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.