U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responds to an inane question during Wednesday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The event concerned an attack on the a consular building in Benghazi, Lybia, which claimed the life of U.S. Ambassador John Stevens. Photo: Jason Reed / Reuters

No meme text required.


    1. That’s the terminator eye. Remember? She’s got that kid who told her she’s not allowed to kill anyone. But it was close.

  1. she looks like she might be telling them that sonic youth is dumb and that thurston and kim are divorced.

  2. She is a respectable politician and a lot of people can be made to look funny if you take a screen grab at just the right moment.

    But… surely, I can’t be the only one who thought of The Baroness from GI Joe?

    1.  “respectable politician”…that’s a phrase uttered only by those without basic political information, or someone making a joke.

      1. It’s relative of course. Hillary is well in the upper half of politicians in terms of respectability.

  3. The second picture is cropped a bit too much for my taste, it loses a bit of the “W… T… F… guys????” of the first picture. But great pictures, both!

  4. I get that look on my face almost every time I hear a politician talk about tech related issues.  Or many reporters for that matter.  I know I had the look listening to the NPR reporter talking about Aaron Swartz and the ‘Free Culture’ movements.  Kind of made him sound like a loony.

  5. Overbearing Mother Hillary:

    “Chelsea she doesn’t call for weeks. What is she a big shot? A big shot that can’t call her mother? Just wait til you have kids, Chelsea. You’ll see.”

    1. This reminds me that Secretary Clinton looks uncannily like my mother here, particularly when mom was upbraiding my sister for yet another round of uncommonly foolish teenage foolishness.

      I have no doubt my mother has had occasion to silently and inwardly regret each one of her seven children at one time or another, however briefly.  Does Secretary Clinton finally regret giving up lawyering for this thankless bucket of steaming horseshit she gets handed by “colleagues” and the press day after day?  She’s made of way sterner stuff than I am.  I’d have given up and gone home long before the Whitewater subpoena.

      1.  All you Tommy-come-latelys … does no one remember that Stanley Kowalski first screamed that line?

  6. I felt just like that when she took a gratuitous position against the ‘violent video game’ bogeymedia in the midst of the whole ‘Hot Coffee’ Grand Theft Auto marketing bonanza thing.

  7. I’ve been told “There are no stupid questions” so many times in my life I’ve lost count.

    Stupid people, on the other hand, are a renewable resource.

    1. Sure enough, Ron Paul had a kid.  Was little Rand stoned or what?  Does he have a bong in his briefcase?  
         “Weapons to Turkey?” 
         “Biggest tragedy since 9-11?”
          “If I were president?”
      Does this clown do children’s parties? 

  8. Hopefully this will knock off the talk of her running for president. It was really a bad showing.

    “Why did you repeatedly lie to the American people for weeks and weeks about this event?” “It doesn’t matter! I accept full responsibility, and now that I’ll do nothing let’s move on!”

    1. The GOP has had 4 months to articulate their point, but have never gotten around to it.  All they’ve done is babble in exactly the same way as every grifter and addict caught with their hand in the cookie jar trying to escape by making accusations. Or maybe these old men are speaking the conservative equivalent of the secret language of 12 year old girls. either way, it’s not pretty that they are cheerleaders for terrorists. Oh well, there’s bound to be another bombing or something and then the GOP can try to carry the ball over the goal line for the terrorists again.

      Also see my comment about Rand Paul above. His appearance was comedy gold. I wonder if Anonymous will nail him for making neonazis part of his campaign like his dad did.

  9. I’ll just leave this here:  feministing.com/2013/01/24/how-to-deal-with-a-mansplainer-starring-hillary-clinton-in-gifs/

  10. Oh, for the… this was just yesterday: http://boingboing.net/2013/01/23/objectify-a-male-tech-writer-d.html

  11. With 1389 comments, you’re not new here. You must be aware that the vast majority of posters and readers here wouldn’t qualify the capabilities of the US Secretary of State by noting how attractive she is. And you must be aware how offensive and sexist that is.

  12. Oh right, a 1,024 × 576 gratuitously unflattering image of Hillary, apparently telling the committee about how she used to go fishing at Lake Winnipesaukee, and I’m the bad guy.

  13. There’s nothing unflattering about it. Are photos of women only about how pretty they are? This one is about how inane some questions are. It’s a great photo.

  14.  I didn’t find it unflattering, or at least, it didn’t cross my mind. She´s making a face when answering “an inane question”.

  15. As you said last night when you were defending Sarah Palin “This is a pretty big claim and it requires pretty big evidence to back it up.”

  16. Except it would seem that now that this one awareness day is over, we’re back to the 364 days where comments objectify women as a matter of course. But sure, other than that they’re the same.

  17. Before I respond, I want to know if you consider it a problem that women are objectified in their professions in ways that men are not? And do you acknowledge that male politicians would never receive a comment on how ‘hot’ they appeared while they were testifying before Congress? Finally, do you acknowledge that women politicians routinely receive comments on how ‘hot’ they appear in variety of contexts, including testifying before Congress?

    If you acknowledge any of these questions and still stand by your first post, then the extraordinary evidence will have been provided.

  18. I don’t believe the editors are going to provide space for a response to your demands, so you’re going to be disappointed.  But, devious use of “borrowed authority,” well played.

  19. >Not seeing the use of borrowed authority here.

    Rob (the editor) admonished my comment up thread, so bzishi jumped in and started grandstanding.

  20. @boingboing-e41803c944b3d68e5215c8b9cefb0196:disqus I wasn’t grandstanding. You can review my history–when I see sexism I point it out. I don’t do it to insult you. I do it so that you and others will be aware that these comments can be damaging. I would have posted the same thing whether Rob posted before me or not. I was a little harsh in my initial post so I’m sorry for that. I shouldn’t have posted in a way that made you so defensive. But I’m not sorry for the criticism of sexism in your initial post.

  21. In addition to “borrowed authority” (a real term) a friend and I came up with “borrowed outrage.” Pretending to be outraged on behalf of other people is very high on the scale of being disingenuous.

  22. Technically. Though I’m just playing semantics to prove a point: Reverse bad behaviour (where we flip the stereotype/sexism/racism back onto the perpetrators), is in and of itself the exact same behaviour that we claim to hate and be fighting against.

    It’s like shooting pro-gun advocates to make them aware and prove that guns do hurt people.

    That said, people sometimes need to be shaken up and have their bad behaviour reflected back to them before they realise the consequences of their actions and how they can affect others. So I get the point and agree with the issues but don’t really agree with the fighting fire with fire idea. I prefer to just not objectify women and to enact change through proper behaviour – not objectifying men just because that’s what they do all the time and so deserve it.

    I could probably be more eloquent than that but what do I know? I’m just a dumb blonde.

  23. Okay, tossing sexist tropes on their head? Not the same thing as killing people. Seriously, what’s up with these weird false equivalencies?

    The power and privileges between men and women in this society are NOT EQUAL in many areas.  This is why throwing back these sexist tropes on the face of men works.  The REASON IT WORKS, is because you realize how fucking ridiculous it is when it is used toward the non-marginalized group.  It’s like when you tell a straight couple, “Stop talking about your opposite-sex wife! Think about the children!”

    That doesn’t mean you’re being heterophobic to that straight person, does it?  No, of course not, that would be fucking ridiculous.  (THERE!  There is an analogy that actually works!  See, that wasn’t that hard, was it?)

    That said, people sometimes need to be shaken up and have their bad behaviour reflected back to them before they realise the consequences of their actions and how they can affect others. 

    No shit.  That still doesn’t make this at all sexist toward men.

    not objectifying men just because that’s what they do all the time and so deserve it.

    And no one is actually objectifying men with this whole stunt, anyway; they are just repeating back what is told to women, which is not the same thing. So your argument is even more ridiculous.

    For the record, I think this is hilarious because it points out how ridiculous objectifying women in this way is, but I don’t know if it’s THAT useful — we all know we’re not *actually* objectifying men.

    It’s a humorous way to look at how women are treated, which isn’t a bad thing, but it’s not like, ground-breaking or anything.

Comments are closed.