Context: Hillary Clinton In Africa

From the comments, this excellent post on the NYTimes web site is pointed out to us. I recommend it be read by all. It makes some good points about "the question" brouhaha and gets the facts straight - something the Media does not do very well. But just as importantly, it links to this video, which, unfortunately, will not make the evening news or be the subject of a Maureen Dowd column.

Speaking for me only

< Misreading Polls And The Need To Euthanize The Post Partisan Unity Schtick | Feds Tour MI Standish Prison as Possible Sub For Gitmo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yup, (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:44:48 AM EST
    she was asked exactly what she thought she was asked.

    Yup (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:29:31 AM EST
    And it was not her brightest moment either. She has a rep for getting a bit feisty. And I say that as a Hillary supporter in the last election.

    In fact that feistiness could have gone a long way in the current health care battle that Obama is doing miserably at. Someone shouting back at the coordinated GOP onslaught would be refreshing compared to our timid Mr. Rogers in the WH.

    But back to her comment. The fact that she was talking to a student and not some a-hole media person makes it even worse. I will say though that it is clear to me from the video that she is very tired. She looks tired; her usual makeup is lacking which points to being tired; and she is on a long daily grind of a tour. So fatigue may have been an added factor. That said she still should have kept her cool. The finger pointing was a big OUCH.

    But in the big scope of things it all means nothing. Too bad she can't speak to health care in her current position. Today I wish she were back in the senate carrying the torch.


    Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by vml68 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:44:58 AM EST
    her usual makeup is lacking which points to being tired

    What does her makeup or lack thereof have to do with anything. Maybe she chose not to wear makeup that day or maybe her makeup lasted all of five minutes in that climate (If you have ever been to Central africa you would know what I am talking about).


    I'm just stating that on experience (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:53:21 AM EST
    When women I have been around are tired they are less likely to want to hassle putting on makeup.

    As for central Africa no I haven't been there. But I have seen picture of Clinton on her her current trip where she did have makeup so that tosses your theory out the window.


    Not necessarily... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by vml68 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:11:05 PM EST
    so that tosses your theory out the window.

    If you go from airconditioned buildings to ac car to ac buildings, your makeup will be just fine. But if you step out into the outside world (schools, hospitals, etc.) the heat and humidity will take that makeup right off. You are better of not wearing any makeup than having streaks running down your face.
    All of which is besides the point. Her makeup or lack thereof has no bearing on her job performance.


    You have a short (none / 0) (#62)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:43:56 PM EST
    attention span.

    Her makeup or lack thereof has no bearing on her job performance.

    If you go back and read my mention of her makeup was about her possible being tired. I was giving her an excuse of being edgy because of her being tired.

    Of course people here don't want to acknowledge that but instead cherry pick silly stuff like makeup out of contest.

    In other words most people here are just here to fight with others.


    Do you own a mirror? (none / 0) (#64)
    by vml68 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    most people here are just here to fight with others.

    Thank you! For correcting the record (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:49:56 AM EST
    as I bet that few of her media/blog critics on this will do.  HRC is not some secretary to some guy; she is our Secretary of State.

    Also glad to see that your link at least notes her work there for these sexually terrorized women (this is not just rape; it is physical destruction of thousands of women's internal organs and health, requiring unending surgeries that often cannot entirely repair the damage done by the vicious attacks).  Visiting these women in hospitals, meeting with them and their extraordinary advocates, demanding action by officials -- all this is a first by any American official.  It matters.

    Could you reword that? (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:59:17 AM EST
    HRC is not some secretary to some guy;

    I spent many years as "some secretary" to "some guy" and contributed greatly to the success of the company. HRC deserves praise, but not at the expense of other hard working women.


    Yeh (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:31:32 PM EST
    I went to playing word games with the word too easily.  Sorry.

    Btw, I don't usually even think of that term anymore for the work that you (and I) did, as they're not called secretaries anymore where I work.  They still do some of the most crucial work, though. :-)


    I knew you meant no disrespect.... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:42:47 PM EST
    but, even as an executive assistant, the desk remains outside the big office and fetching coffee for guests is expected :)

    No way (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    that our clerical support staff, unquote, would do so.  They all have their own offices.  We get our own coffee.  But then, this is academe -- we do our own typing, copying, etc., too.  That is, unless we can strive for decades to finally deserve student assistants!

    So (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:52:45 AM EST
    why did pool reporters say the question was intended to be about Obama in the first place?  And why did they not mention the Mutumbo thing.

    Pool reports are a little sketchy anyway I think - I remember being sort of shocked that one person would follow a candidate in the primaries, summarize each stop, and everyone else would crib from a report they had nothing to do with.

    Anyway, SOS Clinton's response was IMO a textbook example for young women on how to deal with that kind of sexist BS.  

    Boy, that's what (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    I want to know.  The Times story seems to pin it on some State Dept. official, who told reporters that the student himself had come up to HRC afterwards and said his question had been mistranslated. If so, apparently the student lied.

    If I were the translator, I'd be mighty PO'd about the whole thing.


    My question, too (none / 0) (#13)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:35:49 AM EST
    to your initial comment on this on the other thread.  

    Well, even on this blog ... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:05:50 AM EST
    we've seen denials of obvious sexism ... so it's an uphill battle.

    And learn that this country's choice (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    right now is whether to laugh it off or to realize that media so diminishing our Secretary of State can diminish this country's status in the world -- with the result that this country could end up being somebody's b*tch again.

    Well said, CC (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:24:25 AM EST
    I think it speaks well of Hillary's spokespersons that they addressed this issue in terms of the wider context of her Africa trip and women's issues in general, as opposed to just brushing it aside with the usual assortment of mealy-mouthed platitudes that every spokesperson knows.

    I think it's interesting that a male reporter wrote the item linked in this post, too.  There's some hope.


    The media seems to have lost (none / 0) (#47)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:21:10 PM EST
    sight of what is honest criticism and what is just petty trashing. If there are other countries that gossip rather than report news, I haven't heard about it.

    Please someone (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:21:35 AM EST
    make sure Ed Schultz gets a forward to this link. I am still steaming at his obnoxious display of sexism on this.  No one has called him out.   He needs a dose of truth.  
    My e-mail, for whatever reasons, will not go through to MSNBC.  

    Link to his performance? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:28:14 AM EST
    I did not see it.

    Guest NYT op-ed by (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    Judith Warner is a decent one, particularly for being on the heels of the despicable column earlier in the week by Maureen Dowd, in which she outdid herself.  Ms. Warner points out the destructive impact of this trivialization for global issues.   And, reminds (as if such reminder is needed) of the work to do here at home with  the illustration of the Washington Post video associating Mrs. Clinton with a bottle of derogatorily named beer--yuk, yuk.

    See my post below (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:27:40 AM EST
    on Warner's post.

    Thank you, BTD, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:55:26 AM EST
    I should have looked at the other posts first, sorry.

    That the media would screw this up so royally (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:57:44 AM EST
    really amazes me.  I mean, I knew they were bad, but that so many outlets just followed the "heard," pun intended, is scandalous.  Wonder how many will be running a correction?  Hope Bill addresses this at the Netroots Convention that is getting so much attention.  IMO, it would be a perfect time.  Point up the flaws inherent in traditional media, and how the web can be the better, and have his wife's back by pointing out the truth of the story.

    yes I suppose (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:40:52 AM EST
    swallowing an insult is a third option.  Much used.

    So diplomacy (none / 0) (#31)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    is not an option for you.

    Does diplomacy (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:02:15 PM EST
    have to be meek?

    If you can't see the political value in the way she delivered that message then I'd say you have to change the lightbulb up there.


    Very Weird (none / 0) (#37)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    She killed the message of her trip and gave the media an opening for more Clinton bashing and you call that political value. Who needs to change the light bulb?

    Some of you people get so vested in defending your position that you cease to think about what you are even saying in response to other peoples posts.

    She opened the door to Clinton bashing and that is political value. My Lord!


    She didn't kill the message (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:14:49 PM EST
    The media did. They are the ones who inaccurately reported the incident and chose to focus on Bill, marginalization, etc. They could have correctly reported the incident and tied it into her overall reason/message for being there.

    Oh so the media (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:21:24 PM EST
    made her react as she did?

    What a dummy. If she never said what she did in the way she said it there would not be anything for the media to say about it. But the escapes you.

    If I were her I would have answered that 'Bill cares deeply about the plight of women in Africa, we both do, and always have, and I am here to address exactly that issue'.


    Who are you calling a dummy? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:26:32 PM EST
    She was perfectly in her right to respond as she did. It was an insulting question. How the media reports it is on them, not her.

    Oh, and the question was about China trade. If she had answered as you suggested the media would have had another field day, something about her being out of touch or something . . .


    Assertive is the perfect response (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:00:10 PM EST
    to passive-aggressive.  She done good.

    And the query came from an adult, not some high-school kid, for those who want to excuse it because he was a student.  Assertive is the response to passive-aggressives who would take control of a classroom, and in this country, too.  (An all-too-common tactic in this country, btw, by conservative college student organizations.)

    Gezz! (none / 0) (#43)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    You don't even see the damage she has done to her own message she was trying to get out.

    Prior to her comment the press was reporting her trip and what she was doing on it including the plight of women. Now they are bashing her and her message is dead. Assertiveness has it's place but this was not one of them.

    You chose to look at what she said from a personal level. But from a world stage level; from a standpoint of ramping up the message, not killing it, assertiveness was the wrong action.

    Diplomacy as an action and as an example to women in Africa and elsewhere would have gone much further to expanding her message and helping women  than spiting at a question.


    I think what you are missing here is (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by vml68 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:19:38 PM EST
    that she is not the one who damaged her message.

    You don't even see the damage she has done to her own message she was trying to get out.

    Origin (none / 0) (#53)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:25:06 PM EST
    Prior to this, all I saw on MSM (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:20:44 PM EST
    was her dancing in Africa.

    Ding!!! (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:24:55 PM EST
    That is all (none / 0) (#56)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    YOU SAW!

    I saw and read about her visits to hospitals and talking about the plight of women.

    Who do you watch - Hannity?


    That was MSM (none / 0) (#58)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    not Hannity. Morning shows, local news and national evening news. Ya know, what most of America sees. I do not know when Hannity is on as that is not my cuppa tea. Fox is only good for Saturday afternoon BB, imo.

    No, I am not looking (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:35:25 PM EST
    from a personal level; I'm speaking from experience and training in how to handle this in professions.

    You, however, do seem to keep wanting to get personal with me.  


    If pictures are worth a thousand words......... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:55:39 PM EST
    Hillary showed African women how it should be done:

    "Mess with me?; Get your face ripped off!"

    Maybe, in some small way, some African women are now thinking, "you know what; maybe I could do that."

    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    All these people saying her response was undiplomatic or inappropriate or too angry - I think just the opposite. Maybe her response will have the effect of showing African women to get up and get angry in the face of oppression - which they should.

    It's OK and perfectly appropriate for women to get angry when they are treated in a sexist fasion.

    When I first saw the video, I recognized the strain and anger on her face. I could imagine how difficult and enraging it must be for her -- being in that country as a woman and seeing what she has been seeing and doing what she has been doing.

    I applaud her outrage.


    Also, (none / 0) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:26:35 PM EST
    She has a perfect example to use in Michelle Obama. She should make use of videos showing Michelle as strong, smart, self-assured, and still possessing the qualities that make women, women. She would "bring the house down" with Michelle telling Barack, The President of the United States, "pick up your socks!"

    People especially (none / 0) (#4)
    by AlkalineDave on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:58:04 AM EST
    Maureen Dowd get focused on such ridiculous matters that this that Hillary Clinton is the best, most effective Secretary of State that we've had in quite some time.

    Great Link (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:52:52 AM EST
    Nicely written as well. And double good on Hillary for boxing that sexist question out of the room. He sets a good example for women in the Congo, as well as men.

    The thing that is particularly interesting, is that we not only got to see an example of the more than likely typical unabashed sexist attitude in the Congo, we also got to see the typical unabashed sexism in the US, through media reports.

    For god's sake (none / 0) (#16)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 10:54:59 AM EST
    from nycstray's link in the other thread:

    No matter the issues she was talking about -- encouraging good governing, ending Africa's wars, lifting women up from their lowly position in a place like Congo. The interest in this trip, it seemed, was not about the problems facing Africa. It was about her.

    As one journalist covering her trip put it: "She is a celebrity. We have a celebrity secretary of state. When you have a celebrity, you get celebrity coverage."


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:01:37 AM EST
    That's true, but revealing, right?

    I'm sure Hillary gets quite a bit more coverage than if Secretary of State Bill Richardson were touring Africa.  That's good in the sense that there's more coverage of the important things she's saying and doing.  It's bad in the sense that a lot of the coverage is nothing but people looking for the latest celebrity gossip.  At least they didn't send Michael Musto.

    I suspect if you put the question to Hillary, she'd say that it's more of a blessing than a curse.  But it must be very difficult to be the constant subject of unflattering portrayals.


    Yeh, I saw that last graf (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:03:24 AM EST
    and had to groan at the typical circular reasoning and blame-shifting of the media:  We made her a celebrity with our previous coverage, instead of treating her seriously, and you make us make celebrities, so now we have to treat her as a celebrity.  Because, y'know, our hands are so tied.

    Uh, listen up, "one journalist":  You see a celebrity.  We see our Secretary of State.  Perhaps, "one journalist," you might examine why you don't see her as our Secretary of State.  But that self-analysis would be harrrrd worrrrk. . . .


    Or... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:29:21 AM EST
      she could have been "diplomatic," not a bad choice considering her position, and simply answered the question by stating the position of the United States is...."

      Losing her temper over a perceived slight from a student was the wrong thing to do. Regardless of the content or intent of the question, losing her cool and making a scene was not helpful to her or our interests.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:36:05 AM EST
    You may see that as a third option, but it sounds a lot like the first option to me.

    Losing Her Temper? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:42:55 AM EST
    What a load of BS. She did not lose her temper.

    All she did was set an example for Congolese women, and men, as to how to deal with run of the mill sexism.


    She sure looked and sounded angry (none / 0) (#35)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:05:09 PM EST
     to me.

      To attempt to justify her response by suggesting her purpose was to set an example for Congolese women seems just a far bit of a reach. And, if it was her intent it seems to be a poor example for the typical Congolose woman to emulate. Lacking Ms Clinton's  prominent position and phalanx of protection, chastising a  man by pointing out that she is in charge now might work out even worse for for the Congolese woman.

       Perhaps, she could have acted in a manner which could be fairly described as leading by example, but she didn't. She took personal offense at a question that may or not have been intended as one and made her behavior the focus on everything when behaving more appropriately it would have been a non-event.



    "Perceived slight?" (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:08:08 PM EST
    "May or may not have been intended"?  Did you decide not to read the links in this post?  The question was correctly translated, etc.

    That doesn't mean (none / 0) (#44)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:18:18 PM EST
     the question was intended as an insult to her. the man may have just been curious about the opinion of Bill because he is a fairly well known person and Mutombo's because he is a famous and widely respected national figure there and he figured she would know their opinions.

      Only if we make the assumptions that he meant to imply her opinion is unimportant and that it is unimportant because she is a woman could we say his intent was to slight her in the fashion you suggest. And, even then, his intent to insult is debatable as he might simply be oblivious to the way someone from a different culture would perceive him.

      finally, even if he was trying to provoke her by belittling her because she is a woman there were far better ways of responding.


    the question (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:24:47 PM EST
    "Mrs. Clinton, we've all heard about the Chinese contracts in this country," he said. "The interference is from the World Bank against this contract. What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton?"

    that doesn't seem belittling to you?  In a country known as the "rape capital of the world?"  

    He may not've been trying to provoke her but by asking a question on foreign affairs to the SoS and not caring what she (or the current Pres.) thinks he was certainly belittling her.  "What does your husband think about that?"  That's not belittling?


    not necessarily belittling (none / 0) (#60)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:39:23 PM EST
     Certainly not proof of intent to belittle.

      I think it's highly likely the guy is just a product of his environment and did not recognize how she might view that as insulting.

     And, as I have tried to suggest, the SOS of the USA needs to be more adept at handling things-- even if they are intentionally belittling.

      It would seem beyond serious debate as this has resulted in internationally broadcast negative attention for her, that her approach was not a good one.



    First of all (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    the "offensiveness" of a statement is up to the person offended, not the person offending.  You may think it is not offensive to use the word "Negro."  Am I supposed to make excuses for your ignorance when you do and someone is offended?

    If someone is offended, you need to pay attention, not make excuses for the offending character.  And if the student in question didn't realize he was being offensive, well, that's the whole point of her trip, isn't it - to change attitudes towards the treatment of women and make people realize their words and actions are demeaning, violent, offensive, etc.


    she is SECRETARY OF STATE (none / 0) (#67)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:56:17 PM EST
     not some random offended woman. She is acting on behalf of our government.

      Her responses should have nothing to do with whether she is personally offended by a question or remark.

      Do you really believe that her behavior is a forward step for civil rights for women in Africa?
    I tend to doubt that historians will point to Hillary Clinton going off on some student who asked about her husband as the beginning of an  era of respect for women's rights in Africa.

      It will be a few days of bad press for her and then forgotten.


    Yes, I actually think that. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:08:36 PM EST
    I don't see how being blithe in a hell hole does anyone any good.  She's supposed to stand up for African women without standing up for herself?

    OK (none / 0) (#71)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:17:45 PM EST
      I hope you have a contract to write history in 25 years to make your dream come true.

    Hillary's Speech in China '94 (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:31:28 PM EST
    And her travels through India planted seeds in the womens right's movement that have grown since then.

    This is more of the same. It is called consciousness raising. And it is very effective. That is the kind of American diplomacy that I like to see.



    Gee, that's a good excuse (none / 0) (#83)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    "The guy is just a product of his environment."

    How offensive.


    Well, when the "environment" (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:50:16 PM EST
    of that society is the problem she is there to address, you start with the "products" who mouth the problem, as he did, and to use his verb choice.  

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:26:49 PM EST
    This is the comment of the day.

    Well done B.

    I am glad you are back in my threads.

    When you are insightful, you are terrific.

    And when you are clueless, as you are here, you provide the most wonderful examples.


    Not Ladylike Enough For YOu? (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:09:35 PM EST
    Would you have Hillary folding her hands in her lap and smiling?

    Using anger as a tool is a far cry from losing one's temper. Hillary was in control the entire time and acted 100% appropriately as SOS and a representative of the American people.

    And clearly Hillary was leading by example.


    Unintended positive (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    from her response was that no one else asked her to speak for her husband and an NBA player.



    "behaving more appropriately"?! (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:10:22 PM EST
    Yes, (none / 0) (#49)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:22:17 PM EST
     as in amanner befitting the Secretary of State of the United States of America when addressing a question from a student in a foreign country with which we seek o promote good relations.

    Good Relations, Yes (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    Starting with this:

    "We believe there should be no impunity for the sexual and gender-based violence committed by so many -- that there must be arrests and prosecutions and punishment,"

    Leading by example.


    That's appropriate (none / 0) (#61)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:40:59 PM EST
     but the fact that is appropriate leadership doesn't make her missteps appropriate.

    We Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    Hopefully that clip will be repeated through out the Congo as an example of how to respond to sexism. Self awareness, aka consciousness raising,  is the first step required for changing endemic sexist views.

    I think that the student has had his consciousness raised. If he has any questions about it he can pick up a book.


    so the way (none / 0) (#75)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:32:14 PM EST
      a super wealthy white woman holding one of the most important and prestigious positions for the most powerful nation on Earth chastises some nobody in the Congo will become a model of behavior for the oppressed in the poorest regions on Earth?

      That seems unlikely.


    Start Local (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:41:46 PM EST
    And go global. Seems to be working, imo. If you think that this episode has stayed behind closed doors and will stay behind closed doors, you have not been paying attention.

    And obviously sexism knows no bounds, evidentially it makes no difference how rich and prestigious a position a woman holds, she is still the target of vicious sexism, even in the most "powerful nation on Earth".


    Right (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:43:11 PM EST
    Famous people never ever serve as role models for the oppressed and non-famous.  Nope, never happens that way.

    BTD's post #55 was one of the most spectacularly correct assessments I have seen from him in a long time.


    Well, (none / 0) (#81)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:57:13 PM EST
      the essence of the cooment appears to be I am insightful when we happen to agree and clueless when we don't. It's a typical assessment colored by bias as commonly made by most human beings but hardly one I consider meaningful.

       As to the substance, do you truly believe that Hillary's little outburst  will have any impact whatsoever beyond a few days of chatter?

      I find it amusing that on the one hand people are deriding the media for blowing it  out of proportion (a fair assessment in my biased view) and on the other are heralding it as something that will lead to a better world ( a silly assessment in my biased view).



    She looked and sounded (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:09:38 PM EST
    assertive to me.  Far different from anger, although so often confused in the case of women.  (The classic manual is still The Assertive Woman.)

    So true! (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:53:40 PM EST
    Here's the Secretary of State, a brilliant woman, giving her time to a group of students and willingly answering their questions. A male student, who obviously doesn't recognize the opportunity he's been given to ask her a question that would shine light on something significant in his world, comes up with a question that literally bypasses her. And, the media in this country is outraged that she responded with a refusal to speak for anyone but herself.

    There are countries that become quite insensed when their dignitaries are insulted like that.


    Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    HRC has spent years advocating for women.  She KNOWS what happens to women in this part of the world are demeaned and denigrated.  

    Every woman who is demeaned has a right to get angry.  Deal with it.