Moral Idiocracy: Media Coverage Of Clinton In Africa

To MaryAnn:

I was merely suggesting, as a piece of friendly advice, that you consider how remarks describing Africans as subhuman make you sound (i.e. like a pre-Civil War apologist for racial enslavement).

As the New York Times reported, "After the event, the student apologized to Mrs. Clinton, saying he had indeed meant to ask what Mr. Obama thought." Of course, that probably irks you too, since I suppose based on your earlier comments that you consider President Obama to be half-subhuman himself.

To Thomas:

It seems to me that the ability to refrain from assuming the worst about your interlocutors' intentions (or at least from openly communicating that assumption) is an important qualification for a diplomat.

Even if the student had intentionally insulted HRC, which we know was not the case at at all, it was unseemly for the U.S. Secretary of State to lose composure.

Climacus

You wrote, "She was allowing her personal vanity to be visibly roused at an imagined slight from a young stranger in whose country she was a guest."

If you are referring to what I just watched on video concerning what Bill Clinton thought about something rather than what she thought, I have a question: Was she there as the Secretary of State or as the husband of Bill Clinton?

Another question: the questioner also mentioned a Mr. somebody else but I didn't get the name, was this question also asked of the wife of that somebody else?

You may look at it as vanity but isn't she the Secretary of State?

How many other people at that meeting were asked what their wives' opinion were?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Reply to Climacus,

No, I will not check myself. Who the hel* do you think you are to tell me to check myself? You seem fearful of reading politically incorrect but truthful words.

African "men" are nothing but savage beasts. They are subhuman. What they do to women is an abomination. You are only excusing them, which makes me feel that you approve of their savage behavior. If you are a woman, maybe a good rape and mutiliation would change your attitude. Savages are what these "men" are. Human they are not.

HRC did the right thing by putting that ignorant student in his place. I watched the video. He did not intend to ask what Obama thought. It was quite clear that he was asking HRC what Bill Clinton thought. He showed nothing but disrespect for our Secretary of State, totally disparaged her. Putting him in his place is the least he deserved.

What that student needed was more than a good belt in the mouth.

Thomas B,

I generally agree with your post below, but I don't think it has much bearing on the particular incident to which I was referring. Secretary Clinton, at the moment in question, was not speaking truth to power, or telling her audience what they needed to hear. She was allowing her personal vanity to be visibly roused at an imagined slight from a young stranger in whose country she was a guest.

Climacus

You wrote, "Of course, Secretary Clinton is only human, and top diplomats far more experienced than she have lost their cool too. But demonstrating to the world - including folks she will have to face across the negotiating table - that with the right buttons pushed she can be rattled in this way? That can't be in the national interest."

This is not a comment to the specifics concerning what happened over there because I do not know the specifics but should "national interest" trump decency?

If we feel that we have to jump thru "politically correct" hoops rather than speak the truth then we should just keep our mouths shut.

When "diplomacy" is nothing more than sugar-coating reality then it is worse than saying nothing at all.

If diplomats are going to say anything at all, it should not be what the audience wants to hear but what they need to hear.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Maryann, you might want to check yourself before making comments like those in the last paragraph of your previous post. Characterizing Africans (even just the men) as sub-human?

Anyhow, Clinton's loss of self-control on television may not be significant relative to the official agenda of her trip, but there's no sense defending it. Hillary should have realized from the context that there was a good likelihood that the person asking the question meant to say "Mr. Obama" not "Mr. Clinton" (which unsurprisingly was the case), and responded accordingly. In fact, even if it weren't true the diplomatic thing would have been to pretend it was, or find some other artful way to segue into an explanation of the Administration's position on the issue.

Of course, Secretary Clinton is only human, and top diplomats far more experienced than she have lost their cool too. But demonstrating to the world - including folks she will have to face across the negotiating table - that with the right buttons pushed she can be rattled in this way? That can't be in the national interest.

Rape is terror and trespass - it should be dealt with accordingly.

And it's time some men start saying so from high public offices.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the right person to make some inroads into the oppressive societies in which so many women live.

HRC represented the U.S. at the 1995 U.N. Conference on the Status of Women. She delivered an excellent speech. In that speech she said that women's rights are human rights. That is a fact, and nobody has stated the truth more clearly. I believe that HRC is passionate about making some changes in repressive societies.

HRC's response to an African "man" who asked what her husband thought about an issue is not so trivial. "Journalists" are having a field day with it. There is no such thing as quality journalism, just sensationalism. HRC was right to respond as she did. She is the Secretary of State, not her husband. HRC did not lose her temper. She was strong and put that "man" in his place. She told him by the way she responded that her opinion is what is important, that women have opinions independent of men, that women's opinions are important and she may have helped some oppressed women to start thinking of airing their own views. I liked HRC's response to what was a sexist question. Not in a million years would an African male have asked a man what his wife thought about any issue. I am glad that she is Secretary of State. HRC did a fine job in Africa and will represent America superbly.

Andrea Mitchell is a disgrace. Maureen Dowd of the NY Times behaved disgracefully in writing about HRC's presidential campaign. Dowd certainly was not objective at all. It is a pity to see women tearing other women down. Mitchell and Dowd should live as most women in Congo do and see how they like it. They do nothing to help improve the conditions of women anywhere. HRC is trying to make improvements.

I have nothing but contempt for African "men." What they do to women is reprehensible. These "men" disgust me. They are sub-human and must be condemned.

If you want to do something about the horrific plight of the Congo, go here

http://www.enoughproject.org/conflict_areas/eastern_congo

or here

http://www.raisehopeforcongo.org/

Cause websites are great - they allow you to stay involved and make a real difference in 10 minutes a day.

Susan, you hit the nail on the head. Thanks for a very, very good piece. You are without a doubt the best writer on this forum.

Well, whether or not it's the real Susan Jacoby or an imposter piping up here, it seems to me that you're holding against Condi Rice certain positions of her administration which she could not reasonably have circumvented even if she wanted to. Moreover, you diss the former administration's contributions to the fight against AIDS as though they were nothing.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Bono when he said "I think [George W. Bush has] done an incredible job, his administration, on AIDS. And 250,000 Africans are on anti-viral drugs. They literally owe their lives to America. In one year that's been done." Condi's boss made huge investments in sub-Saharan Africa's development, committed massive resources to anti-HIV efforts, and generally reversed some Bill Clinton-era trends that had very bad implications for Africans.

As for abortion, if you're not willing to concede that one can support and contribute to women's rights while viewing increased access to abortion as bad public policy, there's not much prospect for sane discussion. I'll let you take that one up with the shades of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and the like.

At any rate, pointing out areas where you disagreed with the Bush Administration's policies is not going to persuade anyone that you actually do recall or understand Rice's contributions (or those of her boss) to the promotion of women's rights, particularly in the area of combatting sexual violence.

Probably more than any other person on the planet (though there are lots of honorable mentions including Albright), Rice was responsible for leading the international community, through the UN, to acknowledge systematic sexual violence in armed conflict as a threat to international peace and security. (This was hailed as a historic achievement by rights organizations around the globe.) She made eloquent arguments at the UN; she visited rape victims in the Darfur refugee camps and helped bring their stories to the world.

I'll leave aside Rice's other efforts in pressing for equality of education and political suffrage for women in some of the world's most repressive societies.

Only ignorance, forgetfulness or a political interest in belittling these meritorious actions would cause someone to dismiss them as you have.

I'd also be interested to know why you think Albright wasn't the first secretary of state to make women's rights a major priority, even though in her day she was widely hailed as exactly that. But no matter.

Hmmm, who is this SUSAN_JACOBY making the comments below??? The real Susan Jacoby no longer responds to comments due to some strange person impersonating her some months ago.

From Susan Jacoby:

Oh no, I haven't forgotten Condoleeza Rice's "contributions to the cause" at all. She was the spokesperson for an administration that chose to "fight" AIDS without condoms, and, of course, did its best to obstruct any international efforts to make the option of abortion available to raped women who would be marked for life by bearing the child of a rapist.

I repeat: Hillary Clinton is the first secretary of state to make women's rights a top priority. I'm not saying this because I'm a long-time Hillary fan: I voted for Barack Obama in the primary. But I think Clinton is a perfect fit for secretary of state.

Albright did more than "mention" these issues. Surely I'm not the only person who remembers that. Google an old 1997 Associated Press article entitled "Albright Champions Women's Rights: Issue Emerges As Priority In Foreign Policy".

And let's remember that Hillary Clinton is pursuing a trail also blazed by Condoleeza Rice, to whom we in no small part owe Security Council Resolution 1820 on sexual violence in armed conflict (among other notable contributions by Rice to the cause).

How quickly we forget.

"She's right - SHE is the SecState, not him!"

Yeah, right. As if her choice of husband isn't 99% of her qualifications.

From Susan Jacoby

Athena4 is right; Secretary Albright did comment on the rapes in Bosnia. But Hillary Clinton is the first secretary of state to make women's rights per se a priority. And now that I think about it, the much swifter response of the international community to what was going on in Bosnia--in Europe, not Africa-- reinforces my argument about our neglect of the sexual violence that has tormented women in central Africa for a much longer period.

The media's trivialization of this priority was the main point I was trying to make.

Susan, there was eventually some media focus on the rapes in Bosnia and Croatia back in the '90's, and I seem to recall that Madeline Albright did mention them. But Hillary is really the first one to bring this horrific practice to the attention of the world. One would expect to get pissed off if you had just been meeting with rape victims, then get asked what your husband thinks about something! Not to mention a guy offering to buy her daughter for 40 head of cattle. She's right - SHE is the SecState, not him! She's doing a damn fine job of it, and she looks happy and fulfilled.

I suspect that former secretaries Albright and Rice, possibly among other predecessors, would reasonably object to the assertion that Secretary Clinton is "the first American secretary of state who has made women's rights a human rights priority."

I'm not sure that it requires any greater "personal courage" for a U.S. Secretary of State with a massive security apparatus to make a state visit to Congo than it does for me to drive through the rougher parts of the District of Columbia. Never mind, though - I'm sure that, as with her 1996 Bosnia visit, Hillary will eventually treat us to anecdotes making her Congo visit sound like the Charge of the Light Brigade.

You know, if it'd been such that I *hadn't* been a strong Obama supporter, and knowing what I know now, I would have opposed Hillary for President.

*Cause she makes such a *kickarse* Secretary of State.* *That's* where we needed her all along. :)

Didn't even know we needed her there, in particular, but. Yeah.

I'm impressed. :)

Simply more reasons why Africa is called the Dark Continent!!

SUSAN JACOBY

Isn't it sad when actually showing an emotion of caring is put as being a negative?

Speaks "volumes" does it not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

They are bamboozling the world. Have a drink. Can't bamboozle me.