Did Clinton hedge on Obama-Muslim lies?

March 3, 2008

The buzz in political circles this morning seems to be this 22-second clip from Hillary Clinton’s appearance on “60 Minutes” last night, when CBS’s Steve Kroft asked for the senator’s thoughts on the lies being circulated about Barack Obama being some kind of secret Muslim.

As Ben Smith noted, Clinton denied that she believes Obama is a Muslim, but “her denial seems something other than ironclad.”

“You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

“Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she replied.

“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.

In a season full of Rorschach tests, I think this one’s a doozy.

As far as I can tell, this is pretty close to a perfectly fine answer. Kroft asks if she believes Obama’s a Muslim and she responds, “Of course not.” If she didn’t utter another syllable, there’d be no story.

Instead, Clinton added some qualifiers — such as, “As far as I know.” As Josh Marshall put it, Clinton sounded like she was adding some “iffy hedging.”

I’ve read and now watched a few times. And I suspect this is a case where different people will come away from seeing the exchange with very different senses whether she was hedging or whether people are pulling more equivocation out of her words because of the intensity and combustibility of the moment. […]

For me it’s on the edge. And I find it surprising she would leave it on the edge.

I’d add that were it not for the sensitivity surrounding this issue, there would probably be no controversy at all. But Obama is the target of a coordinated smear campaign, which has led to widespread confusion. That some people close to Clinton and her campaign have helped perpetuate the lies doesn’t help matters.

Michael Crowley added, “I doubt this was about anything more than verbal sloppiness. But particularly given the way people see a conspiracy behind every Clinonite utterance, Hillary should have dispatched this question with one crisp sentence saying it’s just not true.”

I’m inclined to agree, on both points — there was probably nothing sinister in Clinton’s qualifiers, but given the context, she could have chosen her words better.

That said, I thought I’d open this up for a little Monday morning discussion. Is the story a sign of over-sensitivity or evidence of a Clinton campaign subtly hoping to keep some lies alive?

oversensitivity.

this was not an attempted smear, this was Senatitis: the inability of people who have been in the Senate to say anything in simple, short declarative sentences. The actual substance of what she said is non-controversial – she just chooses to say the same answer 6 different ways, leading to the appearance it is less than firm. this is not a scripted speech, the candidates are tired; Clinton Conspiracy Theorists need to chill a bit if this is what they’ve got. Let her finish losing the nomination in relative peace.

  • There is no basis for saying that Hillary Clinton is a calculating, self-serving tool of multi-national corporations who cares more for her own fortunes than for the good of the country and who will say or do anything to win, as far as I know.

  • There’s no reason this should contribute in any way to “widespread confusion” among any but the deliberately stupid. Senator Obama has clarified his religion any number of times in public, and placed it in its proper framework. The only people who are still “confused” are either diehard GOP’ers (who will believe what they wish to believe) and others who are deliberately propagating the falsehood. And actually, they’re not confused either; they likely know well that the story is false. they’re just circulating the rubbish because the tactic has helped them win in the past. Nobody has any excuse for still believing Senator Obama is a Muslim, because it would imply that person is listening only to GOP propaganda, when the facts are well documented and widely available. There’s no reason at all that this should still be a story.

  • If she doesn’t have the sense and judgment to realize that she “should have dispatched this question with one crisp sentence saying it’s just not true”, then does she have the sense and judgment to be President? Especially at 3 a.m. on day 1?

  • Mark in #3: this isn’t about whether Obama has sufficiently clarified his religion, it’s about Clinton’s less than unequivocal response to the invitation to clarify her view.

  • I’d like a little more context. What was Steve Croft’s lead-in? Perhaps she was caught a little off-base by a question she thought was a bit ridiculous.

    I voted for Obama in the primary and really hope to vote for him in the general election. I’m generally more inclined to by biased against Clinton, but I think Mr. Crowley basically nailed it.

  • After a campaign filled with ambiguous statements coming from the Clinton campaign, I can see no other interpretation than Hillary Clinton was intentionally ambiguous.

    I mean, c’mon, the Clinton campaign has had 13 months to come out strongly against this.

    And. They. Never. Have.

    That should tell you something.

    I defended the Clinton campaign for months and months and months. This, and the attempt to portray Obama as racist for complaining about the Somali dressed photo, are the last straws.

  • lets break this down a little more carefully, because the real problem here is Kroft, not Clinton. not only for bringing the nonsense up in the first place, but pressing to try and create controversy.

    her initial answer it would be hard for anyone to fault – it really is pretty close to iron-clad. In one pass she says “Of course not,” “there is no basis for that,” and “there isn’t any reason to doubt.”

    It is when Kroft wont let the subject go that she gets in trouble, first staying very firm, “No, there is nothing to base that on,” but then adding a throw-away “as far as I know,” which is objectively harmless and true – it just happens that if you want controversy you can claim she thinks maybe there are facts she doesn’t know that would change her analysis.

    But that is a pretty conspiratorial stretch. It does, however, seem to be what Kroft was going to make sure he got before he would allow the subject to change, which put Clinton in a tough spot, because she needs the subject to change for the interview to do her any good.

  • The transcript reads worse than the video. I agree that Senator Clinton could have answered the question much better. A simple answer and some fluff about the importance of faith would have sufficed. I don’t think she was calculating, as far as I know.

    I believe she was talking like a seasoned, experienced Washington D.C. pol. She’s a senator talking like a senator.

  • Re: Mark’s comment:

    I watched the entire 60 Minutes report. One gentleman said he was inclined to support Obama, but had misgivings about him ‘because he heard he’s a Muslim.’ It’s not just wingnuts and the willfully ignorant who are buying into this horse manure.

  • Enough. We are all just paying too close attention to every utterance. We have two really good democratic candidates and we’re stretching to find any new way to differentiate between them. It’s time to chill.

  • I didn’t find the segment any less offensive than the transcript. This is absolutely consistent with the Clinton campaign to prey on the ignorance of voters. We’ve seen plenty of this from the Bush administration, but it is truly offensive coming from Clinton. Obama doesn’t have any substantive ideas; we need more debates; Obama can’t win blue states. The pattern is that it sounds good to people who don’t know the facts. Even the SNL skits the last two weeks, which Clinton has been treating as proof that Obama is an empty headed cult figure. I don’t know how anyone who has watched any of the debates could find a point of reference between Obama and Fred Armison’s portrayal. But then, Clinton is targeting the yard sign counters, as well as those elderly and female voters who don’t see beyond their own identity.

  • If you watched the entire 60 Minutes piece, it would be VERY OBVIOUS why this subject came up. One of the prospective voters had been told that Obama was a Muslim and wouldn’t take an oath on a bible, and told Croft that while leaning toward Obama, he was not comfortable with this aspect of Obama. This man had just lost his job, his wife had MS, and he didn’t have health insurance. He doesn’t have time to investigate every rumor he hears, and clearly, thought this one was true (perhaps whoever told him is a good friend of his). Croft corrected the man, saying it wasn’t true, then asked Obama and Clinton about it. It was a very appropriate line of questioning, and I was puzzled by Clinton’s answer. It wasn’t very good, and should have been more unequivocal.

  • Why is Kroft asking the question? And why reask it after getting an unequivical answer? That’s what we should be discussing. The right wing smear turns into a MSM question and now the right wing wins a beautiful combo shot; Obama’s religion is called into question and Clinton is made to look like she’s helping the lie along.

  • I was puzzled by Clinton’s answer. . . and should have been more unequivocal.

    People are just really overthinking this looking for controversy where there is none.

    Her initial answer was as unequivocal as it gets:

    “Of course not,” “there is no basis for that,” “there isn’t any reason to doubt.”

    Seriously – where is the fire here?

  • Maybe she could have worded this better. But I’m getting tired of folks jumping at shadows. This is not newsworthy or even post worthy.

  • Steve, I understand your desire for an Obama victory, and I also understand the emotions that can get caught up in the political season, and maybe this one especially.

    But you’re supposed to be running an objective liberal blog, here… not the liberal version of F-N…

    It would be helpful if you’d stop seeking and finding boogy monsters in every Clinton word and deed.

  • Simple explanation for all this… GOOD Hillary answered the question first and BAD Hillary answered when it was asked it again. The fact that the question was even asked speaks volumes about what a tabloid 60 Minutes has become.

  • I’m an Obama supporter, who was angered by some of the earlier misleading attacks by the Clinton campaign, I can’t believe anyone is making a controversy out of this interview. There is nothing to it. She can’t make it any clearer that she doesn’t subscribe to these smears- the only reason she keeps talking is because it’s as if the interviewer keeps expecting more. And he had to ask the unnecessary follow-up question too. Jumping on her for this will really add ammunition to “media bias” spin, and take away from other legitimate criticism.

  • C’mon. Two people in her Iowa campaign sent the Obama-Muslim e-mail smears. Even though they were let go afterward, it’s conveniently “after the fact.” Her surrogates (including former Sen. Bob Kerrey) have called him “Barack Hussein Obama.” They are beyond desperate. Time to give it up, Hillary.

  • I maintain that anyone who is still on the fence about Obama because they’ve heard he would sacrifice goats to Allah in the Oval Office is basically saying, “I’m an empty vessel. Fill me with your truth”. Such a prospective voter would have to have not followed the discourse to date at all, because the question has come up and been shot down several times. At some point, the “undecided” have to take responsibility for their vote. Anyone who decided not to vote for Obama because they believed he is a Muslim and their only source was Fox News is likely a closet Repub anyway. There’s independent, and then there’s simply inert.

    While we’re on the subject, what’s John McCain’s middle name? Couldn’t be anything like “Benedict” or something, could it, indicating he would eventually betray America if elected? Seriously, this is getting silly.

  • While we’re on the subject, what’s John McCain’s middle name?

    John Sidney McCain the Third

  • Imagine this conversation a little reversed. What if Obama had been asked whether or not he thought Hillary was a “real Christian.”

    1) Do you think he would have answered like she did?

    2) Had he answered about her like she did about him, which firestorm would be bigger?

    I’m really sick and tired of all the game playing and then oooh, poor victim me’ing coming out of the Clinton camp. They just can’t do the right thing without taking it back.

  • Kroft asked the question twice because he knew Clinton was equivocating with “I take him on the basis of what he says.” “As far as I know” has more weight than the average viewer probably realizes because Clinton’s oppo researchers have looked under rocks for Obama’s ties to Muslims.

    A minute earlier, Kroft asked Obama if he knew where the stories about him being a Muslim came from. Obama referred to a deliberate email smear campaign. He was too polite to mention that weeks ago, a Clinton staffer had been fired for sending out “Obama is a Muslim” emails as a “joke.”

    BTW, I didn’t think Clinton’s apearance on SNL was appropriate given that Obama was not invited.

  • Sorry, rereading my above post, I try very hard (and I’m not even running!) to only use both last names or HRC rather than his last name and her first name. I think a lot of her signs just use her first name but heaven knows I don’t want to be victimizing anyone!

  • BTW, I didn’t think Clinton’s apearance on SNL was appropriate given that Obama was not invited

    Was Clinton invited when Obama appeared live, making fun of Clinton, in the last SNL before the writers strike? Or is it ok when you are Obama?

  • Tina Fey’s pro-Hillary editorial followed the very next week by Clinton’s appearance on the eve of her most important primaries is bit much.

  • There’s nothing to it, other than Clinton’s adding an over-the-top qualifier that wasn’t needed in the first place. For those who’ve been around this particular site for a while, it could easily be recognized as “Swan-ese,” in reference to an individual who constantly posted “additions, qualifiers, back-pedaling recantations, and explanations” to his/her/its original commentary (sometimes in strings of 6 or 7 posts over the course of 20 minutes).

    It could also be identified as “Triangu-lese”—which would be the end result of many years of triangulating every last thing imaginable. Loaves of bread, donuts, Republican talking points (used by Hillary = good; used by Obama = “Conservative frames”)….

  • This is what we are talking about? Both Obama and Clinton have missed an opportunity – at a time when Israel launches its biggest air raid on Gaza in years, killing civilians including children – to talk about religious hatred in the world and a need to end it.

    I’m ashamed of how we get wrapped up in this horce-race and side-issues like middle names, while missing the big picture of the world going down the toilet.

  • ‘As far as I know’ shows that she cares nothing about the Democratic party. That comment will be used over and over by the thugs. There are votes than can be swayed by such a thing. All the apologists and excusers know that too.

    Hillary is not a communist, lesbian, child molester, as far as I know.

  • McCain’s middle name was Sidney?

    Tony Randall played a GAY MAN named Sidney!

    There’s a populay novelist of trashy soft-core erotica named Sidney!

    Didn’t a popular D.C. madam use the moniker Sidney?

    I’m sorry, based on this ironclad evidence, there ain’t no way I’m voting for a gay pornographer brothel-runner like John SIDNEY McCain. That’s just giving in to the terrorists!

  • As far as I know… Hillary Clinton is not a lesbian. I’ve heard rumors that she is, but there’s no basis for that. As far as I know.

  • As a politician in Russert’s America, I think she was hedging against a “gotcha” follow-up from Kroft, especially considering the truly bizzare nature of the question.

    If I ask you if you believe the earth is round, you’re going to wonder why I aked.

  • “I believe she was talking like a seasoned, experienced Washington D.C. pol. She’s a senator talking like a senator.”

    If that Senator is John Kerry. She’s usually much better, and more disciplined than that, and as Vermonter points out, they’ve had over a year to prep for this ‘issue’. While I don’t think this dogpile of a statement was exactly scripted, it does point out one thing; they’ve decided that ‘toughness’ means never bailing him out, never showing quarter.

    Which, at one level, is a good thing from Obama’s standpoint. After the positive feedback HRC got 2 debates ago for her ‘proud to share the stage’ speech, you’d have thought she’d have seen the opportunity, but that sort of thing is just not in them. When Russert was badgering Obama about Farakhan, the smart play was clearly to go after Russert, both for his meaningless gotcha nonsense, but also for the theory that each candidate is responsible for any dingbat thought that enters a supporter’s head. If she had rebuked Russert on that point (and thus at least theoretically supporting Obama), it would have been on a short play list the next day, and the Democratic base (most of whom are aware of Russert’s sorry history on Plame, as Rove’s favorite phone buddy, etc) would have gone wild for it. Though Obama is extremely quick with a deflecting response, all he could have said was ‘thank you, I agree’.

    Fortunately, stragically she’s playing checkers while Obama is playing chess.

    “… Clinton is targeting the yard sign counters …”

    In which case she is going to lose badly, everywhere.

    “Such a prospective voter would have to have not followed the discourse to date at all, because the question has come up and been shot down several times.”

    That’s for those who are paying attention all the time. Having gotten circulation, NOW is the time when this gets shot down among the great majority of voters. That guy they interviewed who thought Obama was a Muslim? Was leaning Obama. Obama is going to have to be pretty proactive on this, for the rest of the campaign.

    “BTW, I didn’t think Clinton’s apearance on SNL was appropriate given that Obama was not invited.”

    They have no need to show ‘balance’. They’re pretty clearly leaning Hillary. While the week 2 skit was pretty dreary (6 years ago maybe, but not in a world where the standard is set by Stewart / Colbert, that’s really fine. It’s a valid POV.

  • I support Obama over Clinton, but I think both have suffered from lazy journalism and “gotcha!” moments. And I’m willing to cut Clinton a lot of slack here. I don’t expect superhuman eloquence from either candidate, and I could easily see myself making the same statement, especially during the long, exhausting slog of this campaign. She clarifies as best she can after Kroft questions her.

    There is no here, here. I don’t think Clinton deliberately or subconsciously meant to sow doubt about Obama’s religion. I gave him a pass on “periodically”: I’m giving her a pass on “as far as I know”. Can we move on, please? (And I’m talking to you, too, Josh Marshall. Sheesh!)

  • Maybe it’s primary fatigue, but this exchange on 60 Minutes is a dud. Blog types and word parsers will get off on it, but the rest of the audience probably didn’t hear the dog whistle.

    Far more controversial was Bay Buchanan who remarked about Obama on CNN last week that Islam “is in his blood.” That’s the type of crap that will fuel this Muslim – Obama controversy, that association with the faith is connected by birth, as connection to Judaism is determined by the mother’s faith. That is the far more insidious lie because people of modest thought will think he is tainted through family connection. “Not that there’s anything wrong with being a Muslim ….” the manipulative will say.

  • Sorry on the passes, Mary, I can’t do it. I realize that some people see this one as not as egregious as others from the Clinton campaign. However, I think we can all agree that Clinton has a huge stock of ready answers — she prepares those, she practices them, she can switch them up and mix them together — it’s why she does so well in debates.

    To think that at this one point she just wandered off (as she has rarely done before, if ever) and decided to wing it instead of just answering the question once and for all, seems very unlikely.

  • HRC has been on the receiving end of this sort of thing for what, her entire public life? I have to believe that she knows exactly what she is doing. I’m surprised anyone is giving her a pass on this.

  • Jen and AK Liberal and others are perhaps giving Clinton too much credit.

    Lets assume she is actually near-perfect at Q & A, and further that she was attempting to put the shiv in Obama.

    You also have to assume that she knew that Kroft was not going to move on, because if there was any chance he would, she’d have had to added her “as far as I know” to her first answer. She did not – her first answer said three different ways that she strongly disagreed with the charge against Obama.

    So apparently she is so good that she actually knows how long she can hold off the knife and still not miss her chance to get the slash in.

    I think that borders on paranoia. No one is that good, especially under this kind of stress and on this kind of frenetic schedule.

  • (and i should add that if Clinton is actually psychic, I want her for President. I think that could be a rather useful attribute. Albeit a little scary in terms of civil liberties.)

  • Actually if Obama were asked if Hillary is a lesbian her anwser would have been quite adequate:

    “You don’t believe that Senator Clinton’s a lesbian?” Kroft asked Sen. Obama.

    “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” he replied.

    “You said you’d take Senator Clinton at her word that she’s not…a lesbian. You don’t believe that she’s…,” Kroft said.

    “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” he said.

    People interpret Clinton’s words like they Finnegan’s Wake.

  • Is the story a sign of over-sensitivity or evidence of a Clinton campaign subtly hoping to keep some lies alive?

    Evidence of a Clinton campaign subtly hoping to keep some lies alive…definitely.

    It’s entirely consistent with her having the gall to send a spokesperson to appear on This Week with George Stephanopolis yesterday morning to resuscitate the manufactured Resko flap in front of a national audience while kicking the can down the road on releasing her tax returns, white house records and donor list for their foundation/library.

    Hillary is battle tested and vetted? Not even close. Is she a fighter? Sure…and a dirty one at that. Personally, I’m sick of her shit.

  • This is the kind of over-the-top parsing and deconstructionism that gives us candidates who are totally scripted. Then we complain that we’re not seeing the real person. How many of us speak with precise clarity every waking moment of every day? These candidates are engaged in an exhausting, grueling political campaign in which they get little sleep, eat junk food, fly from one end of the country to another, and have very little private, down time. Every aspect of their being is subjected to the scrutiny of tv cameras, tape recordings, and gotcha moments. It’s a wonder they do as well as they do given this pressure cooker. Maybe we should cut our candidates a little slack and direct our ire at the insane circus/zoo/endurance test we demand of them. Most of us don’t believe that the US should be torturing prisoners; why do tolerate it for presidential candidates!

  • Given the number of “gotcha” questions being asked, I can’t blame Hillary for throwing “as far as I know” at the end of almost every statement. If I got asked such a strange question under the hot interview lights, I might think “why are they asking me this? Are they about to show me some evidence or something?”

  • #16. DB above said: “Why is Kroft asking the question? And why reask it after getting an unequivical answer? That’s what we should be discussing. “

    Yeah. And the next question should have been, “Should a candidate’s membership in a particular religion disqualify him or her from office?” The so-called “Muslim” question sounds an awful lot like the “Catholic” question asked of JFK (although I hate making that analogy). Of course, we weren’t at war with the Holy Roman empire at the time — and nor are we at war with a united Islamic Caliphate now. Odd that no one seems to care whether a fundamentalist Christian, who believes that war in the Middle East is the beginning of Armageddon and will bring about the Second Coming of Christ in the near future might have his finger on the nuclear button.

    It seems to me that the pejorative manner in which the question is asked and its repetition is insulting to American Muslims. And I’m (mildly) surprised that none of the pundits has gone to American Muslim leaders to discuss the matter.

  • The problem here is the difference between talking live and issuing a statement which can be edited. If the campaign was asked the question and they responded with a written statement I bet it would have been fine. When talking it is easy to throw in extra verbiage which wouldn’t have been used if she had the opportunity to review and edit her response.

  • It wasn’t that sloppy.
    Kroft kept wanting her to qualify her answer by asking over and over.
    She said “as far as I know” like weathermen say 99% chan ce of rain while it’s raining out.

    I dislike Clinton, I like Obama, but…
    There’s no “there” there.

    I’d love to slam Hil some more. Can’t do it for this.

  • Given the number of “gotcha” questions being asked, I can’t blame Hillary for throwing “as far as I know” at the end of almost every statement. If I got asked such a strange question under the hot interview lights, I might think “why are they asking me this? Are they about to show me some evidence or something?”

    Exactly.
    And if anybody claims that Hillary murdered Vince Foster I am going to say:
    No… not as far as I know.

    Because you never know…
    That might be a gotcha question too…

    More. Better. Clinton. Apologists. Please.

  • When a person has been asked and has answered a question, yet the question has been asked again, the simple answer is “I’ve already answered your question, let’s move along to the next.” How many times in the debate have we seen the moderators pull this stunt: candidates are actually debating and are interrupted with “We need to move along to the next question.”

    Just a thought.

  • I travel all over the world and let me tell you, there are alot of people out there who think Obama is Mulsim. Alot. More than I would have imagined and from far, far away.

    At what point are the politicians going to stand up and say ENOUGH! Clinton had the perfect opportunity when Obama was asked the Farrakhan question. She didn’t. And I have to say that I was disappointed that she didn’t. This was another opportunity to do so. To use qualifiers on this question is just wrong.

    I am not saying she’s the only one, but she slapped the press once by refusing to answer on hypotheticals. All politicians need to do that more. If they stop responding to Gotchas and insider questions and try to get things out there that people want to know – not what the f’ing pundits want to ask – we might actually pay attention.

    Someone posted this the other day…it’s a long article but worth a read. Why Americans Hate The Media. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199602/americans-media

  • I’m sorry, but while I don’t think Hillary did this on purpose, I think she just couldn’t help herself. She knows what the right answer is, but had to add the “I take him on the basis of what he says” because she really wants this smear to stick. I’m not sure why her defenders here are suggesting that she answered the question straight the first time, because she didn’t. Kroft re-asked the question because she had answered the question two different ways the first time.

    Everyone’s faith can be questioned, and we don’t answer questions this way. Hell, I understand that Bush doesn’t even go to church, yet if someone asked you or Hillary if he was Christian, you’d say he definitely was and wouldn’t suggest that it was only based upon what he claims. How well he understands his faith is a separate question, but we all know what religion Bush, Hillary, and Obama are. Obama has been going to the same Christian church for years and we don’t just call him a Christian because he says he is; we do so because that’s what he is. But again, I don’t think she planned to say it that way. I think she slipped up twice because she so badly wants this to be true.

    BTW, I don’t know if others have mentioned this, but I suspect a big part of the problem is that they’ve got Obama confused with that other Congressman who really is a Muslim and wanted to say his oath on the Koran. So in some cases, this isn’t deliberate. They’re just people who don’t pay much attention to the news and have attributed that news story to being part of Obama’s story.

  • Shorter Hillary:

    Of course he’s not a Muslim, although maybe there is something to this rumor and I just don’t know about it yet.

  • #44 says “She did not – her first answer said three different ways that she strongly disagreed with the charge against Obama.”

    She said, as quoted above, “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,”

    She didn’t answer it three times. She answered it in a perfectly normal, fine way. Then she babbled on with three different qualifications, accompanied by two “you knows” and finished it all up on the doubt that note.

    I’d say that for him not to follow up on the answer would have been bad reporting. If he’d pushed on just “of course not,” that would be one thing. But she followed it up with three different ways of saying, I’m just taking him at his word. You know, the word I’ve spent weeks and weeks trying to tell you isn’t good, is just words, is an empty suit. Doubt that?

  • On the Farrakhan thing…Russert deservedly received flak for that question, but I had forgotten that as ridiculous a question it was, it was doubly ridiculous for Hillary to chime in with her “reject” vs. “denounce” argument. That silliness alone was enough to remind me that Obama has more integrity in his little finger than she has in her whole body..

  • I’m surprised that I had to read through 49 comments before seeing Nanuq’s, @50, which finally nailed what’s *really* offensive about the whole sequence. The whole “Obama is a Muslim” smear should have served as the basis for a spirited discussion about the separation of church and state (including JFK’s Catholic “problems”) but hadn’t. It’s as if religion is no longer a *private and personal* business but a political “plank”. Pfui.

    Croft, instead of pushing the question in the “do you really believe him” direction, should have pushed it in the ” “should a person’s religion be a matter of public discourse” one.

  • Croft, instead of pushing the question in the “do you really believe him” direction, should have pushed it in the ” “should a person’s religion be a matter of public discourse” one.

    I completely disagree. Because if we don’t settle the issue of Obama’s religion first, but instead head into that second question, it’s as if we’re confirming that Obama really is a Muslim and that we’re trying to argue that it’s ok for us to elect him as president. And it’s one thing if we were just discussing the various flavors of Christianity, which shouldn’t make a difference either. But the idea that Obama might be a Muslim is a horse of a different color. This isn’t just about his opinion on who gets to go to Heaven or what prayers he says at night. This is about people believing that a Muslim spy is heading the Democratic ticket. And if there’s anything that would infuriate conservatives more than anything it would be a Muslim running for president. The sooner we quash this myth and embarrass anyone who perpetuates it, the better.

    I agree that this shouldn’t make a difference, but it does. I think you’re also raising a discussion worth having, but first and foremost is making sure people realize we’re not having this debate in order to defend Obama as a Muslim. And as others have pointed out, Hillary really should have done more to help end the debate. This isn’t an issue of trusting Obama’s claims, as Hillary suggested. It’s a matter of fact, and that’s what we need to ascertain first. It’s unfortunate that we have to have this debate, but we do.

  • ROTFL – I’m surprised to find I’m a Clinton Apologist… I voted for Obama. There are plenty of things to criticize Clinton for… I just didn’t think this was one of them. I agree with toowearyforoutrage at 52.

    You’re welcome to disagree. As far as I know. 🙂

  • short fuse – As I said, while I don’t think this was strictly intentional, I do think Hillary was hedging. If someone asked you if Obama was a Martian, you wouldn’t say “I believe him when he says he’s not one, so as far as I know he isn’t one.” You’d laugh at them and if they insisted on an answer, you’d state that he definitely wasn’t one and leave it at that.

    Sure, she denied it outright. But the whole issue of “hedging” is that she also answered it in terms that were less than firm. Because this isn’t just an issue of believing Obama, as she suggested. He’s not a Muslim, period. And the only reason Hillary could have gotten sloppy on this is because she allowed herself to. She knows the truth, but is desperate and just couldn’t help herself. But this just isn’t the way people answer questions of fact. You don’t say “I trust Obama when he says the sky is blue.” The sky is blue.

  • I’m sorry, but there was no excuse for this — especially from someone who, as AKliberal points out, has been the victim of this sort of thing her whole political life. There was only one possible answer to this question. “No, I know he is not a Muslim — even if this were relevant, which it isn’t.”

    I cannot imagine there is, authentically, any doubt in her mind, which is why the hedging IS important. I have been — and still am — in the ‘I like Obama, but either one of them is 1000 times better than McCain’ camp, but this does not mean she should be given a free pass on this desperate maneuver.

    On a second but related front, responding to some of the commenters here, I am getting bloody sick and tired of seeing people on ‘our side’ who would probably vote and support gay rights fervently, still feel free to use the stick of homophobia against people they don’t like. (Sure, some of the people who are using the Hillary/lesbian idea are doing it ironically but others are not.) We’ve seen plenty of this over Haggard, Craig, Foley and the others. Condemning them for hypocrisy is fine — but remember that Barney Frank didn’t run as gay either, at first, nor did any of the gay Congresspeople except for Tammy Baldwin. (Though with Jim Neal running in NC, we may have an openly gay Senator — and he is definitely worthy of your attention and support.)

    But too many of you seem relieved that you can finally let your ‘inner homophobe’ out against an unpopular target. Please, people, don’t just put that ‘stick’ away in the basement, take it into the backyard, pour gasoline on it, and burn it.

    (Ironically, the question of a person’s religion may in fact be relevant, as his/her sexuality is not. A person who seeks the backing not just of Hagee but of Rod Parsley is scary — and yes, had Obama not denounced Farrakhan I would say the same about him. But a ‘gay politician’ is someone who is in the same category as Barbara Jordan and J. Edgar Hoover, Barney Frank, Steve Gunderson and Jim Kolbe, Tammy Baldwin and David Dreier — and all of them except Baldwin were in the closet at first. In other words, it says nothing about their political positions.

  • Okay, this isn’t the biggest issue in the campaign, but don’t candidates discuss with their advisors how to handle these sorts of issues before they come up? Wouldn’t HRC and her people say something to the effect of, “How do handle ‘is Obama a secret muslim?’ Answer: no, unequivovally no.” Or maybe they decided that they could get some mileage out of it. Or maybe Clinton went off script. But, I don’t think that it was an accident. Its not like Clinton hasn’t ever thought about the issue.

  • All the way back at #2, everything that needs to be said was said. It was re-iterated at #46.
    The HRC campaign thinks this game playing is okay because the McCain campaign will certainly play this game in the general campaign.
    So the rationale is: “Why not test my opponent the way he will be tested if he wins the nomination?”
    Personally, I don’t think this kind of approach helps the HRC campaign.

  • Hillary’s answer came from honest intentions and no form of political calculation regarding this matter, as far as I know.

  • So what are our choices? She calculated a hedge to leave a shadow of a doubt in peoples’ minds concerning Obama’s religion or she’s terrible at speaking and answering questions decisively without a prepared statement to read?

    Which option makes her better qualified to be President?

  • having started on the Gotcha “Show of Shows” (60 Min), and of the many things ms. clinton can be criticized for, don’t cha think this one is just a bit… lame?

  • one more point to add, and then i take my own advice (to move on):

    does it not strike folks as reminiscent of the rise of the third reich when implicitly associating a religion (and the people thereof) with ‘bad things’ slips into the national vernacular? (as is exemplified by this line of questioning)

  • Jim G,

    But you’re supposed to be running an objective liberal blog, here

    Please cite your source for this assertion, specifically the “objective” part. I think its a matter of record that Mr. Carpetbagger views this as a totally subjective blog –this is his “commentary and analysis”.

    as for the topic at hand, FWIW, I think the last line in comment #10.

    Should she have answered with a more emphatic “No.” and left it at that? Sure. Wev.

  • does it not strike folks as reminiscent of the rise of the third reich when implicitly associating a religion (and the people thereof) with ‘bad things’ slips into the national vernacular?

    entheo – “slips into”??? Where have you been for the last seven years? No, where have you been for the last 1000 years? When have Muslims NOT been associated with “bad things” by a large portion of Christians? This isn’t a recent issue, and it’s been extremely bad since 9/11. Remember, some people call the cops when they just see Muslims talking together. This has nothing to do with Obama.

    BTW, I don’t think any issue like this can be “lame”. It’d be one thing if Obama supporters were trying to hang their hat on this, the way that Hillary has been desperate to find anything that sticks to Obama. But there’s nothing wrong with people discussing it on a few blog posts. If anything, I think completely letting this slip would be a mistake. Public officials need to be held responsible for what they say, even if it isn’t a major issue.

  • How about displaying the ENTIRE Clinton quote?

    There’s NO QUESTION that her knockdown of the Obama smear was unequivocal. Look at the last two sentences of her response to gain the ENTIRE context, and not the slanted view of those trying to make Obama appear to be the victim of an unwarranted attack:

    KROFT: One of the things that we found in Southern Ohio — not widespread — but something that popped up on our radar screen all the time, people talking about it, this idea that you’re a Muslim.

    OBAMA: Right. Did you correct them, Steve?

    KROFT: I did correct them.

    OBAMA: There you go.

    KROFT: Where’s it coming from?

    OBAMA: You know, this has been a systematic email smear campaign that’s been going on since, actually, very early in this campaign. Clearly, it’s a deliberate effort by some group or somebody to generate this rumor. I have never been a Muslim, am not a Muslim. These emails are obviously not just offensive to me, somebody who’s a devout Christian who’s been going to the same church for the last 20 years, but it’s also offensive to Muslims because it plays into, obviously, a certain fear-mongering there.

    KROFT: It happened again last week when this photo of Obama, in ceremonial African tribal dress during a visit to Kenya, was featured prominently on the Internet and attributed to people in the Clinton campaign. Senator Clinton disavowed any knowledge of it.

    KROFT: You don’t believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?

    CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that’s — you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that.

    KROFT: And you said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim.

    CLINTON: Right. Right.

    KROFT: You don’t believe that he’s a Muslim —

    CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There’s no —

    KROFT: — or implying, right?

    CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

    KROFT: It’s just scurrilous —

    CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

  • Let’s not kid ourselves: What other candidate was quizzed about the Muslim faith? Were any white candidates? An even larger question is, “what relevance does being a Muslim or not being a Muslim have on guiding our nation”?

    Why the question was even asked says what about the corporate-media…and our country?

    As a 67 year old white male I’ve been aound long enough to smell bigotry and intolerance whenever they seep into national discourse. (And that happens way too often.)

    Every two-bit politician – starting with Bush – has used code words while attempting to spread unwarranted fear. This is just another example. And it is racist!

  • Wish you would leave Hillary alone. Didn’t you news guys do enough to her in the primary? I’ll tell you with a name like Barack Hussin Obama I think he’s Muslim. So do a lot of Americans I think the Democrats have hung their self again. I will never vote for Obama

    • Comments are closed.