Hillary Clinton Not So Into Channeling Bill
Posted by: Kate Torgovnick
Filed in:
news
4:50PM, Tuesday August 11th 2009
At a town hall in the Congo, a student stepped up to the microphone to ask Hillary Clinton about a loan China recently offered the Democratic Republic of Congo. “What does Mr. Clinton think, through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton?”
Hillary stared at him. “You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband isn’t Secretary of State. I am,” she said. “If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband.”
Now newspapers (hello, New York Post) are blasting Hillary for snapping at the poor student. I say homegirl has a point. Sure, Bill can go to North Korea and come back 12 hours later with two journalists who’d been imprisoned for months. But why would anyone ask her what he thinks? It’s the political equivalent of a waiter assuming your date will be ordering your food for you.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
lea322
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 03:54 pm: [report]
I think she had every right to be upset! Maybe she could have phrased her reply differently, but when she is the one on the stage, SHE deserves the respect.
*sam*
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 03:57 pm: [report]
while I totally agree that she had every right to be upset, in all fairness to the student, I did read on CNN last night that the translation of the question may have been the culprit…
Kate Torgovnick
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 03:59 pm: [report]
Oh, that’s a really interesting point, Sam. If I had one superpower, it would be to be able to understand and speak every language in the world.
Riley
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 04:03 pm: [report]
It was said by the press on the floor that there was a translation error. Proving to me again, Hillary can’t handle herself, even with students in the Congo.
She later apologized to the student when the mistake was brought up.
writergirl
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 04:26 pm: [report]
@Riley—Exactly. She gets too emotionalShe did it when she was First Lady, when she was Senator, when she was running for President. One of the old sayings is a ‘woman can’t be President because she’s too emotional’. Secretary Clinton hasn’t done ANYTHING to disprove that point.
I’m sure Madelyn Albright and Condie Rice got asked questions that were an incorrectly translated—you never saw them fly off the handle.
libbylovespink
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 04:33 pm: [report]
What is so wrong with some emotion? That question (or the interpretation of) was rude, and her answer was justified. She had no way of knowing that the interpretation was incorrect. Madeleine Albright and Condolezza Rice, neither of which have husbands who cast a shadow like that of Bill Clinton, likely would have handled the question similarly. Albright has been known to speak her mind. I would much rather see some genuine emotion rather than some put on P.C. BS that is often used so that politicians can come off as charismatic and unshakable. It’s just plain fake and we all know it.
Why are past male politicians like Nixon known as “gruff” or “no-nonsense” when Hillary gets labeled as “emotional”, which is meant to carry some sort of weak female undertone.
Riley
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 04:58 pm: [report]
@libbylovespink - Nixon was the president, she is not. Gruff and no-nonsense politicians are different than ones that get flustered when someone asks about their spouse’s point of view. Gruff doesn’t equal name calling when diplomatic talks are going nowhere.
Diplomacy is all “PC BS”; I don’t see insults and emotional outbursts as gaining confidence of foreign nations.
@Writergirl - I’m shocked anyone agreed with me on that.
This article should be updated with the complete story, not just the Hillary tantrum.
plasticrose
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 04:59 pm: [report]
@ libbylovespink: well said.
writergirl
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 05:09 pm: [report]
@libbylivespink—emotion is fine. But not in politics. And “gruff” is different from emotional. “Gruff” is a tone of voice and how rude/not rude you are. Nixon, however as Riley said, was President. She is not.
In the political arena, if you are emotional, you are not taken seriously. It is politics. You show emotion, you lose. She has proven that point many times.
And yes, Madeline Albright and Condy Rice don’t have husband’s that overshadow them—but they always conducted themeselves in a manner that was conducive to their job.
Albright was repeatedly asked about Clinton’s affairs and his impeachment trial—she never once got mad, flew off the handle or lost it over the questions or how they reflected on her boss or what her boss had done. She bit her tongue and answered in an appropriate manner.
Rice did the same thing when asked about Bush and Iraq. I mean, here’s a man she likes and respects and WORKS FOR and she gets asked about him being a baby killer. She never once gave a response that could be termed emotional. It was to the point and stuck to the line—whether she agreed with him or not.
Hilary always lets emotion over-rule political sense. There is a reason why the N. Koreans would not release the journalists to HER. That whole act in releasing them to her husband was a direct slap in the face to her because, when you are Secretary of State, you don’t revert to calling people Preschoolers. That was an emotional response, not a political one.
Dave The Rave
wrote on August 11 2009 @ 07:09 pm: [report]
I liked her response, even though she apologized later. Plus, I do agree that one should be able to understand the question being asked. I work with several who have had to learn English and even after being here over 20 years some still sound like they are below 5th grade grammar level! They know what they want to say, but they sound very silly! It’s pathetic!
Just as we were not to judge “W” by how his father was as Pres, we shouldn’t judge Hillary by how Bill was as Pres or what he has done lately.
Ain’t America great?
diablita
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 02:25 am: [report]
I can’t stand her! If you can get past how shrill her voice is ALL THE TIME enough to listen to what she’s actually saying she STILL sounds like a bitch. UGH! I feel bad for the kid though, whether it was a translation error or not. She could have been a bit more professional in explaining to him that she doesn’t speak for her husband. Look how she sits at the end all cocky like some ghetto-fabulous skank. All she’s missing is the finger-wagging and the “oh-no-you-di’int”. LOL. In my opinion she is way too full of herself.
lindseylee21
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 07:00 am: [report]
Maybe she was upset because she was having a bad hair day?
Riley
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 07:08 am: [report]
@lindseylee21 - Ba dum tssshh
bogart4017
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 12:48 pm: [report]
It was not necessary for her to be so nasty. That is the reason why oldheads are against women in politics. Too emotional.
MSK
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 03:28 pm: [report]
Huh… So, I think its very easy for people to point at a woman and say she’s being emotional. But, what the does that even mean? Hillary clearly was caught off guard by the question, but all I saw was a strong, intelligent woman reclaiming the floor and refusing to answer a bogus question. She did not insult anyone, she did not storm off stage or burst into tears. In my eyes she did NOTHING wrong. And, further more, how can anyone in their right mind blame her reaction to this on her gender? Its insane that a woman cannot have a moment of exertion without being labeled as emotional. And what’s more, it’s often other women who are the first to label it as such. Please stop the madness!