Hillary Clinton Outraged - Loses Her Temper in Democratic Republic of Congo

Run time: 03:17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiaI2EZ9ubw   Posted on YouTube: August 11, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 11, 2009 By DU Member: MrObama Views on DU: 4308

 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost her cool Monday after a Congolese student, speaking through a translator, asked her what "Mr. Clinton" thought about a Chinese trade deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The only problem? Apparently the translator made a mistake and the student had wanted to know what President Obama thought of the deal. A State Department official tells ABC News the student went up to Clinton after the event and told her he was misquoted. No immediate word yet how Clinton responded.

Regardless of the error, the notion of Secretary Clinton's deference to her husband clearly touched a nerve with America's top diplomat. Just a week ago the former President stole his wife's thunder when he appeared in North Korea to rescue two American journalists detained there. His trip came just as Secretary Clinton embarked on a swing through Africa she hoped would shine light on the plight of the continent.

Still, imagine what the students thought when her response was translated back and they heard Clinton call President Obama her husband.

Source ABC News


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo

from a S.O.S. Extremely unprofessional. I'm not exactly Obama's biggest fan but she would have been a disaster as president.

:eyes:

nt

yest the translation of the question was wrong but she was correct in her response based on her translation.

YOU GO GHURL!

It is not her fault that the translator messed up. I would be furious too. She has every right to respond exactly as she did. Love it!

That question as translated was an insult and she would have looked weak if she hadn't responded forcefully.

(That's the opinion of someone who favored Obama over Clinton from the beginning of the primaries.)

But not the message WE needed to have sent. Her job was to remain unruffled. She blew it.

That was much worse than I would have guessed after only reading about it. Sounds like the recent Bill intervention gave her some uneasy moments and she was venting. I don't fault her for having feelings about it, but I do say keep it away from the cameras. Guess she's human, alas.

This is a prime example of two folks looking at the same information and coming to two completely different conclusions. When I read of the interaction, the narrative led me to believe that Secretary of State Clinton, in grandma's parlance, "threw a fit". Viewing the video, I saw what I consider to be a wholly justifiable example of righteous indignation, expressed forcefully and directly. The Secretary could only respond to questions as delivered to her via the translator. I defy anyone to support a theory that she could have heard the translated question and not consider it a provocation, whether she chose to address it or not.

I truly wish I had the unique ability to hear someone make a statement and immediately know all the underlying personal issues of the speaker that come in to play in causing the utterance. It is uncanny to me how you knew that the Secretary's indignation was prompted by her husband's success in securing the release of two young journalists from North Korea. According to the information I've read over the past few days and that I've watched on progressive media outlets, the release of the journalists was predetermined. Dummy me! I would have suspected that Bill and Hillary had discussed the venture before his trip. I'm such a poor judge of character that I thought, "How proud Hilliary must be of her husband's actions in this matter." Somehow it never it occurred to me that she would build up and harbor shrewish resentment about her mate's successful accomplishment, venting it in a public forum.

Using that logic, given the successful Clinton administration, perhaps Secretary Clinton should withdraw from the national stage, avoid news cameras, and stay at home like a "good wife". Not in my book, fellow citizen! She represents to me to be one of the strongest public servants that we are able to offer the international scene. And, I don't have to "guess" that she is human; I know damn well that she is. And, a fine one, too.

and i will point out, appears the first male to see this a bet differently.

being female, and having a male talk over my head to answer my question to my husband... i think she did just fine, too.

But she blew this moment. Come on! She just told the world that certain types of questions will piss her off. She showed her cards. Never, ever, ever show your cards.

Reminds me of how glad I am that President Obama is our country's leader given all the pressures of the office right now. That was just a single question from a student but the reaction was anything but professional and in control. Someone who lashes out at a mere student who may or may not have been provocative in a question demonstrates to me that she has a long way to go - and we are only 200 days in. It'll pass but I don't think anyone at the White House thought this was a good demonstration of strong discipline by the country's diplomatic figurehead.

Somehow, someway, I just knew that you'd be total agreement with our good member demwing. While I appreciate your opinions and those of demwing and express my differences with them, I have no animosity toward anyone expressing a contrary opinion in reasonable debate. I thank you both for your pleasant contributions and feel that neither of you will harbor any resentment for my contrary opinions and my questions with regard to your statements.

Having said that, I would like for you to provide me your thoughts on several points, please. First, I'm completely in agreement with a part of your statement, "...how glad I am that President Obama is our country's leader given all the pressures of the office right now." Me, too! Isn't it a pleasure to have a real statesman a the helm of this Ship of State? But, your preface to that wonderful expression was "Reminds me of...". That preface seems to denigrate Secretary Clinton's action by implied comparison. If so, why wouldn't you just state so? A simple, "I abhor Senator Clinton's actions in this instance" would be a personal position to be admired because of its honesty even as others differ with your opinion. Insinuation and innuendo are devices that are difficult to debate since they don't make a definite statement.

Next, your observation, "That was just a single question from a student..." implies three things: 1) that the number of questions proffered may have an effect upon your opinion; 2) students have some special license to ask offensive questions, whether that offense is actual or merely perceived; and, 3) Secretary Clinton had an opportunity to recognize the questioner as a student. The balance of your statement, "...but the reaction was anything but professional and in control", I recognize as a personal opinion with which I disagree. No problem there! That's the beauty of this forum, in my opinion.

Further, I'd like for you, if you please, to comment on parts of your next declarative sentence, "Someone who lashes out...". Is it your intent to project your opinion into the issue by using verbs that would support it? It appears to be the case in your use of the term "lashes" rather than the rather neutral verb "responds". Next clause, "...at a mere student...". This seems to be an attempt to make Secretary Clinton appear as a bully. What is mere about a student? What is special about a student that would place them in a different category of other questioners? Next, "...who may or may not have been provocative in a question...". Sorry! The question as provided through errant translation was definitely provocative prima facia, regardless of the questioners intent. Followed by, "...demonstrates to me that she has a long way to go...". It doesn't demonstrate the same to me, as you would expect. And, that doesn't mean that anyone else would agree with me or disagree with you. Just a pleasant exercise, don't you think? Oh, "a long way to go -". What do you mean? Where is she to go? You mean physically? Mentally? Geographically? Kindly inform me of your intent.

Next, "...and we are only 200 days in".
This clause stumped me. I can only regard it as an attempt to insinuate that Secretary Clinton has disgraced the Country by virtue of what you opine as reprehensible actions within the first 200 days of the Obama Administration. And, the implication seems to be, "We shall all be required to suffer through the balance of the remaining term with Secretary Clinton embarrassing the Country with her responses to questions." Please correct me if I'm in error about your implication and detail for me, if you will, how your declarations do not support that implication.

Next, "It'll pass...". True! Perhaps without our discussion, it would have already passed. But, like other aspects of history, I enjoy learning so much as I can by perusing it and, with luck, "separate the wheat from the chaff". Next, "...but I don't think anyone at the White House thought this was a good demonstration of strong discipline by the country's diplomatic figurehead". Really? Are you on intimate terms with the entire staff of the White House? Enabling you to know their thoughts in the matter? Have you some correspondence of those offices? Perhaps you can provide a link wherein the entire body of the White House staff offers some opinion that substantiates your thought on this matter. Without such material, your statements appears to reflect a bias. And, I feel certain that that is not the case.

I suspect that your comment, "But she blew this moment", is written as an opinion, a privilege to which all of us are entitled. My opinion in the matter is somewhat different, as I hope my post reflects. Then, your cyber-call to "Come on!" I'm not sure where you desire me to come to but, if it is to your way of thinking, I must respond, "No sir. Thanks, but no thanks." You go ahead without my concurrence on this matter. Maybe I can express agreement with your opinion on another matter.

Then you state, "She just told the world that certain types of questions will piss her off." I find it difficult to believe that any reasonable person in the entire world would not already know that certain types of questions could "piss off" the person to whom such questions are addressed. Do you still beat your wife? Answer: "yes" or "no"! What is your opinion on the incident wherein President Reagan answered a question put to him with the response, "Shut up"! Do you feel that his terse response "told the world that certain types of questions will piss (him) off"? I remember that some folks applauded his response, claiming that it showed strength of character, summarily dismissing a wimpish insinuation with masculine bravado. Perhaps some citizens were enthralled with his "showing his cards" in such a manner. Not that long ago, Vice-President Cheney "showed his cards" to the world
by offering the crass advice to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Fuck yourself". I hope that, somewhere, you've berated the actions of both these alpha males. If so, kindly give me a link. I would love to read your comments on those two actions.

"Never, ever, ever show your cards"? Heh, heh! The rules of the game require the winning hand to "show the cards". I'm pleased with the strength of character shown by our Secretary of State in responding to the question as she perceived it by "summarily dismissing a (perceived) wimpish insinuation with feminine class.

But opinions based on fact.

Fact #1 - The answer she gave was understandable. Thats a fact. I understand why anyone would be miffed by such a question. I would be as well.

Fact #2 - Her response was poor. If you think it was not, then explain why we are discussing her anger rather than true reason for her trip. The answer deflected attention away from the agenda.

Fact #3 - Whether or not I have ever condemned Cheney for his being an utter ass, or whether I promoted him, whether I am insensistive to Clinton, or a veritable empath, whether I am a hard core progressive or a hard case conservative, does not change those above listed facts. Turning the focus of attention to me does not change what Clinton said.

Opinion - If you feel Clinton displayed her winning hand with the tone of the comments she made in that meting, then I feel that you are misguided. Regardless of how either of us feel, to check our emotional responses, please refer back to Fact #2.

Thanks for participating in the discussion, demwing. I've read a great number of your posts over time and concur on the majority of them. I'm happy that we've chosen opposite side of this small issue. It gives us both a chance to elaborate on our opinions and declarations.

Now, if you'd be so kind, I'd like to examine those declarations that you offer as facts:

Fact #1 -Sorry! the only fact here is that she responded to a question. It may very well be a fact that you understand her reaction to the question and be incensed by it as well. I can accept that fact...and concur with it. Still, there may be others who don't understand Senator Clinton's motivation. Which makes our position merely opinion.

Fact #2 -Sorry! "Her response was poor" is definitely a personal opinion. I do not think it was poor; I think it was an admirable response to the question that she perceived. While I could never prove it, it is my opinion that most males would not have responded so politely if asked their wives' opinions on an issue. I can't explain why we are discussing her anger because I don't think that we are doing so. What you call "anger", I choose to call "righteous indignation". But, again, the terms we use merely reflect our opinions.

Fact #3- Here, I agree with you. Your condemnation or support for similar actions of Reagan and/or Cheney do not change those opinions which you describe as facts #1 and #2. It certainly doesn't reflect upon the only fact extant in our conversation: Secretary Clinton responded. Our opinions on her response don't constitute facts other than we each held an opinion. My question about your reaction to the remarks of Reagan and Cheney weren't meant to turn attention to you. It was an attempt to discern your thoughts relative to responses made by others in power in very similar situations. Your answer, I hoped, would reveal whether your umbrage against Secretary Clinton's action in this incident was based upon gender. You have yet to answer that question. From your writings, I believe that you would be consistent with your opinions, regardless of the gender of those making emotional responses to questions perceived as an attack.

"Opinion - If you feel Clinton displayed her winning hand with the tone of the comments she made in that meting,...

I wasn't referring to Secretary Clinton; I was referring to the rules of poker. I did so in an attempt to provide unchallengeable proof that one must show cards to prove the winning hand in a tongue-in-cheek refutation of your admonishment, "Never...show your cards". Your intimation that temper, recalcitrance, steadfast opinion, et al, should never be shown is an opinion with which I disagree. Everybody knew where John Wayne stood; his cards were always visible.

"...then I feel that you are misguided."

I get that a lot. I don't suppose that you've been talking to my wife, have you? I believe that expression is her favorite when describing me.


(Flag waving commences, patriotic music ensues). Sorry, my friend, I just had to close my miserable portion of this missive with something that might move one or two folks to my side.

Best regards.

I appreciate your good natured approach to debate. Thanks for not making this personal. :)

Just for fun, let me wax Clintonian here, (Bill, not Hill - as if to ponder over the meaning of the word "is") and discuss the meaning of the word "fact."

Dictionary.com defines the word "fact" in several ways:

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
3. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
4. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
5. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
6. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

By either the second or the fourth definition (demonstrated to have existed, or believed to have existed), I support my previously made points.

Regarding my first point, I both believe and can demonstrate that Clinton's remarks were understandable. I understood the literal meaning of the words, they were very clear. More to the fact, I believe that I can understand the reason why she acted as she did. I don't have to prove absolute understanding, nor universal understanding. Those factors were never a requirement of the conversation, because the term "understandable" doesn't require the absolute.

As to my second point remarking on the quality of Clinton's response (was it poor or not?), I simply ask this question. What was Hillary Clinton's goal in her official State Department visit to Africa? Was it, as some say (http://blogs.reuters.com/africanews/2009/08/12/has-clinton-visit-helped-offset-china%E2%80%99s-clout-in-africa), to offset China’s growing economic clout on the African continent? Was it to deliver Washington’s traditional messages on the importance of fair elections and of fighting corruption and human rights abuses? Or was it to fulfill some other role of the State Department?

Regardless of the details, nothing has been presented to show that Clinton's answer served any official State Department goal, nor any goal of the United States. For all appearances, it served only Hillary Clinton's need to separate herself professionally from her husband. Understandable, as I said earlier, but not an "on message" response. It was a demonstrably personal and emotional answer, and therefore, in fact, a poor answer.

I can't match your eloquence nor alter your perspective though I feel that you are in error on the latter. Yet, in the interest of moving on to another subject, to pursue this sub-thread any longer seems to me to be a waste of band with.

I hope to encounter your participation in another lively thread wherein we agree or disagree. I will happily support one and challenge the other to the exhausting limits of my ability ~ or until such debate becomes an ad nauseum, ad finitum.

Thank you kindly for your participation in this thread.

Ok, cya around the board :)

:applause:

:toast:

of character - I've never seen her out of character. She is usually always in character which in this case would be to not make the person asking the question feel bad, to make a little joke about it whether or not it was a translation mistake.

There is something wrong with her eyes and even the way she looked at people.

Weird.

with a mother and 11 yr old son and my son. they are from india. the mother adhered to the boy at every turn. the boy guided, direct, corrected, parented the mother.

when i made the trip to pick up the boy without the mother, within 5 minutes he was directing me how to drive out of dallas. i turned to him, looked him in eye, adn said "don't". and then repeated the instruction. i was not going to have a child tell me how and what to do for 6 hours because of his customs.

lesson learned, .... for him.

i think hillary did exactly right.

Why are the last two minutes blank? I also wonder what led up to that question.
Hillary didn't seem like herself.

dealing with the atrocities in the Congo and is dealing with women's right, I think she handled it well. I can only imagine trying to keep my composure under such conditions.

An additional contextual fact: as the translator presented this question, it sounded like a plant from a Chinese operative or apologist.

I wonder whether it really was mistranslated.

The trip to the Congo is about human rights, specifically women's rights. Hillary's indignant reaction was totally appropriate. It draws more attention to the crimes against women around the world and in the Congo than any other event could have. I hope that Hillary stands by her response on this one. She made no mistake. If any mistake was made, it was by the translator.

Just because we can understand her indignation does not mean she was warranted in showing her indignation. It's just unprofessional to react that way. She made it personal, and revealed a wekness. Rookie mistake.

Jesus fishing Christ, can't there be a middle ground? Can't she respond firmly, or wisely, or with any other angle than anger?

jesus fishing christ

As translated, the question was personal, not professional.

That was the kind of dig that women of Hillary's generation and my generation put up with all the time. We grew up with that attitude about women and had to fight to change our social position. We had a difficult fight for our rights.

When I was in my late 20s, women in the state in which I lived could not borrow money, say for their business, without their husband's signature. Only a small elite group of women could enter professions other than teaching, nursing and secretarial. Those were the choices for most women, no matter how well educated.

It is well known that Sandra Day O'Connor, as capable and well connected as she was, had a tough struggle just to get a job as a lawyer when she graduated from law school. Women just weren't wanted.

I had a friend who was told that she could not enter an accounting program at a state university because that was only for men. No woman, she was told, had ever passed the CPA exam in the state in which the university was located. And by the way, it was a midwestern state, not some state viewed as backward.

We along with a few enlightened fighters of the generations of our mother and grandmothers, were the pioneers for women's rights. But many of us never reaped the rewards of our efforts. Like Sandra Day O'Connor, when we finally loosed ourselves from the chains of the gender stereoptypes imposed on us as children, it was too late. By the time we had dutifully raised our children and gone back to school to obtain professional degrees, age was the last remaining stereotype, and we still were unwelcome in the law firms and medical schools of the nation.

So, I understand fully why this is an emotional issue for Hillary. She is a bit younger than I am, so she had an easier time and got a lot further on her own merits than I did. But, the fact is that too many of the women in the world still attribute a woman's success to her husband's coat tails. Hillary probably would have been just as outstanding had she never married. She is who she is. Laura Bush, although wealthier and with, in some respects, had more opportunities than Hillary Clinton, did not build her own career. Hillary is one of just a few wives of well known politicians who make careers for themselves.

and I understand WHY she responded as she did, as much as any man can, I suppose.

However, there comes a time in the careers of certain people who obtain sufficient prominence, that their actions and responses have to be better than the circumstances would normally call for.

Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State, and as such is the chief negotiator for the President. If she shows anger so easily, she is not showing her best skills, and she is not serving her country to the best of her abilities. This job is bigger than her personal struggles.

Don't get me wrong - Clinton is doing an admirable job, but let me speak from my gut on this. In my opinion, Clinton blew this response, and it was an amatuer error. Everyone is allowed one, and this is her lucky day, because it wasn't a critical moment, such as in nuclear arms negotiations with North Korea.

This is minor, but still, she blew it.

NOTE: Edited to correct language that would imply dishonesty on the part of those who disagree.

be in retrospect, implies that those who disagree are not being honest. I'll pull the comment, if I can still edit it.

it is something we say innocently.... like, someone is going to say something and start with i am not going to lie to you, or honestly, or no lie.... and then say it. i ask myself, why does someone put that in front of what they are saying. i am assuming they arent lying. makes me listen closely to what they say. not that i have found it leads to a lie, but makes me think....

...the very stereotypes ascribed to women for a long time, and still. I can't see what came before or happened after this, but the clip out of context is not very forgiving I'm afraid.

in more ways than one. Look at the disrespectful body language! Translator or not, anyone can understand that.

the ghosts of rwanda must be bothering her....

The job as Secretary of State fits her very well. I hope this will never happen again.

clinton stole his thunder?

abc source article is bullshit.

saying hillary had thunder stolen is pity.

Bill visit last week was unofficial, and I don't think it stole her thunder.
The Korean president already knew Bill, and Bill already knew how that nutcase worked.

nt

:crazy:

"overly ambitious."

It must be true because the 90 post trolls and the foam-at-the-mouth Hillhaters keep implying it.

:(

or that of John Edwards.

She was "for the war before she was against it". She decries human rights violations in other countries but covers them in the USA. She voted for cluster bombs because it was politically convenient. And she didn't shoot Bill to the moon when he publicly humiliated her.

Is Obama an opportunist? Maybe. At least it is not so obvious yet as it is with Hillary, Bill or the two Johns.

It is true that I don't have much respect for her. Probably about as little as I have for John Kerry. Their attempt at pandering to both sides of the political spectrum is just too obvious.

"what does Mr. Clinton think, through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton."

That translation error was extremely bad. It didn't just ask her about Bill's opinion, it literally called her a mouthpiece for him.

I can't believe anyone here claims it was warranted or defensible. It wasn't a gamechanging error for Clinton. She's not in any danger of losing her job or her political capital, but it is clearly an angry, emotional, personal response from a person who is expected to avoid all three categories.

She should have turned it into a joke, laughed it off, and then answered with the message SHE wanted to deliver. Clinton!!@! You just showed your hand. Now, when any foreign leader wants to piss you off, he/she will just ask why Obama didn't send your husband instead. Obviously a touchy subject for Hillary, and obviously a fuckup.

She would be in her right to be angry, but still not correct in displaying angry, unprofessional behavior. What to speak of a minor blunder like the one shownon this recording.

Seek help.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yeah, I don't think so.

Surprise!

At the State Department, Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley said the question she heard "struck a nerve" — that her opinion on the matter was apparently of less interest than that of her husband, the former president.

Crowley told CNN her answer must be considered in the context of her African trip.

"The Secretary of State is going to Goma Tuesday, to draw attention to the plight of women who are victims of rape as a weapon of war" in Congo, he said. "She did react to what she heard," Crowley explained. Even if the interpreter mixed up the translation, he said, "you can't separate the question from the setting."


"If Africa, if Congo is going to advance, women have to play a more significant role," Crowley said. "She was in the setting of a town hall, and the questioner was interested in what two men thought, not the Secretary of State."

Crowley, who has just returned to Washington after traveling with Secretary Clinton during the first part of her trip to Africa, said the State Department has not yet reviewed recordings of the original question in French to learn whether the student clearly intended the question to refer to President Obama, not former President Clinton.

"She did talk with the student afterward, and they seemed to have reached an understanding," Crowley said.

She comes off like a swaggering, obnoxious, hotheaded fool with no respect for cultural differences. This is precisely the image that the rest of the world has already seen far too often from US politicians. Sitting there in a pantsuit with her hair chopped off, snarling about how "MY opinion" is what the people will get, shows absolutely zero respect for a more traditional culture. Between this and her display of emotionalism, she has set back diplomacy at a time when it is needed more desperately than ever.

The woman is a power-obsessed opportunist and nothing more. She does not have a truly progressive bone in her body, and never has. That so many people who call themselves leftists actually fall for it and continue to support someone like her, is the height of self-defeating logic.

Since the woman you describe is not Hillary Clinton, but a distorted version of her, I won't even bother pointing out how wrong you are about her.

:wow:

"Since the woman you describe is not Hillary Clinton, but a distorted version of her, I won't even bother pointing out how wrong you are about her."

I love those "I won't bother to answer you!" zingers on message boards. They remind me of signs that say, "Do not read this sign".

By all means, enlighten my view of Ms Clinton. I am listening...

oppress them???

Uh, no thanks. And any man who defends oppression of women as "traditional," has no business criticizing anyone else for being non-progressive.

You sound like a real jerk.

I did not say that I agreed with the motives behind the question; I said that behaving rudely and with little regard for cultural norms, is a poor course of action in diplomacy. So is allowing emotionalism to trump reason when discussing politics on an international stage.

insulting question. A man would not have been expected to answer an insult demurely.

No; but if he were the US Secretary of State, he would be expected to answer it with tact.

You are creating a false double standard. Hillary is being criticized for being a poor excuse for a diplomat, not for being female.

and Im glad she is our Secretary of State but she was off there. I didnt think it was as bad as I heard it being reported but she should have chosen a better way to handle herself.

he says "Mr. Clinton". IMO he knew what he said.

questioner misspoke.

Sometimes, we just get tired of being "nice" in the face of sexism and stupidity.

If her audience were American, I'd probably be one of those saying "You go, girl!" While I'm a bit younger than she is, I'm of her generation and have been in situations where my word was pushed aside and the opinion of my husband was considered the worthy one--particularly by foreigners.

When you're in a foreign country, and particularly as SOS, you HAVE to understand that independently of your American perspective on appropriate interaction, different norms exist. She could just as easily said that she had no idea what her husband's view would be, nor would she want to speak for him.

Alternatively, if her tone had been different, her statements probably would not have attracted so much attention. Instead, she drew attention to the inappropriateness of the question, as she saw it.

is a whole new world, we've got a Democratic female SOS, a black president, a Latin SCJ, and I could see how eventually she'd snap traveling all the time and having people ask her what her husband thinks on this or that matter! sheesh...

I didn't like her at all in the primaries - I thought some of the crap she said was offensive - but for some reason this seemed perfectly appropriate, maybe a tad overly-offended, but not much so! HA

Someone should get her a "I speak for Hillary, not Bill" button.