Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Equivocating on Islam
The one aspect of the Clinton response on Obama's religion that seems indisputable to me is that it says something about how many Americans view Islam. Imagine Kroft's questions and Clinton's answer if they were talking about being a "Presbyterian". With other traditions, people profess their faith, and you take that at faith value, even if you might occasionally question the sincerity of their commitments. In the imaginary conversation, I can't see any politician responding with a scrambled egg answer like Clinton did, because if someone asserts a self-described Catholic is really a Presbyterian, you just say "What business do you have saying that?"Because Islam and terrorism have been so closely associated in American popular culture, however, the "60 Minutes" conversation did take place. Islam is not in the category "religion" in many people's minds, it is more like a secret, reprehensible habit. Now imagine the conversation with Kroft asking if Obama was an alcoholic or into bondage. Then Clinton's answer actually sort of sounds more like it.I don't think Clinton is especially culpable here -- Kroft accepts the same frame, and he's asking because it is widespread in the media, too. But it is a sad reflection on the status of Islam in the American popular imagination that even a liberal Senator shares this attitude.
Comments (4)
For some old school fun, try substituting 'Muslim' with 'Communist.' Those were the days.
March 3, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a muslim?"
Disgusting.
March 3, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an interesting post on an issue that is really incompatible with a hotly contested election. The focus has been on HRC and what she said and how she said it, with many Obama supporters suggesting it was Muslim-baiting, and with most Clinton supporters (like me) defending her against such charges.
But all of this misses the fundamental point that the question from Kroft was absolutely despicable. Although I honestly, gut honestly, do not believe that Clinton's answer was in any way meant to be Muslim-baiting, as one of her very loyal supporters I still wish that she would have looked at Kroft and said something like: "What kind of ridiculous question is that? I mean, I know Barack is a Christian but, even if he was a Muslim, what difference would it make? Why, Mr. Kroft, are you suggesting that this is some kind of issue of significance?"
Alas, this whole area is disturbing and, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I can only hope that somehow the great swath of American people will recognize the offensiveness of this line of inquiry, soundly reject it, and on that basis alone elect Senator Obama.
March 3, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that there might be some additional fallout on this precisely because she went out of her way to use a similar moment during the last debate to make a point of the whole/reject deny, the basic message of which was that a strong, emphatic denial shows leadership. I think she missed a really good moment here to do exactly what you suggest and I think it would have worked beautifully for her. Unfortunately, I also think that she'd rather have the whisper campaign continue because she thinks that works in her favor. I could be wrong, but that's my impression.
March 4, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment