Steve Kelley for August 14, 2009

She is notorious for her short fuze and outbursts. I am suprised that Obama nominated her for anything above official dogcatcher.

hq, Sec Clinton might have a few rough spots but she’s certainly respected for her intelligence and ability instead of being regarded as a political toady like the last SoS was.

I actually think Secretary Clinton responded to that question appropriately, especially given some of the less than modern ideas about women in some parts of the world.

It turned out that the translator made a mistake, but Secretary Clinton couldn’t have possibly known that. Her angry response was perfectly reasonable. If she rolled on a question like that, the world community would have viewed her as weak.

The translator did not make a mistake as it turns out. She was in a country that has a culture of rape as a mechanism of war and was there to assert that the U.S. is not pleased with their behavior. The cretin who asked the question knew exactly what he was doing.

Hi, Diane. This is the first I’ve heard that the wording was not mistaken. Where did you hear that? Is there a link to a news story about it? Thanks.

dwill states “She is notorious for her short fuze and outbursts. I am suprised that Obama nominated her for anything above official dogcatcher.”

Yeah, things like having brains shouldn’t matter when it comes to chicks, right?

Hey, she thought the question was absurd. For that matter, so did I. If the translator booped up, then it’s his/her fault.

You mean like John Bolton, churchillwasright?

I don’t give a flip whether she was tired or not. I maintain that she was justified in her response and her demeanor. Saying that a person is justified is the very opposite of giving her a pass, as you say. One only needs a pass given when one has offended.

I believe that her strong response was appropriate, especially given the attitudes of many in the region towards women. She showed people that she will not take an insult lightly and so cannot be rolled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yDqoGoMTuw

Yeah, she just eviscerated the guy (or girl, I think it was a guy). She completely demolished him. She tore him down to the ground. She was being so obnoxious. She made the greatest faux pas of the 21st century.

Not.

Her being woman has nothing to do with it, GNW. I don’t see what was all that outrageous about what she did, and imo people are making a mountain out of a molehill. As for “Women can do no wrong”, do not forget this is Hillary Clinton we are talking about. She’s been blamed for everything from the ice caps melting to urban violence to the rise of marital adultery. She could have handled the question a little better, sure, but it’s not like she blew a gasket and stormed out of there.

Now GNWachs, do you honestly think that’s what I said? I was just getting excited that you were a reasonable fellow, but your extrapolation there was completely off base.

She is the #1 representative of the US. She is a diplomat. Did she speak diplomatically? How would you respond if Bolton spoke that way? The only reason you are cutting her slack is because she is woman. I voted for her in the primary. She is far too intelligent to act that way. A petulant child.

GNWachs, you claim that my defense of Clinton’s remark is boiled down to one thing: the fact that she is a woman.

You may accept or reject my defense of her to your heart’s delight, but by saying the above, you are simply misstating my defense.

In fact, my defense has to do with a perception of strength. It might equally be applied to a man who, being slighted in some way, asserted himself in response.

Follow my logic?

I don’t have a problem with her reaction to the question she was asked, translator’s mistake or not. It’s not the debilitating faux pas others are trying to turn it into.

I”ll take Sec of State Clinton’s molehill over NSA/Sec. of State Rice’s mountain of misstatements re WMDs and “mushroom clouds” and embarrassing Powell when he tried to suggest caution.

GNW, In regards to attitudes about them “women” things, is your’s a hormon problem or an inferiority complex ?

GNW; Boohoohoo, poor men.

Maybe there should be a men’s rights movement.

Men who speak up like that are “strong.” Women who do are “witches.” Uh-huh. Someone asked her an inappropriate question, she smacked them down. She’s tough, and she takes no crap. I like that in a Secretary of State. Move on, folks.

GNW, you’re gonna hate me for this, but you sound like the male version of a 1970’s feminist; a cry baby.

haven’t seen your posts for a while motive… you been hiding?

Left brain/right brain?

testosterone/estrogen?

fact: men and women are different

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/aug/18/women-dominate-j-school-enrollment/

GNW … think you’re on to something ?

Hillary has cankles

I admire Hilary in her response. It needed to be said.

Gladius - on vacation. Happiest place on Earth. GNWachs - Be very careful what you assert! I have more than a little knowledge of gender differences research. The extremes may be different, but the overlap is overwhelming. Men and women are different, true, but how they are different is not a simple thing, nor is it likely to fall into that @#$%^ “Mars versus Venus” claptrap.

From the NYT today

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/do-single-women-seek-attached-men/?

Thanks, DrCanuck, fennec.

From the AP

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMxxRueXRAEORuuMeikhzPl2hYmAD9A67AF01

Vacations….wondrous things. Mine is just about up. Which means my time here will shortly be constrained.

GNW and the article proves … what ?

Humphries: The advocates of change specifically a public option paint the picture of huge steps forward in the administration of health care.

Either the advocates are lying to themselves or to us.

Facts of life: there will be waits- long waits. Significantly longer than we experience now. Every other system you compare has long waits. why?

(B) There will be rationing. The stupid argument now is well we have rationing so how could that be worse? Compared to what we will have there is no rationing now. There will be committees deciding how many good years you have left and therefore what treatments you should be allowed.

Use your common sense. We will add 47 million “uninsured”. No new doctors, no new nurses, no new hospitals.

You have to save money so the first place that Obama will cut and he said so is reimbursement to doctors and hospitals. So we have 47 million more, all who need general family practitioners and we plan to cut their reimbursement. Who is going into the field?

We keep pointing out the fatal flaws but you don’t care because some private insurance company denied you your basic rights. The heck with the country as long as I get mine.

Here’s Media Matters’ reality check on some of those “fatal flaws:” http://mediamatters.org/research/200908200002

Thanks, motivemagus. That was a really helpful link.