Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why I Was Ashamed Watching 60 Minutes
I write this blog immediately following watching the 60 Minutes piece on the Clinton and Obama campaigns in Ohio. I understand that this is the heat of the political moment but I felt shame as I watched Hillary Clinton respond to the question about the smear campaigns on Obama's religion and patriotism tonight. She qualified her answer of "taking him at his word," regarding his religion with "as far as I know." This is beginning to get ridiculous. Why would she do that? I thought they were from the same party, the same country, and the same underlying belief systems? Was I wrong to think that a fellow Democrat, or a fellow American for that matter, would have strongly denounced the idea that a candidate is being falsely attacked based on religion or race?This is huge. She wrote it off by comparing it to the many smear campaigns she has fought through. Sure. Fair Enough. But come on! As Obama clearly cited when he was asked about the situation in the piece, attacks like this not only harm him and his Christian faith but also the faith of Muslims. It is an inherent smear on the Muslim faith itself and a Presidential Candidate should not equivocate on tactics that are so vile as to defame not only a prominent, respected, and successful individual but an entire religious faith. It is behavior like this that I hoped we would begin to move away from following the national tragedy of the last 8 years, I am afraid that with a Clinton Presidency once again strong, basic American principles will be tossed to the side in favor of political necessity. I am not only afraid of this being true. Tonight, she proved it. We as country are better than this!
Comments (159)
The link for the transcript is http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/60minutes/main3894659.shtml
March 2, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This constant Hillary attacking is getting so old. I watched the video and see her absolutely refuting the idea that Obama is a Muslim. When the reporter presses, she gives a flustered "as far as I know"--as if to say, just what the hell are you getting at, do you have some sort of follow-up here, not to inject some sort of doubt.
As far as the taking him at his word--I wouldn't know a person's religion by looking at them, so I take them at their word. That's all she's saying. Why must Obama supporters make a mini-controversy out of EVERYTHING?
Michelle Obama says for the first time she's proud of her country and the argument is no, no, that's not what she meant, quit judging. Hillary states that Obama is not a Muslim and the argument is--yeah, but she did, just play it backwards--she says Obama is the devil.
March 3, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her answer was the rhetorical equivilent of damning with faint praise. "As far as I know" and "I take him at his word" are just ways of saying there is still room for doubt.
She more than anyone else deserves this kind of scrutiny after the way see parsed his answer on Farrakhan. If you hold her to her own standard she equivocated.
March 3, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree completely. I already explained why I thought she used those phrases. I know this is a heated campaign, but I think this is what Obama was talking about when he mentioned the "silly season". This is just ridiculous. Maybe she should have said no twenty more times.
March 3, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second that! She says NO NO OF COURSE NOT RIDICULOUS RUMORS etc.... and the writer of this ridiculous post takes that as YES YES WHATEVER .... What I am sick of in politics is this ignorant obvious twisting of what people say into whatever suits their prejudice and attaching it to whomever they do not like at the moment. You my friend are why so many people hate politics and do not vote. The poor woman says no about 8 different ways, the question itself is coming from a reporter who should know better, and yet you end up with blaming her for smearing your precious man of the moment. GET REAL!
March 3, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
How right you are obedientobjecter...the Hillary bashing is getting tiresome. Whatever she says gets turned around to hurt her and favor Obama. It's sickening! I hope she shows them all tomorrow night! She would be the best President!
March 3, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
My response to Hillary's response about Obama being a Muslim was the same. I wondered why she seemed constitutionally incapable of giving a clear and categorical answer.
March 2, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe her response will make more sense if you ask yourself exactly how you know Senator Obama is not a Muslim. I think you would agree that taking politicians' words for things is something that has caused her trouble in the past.
March 3, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy:
I think active membership in a Christian church for over 20 years might be a good beginning...
I guess, I have to ask you, How do I know you aren't a GOP plant? Show me the evidence! Your post suggests you are, trying to create mischief.
March 3, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard that before. It's sort of the last resort when your argument runs out. You can infer whatever you want to from Obama's participation in a Church. It will be just an inference. In your case, of course, it's not even direct experience of this participation, is it? You're taking someone's word for that, aren't you? This isn't an Obama blog or an Obama thread. I'm allowed to disagree here. And I should be able to disagree without being called a "plant." Don't be so wet.
March 3, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can she categorically deny what he believes? She can say that he's said x and y, she believes him and there's no reason to doubt it, but what could she possibly say that's any more forceful concerning her position about what's in his head?
I believe the guy down the street is a good guy and I'm basing that on years of observation and from what he has said, but I can't state with absolute certainty that he doesn't daydream about committing criminal acts. I'm not in his head, so I can only speak to what I have seen and to what I have heard.
March 2, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question doesn't concern "what's in his head." It concerns a matter of fact. Hillary appeared incapable of stating simply that Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim. She could say only that she would take his word for it. That was weird as heck. But the matter is one of public knowledge. Obama has been going to the same Christian church for years. Why does Hillary have to take his word for it? So, Magister, it's not a matter of what's in his head, but what's in the public record.
March 2, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Thank you.
Anyone who plays the "we don't really know for SURE do we? *wink wink*" game is intellectually dishonest.
March 2, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I posted before having only read the transcript. After actually watching the video, there's nothing here. I don't see a problem with her answer.
March 2, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was fine with her response watching the video until she added the, "as far as I know" at the end. Then her answer takes on a whole new level of gamesmanship. It would have been very simple to make a flat statement based on the facts that are undoubtedly know by her. It would have been admirable for her to come to Barack's defense, and done what she could to help put an end to these rumors. But she essentially gave a wink as a response. There was no reason to add the, "as far as I know" to her answer. This is a woman that had Obama's kindergarten papers requisitioned. She for damn sure knows that Obama is a practicing Christian who regularly attends church. I'm pretty sure that at the drop of a hat, she could recite things about members of his congregation that would make a chaste man blush.
In this case, Clinton did not deliberately advance these false rumors, but she sure as hell didn't do anything to put them to rest with her carefully worded qualification.
March 3, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hello World
I agree with you. Hillary flat out equivocating and intentionally, deliberately with malice and forethought left doubt as to whether he was or was not a muslim. Her answer was classic Hillary doublespeak and that was intentional...so that the 'voters can decide'
This is the characteristic of Hillary that people detest, her inability to take a stand, which is precisely how she is able to position her vote to use military force as authorizing the use of diplomacy.
She did the same thing in the debate with the issue of drivers license when asked her position, everyone THOUGHT she agreed. Dodd even asserted "Hillary you just agreed" and she forcefully DENIED having agreed, 'no, I did NOT, she retorted to Dodd.
The way she does this is to use words which SOUND Agreeable while actually never STATING she does agree. This type of duplicity is what folks find most reprehensible about her as she is unreliable. Folks do not feel they know where she stands, and with good reason.
Worst of all folks act on what they believe is her agreement as Dodd would have only to have her turn around and say that is not her position. Her unwillingness to take a stand on issues and constantly equivocate is the hallmark of a weasel.
She simply is not a leader and that is the true message to clearly understand.
March 3, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my god. An honest, rational person. Funny how one post can restore your faith in an entire thread. My respects.
March 3, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The public record is that he attends a church, but religion is a matter of faith or belief, it isn't a question of being someplace on Sunday mornings. Fred Thompson claimed to be a christian, but he admitted to only attending church with his mother, when he was in Tennessee which wasn't very often. If you take the time and place argument to its logical extremes, then it would mean that because Fred Thompson didn't belong to a church near his home, then he must not be a christian and probably doesn't believe in God.
Hillary answered the question and said that Obama is a christian. She can't categorically state it for a fact and I feel that she wasn't thinking about hedging her bets, but instead, she answered the question to the best of her ability.
I also doubt that Sen. Obama is sitting around somewhere fuming about what she said, instead it's just a handful of people on the web who are looking for character flaws, many of which have tried to hijack the language.
March 2, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so absurdly sophistical.
Suddenly Clinton is waxing Cartesian... yeah right. If only she was this academically skeptical when it came to WMDs...
March 2, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And taking an argument "to its logical extreme" is an awfully nice way of saying "ignoring all nuance and common sense."
March 2, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! Well played, sir.
March 3, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, or maybe she just wants to leave the door open to continue the whisper campaign about his status as a crypto-muslim.
Ridiculous. Taking a lesson from HRC herself, I know that the proper course of action here is to dejectanouncify all such allegations.
March 3, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Religion is a matter of faith or belief." Really? If you declare yourself a Christian, and get baptized, and attend church regularly, you're a Christian. If your ethical goals are strongly influenced by Jesus, you're a Christian. Faith and belief are nice, but even Jesus had his moment of doubt. A friend of mine ordained in the Church of England has no faith or belief in the Biblical story, but still he's very much a Christian. Some sects demand faith or belief, but not all, not even within Christianity.
March 3, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is Obama a Christian?
Well, clearly it depends on the meaning of the word "is". Hillary knows that better than anyone.
March 3, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
A western, judeo-christian view of religiosity would agree with you -- the fact that Obama belongs to a UCC church isn't enough to define him as a Christian. But the silly thing about all this, and about Hillary's equivocating, is that you will never find a Muslim who goes to and belongs to a Christian church. If you are Muslim, you cannot hide the fact of your identification as a Muslim. If you are not Muslim, you cannot hide the fact of your identification as non-Muslim. In order to be Muslim you must affirm your belief in Mohamed as the final prophet of God (and thereby renounce belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ), and you must practice your Islamic faith (pray, tithe, fast, make your pilgrimage to Mecca, if you are able). Otherwise you simply are not Muslim. Since Obama does neither, he is not Muslim.
The fact that there is a public record of his membership in a UCC church is *more than* sufficient proof that he is not a Muslim. The fact that he *claims* to be Christian is itself sufficient proof. The people who pass along the scurrilous and untrue rumors that Obama is Muslim are not only lying, they are also betraying their total ignorance about what it means to be Muslim. And while Hillary isn't lying when she equivocates about it, she also is betraying her lack of knowledge. She shouldn't talk about what she doesn't know anything about.
March 3, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really believe that religion is a matter of public record? I can't be a Christian unless I attend services? I can't be a Muslim unless I attend services? I'd say you're on a slippery slope.
March 3, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
HEY~ She said NO NO NO! When exactly did you get it in your head that was YES YES YES??? Honestly Obama has been at a church where the pastor and who else I don't know has a longstanding association with Black Muslim causes and personalities. That is true and do I know enough about it to assure you of anything it might imply. Try this in google~ black muslim oakland ~ and see what you might not want to know about why this frightens people.
March 3, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her answer seemed correct to me. She clearly says 'of course not' when first asked the question.
No, she doesn't say that he absolutely isn't a Muslim; she says that she believes him when he says that he isn't, and that these muslim 'smears' are ridiculous. And that's exactly the right response. Religion is a personal matter, and it would have been improper for Hillary to define someone else's religion.
To those supposedly outraged by this, where should she have stopped? Should she have gone on to discuss whether Obama believes in transubstantion, or finer nuances in his belief structure? Of course not - that's for him to talk about if he wishes, not her.
Let's not forget, it isn't a bad thing to be Muslim, and I think she struck the right balance in saying the rumours were unfounded, without sounding like being muslim would be the worst thing ever.
In other words, get a grip people!
March 3, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I can't state with absolute certainty that he doesn't daydream about committing criminal acts."
Yes, that's exactly her approach: innuendo. "I can't state with absolute certainty that he doesn't daydream about Mecca -- what with a middle name like Hussein and all." That's the kind of doubt she hopes her audience, or perhaps I should say the bottom-feeders of her audience, will come away with. And what about her own inscrutable interior? Should we worry about that? Oh no, that's peaches and cream all the way down -- invisible peaches and cream, to be sure, but delicious and sweet nonetheless.
So you honestly think Hillary was making an epistemological point about human subjectivity? How about we turn that against you: how do we know you're not a secret racist using this occasion to defend another secret racist under the pretext of being psychologically subtle and ever so correct with parsing words? How can we be sure you're not a racist? Okay, I take you at your word... As far as I know, you're not... But then what do I know, right? What does any of us know? Perhaps...eh...perhaps...
It's a neat piece of treachery, this, and you have to be stone deaf not to hear it.
March 3, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I can't state with absolute certainty that he doesn't daydream about committing criminal acts."
Great response Blue Skies.
It made me realize how she has had practice at this. Certainly she has had to say:
"I can't state with absolute certainty that he doesn't have a trail of bimbos he has had sex with"
Hillary has been conditioned to doubt by WJC.
If she were willing to defend Obama she would have had to assert that the muslim rumors were a 'vastrightwingconspiracy'.
March 3, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
She was trying to not insult millions of Muslims by saying how insulting that might be. The reporter was pushing the question and she said no no no of course not I know something about ridiculous rumors ..... not good enough for you blue skies??? I think you have a "hate blindness" problem and "silly season" lifetime membership.
March 3, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well why doesn't Obama explain why he goes to a christian church that believes in promoting an American value system, instead of one that promotes a black value system. That doesn't sound like a guy who wants to unite the country does it? This is a church that loves Farrakahn, gives him awards.
March 2, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for carefully distinguishing "American value system" from "black value system."
Racist pig.
It doesn't surprise me that the Clinton fanatics have finally become desperate enough to embrace the internet lies. Clinton's own rhetorical gymnastics will only add to the satisfaction of seeing her rejected by the party.
March 2, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please google 'black muslim bakery oakland' and then explain to everyone why Obama might need to explain some more why his own church in Chicago has ties to these radical racist pigs. Not everyone in America has the same values. It is a free country. We are free to associate with anyone we choose. Why doesn't he explain??
March 3, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain what? If you want to know, e-mail the church and find out.
March 3, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Want to know about his Christian beliefs? Hear it from the man himself.
This is the best (and little seen) speech on religion and politics in decades. It was given in 2006 before he decided to run. So there are no screaming crowds, just tons of good old common sense.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938
This is no radical person. This is a committed Christian with ideas to bridge ideology with secularism in a wonderful way.
March 2, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, as a black person, I don't have the same values as everyone else? Nice.
March 2, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I hope you don't have the same values as "everyone" else. I know I don't.
March 3, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Munch munch munch! Ummmm, this stinky garbage tastes GOOD! Go Hillary!
March 3, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Say what you want to say, don't just hedge around it. You don't like black people. Just let it out there. The first part of the process is admitting the problem. The next step is doing something to fix it. My problem is when racists cowardly hide behind plausible deniability, and misinformation( in the way Clinton is doing so in this 60 minutes interview, although it is most likely for political opportunism not racism).
translation for you:
racism bad. please change
March 3, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You go out of the loop - you are exactly right.
She is scared, her back is up against the wall, and all she has to look forward to if she loses is Bill's philandering.
Oh well . . .
March 2, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
How stinking disgusting. If she goes along that line, then fired that staffer for sending the "muslim" email for nothing?
God, this makes me so sick. How can any self respecting Democrat vote for her?
March 2, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Barack Obama is a Christian, but really, the question offends me as we do not have a religious test for office in this country."
That's all she had to say.
March 2, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The parsing doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that she thinks she is a person who deserves to be President. Personally, there is only one correct answer for the question posited Mrs. Clinton:
"No, I don't believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. In fact, he has proven it on countless occasions. However, even if he were, that doesn't matter because there is no religious test to become President in this country.
"Furthermore, I think that the inference that there is something wrong with being a Muslim is both hateful and un-American. Hate of that stripe only makes it more difficult for our country to get a fair shake in the court of world opinion."
HRC failed, yet again, a "3am phone call." She was put on the spot and parsed her answer, flushing down the toilet any Muslim that may have ever wanted to vote for her. Screw her.
March 2, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely put. That would have showed real leadership, something you would think a candidate to the leader of the US would aspire to. Maybe you should be running. :)
March 3, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect! The only other thing that could be added for a bit of levity would of course be "... reject and denounce..."
And, thank you for your service.
March 3, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Ray Wiley Hubbard aptly said in his song -
"Im from Texas, Screw you." Or better put, I'm from Texas and I'm going to screw you Hillary at the ballot box. I was angered when they questioned Romney about his Mormon faith and this seems no different. What ever happened to tolerance and talking to people's hopes? What ever respect I had for both Clintons is quickly dissapating.
March 3, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. It is always the race card isn't it. I am not the one who came up with the "black value system" doctrine. It is the Pastor of the Trinity Church of Christ Church. I desire inclusion of all who persue the same goal. Minister Farrakahn and his believers do not. Barack did not do a great job of disassociating himself from Farrakahn just as you say Hillary failed to disassociate herself from the muslim question on sixty minutes. But just like in South Carolina, Obama supporters want to play the race card by accusing the Clintons of playing the race card. This after Bill and Hillary stood up for all races against the Republicans and their kind for decades. Now that's disgusting.
March 2, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're playing hate-mongering card attacking muslims.
March 2, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please goggle ' black muslim oakland bakery' and educate yourself about the subject before you have your faux outrage moment. Not much tolerance coming from these folks. They sound like a black skinheads!
March 3, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reject and denounce is not a disassociation? What does he need to do? Promise that next time he sees Farakhan he'll punch him in the face?
March 3, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
So it would be okay for me to say I believe Hillary is hetero-sexual because she says so, and I take her word for it?
March 2, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that Hillary has ever claimed to be hetero, so your "evidence" of this would be the fact that she is married which is about the same, as saying that a politician is christian because they attend a church.
March 2, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, yes, if she said she was hetero (or by all indications she's never indicated anything but), then this would be pretty much equivalent. Not that one's religion or sexuality should come up in an election, but we're a nosy puritanical nation, so there you have it.
March 3, 2008 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
And furthermore the church doctrine says that blacks should have nothing to do with the middle class-- the traditionally largest and hardest working class in America. So it is the church that promotes separatist views, not I. I hope for a day when all is equal and discourse can be carried out in a civil manner.
March 2, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link to the clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LHFREDHB-nQ
It is that last 2 seconds "...as far as I know..." that gives me the chills and says much too much about Candidate Hillary. That being said, I think it is important not to blow this out of proportion. Call attention to it, by all means, but let people watch it and draw their own conclusions. Obama's strength comes from his ability to remain above the fray while the Clinton campaign self-destructs. Remember what he said during last debate? I'll paraphrase it as a directive for the last two days of this campaign: Let's leave the whining to the Clinton campaign.
March 2, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My wife and I have seen the clip.
There is absolutely nothing there.
Nothing.
I'm an Obama supporter. My public relations business wife is like an Obamaholic. We send him money. Grew up in Chicago in the neighborhood where he did community work. I was married by Pastor Jeremiah Wright at Trinity. My wife has attended that church for 30+ years. Her mother is a deacon there. We lived a few blocks from his State Senate office. Michelle Obama grew up about six blocks from where we live now.
And yes, we voted for him in the primary.
Not only do we like Obama better, we don't even think Hillary can win.
But we both looked at this clip and then looked at each other and asked, "What the hell else was she supposed to say?"
She said "No." She said, "Of course not." And she went on to compare the smear of him to the smears of her. What more can you ask of her?
I think the whole "I take him at his word" thing was a not so subtle shot at Obama. It is the EXACT same thing HE said earlier this week when asked if he thought her campaign had released the Somali photo. Nothing was wrong with that phrase then...
Again, what did you want her to say? Did you want her to swear on a stack of bibles that he was a Christian?
March 2, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for saying this. There is too much of this she-did-it-too going around.
Rising above means not stooping down.
Sometimes though, I think there are a lot of people who like it down there. I laughed when Obama said Fine Hillary - I concede. I reject and denounce. That little victory is only good while we do not go around parsing HRC's comments for one wrong word. She will be who she is, so we might as well let it shine.
March 2, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you know what, I commented above having only read the transcript, but after actually watching the video I don't see a damn thing either. She didn't say "as far as I know" with the look of a wink - she said it with the look of "how the hell would I know otherwise?"
In short, a very human answer. I don't have a problem with it.
On paper, it looks like a bad answer. On video, it doesn't. There's nothing here and it would upset me to see this video turn into a smear.
March 2, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was really no reason to add "as far as I know" because the question wasn't "is Obama muslim?" The question was whether she believed it. The only reason to add a qualifier is to imply doubt.
March 2, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you cadms
She was asked for her belief.
Which is not comparable to Obama being asked about whether she sent out that Somali pic given her record of having to fire a campaigner who sent out muslim e mails and a campaign MANAGER that inferred he was a drug dealer. Given that TRACK RECORD...Obama was right to say, "I take her at her word" ...because it was gracious to do so.
Hillary's response however was about HER beliefs and she did everything she could to leave reasonable doubt in voters minds.
Obama's response did not leave reasonable doubt rather Hillary's campaign's behavior CREATES reasonable doubt of his willingness to 'take her at her word'
Big difference.
March 3, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lucid. The discussion of religion and values might be worthwhile some day, but not at this point in a heated campaign. Your minister is a very interesting and, apparently, complex man. He was a Marine Medic, and, as far as I can determine, started his ministry as an alternative to the Nation of Islam. Obama could have worse advisors. But the influence religion and religious leaders might or might not have on his Presidency is certainly less important than his position on universal health insurance, NAFTA, the Iraq occupation, and the way we approach Iran.
March 3, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's Idiotic when we need him?
March 2, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The scariest aspect of this and other Hillary bits is that you can easily imagine the sleaziest, dirtbag GOPer giving the same answer. If you had those words coming out of the mouths of Tom Delay or Karl Rove, no one would be shocked. And that just goes to show how far Clinton's campaign and its backers (the true Kool Aid drinkers) have sunk.
March 2, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The exchange is clear:
I think the country has had enough of these types of lawyering comments and defining what "is" is.
March 2, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT,
Have you watched the video? I agree the comments look bad on paper - but watching the video, the body language does not smack of "wink wink" but rather just someone making it clear they're answering the question as clearly as they know how.
Granted, her adding the "as far as I know" was probably not necessary and maybe a little unwise. But watching her body language tells me she didn't mean it in a mean spirited way.
March 2, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furion, I command you for your good will, but to me it has the same feel that W disavowing the swift boaters.
March 2, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I saw it on television. I showed the words here simply to make sure people are clear on the quotes.
In my view, her whole demeanor didn't make it any better on television.
The Clinton campaign is very, very shrewd. Nothing from them (tears, Bill's comments in SC, etc.) are arbitrary.
It must rile them something fierce that at the end of the day, when you breed this type of suspicion, which is no different than FNC and her alleged "vast right wing conspiracy", it comes back to bite you in the ass. I hope more people realize what the Clintons truly represent: themselves, and themselves only.
I have a question for you: did you see Andy Rooney's piece where he subtlety pushed the notion of a Hillary win in November?
and
Anyone still want to argue that Hillary is picked on by the media exclusively?
March 2, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If someone were to ask me "What is your thoughtful, considered conclusion about Hillary's intentions when she added 'as far as I know' to her sentence?"
my answer would be: befuddled. I stand by my statement that I see no obvious "wink wink" body language, but I also know, as you state, that nothing from them is arbitrary. The tricks that "mind readers" use to determine the truth of people's statements, the subtle body language cues, all go out the window when you're talking about people like the Clintons.
So I'm left not really knowing if she meant anything by it. To me, it doesn't look like she did. Unfortunately, I have to leave space in that conclusion to be wrong.
The fact that I even have to leave that space speaks negatively about her, or more precisely, my opinion of her, one that appears to be shared even by those who support her.
I've said it elsewhere: the shrewdness that the Clintons display is a double edged sword. They've spent 2 decades fostering the image of them that they NEVER do anything unintentionally. The downside to that image is that you really can't ever ACTUALLY do something arbitrary or genuine - because you've trained people to always see purpose in everything you do, and that arbitrary behavior WILL be viewed through those eyes.
I did not. I'll agree, though, that those statements look pretty Hillary-friendly, although the second one is pretty sexist.
March 2, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furion, we can probably agree that some of this is in the eye of the beholder. I'll only point out that Kroft must have picked up something odd in her first response, because he asked a follow-up question to clarify what she meant.
But let me put this in a larger context, perhaps more in the political strategist frame....
If some of US have this level of skepticism about her basic honesty, have an almost visceral reaction to the way she frames her answers to even questions that ought to be easy, what does this say about her capability to attract new voters-- including independents and moderates-- in the general election?
As a strategic question, isn't it precisely this reaction she engenders her greatest flaw as a potential nominee? It's back to electability for me, among other issues. Fear-mongering, inability to give a straight answer... and all the rest. It doesn't add up, but when I factor in the electability question -- which boils down to the emotional reaction by a huge percentage of the electorate, and not just democrats -- I dread the possibility of her winning the nod. Like Kerry and Gore, she's just not going to be a good candidate in the general: too many negatives.
March 3, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
So in other words, as far as you know, Clinton didn't mean to imply she thought he was a Muslim...you do see the irony in that, don't you?
March 3, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with you. I read the comments both hear and on DailyKos, expecting to be outraged upon watching it when in aired in California.
In all honesty, there's no "there" there. She didn't throw him under the bus, in my opinion.
Like you said Furion, her body language, use of words and inflection all indicated, to me, that she was trying to diffuse the smear, if anything.
Certainly she could have used more definitive words, but that wouldn't be to her advantage.
Let's be honest as well. Once Hillary concedes, Obama is going to be saying many good things about the Clinton Administration and how they handled the economy and other issue that he wouldn't dare say now. It's not to his advantage.
I don't think she added to the smear, she just didn't smack it down as hard as we Obama supporters may have wished she would have.
This didn't make me like or dislike Ms. Clinton any more or less than before I saw it. I voted for Obama, I wouldn't change my vote on a bet or for hard cash, but I don't think that Hillary is the enemy. Her campaign's done many things much worse than this which has cost her my respect. That being said, if she's the nominee, I'd still vote for her over McCain (though not voting would be an option if she tears the party apart and tries to steal the election).
March 2, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of sounding like a mushball, I agree with both Clear Thinker and Furion, and I'm not sure their points of view are necessarily in opposition to one another. I don't think Hillary is trying to smear Obama, it is just she that incapable of giving a straight, unqualified answer. What this clip tells me is that Hillary is a political creature in the mold of her husband at his clumsiest, and she would therefore make a lousy candidate in the general election. Equivocation doesn't win over voters, and Obama has already proven he can handle the silly season with aplomb. It seems obvious to me who would be better matched against McCain.
March 2, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact I hear the recording as much more incriminating than the transcript. She is visibly nervous as though she wonders what effect her remarks are going to have. And it is she who voluntarily rushes to continue the subject after having said, "Of course not," which is all that was called for. The added "as far as I know" at the end was either done with malicious intent or was unworthy of anyone seeking the sensitive office she's seeking.
March 3, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama was not such a nice guy, he should answer as far as I know, she is not a lesbian, but I know it is not his style and probably it would not be wise either. But this thing it is really disgusting
March 2, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, ES.
You say you're not a racist? I'll take you at your word... I will now give MY take on The Black Value System. Not the church's take--I don't represent them and don't talk to any of the leaders there, but this is solely MY opinion.
Ahem.
I will focus on the "Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"" that everyone likes to glom on to. This is a plea for middle-class blacks to not fall into the trap of thinking that their success makes them better than those blacks that are not as successful.
This is the success that they will presumably obtain from their "self-discipline" (another one of the black values), hard work (another one of the black values) and "dedication to the pursuit of education" (yet another one of the black values). It goes on to say, "...So while it is permissible to chase “middle-incomeness” with all our might, we must avoid...the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.”
Note that I cut out a lot of good stuff in that last quote in the interest of space. Maybe you could read it yourself -- http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html
It *is* liberation theology. It is *not* separatist or socialist.
March 2, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of sounding like a mushball, I agree with both Clear Thinker and Furion, and I don't think your points of view are necessarily opposed to one another. I don't think Hillary is trying to smear Obama, it is just she that incapable of giving a straight, unqualified answer. What this clip tells me is that Hillary is a political creature in the mold of her husband at his clumsiest, and she would therefore make a lousy candidate in the general election. Equivocation doesn't win over voters, and Obama has already proven he can handle the silly season with aplomb. It seems obvious to me who would be better matched against McCain.
March 2, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No." Isn't equivocating.
"Of course not." isn't equivocating.
I'm just saying.
I think you're on the right track about one thing, though. I think the magma-hot reaction on the internets to her statement highlights the fact that a lot of people are pre-disposed to thinking the worse about her.
And that is not how you win a general election.
P.S. I intend to save my ire for when they start taking definitive steps to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates (especially MI). Because that would be just fn outrageous!
March 2, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As far as I know" is equivocating.
I'm just saying.
March 3, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. Clearly this thing is going to have legs. But it's nonsense.
She's not his momma. She's not his campaign manager. She's his opponent. They are in competition. How much more emphatic should she have been?
Have you seen *him* explain his background?
He didn't exactly jump up and down on a couch like Tom Cruise. Why should she?
March 3, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
See
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/why-i-was-ashamed-watching-60.php#comment-2625946
March 3, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Denouncing isn't equivocating either.
Yet Hillary insisted that a statement of support for Obama by Farakhan for his candidacy needed to be rejected.(despite no offer to do anything)
Denouncing someone publically is stronger than rejecting them...as it is a public rebuke.
There is no way to reject someone who says they support you other than to denounce what their beliefs are as it is Farrakhan's beliefs that were at issue.
Hillary however, somehow in her mind was able to twist the word 'denounce' into an equivocating statement in need of being rejecting to be unequivocal.
Which tells you everthing you need to know about her answer to 'did she BELIEVE Obama was a muslim'
She did NOT reject that belief.
Clearly she was equivocating as she only denounced it as a smear.
In her own words she was not CLEAR ENOUGH. As she told Obama.
So, if we use her own standards she did not reject the belief and to only denounce as a smear was insufficient and leaves room for doubt in the voters minds.
March 3, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, personally, I take Hillary's word for it that she didn't have Vince Foster killed.
March 2, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I, too, believe that she is completely innocent of having Vince Foster killed.
I also believe that so far this year, there has been no domestic violence in the Clinton household. i have no hard evidence for that statement, but I would take them at their word if they said it. I'm sure they will confirm that there has been no domestic violence in the Clinton household. This year.
;-)
March 3, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink