"Hillary’s inner rage.."? you have got to be kidding. if you actually watch the video it's obvious that the whole things a complete and utter beat up. she looks mildly annoyed, no more (or less) annoyed than any other politician asked a stupid question (be the question an error or intentional). her response is also mildly amusing, in no way "rage".

silly article, no substance at all. nice try, no banana.

'Her public mask had slipped and revealed Hillary’s inner rage at having to play second fiddle, both to Obama, and to her husband Bill...'

Inner rage? What utter sexist rubbish!

The issue was plain and simple. She had been asked a question that dripped and reeked of sexism. This is the actual wording of the question, which the author of this essay deemed too unimportant to include:

'Mrs Clinton, we’ve all heard about the Chinese contracts in this country, the interference from the world bank against this contract ….What does Mr Clinton think through the mouth of Mrs Clinton and what does Mr Obama think on this situation?'

'Through the mouth' of Mrs Clinton!

I am no fan of 'Mrs' Clinton's politics, but I am with her 150% in the strong, assertive rebuke she gave to the journalist who asked for the use of her disembodied mouth to act as a conduit for the opinions of her husband and her male boss, but without any requirement to give her own.

Like the media's portrayal of the incident as an 'outburst' or that 'Hillary snapped', the author's attempt to pitch this incident as a slippage of her 'inner rage' at not winning the presidency shows an ignorance of how insidiously sexism against women operates - an ignorance that is not only unacceptable, it is beyond belief.

I thought it was a restrained reminder that Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State and she does not have to ask her husband what to do.
When will the human race get over making judgements about what some else thinks, feels, believes or what their motivation is. In the same situation I think my response would have been somewhat stronger. A totally rubbish article.

I disagree with the previous comments. I think the author has it right about Hillary's broader concerns about her status. The African interview is indicative.

It must grate on Hillary's nerves (as the author says) that when the tough gets going Obama directly invites others like her husband, in North Korea, to fix things.

Hillary would be mindful that her predecessor was Condi Rice who was little more than a composite minority/mouthpiece/show pony (admittedly also a self interested oil crony).

Hillary knows she will never be a powerful Kissinger, on the Secretary of State scale, but she doesn't want to slide down to Condi's Press Release On Legs status either.

Pete

I'll bet Sarah Palin would have handled that one better, we got the wrong person in the job!

It really didn't matter which one of them got the gig, the US was going to have a lousy, incompetent president.

This way it got a lousy incompetemt secretary of state, too.

Lets hope that god will save America, its present administration have no idea of how to do it.

I think this article is every bit as “enraging” as the question to Ms. Clinton which prompted it.

Its written in an emotive vein, oddly reminiscent of old Women’s Weekly romantic fiction:-
“Hillary agonised over the decision for about a week or so, and then, perhaps against her better judgment, she accepted.”
“Hillary was unsure about how to respond. Sure it was a high profile position, but did she really want to work under Obama? Her resentment towards the man who had cost her the presidency was still raw”.

I expect I could be kinder and say it is written in a didactic voice: the author seeks authoritatively to inform us about the working of a persons’ mind.

Whichever track one takes, these are hardly the hallmarks of an “opinion” piece. Actually, having read the potted bio of the writer, I get the distinct impression that the whole piece was deliberately couched in this way; as a kindly attempt to talk down to the intended recipients in a way it was judged they could absorb. Certainly no academic or journalistic piece (unless it were of the tabloid variety) would pass muster written in such a cavalier way.

Others have pointed out the hyperbole of the content – the employment of words like “rage” and “frustration” and the collocations regarding her “snapping.”.

One wonders how Ms. Clintons feelings would “seethe” and “be in turmoil” if she read this impertinent attempt to present the inner working of her mind for the education of the “Dear Readers”?

Coming on top of the daft blunder the piece is about, would she once more “Snap”?

Very interesting article...people tend to forget that Hillary came close to being President, and that it must be hard to be Secretary of State under Obama. I saw her outburst, and the 'rage' was there for all to see. Coming as it did after her husband's recent trip to North Korea, I think the author is right in arguing that this may have ticked her off. Also, a very good point about Obama having taken the military option off the table with regards to North Korea and Iran, may only have encouraged them to be more bellicose. You have to play it tough with these nations--that's how they play it after all.

I just dug up the video http://media.smh.com.au/hillary-clintons-angry-outburst-674395.html?

I must admit to having seen angrier outbursts. I suspect that Hillary is not all that pleased that she is not president but to try and make her response to that question into something other than it was is clutching at straws.

R0bert

Robert, thanks for the link.

She looked angry...and I do think that it was more than just annoyance at the question.

I think the argument and approach that Mr. Ryan took to this issue is spot on, having read Bob Woodwards ''The Choice'' which described Hillary in a very similair vein as First Lady. If you read that account, as well as Carl Bersteins ''A Woman in Charge'', you'll find that Hillary is a very spirited and emotional woman.

As Mr. Ryan said, she was often reduced to tears, and with her brains and ambition, felt frustrated and indeed 'jerked around' as First lady.

That Hillary was like that as First lady, is well documented. Its also well documented that she flourished as the Senator from New York--being her own boss worked well for her. So stepping from that into the position of Secretary of STate, when she really wanted to be President, and you can imagine how she feels. I've read numerous articles from sources close to Hillary, describing how she felt after the election, and how she's feeling right now. So, its not conjecture: for those who watch her closely, its pretty clear what that outburst meant. And that outburst meant what this artcle says: she's still resentful at not being President. And who can blame her. I would be too.