Making my way through my daily morning routine – checking blogs, newspapers and Google trends – I kept coming across this Hillary Clinton got angry story. But, try as I may, I still have not been able to figure out what exactly the story is. Someone asked a question, it got mistranslated, Hillary replied fairly – and perhaps curtly – and that was that. No flash of emotion, raising of her voice or anything.
Well, here. I’ll give you the full report.
Hillary Clinton, President Obama’s Secretary of State, is currently on a seven nation, eleven day trip across Africa promoting US interests. Yesterday she was a part of a town meeting in Congo and was asked a question by one of the town hall participants. The question was about, according to Associated Content, “What Bill Clinton thought about Chinese contracts in the United States.” To which Hillary Clinton replied, “You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not Secretary of State, I am. If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband.”
Which is true. She is the Secretary of State and her husband’s opinions are not her concern. Nor should they be the concern of Congo, really. Now, as it turns out, the question was mistranslated and was actually asking what President Obama thought, not Bill Clinton, making it a fair and worthwhile question. Still, you can’t fault her for a mistranslation.
As to the tone of her voice, it was – in the opinion of this blogger – rather matter of fact and at worst, slightly curt. Which, so what? Politicians get upset all the time and yet it never gets reported on. For example, Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, gets upset and curses up a storm every single day, yet he never gets called “angry”. Rather, he’s “aggressive”. Same for most of the Senate as well as other high ranking cabinet members. Yet, time and time again, whenever Hillary Clinton makes a remark that might be, uh, “aggressive” or “matter of fact” it turns in to a big story about how she’s angry or she snapped and lost total control.
I mean, check the video for yourself. Is this really worth all the hubbub?
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
![Designer McQueen Dead From Apparent Suicide [Photos]](http://cache.static.tsavo.com/wordpress/uploads/2010/02/20040603_tkf_n44_003-sm.jpg)
Comments
Kari
August 11th, 2009 - 11:06:34 AM
Yep. It's a total double standard and, unfortunately, it's almost never called out. Guys can be rude, angry and vicious all they like, and the media almost always portrays them as aggressive go-getters who know how to get things done. Whereas when high ranking women do so, they get called "angry" or much, much worse. I mean, it was just a week or so ago that the Washington Post "joked" that Hillary was a "Mad Bitch". And she's not the only one who gets it. So to does Nancy Pelosi, Sotomayor, Sarah Palin and plenty of others. Women have made great strides in the last couple generations, but we're not there yet.
1
John
August 11th, 2009 - 2:29:04 PM
I agree with Kari, however one must wonder why a strong woman, such as Ms. Clinton, would have "stood by her man" during those unseemly times of the 90's. It does show that she, at least up until recently, felt the need to ride his coat tails. I, on the other hand, think that she would have done fine leaving him altogether.
2
Marcie Schweikert
August 11th, 2009 - 3:29:49 PM
The univeristy student asked the question based on her cluture and was very respectful in asking the question. Obviously, Secretary of State Clinton didn't have a clue that the question was coming from the cluture of that area. What an absolute ignorant and uncalled for remark on the part of Clinton. Many in that country heard Clinton disavow their cluture by her behavior in slamming that student. If Clinton is trying to get even for not winning the presidency by misrepresenting Americans in other countries, she'd better consider this could back fire on her. She (Clinton) also reaffirmed her reputation for being a tyrant which she had earlier denied on the campaign trail. And she is supposed to be a well educated person?????
3
Marcie Schweikert
August 11th, 2009 - 3:31:59 PM
Absolutely no excuse or reason for Clinton's behavior. She is NOT representing US interests by slamming another country's cluture. No way!
4
Kelly
August 11th, 2009 - 4:17:37 PM
Marcie, a.) the question was mistranslated, hardly Clinton's fault b.) at no point did she "slam" anyone, especially not another country's culture c.) what exactly was ignorant about her response?
5
Marcie
August 12th, 2009 - 9:58:05 AM
The question was clear in the video. Apparently you did not hear the tone in Clinton's voice nor see the dismissive look on her face. Would you call her response respectful? The ignorance in her response was her lack of thought before she responded and apparent lack of knowledge of the culture.
6