So, it's interesting to me that there was apparently an interview (which I went and listened to excerpts of) in...

So, it's interesting to me that there was apparently an interview (which I went and listened to excerpts of) in which Hillary Clinton declined to acquiesce to her interviewer's persistence.  Was she evaluated as a tough interviewee? Nope. She was all kinds of wrong and bad, even though, from what I could see, she basically kept her cool, didn't back down, and stayed focused on her message, rather than the interviewer's. There was nothing "testy" seeming to me about it, just some above average verbal give and take. 

None of which is to say every single thing she said was brilliant, well-phrased, or a position or perspective with which everyone would universally agree. Not at all. This interview was on NPR. On whose website there was some post-interview evaluation, including the following:

"Some have described as "testy" Clinton's response to Terry on the same-sex marriage question. "Testy" is clearly a negative description, but her response just as easily could have been described as "forceful," a more positive adjective. A large body of research suggests that when women are assertive, that's often read more negatively than when men are assertive. Maybe that's what's happening here. It's just something to keep in mind."

Hm. It seems there's also some kerfuffle that this means she's not ready to run for president (has anybody, in fact, declared they are running for president? just for, you know, clarity.) Really? The fact that she was prepared for, and rebuffed, some interview questions in a strong, determined manner, without name-calling, violence-threatening, or history-class failing stupidity (all of which have been demonstrated by Congresscritters or Presidential candidates in the recent past), means she's not ready? What, precisely, then qualifies as ready?

After all, not that Michelle Obama is going to be a candidate running for anything, at least Hillary wears sleeves.