“What is your role, exactly?”
By pm317 on June 8, 2009 at 9:30 PM in Current Affairs
That was one of the questions George Stephanopoulos asked of Secretary Clinton on his Sunday talkshow. Clinton hate or Sexism? I think a whiff of both. What does a woman have to do to get R.E.S.P.E.C.T if she is a Clinton? Read on.
On his Sunday talkshow, George Stephanopoulos interviewed Secretary Clinton (Transcript), her first interview on a major network since she was appointed SOS.
Right off the bat, Stephanopoulos did not disappoint me. Take a look:
STEPHANOPOULOS: The president has a very high-powered team, Vice President Biden, General Jones, Secretary Gates. You’ve got envoys for Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea. How do you fit in?
(LAUGHTER) CLINTON: Well, I…
STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your role, exactly?
Did he really say that?
Yeah, what exactly is your role, woman? How do you fit in among these high-powered men?
Mind you, he could have asked a different question like “how do you envision your envoys working for you? What are their roles?” Or just plain ask about why have envoys?
Next question.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It [having envoys] also gives you the ability to get out of the crisis management and carve out areas where you’re really going to take initiative. What are those?
Yeah, right! It gives Hillary the ability to twiddle her thumb and go out and do “girly” things like shopping where she is really going to take initiative.
Next question.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So there’s plenty of work to go around?
With that question he made sure that she was not sitting around in the State Department Building twiddling her thumb. For the rest of the interview, she answered his “substantive” questions brilliantly as is her wont in spite of having the envoys do all her thinking for her. You know, she is a girl, she can’t think.
Later the panel of women on his show drooled over discussed what a better feminist role model the Ivy-League educated first lady MO is, Princeton and Harvard, no less. Yeah, if exercising individual choice is the only criterion assuming that she wants to go back to the 50s with her self-proclaimed Mom-in-Chief role (and yes she can), she will qualify for that feminist label. Never mind the pigheadedness (my dad would have called it that) in wasting a good education. Think about another deserving person who would have put that education to better needs, who didn’t have a politician for a husband instrumental in getting her the biggest raise for a position that was especially created for her. Incidentally, that University of Chicago position MO held has been scrapped, both the job and MO were dispensable. What does that say about her accomplishments?
Those women on the panel should wipe their prematurely ejaculated drool off their face over MO. It is an affront to all women of intellect and leadership.






















