefarious. In addition, I know what research is and a 5 minute look at past posts before responding is neither exhaustive or unreasonable. The reason was to avoid saying to you something that was not fair. Had I seen you similarly defending Obama, Biden, Kerry, etc, I would not have said what I did - in fact, I likely wouldn't have responded. I have searched comments only when - as here - I wanted to make sure what I intended to say was fair - and there have been times in the past where similar searches caused me to step back because I could see where the person was coming from and was able to see her/his comment differently in that light.

PS I have never denigrated anyone for low post count or thought my high post count signified anything. The value of a post is whether it contains ood information or adds insight, whether it is post number 1 or post number 2000000.

[bettyellen]

105. because something happens "all the time" doesn;t make it okay, and LOL Bill is unemployed.

Too many screwed up things happen in the workplace "all the time" that people= even women- think all sorts of sexist bullshit is the norm - they feel pressured to pretend it's okay. . It's not and they shouldn;t have to pretend otherwise. They shouldn;t have to be 2X as sweet as men in order to be "liked" whatever that means. They ought to be respected and valued for their own work, not treated as vessels or assistants to their husbands.
I can't defend Hillary unless I've defended the president or Biden now? Well that's really really good of you to share your little rule book with me. Creepy and pointless, but whatever floats your boat.

[karynnj]

117. The example I gave was not in anyway sexist or wrong

It was also not resented by anyone. You also miss that it went both ways. This was a workplace that respected the ideas and knowledge of anyone - male or female, independent of level.

You completely missed the description of the environment that I described, and substituted one of your own. The company I described is Bell Laboratories and it was a great place to work. It takes a lot of chutzpah for you to assume that people were "pretending" - they weren't. People were respected for their analytical ability and creativity far more than their "sweetness" female or male.

I do sympathize with you if your description accurately describes your work environment. Even in the early 1970s, my workplace was far better.

Bill Clinton is actually not unemployed he heads a Foundation and he has status as an ex-President. The fact is that the ONLY opinion that really matter here was the official Obama administration opinion - which we don't know and which HRC did not give.

[bettyellen]

118. we're not talking about you, but Hillary as SOS- not a married duo of scientists..

and if the wife scientist was asked for her husbands thoughts >>>instead of her own <<< that would have been comporable and just as wrong and sexist. and you know it. but you aren't arguing apples to apples. never tried to.

no reason to cloud the issue with couples that work together or questions that were never asked...what a load of irrelavant crap...it only shows how desperate people are to make her wrong here. i thought her reaction was fine, the guy might think twice before asking such a dumb shit question of a powerful woman.
and if the question asking what Hillary thought was inappropriate- which is a atangent people go on as if it's Hill's fault also- perhaps she would have answered completely appropriately- giving Obama's view and being supportive of it. No reason to speculate otherwise.
But yeah, lots of people are looking for any excuse to call her shrill again- so disappointing, burt predictable.

[karynnj]

119. You said "no professional woman ....."

I addressed that - in the only profession where I have any personal experience. You are also wrong that everyone would have the same ideas - if that were true there would have been no benefit to people working together. It was NOT sexist because it went both ways.

I mentioned it because I genuinely think he would not have asked what Mr Albright thought if it were Madeline, not Hillary. I also said that was an opinion. I also said many times it was the wrong question - it should have been what the Obama administration thought because that was the important opinion. But, I don't think the problem was sexism. I have also seen even local politicians asked questions that were more antagonistic that this.

Clearly many people - even some who always are impressed with HRC thought it was not her best moment.

[bettyellen]

120. we are talking hillary, and sexism at the workplace not your exceptional shangri la where sexism

doesn't exist. i never said "everyone would have the same ideas". you seem to have a really hard time comprehending something very simple.
i said you'd damn well be insulted if your coworkers did not ask what you thoughts were and asked for your husbands thoughts instead- which is true of the case we are speaking of. simple, and if you get your head out of the sand and stop insisting this is about you, you'll see lots of people think this is no big deal- more manufactured outrage.
Maybe lucky you -who claims to be blissfully inaware that sexism exsists in the workplace at all- is not the best judge. As lucky as you are to work in a pocket of the universe where sexism doesn;t rear it's ugly head- most if us do not. You seem to be blissfully ignorant that sexism still exsists, it would seem you don;t get out very much.
Good day, and yes, please ignore me.

[karynnj]

121. Actually, my comprehension is fine - I simply disaree with your simplistic view

that every problem HRC encounters is sexism. Your reading comprehension is lacking as well. I never said there was no sexism in the workplace. I grew up in the1950s and 1960s. It is not that I see a world with no sexism, it is that you see sexism everywhere. I also think that claiming sexism where it likely was not a big factor devalues real sexism.

You still have not answered my question of whether you think that they would have asked Mr Albright's or Mr (Susan) Rice's opinion. Only if the answer is yes, is this sexism. If not, it reflects the uniqueness of Clinton being married to a Former President, who still has a high profile all over the world. That higher profile was one of the reasons people here argued that HRC was uniquely qualified to be SoS, over people with better foreign policy resumes.

The fact is that HRC, as a professional diplomat, should have been able to navigate this better. She would have QUIETLY countered what you see as a cause celebre by answering the question, then in a friendly way noting it was the Obama administration position and, if she wanted, that Bill Clinton was no longer in government.

[bettyellen]

123. bullshit -never said it was a cause celebre, in fact YOU are the one thinking it;s a big deal now.

and just because you accept bullshit sexist behaviour, please do not think you speak for most women.
Get your head out of the sand, I'm not alone here... many agree with me.
why don;t you do some research on those who are making a big shit of this and their posting history? i'd bet we'd find a pattern there- and you love research so have at it. yeah, more head in the sand behaviour from you, more bullshit. forgive me if i don't answer your wild hypotheticals, and go off on more tangents with you... but you never answered my direct questions about the actual incident in question, and being asked your husbands opinion INSTEAD OF YOUR OWN. still waiting to hear what you think about that- . you're doing a fine job of avoiding it.

[karynnj]

126. I have not avoided your question, you simply do not like my answer

I have said several times they should have asked the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OPINION, which HRC has direct input to and which her job is to articulate. I also have said that HRC should have just given the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OPINION - then explained her role and the current lack of role of her husband. That would have been a lot more effective making the point than what she did.

The fact is, I do recognize some of the people posting that this was a faux pas - and actually know a few of them from meeting them in person at various Democratic events. I agree with the arguments of most of them.

It is clear that your response to disagreement is personal attacks. It is not a "wild hypothetical" to ask if the reason for the question was because of who BC was, not because he is male and she is female. The problem is that I doubt many could pass a "red face test" and answer that this would have happened to other women diplomats or leaders. I don't think Margaret Thathcher was asked what Mr Thathcher thought. You are the one intentionally blinding yourself to the very likely possibility that what happened here was not rooted in sexism. (Note - that statement does not mean there is no sexism in the world - just that it was not a primary factor here. Added because your previous posts contained similar unreasonable jumps of logic.)

It is clear that you are incapable of discussing this issue (and probably anything HRC related) in a intellectually thoughtful, dispassionate manner or with any civility. Therefore, I will not respond further because this horse has already been beaten to death.

[bettyellen]

127. BS! this has nothing at all to do what actually happened or with my question, total BS again.

shoulda coulda woulda... now it;s Hilary's fault they didn;t ask the right question - but if they did - she woulda answered it wrong. now you're saying she would have also been wrong if the question was a correct one... Good lord that's a little obvious on your part.

one last time:
how'd you like it in a professional setting if someone asked you your husbands opinion INSTEAD OF your own. in front of a group of people/ colleauges (you know because you both worked in science like you said, it's comporable to their situation , right? )-basically acting like you do not exist... the woman trying to do a job.. and being treated like she isn;t even there. You;d be fine with that?

[karynnj]

128. You are hardly coherent in the first paragraph

I will put this in bullet points to make it easy:

1) I always said the question should have been about Obama administration policy. I never defended the question, although I disputed that in a professional setting questions are never asked of a spouse's opinion.

2) As the top diplomat, she should have had the discipline to rise above what you take to be a personal slight and be diplomatic.

I noticed you did not answer whether you thought the student would have asked what Mr. Rice or Mr. Albright thought. Unless you do, this is not sexism, but rather the unique circumstance that Clinton is married to one of the most famous people in the world, who the student likely assumed still was in power to some extent. The fact is Hillary Clinton was given SoS partially because of the value of the Clinton name and fame, not because she had the diplomatic skills of a top diplomat or unusually strong foreign policy experience.

[bettyellen]

129. you don't get to (narrowly) define sexist behaviour for the rest of us.

and the vast majority women here agree that question was sexist bullshit. So you are pretty much in the minority there. You won;t even adress the question of how it would be to be asked your husbands opion instead of your own- which is a more accurate representation of what happened then your example of husbands and wives sharing theri spouses oprions becasue they work together. You dishonestly brought up a rare scenario and refuse to talk about what was really asked. That it should have been another question is moot. That you claim she would have answered that question wrong too, is a giveaway.
what's in dispute was whether her reaction was laudable or unfortunate. On that point we continue to disagree. It doesn't require bullet points to sort out. it does require honest discussion of issues germane to the incident, neither of which - no matter who you format it- do you seem capable of.

[LisaLynne]

12. It's also the sexist clinging to "women are soooo emotional" crap, if you ask me.

That's why it was harped upon. How many times have male diplomats responded testily to a question when tired? Many, many times, but it's not noted. With a female politician, especially one as powerful and effective as Hillary Clinton, they are just waiting for her to do something "stereotypically" female, such as showing emotion, because in their minds, that proves that she in particular is not fit to serve and secondly that no woman should be allowed to have power because, egads, they are soooo emotional! It says much more about them than anything else.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

20. Exactly. +100

I find it quite refreshing to see atrocities against women greeted with the fury they deserve

instead of the "huh? what? nope, nuthin goin on there..." business as usual from all other places. Or the other mass-market attitude, "Women are interesting, when they're blonde, hawt and dead"

[bettyellen]

107. bingo! she went through the same crap through the primaries

it;s a no win situation for women.

[Octafish]

13. Hey, Madame Secretary! Check out this book...

In the photo below, taken in February 1961, President John F. Kennedy
is being informed of the assassination of Congolese president Patrice Lumumba.
The CIA-organizedassisted hit was performed on Jan. 17, 1961, three days before JFK took office.



JFK: Ordeal in Africa

JFK understood where Congo was, way back in the 1950s,
discussing colonialism on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
He feared the nation would become what it is today.

[redqueen]

14. Thank you.

K&R

[Riverman]

15. Yes, I saw on TV that she looked very tired, From an old white guy-

Thank you Secretary of State Clinton for speaking out and having the empathy to notice, respond and act to end such human cruelty!

[SIMPLYB1980]

16. Yep and the people that were talking nonsense about her

owe her a big apology. Not that they will, but they should.

[karynnj]

57. Her answer was still out of line and it was BEFORE the trip to GOMA

From the State Department web site:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/map/?trip_id=14

This shows the town hall, click on next stop.

[Raffi Ella]

17. Thanks for the post.

K&R

[vssmith]

18. She had a damn good reason to be mad at the way the question was phrased

[liquid diamond]

19. Sadly, that won't be enough to satisfy the assholes that hate

and insist on criticizing her.

[eleny]

23. They aren't worth the energy so I don't give a shit what they think

[amborin]

21. also: Goma is epicenter of rebel fighting & threfor dangerous & landing in Goma is technically risky

the Goma airport is surrounded by mnts and very tricky to land in, according to
yesterday's ny times....

and: it's dangerous as it's the center of the rebel war; she flew to Goma from Kinshasha

AND: she is the ONLY U.S. representative to spend the nite in Kinshasha!

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. I liked her outburst.

And shame on the translator.

[spanone]

24. american media is a worldwide embarassment....fuck them and their shallowness

[inna]

25. it was not good, and a really unfortunate overreaction on Hillary's part.

it was sad to watch; i don't think i've EVER seen her act like that.

[seabeyond]

26. and i thought it was totally appropriate per the question she received. go figure. nt

[wisteria]

32. The question should never of been about her opinion anyway. She should be speaking on behalf of Pres

Obama. That is what a SOS is suppose to do. The opinions she expresses are those of her boss. If she disagree with those opinions these disagreements are discussed outside the public forum.

[seabeyond]

42. that has nothing to do with the question she answered. nt

[wisteria]

31. I agree. She has always carried herself so well in the past. I was embarrassed for her. n/t

[asdjrocky]

27. If a guy did that would they call it an outburst?

[karynnj]

53. Yes nt

[LanternWaste]

77. I'm surprised no one's used the word 'shrill' yet...

If a male did that, it would most likely be said of him that he possesses "the strength of his convictions, and a forceful will to better focus the administration's message..." rather than an "outburst".

I'm surprised no one's used the word 'shrill' yet...

[asdjrocky]

79. See, that's what I was thinking.

But then a man would never be asked his wifes opinion if he is the SOS, so I can see her getting a bit pissed.

The word outburst makes me think of a teenage girl, I'm sure that has something to do with my on preconceived notions of the word, but I found it's use a bit strange.

[LanternWaste]

84. There's quite a bit of creative language usage going on

"The word outburst makes me think of a teenage girl..."

There's quite a bit of creative language usage going on when it comes to SoS Clinton, and a lot of people will hide behind a technical usage, whilst fully realizing the cultural meanings that the word also contains, i.e., 'shrill', 'outburst', etc. Something I was painfully made fully aware of when I taught ELS in MX.

"What’s Language Got to Do with It?" by Keith Walters is a very good text on the many ways we hide behind language.

[lonestarnot]

28. Hillary kicked ass on a mistranslation. Woopsie. Bet the interpreter was embarrassed.

[Chorophyll]

29. K&R.

Thank you Hillary, and thank you Shireen. :hug:

[wisteria]

30. Nice try, but her outburst had nothing to do with her visit. I don't recall her once mentioning it

in her comments. She did however, mention herself and her husband several times.

[BlooInBloo]

33. Jon Stewart was hilarious on this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/jon-stewart-can-the-clint_n_257523.html

[tabasco]

34. I wish she had reacted differently

but nobody will remember this incident three days from now.

[Lord Helmet]

35. Feminists should cringe at the excuses offered for her undiplomatic behavior.

[inna]

36. agreed, nt

[Chemisse]

37. She needs no excuse

If I had been asked the question she heard, being in her position, I would have been royally pissed.

Can you imagine how often she is asked what Bill thinks, what Bill would do, what he would say?

And here she is in this extremely important position, and she is out there on the job, and still she is asked (she thinks) about what Bill would say?

Sure, she should've responded with her usual cool veneer. But dammit, I LIKED her angry response. When she slapped that questioner down, I felt like I was slapping down some of the sexist guys I have had the displeasure to know. It felt good.

And yes, she looked utterly exhausted.

[seabeyond]

44. you are right. she doesnt need any excuses. i couldnt agree more. she was fine

:)

[ProSense]

49. That in and of itself is proof her actions needed to be justified.

Why all the excuses?

Want to know the real reason for her short temper? The first clue was her appearance; she was exhausted. She was also upset, but it wasn't because of her husband or the mis-translated question.

Good grief.

[karynnj]

58. Not to mention, this was BEFORE the trip to Goma, so the explanation is nonsense

From the State Department web site:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/map/?trip_id=14

This shows the town hall, click on next stop.

[NYC Liberal]

52. Hm. I wonder what feminists would think about a woman in power

who has worked her entire life to to get that position, going overseas on an important diplomatic mission, representing the entire United States -- and being asked what her HUSBAND thinks of things?

Gosh, I don't know WHY any woman in that position would be pissed!

[BlueIris]

61. You might want to actually learn something about feminism before telling us what to do.

Oh, wait, the reason you're ignorant of feminism is because it might edumacate you about how cringe-worthy your behavior is.

[noiretextatique]

74. this feminist is not upset

i don't think she did anything wrong. the question was rude, and she responded accordingly. kudos to her.

[noiretextatique]

78. bull...the question was sexist

why would someone ask her what her husband thinks? i don't blame her for bristling over that question.

[bliss_eternal]

95. it's so typical....

...women are asked about their husbands, children, fashion and how they balance "careers with being wives and mothers." men are asked about issues. :eyes:

[bliss_eternal]

96. gee thanks....

...for advising us how to think and feel about this issue. how benevolent of you.
:eyes:

[lukasahero]

99. Feminists, as a rule, don't like being told what we should do/be/think/feel

So, thanks but I'll make up my own mind about this.

[bettyellen]

106. because she needs no excuses at all.

[Le Taz Hot]

108. This one is.

She's the top diplomat in the country. Her behavior was unconscionable and an embarrassment to the country and to her office.

[seaglass]

122. No excuses necessary. Being a diplomat does not equal rolling over.

I was thrilled with her response.

[ohheckyeah]

38. I thought it was obvious

she was exhausted and emotionally wrung out. And thank God she was or she probably would be an unfeeling, uncaring jerk.

[DefenseLawyer]

39. Bad news.

Mrs. Clinton is likely to see and hear about a lot more really awful stuff that has happened around the world. If your theory/excuse is correct, we may be kind of fucked on the diplomacy front.

[shireen]

43. is that the kind of "diplomacy" you want? nt

[DefenseLawyer]

45. Look, I don't think this was a big deal

but no, taking a stupid question from some kid in the Congo as a personal affront and giving a shitty response is not the kind of diplomacy I want, and I don't care if she just toured Bergen-Belsen and hadn't slept for 9 days. Her reaction was poor. Learn from it and move on.

[BlooInBloo]

40. I don't care *why* America's Head Diplomat was 100% unable to be diplomatic...

To a random schmoe's question coming through a translator; I only care that she *wasn't*.

But it appears to have been merely a blip, so no biggie.

[shireen]

41. i'm glad to see so many comments supportive of Hillary

but the few callous remarks towards her, in this thread, are disappointing to hear in a place like DU.

Stop, for a moment, and try to imagine what it must have felt like to hear those horrendous stories from the women that Sec. Clinton met in Congo. Anyone who feels empathy will come away from that experience feeling some small fraction of the pain those women endured, and even that small fraction would be overwhelming. If she did not feel anguished and exhausted after meeting those women, I would not want her for SOS and would not want her to run for president in 2016.

Given that backdrop, I totally understand why she lost her temper over what sounded like a dumb insulting question. Sec. Clinton has a good heart, which had been broken earlier that day.

I've generally been lukewarm about Hillary Clinton, but watching her in the last months of the campaign and seeing the way she's grown into her role as our SOS, i've developed tremendous admiration and respect, even affection for her.

[David Zephyr]

46. Excellent.

Thanks.

[stillcool]

47. I didn't really care why she said it..

it sounded just fine to me, without any explanation..but then I didn't see any of the brouhaha over it.. I think she is perfect right now in her position as Secretary of State. Perfect. I wish we were a different country, with a different government, and different goals as far as foreign affairs..but..with all our imperfections, she for some reason, inspires of all things quiet confidence.

[ProSense]

48. Good grief, what ridiculous and disgusting spin

This incident happened after the student's question. If you want to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt do it, but the distortion and willful gullibility is bizarre.

The media did cover it

The question was before the tour of the Congo.

Good grief. This is like a RW feel-good frenzy.



edited word.

[shireen]

50. my apologies.

i thought the trip to Goma happened before the townhall with the students. I was wrong. For that I apologize.

After reading your post, i tried to find out more about her itinerary.
You are right about the timeline. I found a transcript of the townhall meeting where she talks about her trip to Goma "tomorrow"
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/08/127173.htm
SECRETARY CLINTON: One of the reasons that I’m going to Goma tomorrow is to speak out against the sexual and gender-based violence that has affected women and girls in eastern Congo. I think it’s right to say that 13,000 women a month are raped. It’s an astonishing and horrible figure, and many of them are children. The entire society needs to be speaking out against this. It should be a mark of shame that this happens anywhere, in any country.

Regarding media coverage, while it is true that the larger print newspapers covered it, most people do not read those newspapers. They get their news from tv. I did not see it covered during the CNN and MSNBC coverage I had watched during the time of her Congo visit. Still, I should have defined what i meant by media in my OP. And I am sorry for not being clearer about that.

I was caught up in my rage about the atrocities in Congo, and had immediately assumed Clinton had been affected by it. She looked exhausted during that townhall meeting, and from her demeanor, I got the impression that something was bothering her. I was wrong, and I should have verified it before posting my OP.

But I do take exception with one thing you said: "RW feel-good frenzy." There is nothing "RW" or "feel-good" about this thread. Frenzy, perhaps. My OP was written while i was feeling deep outrage about the sexual violence against women, men and children in Congo. My mistake was assuming that Clinton's outburst was partly caused by the emotional toll of her visit to Goma. Call my OP careless and sloppy, but please don't call it "RW" or "feel-good".

Well, removing Goma from the situation, I still feel that Clinton was justified in her anger -- the question as posed by the translator was insulting. But that's just my opinion. If it wasn't for the atrocities in Congo, I would have not bothered to post anything about it.

Well, I'll go crawl into my hole now, and i'm banning myself from posting on DU for a week ....


:yoiks:

[ProSense]

67. Yeah, she had every right to take her anger at the U.S. media out on a student in Africa.

Good grief.

[karynnj]

51. The trip schedule makes this scenario impossible - the town hall PRECEDED the trip to Goma

From the State Department web site:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/map/?trip_id=14

This shows the town hall, click on next stop.

[TheKentuckian]

54. She is also legitimately sick of the "little girl" treatment

She suffers little condescension, especially from the stone age set that she was dealing with.

[Life Long Dem]

60. What does Bill think of her losing her temper?

Just wondering if he thinks this is Presidential?

[karynnj]

68. lol - Both Clintons have tempers that sometimes show

The difference is that Bill Clinton, for the most part, hid his successfully in the 1990s. In 2008, he either couldn't or didn't - and it hurt Hillary Clinton.

I suspect that Bill Clinton sympathized with HRC that this outburst has come to be the most covered part of the trip.

[DevonRex]

62. Amen. And personally, I like a SoS with a bit of a temper anyway.

Is she supposed to be a little lady all the time? Good grief. She went to a place that is hell on earth and did something good. Yet the media basically portray her as a bitch. I will support her against these unfair attacks just like I support President Obama against unfair attacks. We're democrats. We rally around our people. Anyone who doesn't needs to do a bit of soul searching.

[Odin2005]

63. K&R

[Dinger]

64. K & R

Thank you.

[NashVegas]

66. And Here I Was, Thinking How She Had To Shout Above the Noise of the Room

Just to be heard.

[waiting]

69. No one here is mentioning

that this wasn't the first country she visited in Africa. And let's face it, Africa would take an emotional toll on anyone who has been active in the fight for human rights. Secondly, we aren't privvy to how many actual political leaders in these countries, have asked her about her husband, and if he would come there or what he thinks about the global state of affairs. This is an extremely difficult time in history to be the SoS. Add to that that your husband was a former president, and of any former president it could be, he's Bill Clinton. She did seem tired and frustrated, and we can't simply assume that it was an over reaction to one guy's question. I give her far more credit than that.

[tekisui]

70. It didn't seem like she lost her temper to me.

I didn't see anything wrong with it.

[MichiganVote]

71. 4 years of the falsie Condi Rice and she never had the guts to meet these women

But of course...its a Clinton. If she had sneezed the US media would have said she had gone to the Congo to give them H1n1.

Disgusting.

[okieinpain]

72. yeah, I kinda figured she had to be upset about something.

[Romulox]

75. I find the excuses more infantilizing than the slip up.

Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State. I'm not giving her a "Hillary Clinton is a human being, a woman, who is deeply upset..." excuse for her poor showing (not that she needs or wants my approval.) I'm holding her to the same standard I would hold any S.o.S.; I expect men to own up to their mistakes, and move on. Same with Ms. Clinton.

It was a minor snafu, imo, that is best forgotten. This is one of the cases in which the excuses are more infantilizing than the (let's be honest, completely human) behavior.

[Control-Z]

80. Had it come from a man

there would have been no story.

[woo me with science]

92. Thank you. nt

[aubergine14]

81. Here is my theory:

Bill goes to N. Korea and gets all the glory, even though I heard that Gore worked tirelessly behind the scenes. Kim Il Jong or whatever his name is requested only Bill to pick up the women (something he's very good at, LOL) and so Hillary's upcoming trip to Africa was overshadowed already. This was just the gasoline on the fire. Hey, I don't blame her for losing it, but she's supposed to be on an even keel as a representative of our country. Can you imagine if Obama would have gone off? There would be such a hue and cry...

[nonsequitur]

82. anyone could see she was exahusted. we all have our grouchy moments...

it was no big deal.

[W_HAMILTON]

83. That's too new-sy.

Who would want to listen to a story about this? This won't drive up the ratings.

Bring on some pundits that talk about Clinton's fiery temper and the obvious underlying hatred she still has for her husband due to his sexual indiscrections, and now we're talking!

:sarcasm:

[Orsino]

89. I question her diplomatic skills.

Mistranslation or not, she lost her cool. I understand that she's tired of dealing with stupid glass-ceiling-oriented questions like the one she thought she was being asked, and I sympathize entirely with her frustration.

But I see no excuse for her snapping like that. I am not going to believe that that was because she was "shaken" over conditions she'd seen on her trip.

It was a small failing, but a real one. Secretary Clinton is a seasoned politician, but seems a bit lacking as a diplomat.

[Karenina]

98. Oh, good grief...

Do you have ANY IDEA of the reactions of those outside your circle??? :shrug:

[Orsino]

101. I'm willing to listen to a defense of her response as somehow diplomatic...

...from whatever "circle" you would care to post.

[Karenina]

109. There ARE times where a frying pan is required.

:rofl::spank::rofl:

[Orsino]

110. No defense at all?

:shrug:

[Karenina]

114. In my many decades, I've learned it's best not to argue

with menfolk be itchin' fer a fight about what some wo-man done gone and done. Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton does not require any "defense" from me to you. :rofl: All I'm telling you is that outside your borders are different opinions and perspectives. ON everything. :rofl:

[Orsino]

116. Okay, so there's some context in which Sec. Clinton's response was diplomatic...

...but it's on another planet?

No, I think we could do better. We don't have to defend her words as appropriate. We can write it off as another "obliterate" moment, ill-considered words delivered too hastily.

[Liquorice]

102. I'm glad she reacted the way she did. nt

[Orsino]

111. Why is that?

Because the question came across as some sort of attack on Secretary Clinton? Generally sexist?

[Liquorice]

112. It was a very empowered response. It sounds like you're threatened by that. nt

[Orsino]

113. I was asking what you thought you heard in the question...

...that justified the response.

[woo me with science]

91. Oh for pete's sake. nt

[Deep13]

94. So what was the correct translation?

The question as translated sounded pretty misogynistic to me.

[OwnedByFerrets]

97. Even IF they had bothered, they wouldnt care.

[Liquorice]

100. Hillary is a powerful and stalwart woman. That upsets many people--not just republicans. nt

[Saboburns]

103. I loved her response

To me, it was perfect.

Hillary is so wise.

Maybe the wisest pol in the game right now.

Now that Dr. Dean got out.

[ceveritt]

104. To all:

I just watched the episode in question again.

It simply does not fit the definition of an "outburst."

Just my opinion. Carry on.

[Strong Atheist]

125. Extremely Belated Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[ContinentalOp]

115. WTF, I hadn't heard of this yet but I just watched the video.

Her reaction was fine. She has nothing to explain or apologize for.

[fascisthunter]

124. I Thought how she reacted was justified