So Hillary Clinton displayed a rare show of public anger yesterday during a town hall in Kinshasa, Congo—after a university student asked her what “Mr. Clinton” thought of a World Bank concern about a Chinese loan proffer to the government of Congo. (The student later explained that the translation had been wrong; he’d been meaning to ask about Mr. Obama’s thoughts.)
But: “You want me to tell you what my husband thinks”? Clinton shot back. “My husband is not Secretary of State, I am. So if you ask me my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband.” (Yes. As Drudge has it in the site’s current banner headline: “SNAP.”)
So: what made Clinton momentarily abandon the “diplomacy” side of “public diplomacy”?
Andrea Mitchell, discussing the matter on this morning’s Today Show, has one explanation: in addition to fatigue from difficult travels and the possible frustration at the media frenzy over Bill Clinton’s super-hero-tastic “rescue” of Laura Ling and Euna Lee last week…Clinton the Mrs. was also, Mitchell suggests, experiencing a challenge during her time in the Congo that, really, would put any would-be diplomat over the edge: she was having a bad hair day.
Yes.
MEREDITH VIERA: This was definitely an uncharacteristic response by the Secretary of State, leading some to suggest that either she is jetlagged or jealous of her husband and the huge shadow that he casts, most notably last week in North Korea, where he negotiated the release of those two American journalists. What are insiders saying about this this morning?
ANDREA MITCHELL: Insiders would tell you probably a little of both. A lot of jetlag, clearly. By then she was at the half point in a twelve-day trip, seven countries. Very difficult travel. She had done twenty-two speeches and five interviews and she was exhausted—and clearly, some would say, having a bad hair day. So not an easy day for Hillary Clinton.
Watch:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
This is silly and being taken out of context. Andrea Mitchell gave many legitimate reasons why Hillary Clinton was possibly not at her best, and summed it all up with a euphemism most often used by women, "having a bad hair day." Rather than letting women's language infiltrate the mainstream, to insinuate that Mitchell actually meant that Clinton was not on top of her game "because of her hair" and dismiss what Mitchell really said, is what I find offensive about this story.
#1 Posted by Cris Janzen, CJR on Tue 11 Aug 2009 at 12:30 PM
I couldn't believe my ears this morning when I heard Andrea Mitchell say this on the Today show. It's just so disappointing that even female reporters will stoop to this nonsense. I agree with the above commenter that it is being taken out of context in this story, she wasn't suggesting that her hair was a reason for her becoming angry, but Andrea Mitchell? Why even mention her hair? Because she's a woman. I'm so tired of this. Didn't Secretary Clinton get enough of this crap during the campaign?
#2 Posted by Jessica, CJR on Tue 11 Aug 2009 at 12:57 PM
Mitchell is sticking with her "bad hair day" analysis. Just now on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports:
MITCHELL: "The problem is, she is the secretary of state, she's a diplomat, she's had to take crazy questions on this trip,... but she is expected to keep her cool, despite the heat, the humidity, and bad hair days..."
#3 Posted by Liz Cox Barrett, CJR on Tue 11 Aug 2009 at 01:12 PM
Maybe Clinton was bothered by people seeming to think that her persona is defined not by her policies and ideas, but by who she is married to and what she looks like? Andrea Mitchell's catty comment and Viera's non-response certainly reinforced the reasonableness of this explanation. It saddened me as a woman and a consumer. Mitchell's comments didn't enlighten or educate at all. They would have been a mere waste of time if they hadn't offended me. I for one will think little of her going forward absent an apology.
#4 Posted by Jane, CJR on Tue 11 Aug 2009 at 10:07 PM
Good rule of thumb: "Insiders would tell you that-" actually means "My opinion is that-."
#5 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Tue 11 Aug 2009 at 11:11 PM
Would Andrea Mitchell have commented on a male Secretary of State's hair when summing up a diplomatic err. I think not. The effect was to trivialize what happened, rather than to provide perspective. In so doing, Mitchell proved that not all chauvenists are male.
Was Clinton at her most diplomatic at that moment? Of course not. However, her outrage was justified, given the translation she had received. I feel certain that the student whose question was misstated was also embarrassed and appalled. So who was really at fault here? Apologies were owed to both Clinton and the student. And Mitchell -- who was obviously not at her journalistic best in this reporting -- owes Clinton an apology.
-Terri Niccum
#6 Posted by Terri Niccum, CJR on Thu 13 Aug 2009 at 12:00 PM