Joan Ganz Cooney | 11/03/2009 1:00 pm
Joan Ganz Cooney 'Appalled' at Hillary Clinton's Head Scarf
I have to admit that I was appalled to see Hillary Clinton in a head scarf when she was in Ramallah recently on an official visit. First, I think a U.S. Government official when on government business is genderless, that it is not a woman official or a man official; just an official. Second, the head scarf is a symbol of the subjugation of women and a religious belief, at that. Would she wear a crucifix if she met with the pope? I’m sure she was told she should show respect for the culture but I have to ask why, when the culture supports beliefs that we and certainly Hillary Clinton are repelled by.
Click here to see Hillary Clinton’s picture on the Daily Beast.

























180 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Hillary Clinton was in territory held by the Israeli government which recognizes the Geneva conventions when she wore the headscarf.She was not in another "country".
The Geneva conventions are fair and humane. I suppose if some countries do not sign, they can go on obeying their own laws, and cutting off hands and feet, burying people up to their necks in sand and stoning them, and so forth.
The US has made many mistakes as has every government but I would not equate them with some of the entities we are dealing with. I respect the fact that you were in the Army but that doesn’t make you right.
About rules, how explicit do I need to be? There are general rules of war and peace that most reasonable countries adhere to. The ones that do not, by and large, do not engage in war because they are not equipped, but some of them, and/or their leaders, want to, or want to stir people up to keep their power. Many of these countries are Muslim or in part Muslim, and Muslim rules say that other countries should be infiltrated and conquered, and their people converted, taxed as secondary citizens, or killed. There are some sets of rules that are intolerable. Just because they exist is not a reason to give them respect. So, if you want to stand on the side of Neville Chamberlain, be my guest. I prefer to look things in the eye and see what exists for what it is.
#1 through #3 in my comment above are just statements of fact. None of which makes me anything close to Neville Chamberlain. Your statement that you respect the fact of my service rings a little hollow when you follow it up by comparing me to one of history’s great appeasers. An appeaser, I am certainly not.
BTW my military experience certainly taught me a lot, but my opinions - opinions, mind, not necessarily the right or only way of thinking - are also informed by my post-graduate education in national security affairs. In looking at any international issue, from politics to wars to trade to demographics to the environment, the main thing I care about is what is ultimately best for the US.
Moving along to part 4 of my comment: since the State Department is so far off the mark, what do YOU propose? You have made many comments in this thread criticizing the US approach - you must have something in mind as a better or more effective approach - what is it? Please share.
I admit that I was appalled to read Joan Cooney’s statement about Sec. of State Clinton’s wearing a head covering in Ramallah. I honestly thought Ms. Cooney was better informed and more sensitive to cultural mores than that.
One reason that citizens of other countries often resent Americans is because of the hubris and insulting behavior shown by some of us as travellers. (These are often the very same Americans who scorn visitors and immigrants to the U.S. who don’t speak English.) Ms. Clinton had a mission in Ramallah and it didn’t include disregarding the customs of that culture. Obviously she did her homework and chose to show respect. Not to do so would have immediately created a barrier that could have sabotaged her visit. Shouldn’t she be applauded for acknowledging the customs of those with whom she was in discussion?
I don’t know any Americans who "scorn visitors and immigrants" to the U.S. who don’t speak English. None. Not one.
I myself scorn those that insist that Americans learn to speak thier language, or those that intend to reside here and refuse to learn English.
Applaud Clinton for doing the easy thing? No.
It’s telling that there isn’t one post here about anything Hillary has achieved as SecState. She has no accomplishments because she is insignificant. Obama gave her the position to marginalize her by requiring her to become a loyal footsoldier and he has succeeded. Meanwhile he has a handful of special envoys who are attempting to do the the heavy lifting.
Should she leave the administration next year to position herself for a run for the White House in 2012 she will once again be seen as self-serving. Even if the move from SecState to President had good odds (history shows us it does not), she will have no real accomplishments during her time to brag about and have to turn on her boss with a vengence.
Hillary’s dreams will remain just that.
In 2016 she will turn 69. Unfortunately for her, we live in an age of worship of the young-looking, beautiful and telegenic. Her age will work against her on looks alone, but she should also expect to see it made into a political issue. Clinton would be the same age as was Reagan, our oldest President ever, who was 69 upon assuming office; McCain would have been 72 upon swearing-in, and in both of those campaigns, age was also made into a huge issue.
The head scarf is only a symbol of the subjugation of women to non-Muslim women who misunderstand it. It’s an object of modesty and the desirability of women. As I understand it, Orthodox Jewish women also cover their hair. It’s an old tradition that Christians’ seem to be confused by, but think of how the Virgin Mary is portrayed. I’m not suggesting that women are not subjugated in some cultures, only that covering one’s head shouldn’t be the symbol.
I work with Muslim women in a nonprofit setting both as clients and employees although I am a Catholic. Islam does not necessarily equal the subjugation of women; that seems to be more cultural than religious. The East African Muslim women that I know are not subjugated.
I support Clinton’s wearing of the head scarf. It was the diplomatic thing to do. I also think that her style is to blend and not make her choice of clothing a subject of attention either positive or negative. After all, her abilities are what counts.
"Why doesn’t everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?" asked Jimmy Durante.
Right off your website!
I understand what you’re saying Joan and agree completely. I remember hearing Barbara Walters tell a story of being there and inadvertently sitting in a restaurant on the side that is reserved for "men only". She was told she would have to move to the "private room for women". She also wore a scarf when in public.
I see no reason why we should have to show respect for something we have no reason to respect but in Hillary’s case I defer to her better judgement on things diplomatic. She has much more to be concerned about when dealing with that part of the world than fashion and I’m sure defiance of their culture wouldn’t serve her well in matters of diplomacy.