On Hardball and in Politico, Roger Simon misrepresented Clinton's comments on Obama's religion
SUMMARY: On Hardball, the Politico's Roger Simon falsely suggested that "the last thing [Sen. Hillary Clinton] said" during a recent interview on 60 Minutes when asked whether she believed Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim was: "No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know." In fact, Clinton went on to say, "I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets ... smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." In his column, Simon wrote of Clinton's "as far as I know" comment, "Doesn't that just continue a smear?"
On the March 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon falsely suggested that "the last thing [Sen. Hillary Clinton] said" on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes when asked whether she believed Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim was: "No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know." But that was not the "last thing" she said on the question. Clinton went on to say, "I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets ... smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." Additionally, during the same Hardball discussion, Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson claimed that Clinton "doesn't have enough sympathy to say: Of course he's [Obama] not a Muslim." In fact, Clinton's initial response to CBS News correspondent Steve Kroft's first question on 60 Minutes -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- was: "Of course not. ... [T]here is no basis for that" [emphasis added].
The next day, in his March 4 Politico column, headlined "Clinton plays victim and victimizer," Simon highlighted the phrase, "as far as I know," from Clinton's 60 Minutes interview and asked: "Doesn't that just continue a smear?" Simon wrote:
"As far as I know"? Doesn't that just continue a smear? (Obama said Sunday: "I pray to Jesus every night. I am a devout Christian.")
This is not appetizing stuff by Clinton. This is the stuff a candidate who is facing elimination does to hang on.
Simon also selectively quoted Clinton's response to Kroft's questions, failing to mention Clinton's initial response -- "[o]f course not" -- to the question of whether she believes Obama is a Muslim and the comments following her "as far as I know" remark. He wrote simply: "On '60 Minutes' Sunday, when Steve Croft [sic] asked Clinton if she believed Obama was a Muslim, she replied: 'No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.' "
And contrary to Simon's assertion on Hardball about the "last thing [Clinton] said" on the subject, following Clinton's response to Kroft's third query, Kroft started to say, "It's just scurrilous --" before Clinton interjected: "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."
Simon made his comments on Hardball after host Chris Matthews aired a truncated clip of the 60 Minutes interview, which ended right after Clinton's "as far as I know" remark. As Media Matters for America noted, Matthews had also aired the truncated clip earlier in the show, and he had repeatedly suggested that Clinton left Obama's religious beliefs in doubt.
Beyond falsely asserting "this was the last thing she said," Simon said: "I think it was exceptional what she said. I think it was a bad way to put it. You can say things on television that we all regret, as we all know, but this was the last thing she said. She could have made her answer more clear and less divisive, but instead she went the other way. He's not a Muslim, as far as I know. I don't think that was a good thing to say. And maybe she doesn't even believe -- didn't want to make it that way." He added: "But "when she was asked [by NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell] today [March 3] to explain it, she went back to her victimhood thing. 'Oh look, I've been the subject of unfair attacks. Let's talk about me.' I don't think that cleared the air" -- suggesting Clinton's comments on March 3 were different from her remarks on 60 Minutes the previous day.
In fact, the comments Clinton made to Mitchell with respect to dealing with rumors were very similar to what she said to Kroft during her 60 Minutes interview -- only her comments to Kroft did not appear in the clip that aired on Hardball. On March 3, Mitchell asked Clinton whether her comments on 60 Minutes were intended to "raise any doubts about ... him [Obama] being a Christian." Clinton replied, "No, not at all. ... I've been the subject of scurrilous rumors for years, and, you know, it's hard to get them to go away, and they, you know, they just keep coming back. And, you know, I really sympathize with Senator Obama. It is -- it's -- you know, it's disturbing to turn around and see this all the time. And, you know, obviously, I hope that people get beyond it and ignore it." In the portion of the 60 Minutes interview that Matthews did not air, Clinton said, "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."
From the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes:
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.
From the March 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball and "The Politics Fix." The roundtable tonight: Bloomberg's Margaret Carlson and Roger Simon of the Politico. I want you to all look at this -- look at this one more time. This is Senator Clinton last night on Meet the Press. Let's take a look -- on 60 Minutes, rather.
[begin video clip]
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.
[end video clip]
MATTHEWS: So, it's hard to -- you know, when you read that -- I have to be very positive towards Senator Clinton here -- when you read that, it sounds like she's being, you know, somewhat hesitant here, Margaret. But then when you listen to the way she says it with her inflection, it sounds like she's not exploiting this at all. How'd you read it? How'd you read it?
CARLSON: No, when you see it, it doesn't seem that way. "As far as I know" is a qualifier, but the way she said it, she was asked a second time, and so she was making the answer slightly different.
MATTHEWS: But her first answer was abruptly no way.
CARLSON: Was -- no wait. Although she did have a qualifier in there, on the basis of what I know, or what he said -- on the basis of what he says.
MATTHEWS: OK, Roger, you break the tie.
SIMON: I --
MATTHEWS: You're going to have to break the tie because I think after listening to it two or three times, I think it's unexceptional what she said. I don't think she was playing anything here politically. But everybody's got a view of these things.
SIMON: I think it was exceptional what she said. I think it was a bad way to put it. You can say things on television that we all regret, as we all know, but this was the last thing she said. She could have made her answer more clear and less divisive, but instead she went the other way.
He's not a Muslim, as far as I know. I don't think that was a good thing to say. And maybe she doesn't even believe -- didn't want to make it that way. But when she was asked today to explain it, she went back to her victimhood thing. "Oh look, I've been the subject of unfair attacks, too. Let's talk about me."
I don't think that cleared the air.
MATTHEWS: Well, let's see if we can show her. This was her update interview today with our own Andrea Mitchell. Do we have that ready? We're going to have that in a minute, which is -- shows her. Margaret, your thoughts?
CARLSON: Well, she did say, "I'm the victim of scurrilous rumors, and so, I have sympathy." But she doesn't have enough sympathy to say: Of course he's not a Muslim. This is rumors.
SIMON: Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: OK.
CARLSON: This is Internet stuff that's been spread.
MATTHEWS: There is somebody out there that's been pushing this baby, and every once in a while, I'll be at an airport, Roger, and some guy will come up to me -- and I'm sure he does it with you, you and Margaret -- "Well, we don't know enough about his background. We don't know who his people are." Let's take a look now. Here's Andrea Mitchell --
CARLSON: 60 Minutes had one of them on last night.
MATTHEWS: Yeah, I know. Here's Andrea Mitchell talking to Senator Clinton today.
[begin video clip]
MITCHELL: Yes, the question is: Were you trying to raise any doubts about --
CLINTON: No, not at all.
MITCHELL: -- him being a Christian?
CLINTON: No, not at all. I mean, obviously, I've been the subject of scurrilous rumors for years, and, you know, it's hard to get them to go away and they, you know, they just keep coming back. And you know, I really sympathize with Senator Obama. It is -- it's -- you know, it's disturbing to turn around and see this all the time. And, you know, obviously, I hope that people get beyond it and ignore it.
[end video clip]
MATTHEWS: And so, if she had said to Steve Kroft, "Will you shut up about this Muslim nonsense?" would that have been a better answer?
CARLSON: Well, she says, it's hard, but I'm not going to help. That's his problem.
MATTHEWS: Roger, your last thought. We gotta go to break. What's your thought about this? Is this in the can tonight, or is this going to continue to worm around for a while?
SIMON: I think this will continue to worm around where she wants it to worm around, among voters in Texas and Ohio who have doubts about Obama. This came in response to an interview with a voter who said, you know, I like the guy, but I think he's a Muslim and won't take the oath of office on a Bible. You know, it's out there.
MATTHEWS: We'll be right back with Margaret Carlson and Roger Simon.
SIMON: She could have cleared it up and she didn't.
I don't see anything else in it, Mefirst. "As far as I know" pretty much sums up any opinion that can't be known as an absolute. A person's religion, which is essentially an opinion of that person, can't really be known to anybody else.
The Pope is Catholic, as far as I know. I couldn't prove it in court.
The term "as far as I know" is a meaningless emphatic, an expression. In fact, it's a common response to being asked the same question over and over again, as in, 'do you somehow know differently? Why do you keep asking me?'
It is NOT an equivocation on her part.
Of all the Hillary hate, this is the most egregiously dishonest.
if you read and absorb what she said in the first answer to kroft, there is no way she could have been more emphatic. she said "of course not", "there is no basis for that", "i take him on the basis of what he says", and "there isn't any reason to doubt that".
and yet, after that, kroft comes back with "and you said you'd take senator obama at his word he's not a muslim.", which she had just said, and to which she answers "right, right." and still, kroft asks her again. all this nonsense about how she should have made a simple one or two word answer is just that, nonsense. it would not have ended it. in fact, the criticism would have been she wasn't emphatic enough.
she was just asked about this issue again on the today show this morning and said the same thing, it's a baseless rumor. what more clarification needs to be done here? she's said she takes his word. what more does she need to do? scream and yell?
In LAW, there is an objection against BADGERING that is summoned by the phrase "ASKED AND ANSWERED." If the same question IS being asked again ... obviously hoping for a different answer ... the judge will admonish the questioning attorney to "MOVE ON."
The "reporter" KROFT was badgering the witness, and obviously had an AGENDA to create divisiveness, and he didn't get it with his first try. So he tried again, which also gave him the opportunity to repeat the scurrilous rightwing SMEAR which questions Obama's honesty about his religion (repeating rightwing talking points is a requirement of today's "MEDIA").
This SIMON of POLITICO ... he's as rightwing as they come. Doesn't POLITICO claim to be non-partisan? An "objective" source of "news"? When will THIS falsehood be addressed, and make those at POLITICO own up to being just another arm of the CONSERVATIVE MEDIA, engaged in promoting Republicans while disparaging Democrats?
POLITICO is as fair and balanced as FOX NEWS, which is to say, NOT AT ALL. They are frauds AND liars, and they should be aggressively identified as in the Rightwing camp. WHY? Because their cohorts in the Video Media put these guys on AS objective and as "balance" against the ADMITTED Rightwing shills (like, say, National Review), when in fact they represent a further stacking of the pundit deck.
FOX frequently goes to a "DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER" Pat Caddell who hasn't had a favorable thing to say about Democrats for YEARS. He's a reliable source of Rightwing Talking Points, yet FOX incessantly touts his DEMOCRATIC "credentials" so they can say they are promoting "balance". It's a LIE and a SHAM, and POLITICO is in on the same bogus scheme.
We all are sometimes misunderstood when making comments. So when one has made a statement or comment that has caused some confusion a person would usually take the opportunity to set the record straight and clear up any confusion. Did Hillary take this perfect opportunity to clear up any confusion her response may have caused? Say, NO Andrea for the final time, Obama is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. Nah she decided that she didn’t need to clarify her former remarks, it was more important to emphasise how many attacks she's been on the receiving end of. Gotta wonder why didn't she take the opportunity to say "No" once and for all on the question of Obama's religion. After all what purpose would it serve to have continued questions about Obama's religion? Oh......
Pearlene, please. What is there to "clear up"? She said "of course not", that she didn't believe he was a Muslim, she said she took him at his word and that there was no reason to doubt that. There is not one single ambiguous element in all of that. In her response to Mitchell she said they were "scurrilous rumors" and that she hoped they would go away. What is there that in any way is promoting the continuation of the story, either directly or by implication?
If you want to argue that she's being phony, that's one thing. But saying that she's equivocating here is absurd. I agree with many of your criticisms of her, but this one comes off as irrational and unfair.
While I think Hillary clearly and strongly stated that she did not believe the scurrilous "rumors" about Obama's faith I also think she was being politically clever with her remark "there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know." It throws the issue back onto the media...in effect, she asks the media "Do you know something about Obama that I don't know?" Or, "Unless you dig up some evidence to the contrary..." It leaves a crack in the door and therefore the issue is not entirely put to rest in the minds of aome.
I don't see this whole thing as any big deal but to think that Hillary is entirely magnanimous towards Obama is a fantasy.
Putting the blame on Hillary is just an excuse for their spin. No one in the media is about to admit that this whole “issue” is simply the result of one of their gotcha guys who found anther gotcha. The “Hate-Hillary” machine will run with this ‘til the legs fall off – or until she or her husband utters a better gotcha. They’re not about to admit that they are the low-lifes here – it’s Hillary.
What I really want to know is, if she's so clever, why did she wait until the fourth time she was asked? Why would she expect Kroft to keep asking over and over when she had answered definitively the first three times?
It really comes off like Kroft was fishing for something. The first answer - clear, no problems. Second answer - clear and consistent. Third answer - clear and consistent. Fourth answer - she implies that she is not an omniscient being who knows for an absolute fact that there's no evidence anywhere in the world to suggest that Obama is really a Muslim. There it is, room for doubt!
Every individual's knowledge is personal knowledge. As opposed to?
I think it's a perfectly understandable phrase. She's not some oracle being asked if Obama is a Muslim. She's a person being asked if she thinks he's a Muslim. As far as she knows, there's no reason to believe that. What more can be said?
If you're asked if your spouse is having an affair, there aren't many situations where you could say no with absolute certainty. Is it likely, is it consistent with what you see of their character? No (for the sake of argument). But you could still say "I've never seen anything to indicate that" as an emphatic dismissal. That leaves open the possibility that there's some incredibly surprising truth being hidden, because that possibility does indeed exist, as small as it may be. Her first answer is completely consistent with there being no evidence "as far as I know".
"Look at it this way, too...what if someone digs up a picture of Obama kneeling on a prayer rug facing Mecca? Hillary would not want to be in a position of having vouched for Obama."
That is certainly true. In fact I think that's part of the basic psychology that makes it understandable. We're not expecting someone to ask us the same thing over and over again. That's not normal. So when someone does that as Kroft did, we start to wonder why they're doing this, and wondering if there's something we don't know. Is there some evidence that's popped up in the last couple of hours, or what? Why else would this be an extended conversation?
She may not think it's likely at all that such evidence would arise, but there's really no need for her to vouch for him, to say that there's simply no possibility of there being any evidence, when she can just say she doesn't believe it's true and be done with it.
I don't see this whole thing as any big deal but to think that Hillary is entirely magnanimous towards Obama is a fantasy.
Barb, all I'm saying is when Hillary was presented with the perfect opportunity to clear up any confusion once and for all she choose not to. All she had to say to Andrea Mitchell is , "NO, once and for all, Obama is not a Muslim". She instead choose to talk about herself and leave the confusion for the media to continue to speculate about.
I didn't write the quote you're pasting there.
Let's look at what she said:"No, not at all. I mean, obviously, I've been the subject of scurrilous rumors for years, and, you know, it's hard to get them to go away and they, you know, they just keep coming back. And you know, I really sympathize with Senator Obama."
What other way is there to interpret that except "these rumors about Obama being a Muslim are scurrilous"? Is "scurrilous" not a strong enough word to clear up any confusion about her beliefs, especially considering that there should have been nothing confusing about what she said in the first place?
Barab, sorry for the wrong paste.
Hillary says "As far as I know". For me that means to the best of my knowledge, leaving room for doubt. When question by Andrea Mitchell Hillary could have said I've been the subject of scurrilous rumors for years but let me put this one to rest, NO Obama is not a Muslim. Since Hillary has been on the receiving end of such rumors don't you think she should have tried to clear up any confusion from her comments? For a person who had been on the receiving end of scurrilous rumors why allow confusion over her comments when a simple NO will do.
Pearlene, for future reference, please ackowledge me as the writer whenever you quote me. Mr. Soros pays me by the post, along with bonus money whenever my posts are cited. Thank you. ;>)
Irony, sorry. Hey how much does Mr. Soros pay you and is he hiring? Under the table of course. ;-)
Pearl,
I think this is one of those cases where there is no right or wrong answer, it all depends on the way one interprets her remarks, her inflections, and her motivation, if any. Unless one can get inside her head and determine for sure what her intent was, this could be argued effectively either way.
I have watched the video a couple times and have different reactions each time. If one is suspicious of past Clinton word parsing antics, then it's easy to believe she is not being definitive enough in her denounciation of this rumor........however, if one evalutes it without historical context or any Clinton bias, it appears she is being emphatic enough.
Who knows?, with the Clintons one really doesn't know.
Pearl,
Whatever her intent was or was not during this interview, the fact that it is even being argued is symptomatic of a bigger concern regarding the Clintons, for me.
Should she become the nominee, or even win the general election, what are we looking at? 4 or 8 more years of parsing, polarization and a stiff entrenched dislike of political opponents. Now I know the right is certainly to blame for their part as well, I don't give them a pass, but just look at the Clinton campaign tactics against Obama recently - the 3 am Rove type ad that essentially says a vote for Obama is dangerous, and it must have worked as she won Ohio; and with Rush Limbaugh's help, apparently, it helped her in Texas too, many Republicans voted for her there, as Rush asked them to do.
Great! - now we have two mirrored opposites working together in Limbaugh and Clinton, isn't that fabulous.
The country needs Obama, in my opinion, far more than a return to the Clintons. We will see.
Tommy, I must say this has been a difficult time for me. Even though I’m supporting Obama I’ve tried to be fair to Hillary. I was willing to vote for Hillary if Obama lost the nomination because IMO this country can’t survive another 4 years of Bush polices. South Carolina and Bill made me angry enough to change my voter registration to Independent and promise not vote for Hillary. I started to view the Clintons in a different light. Again I got past my anger and started to focus on no more Bush being a priority and now here I am, pissed off again. It’s not this comment or even the 3am campaign commercial, it was Hillary giving praise for McCain and insulting Obama. Hillary only cares about whether Hillary wins. She's not concerned that she just gave McCain a perfect campaign ad to run against Obama if she doesn't get the nomination. Can you see an ad with Hillary saying she and McCain has the experience for the White House and Obama has a speech. How helpful to the Republicans is that. Even Republicans don’t play dirty like that and once again I’m so angry and tired of her that I’m sitting at home come November again.
What can I say, I've had just about enough of anything Clinton.
Pearl,
Well said, she absolutely gave them a campaign commercial that the McCain people can play over and over with regards to Obama's experience, and it was said by his own Democratic rival, not them they will say. This will definitely hurt him.
I share your contempt with the Clinton tactics and do anything to win, at any cost - they now believe, I think, that their negativity worked yesterday, they know how to beat Obama, they believe, so does anyone think they will let up at all? I don't.
"For me that means to the best of my knowledge, leaving room for doubt."
After saying in no uncertain terms that she does not believe he's a Muslim. As I wrote above, she's not an oracle. Everything you say in your life is based on the best of your knowledge.
"When question by Andrea Mitchell Hillary could have said I've been the subject of scurrilous rumors for years but let me put this one to rest, NO Obama is not a Muslim. Since Hillary has been on the receiving end of such rumors don't you think she should have tried to clear up any confusion from her comments?"
How is saying that the rumors are scurrilous not clearing it up? Again, the question is whether or not she believes that Obama is a Muslim. She said she doesn't. She said she takes him at his word. She said there's no reason to doubt that. So what's the confusion, that there may be some evidence somewhere to suggest that Obama is Muslim? How could anyone possibly make a definitive denial of such an unknown?
She made a definitive answer on her own opinion. When she suggests that she's not omniscient, then she's asked if she's not trying to create doubt. She answers that by definitively stating that she's not, and then says the rumors are scurrilous. It seems ridiculous to say that's not enough.
Barb, I’m sorry but we are going to have to see this differently.
Kroft ask Hillary about the lies going around that Obama is a Muslim. Knowing the way some folks in this country feel when you even say the word Muslim, Hillary had to know that saying "as far as I know" would lead to speculation. She didn't need divine intervention to know that, Hillary's no dummy. We agree to disagree.
Right, because she knew that Kroft was going to keep asking the same question she'd already answered, and she knew that an admission that she isn't omniscient about evidence would be creating "confusion" about the definitive answers she'd already provided about her opinion. She can really think on her feet, that's for sure.
If you want to cling to an opinion without being able to defend it, that's up to you. If you can show how I'm wrong or missing something here, I'd rather be shown then blown off with "we disagree". That's what Tommy has done countless times on here. You have always done better.
It's because you have such trouble accepting a different opinion, when this is clearly an instance where people can have different opinions. Sorry, not everyone is compelled to see things the way you do.
You can do better, but you usually don't.
When someone refuses to address arguments and just says "we disagree", that is not adequate. She's already as much as admitted that she's fully anti-Clinton by this point. I agree with her complaint about her "Obama has a speech" comment, and I don't like the way Hillary is running her campaign in general. But when there is a reasonable explanation for something that shouldn't have even been confusing in the first place, it's only fair to give the benefit of the doubt. To assume the worst out of personal opinion, even if that opinion has merit, that is unfair.
If there's a valid rationale behind the opinion, then it shouldn't be any problem to demonstrate it. It's really not too much to ask.
If you want to cling to an opinion without being able to defend it, that's up to you. If you can show how I'm wrong or missing something here, I'd rather be shown then blown off with "we disagree". That's what Tommy has done countless times on here. You have always done better.
Barb, that was a cheep shot but because I respect you I will try again. Hillary knew what the climate in this country is regarding Muslims. She was also well aware of the false rumors that Obama was Muslim. When asked, she of course said the politically correct response, "he's not a Muslim" but she added "as far as I know" which IMO leave room for doubt. When the media dust-up started Clinton was ask to clarify her statement. A simple NO would have put a stop any speculation, she choose not to do that, IMO
Now I'm trying not to get pissed off and because I respect you is that enough? You think she said enough and her remarks were innocent. I think that Hillary is a extremely savvy politician and knows exactly what the lack of an outright NO clarifying statement would mean. It allow the media speculation regarding Obama and his religion to continue. When someone complains, the media can always refer to Clintons "as far as I know" comment.
"Barb, that was a cheep shot but because I respect you I will try again."
It's not a cheap shot. You failed to address the points I listed. If you respect me, then recognize my arguments as being made in good faith and address them, the way I do for everyone. I've always had a lot of respect for your posts, which is why I'm so disappointed in this current argument you're making.
"Hillary knew what the climate in this country is regarding Muslims. She was also well aware of the false rumors that Obama was Muslim. When asked, she of course said the politically correct response, "he's not a Muslim" but she added "as far as I know" which IMO leave room for doubt."
NO. That is not true. She didn't say that until her fourth response on the matter, and she was referring to whether there was any reason to believe he was a Muslim. Here's the difference:if she were just to say "he's not, as far as I know", that leaves open the possibility that she recognizes reasons to believe it, but that she doesn't buy them. When she said there's no reason to believe that he's a Muslim as far as she knows, that denies any recognition of that at all. What "doubt" does that leave, that someone on the planet might have some evidence she doesn't know about? So what? And as I asked before, how can someone deny an unknown like that? There could be some evidence out there, and to say that there isn't is like proving a negative.
"When the media dust-up started Clinton was ask to clarify her statement. A simple NO would have put a stop any speculation, she choose not to do that, IMO"
Your opinion is based on what? You won't answer the questions, so I'll try again. Is she not saying that the rumors are scurrilous? Is that not a strong enough condemnation of the rumors? You have to tell me why you think that is not sufficient for stopping speculation, otherwise the hypothetical "no!" is not an improvement. Is that unreasonable on my part, really?
"Now I'm trying not to get pissed off and because I respect you is that enough? You think she said enough and her remarks were innocent. I think that Hillary is a extremely savvy politician and knows exactly what the lack of an outright NO clarifying statement would mean. It allow the media speculation regarding Obama and his religion to continue. When someone complains, the media can always refer to Clintons "as far as I know" comment."
What speculation is she responsible for? She's not the ultimate authority on Obama's beliefs! The point of the original question was to find out what she believed, and she answered that. Somehow her saying "no" is going to end this debate once and for all? Hannity wouldn't bring up Obama's "Muslim" beliefs ever again if Hillary emphatically denied any possibility of them whatsoever? I find that utterly impossible to believe.
If they're going to make a big deal about something that doesn't merit it, that's not a rationale for criticizing Hillary because they can do that for just about anything against just about anyone. By the same reasoning I expect you to chastise Obama for using a religious justification for gay unions, since that can be taken as mixing policy and faith by people who want to argue dishonestly. Obviously that's not his fault, right?
There's simply no reason for her to make some cosmic judgment on the matter. She stated unequivocally that she didn't believe it. She called the rumors "scurrilous". That addresses the climate that Muslims are in perfectly well.
By the way, you've been around here long enough to know how to spell my name, and you're very intelligent, so obviously you're misspelling it intentionally as a dig. See how that logic works? It's actually understandable behavior, so I'm really giving you the benefit of the doubt instead of attributing venal motives. That's the same thing I'm doing for Hillary, even though I don't care for her and her campaign. That's what fairness is all about.
It's not a cheap shot
Yeah it was. After telling me you respect my posts, saying that your're disappointed that I was not willing to continue to debate is fair. Saying I'm like Tommy is a cheap shot.
NO. That is not true. She didn't say that until her fourth response on the matter, and she was referring to whether there was any reason to believe he was a Muslim. Here's the difference:if she were just to say "he's not, as far as I know", that leaves open the possibility that she recognizes reasons to believe it, but that she doesn't buy them. When she said there's no reason to believe that he's a Muslim as far as she knows, that denies any recognition of that at all. What "doubt" does that leave, that someone on the planet might have some evidence she doesn't know about? So what? And as I asked before, how can someone deny an unknown like that? There could be some evidence out there, and to say that there isn't is like proving a negative.
Whether is was her 1st response or her 4th, I cannot understand why she had to add "as far as I know". I could understand if after her 4th response she said " Steve, Obama is not a Muslim and the rumors that he is are scurrilous". Why "as far as I know"?. If she was referring to whether there was a reason to believe he was a Muslim and her response was "no", why add "as far as I know".
Change the rumor to one, some of the right-wing wackos say about Hillary.
You don't believe Hillary Clinton is a lesbian?
Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
And you said you'd take Senator Clinton at her word that she's not a Lesbian?
Right. Right.
You don't believe that she's a Lesbian --
No. No. Why would I? There's no --
or implying, right?
No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know
It's just scurrilous --
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.
If this was an answer given by Obama to a question about a false rumor about Hillary I would be just as angry. There is simply no need to add a qualifier like "as far as I know". If you you find out at a later date that Obama is a Muslim or Hillary is a lesbian then you can say "as far as I knew" he wasn't a Muslim or she wasn't a lesbian.
Is she not saying that the rumors are scurrilous? Is that not a strong enough condemnation of the rumors? You have to tell me why you think that is not sufficient for stopping speculation, otherwise the hypothetical "no!" is not an improvement.
Hillary is saying the rumors are vulgar, she's not saying the rumors are not true. She was not asked if the rumor was vulgar she was asked if she believed that Obama was a Muslim. The fact that the rumor was vulgar is a given, is the rumor true was the question.
What speculation is she responsible for? She's not the ultimate authority on Obama's beliefs! The point of the original question was to find out what she believed, and she answered that. Somehow her saying "no" is going to end this debate once and for all?
I don't hold Hillary responsible for Obama's beliefs however I can't understand why it's so difficult to simply say NO, Obama is not a Muslim. That leaves no room for misunderstanding and no need for reporters to continue to ask her what she meant. Saying that she's been on the receiving end of scurrilous rumors and she understands is not the same as a flat out "no". I would want the same thing from Obama.
By the way, you've been around here long enough to know how to spell my name, and you're very intelligent, so obviously you're misspelling it intentionally as a dig. See how that logic works? It's actually understandable behavior, so I'm really giving you the benefit of the doubt instead of attributing venal motives.
Brabantino, I'm sorry for misspelling your name, it was in not an intentional dig. See how easy it is to clear up any possible misunderstanding?
I gave Hillary the benefit of the doubt. I gave Hillary plenty of time to come out and give a simple "no". She choose to explain, again, as if it was unknown, that she's been on the receiving end of a lot of rumors that had been totally made up and the Obama rumor was a scurrilous rumor and it should be rejected out of hand. She then added that she didn't know what Obama or his campaign wanted. A simple freaking "No, he's not a Muslim" would do. It is well known that she's been on the receiving end of scurrilous rumors so another explanation was not needed.
Hillary's is not my favorite so I might interpret her remarks or motives from a negative bias but clearing up any misunderstanding with a simple "No" seems like a no brainer for a experienced politician who's well versed in the game of politics.
"Yeah it was. After telling me you respect my posts, saying that your're disappointed that I was not willing to continue to debate is fair. Saying I'm like Tommy is a cheap shot."
No, it was not. You did what Tommy has done any number of times, period. You've always done better, which is why I was disappointed. You don't really give me much of a choice. If I call Tommy out for it, but ignore it when you do it, then I'm a partisan hypocrite. If I call you both out for it, then it's a cheap shot on you. Tell me what you expect me to do.
"Whether is was her 1st response or her 4th, I cannot understand why she had to add "as far as I know". I could understand if after her 4th response she said " Steve, Obama is not a Muslim and the rumors that he is are scurrilous". Why "as far as I know"?. If she was referring to whether there was a reason to believe he was a Muslim and her response was "no", why add "as far as I know"."
Whether it's first or fourth makes a difference. Try putting yourself in this position, psychologically speaking, and look at what Kroft did. First off, let's make it clear that she answered the first question without any qualification whatsoever. Then he asks her if she takes him at his word, which she just said. Then he asks the first question again, which she answers the same way as the first. Then he starts on another question.
It doesn't really matter what you apply this to. If someone asks you if you're adopted, you say "no" (for the sake of argument). Then they ask "are you sure?" Why are they asking that? Your brain will start to get defensive because the behavior is unusual. By the third question you're wondering what they know that you don't. What are they driving at? Is this some trick, or trap? If someone did that to me, as sure as I am that I was not adopted, I would find myself saying something like "I've never seen any reason to think that's true" or "why should I believe that?" Both of those responses leave open the possibility of there being some reason, because at that point my brain would be wanting to hear what they're basing their unusual behavior on. Is that really not true for you?
"If this was an answer given by Obama to a question about a false rumor about Hillary I would be just as angry. There is simply no need to add a qualifier like "as far as I know". If you you find out at a later date that Obama is a Muslim or Hillary is a lesbian then you can say "as far as I knew" he wasn't a Muslim or she wasn't a lesbian."
You talk about political savvy but you really think that a politician would do that? Politicians hedge their comments all the time, for this very reason. It's plain embarrassing to be proven wrong publicly. If Obama actually vouched for her like that and then all sorts of evidence came out to the contrary, he'd look like an idiot. With all the negative spin we've seen in the media, you honestly think "as far as I knew" would rise above the din of the echo chamber?
"Hillary is saying the rumors are vulgar, she's not saying the rumors are not true. She was not asked if the rumor was vulgar she was asked if she believed that Obama was a Muslim. The fact that the rumor was vulgar is a given, is the rumor true was the question."
You said before she was talking about herself. Why is she comparing Obama's situation to hers if she thinks the rumors are about him might be true? That would suggest that there was some basis for the rumors about her! And she said the whole time that she doesn't believe the rumors about him. So what is she not making clear?
"Brabantino, I'm sorry for misspelling your name, it was in not an intentional dig. See how easy it is to clear up any possible misunderstanding?"
I know it wasn't, you're still misspelling it. Like I said, it's understandable. So what is it that Hillary is supposed to clear up? She was asked if she thought he was a Muslim, she said "of course not". She was asked if she was trying to keep the rumors going and she said no. Why does that not clear it up, if it's really that easy? That's not "benefit of the doubt".
If it's really not understandable that all politicians avoid absolutes, and that people in general will change their tone when being asked the same question repeatedly, then you can attribute the worst motives to what she's said. Personally I think those are such obvious aspects of behavior that it's hard to avoid seeing what she said as completely understandable.
"Hillary's is not my favorite so I might interpret her remarks or motives from a negative bias..."
I thought I should mention I do think that's what you're doing. And I understand that, because I'm angry about her recent comment about "Obama has a speech" as well, but I think your argument is getting away from you because of that. If I did something similar, some tactic that people have criticized Tommy for, I'd hope that people would call me out on that instead of ignoring it because I'm liberal or supporting their candidate or whatever else.
I just wanted to clarify that I didn't make the Tommy reference because I'm lashing out or anything like that. I thought about it thoroughly and concluded that it was harsh but also fair. If it wasn't fair, then I'll apologize. You should know I think you're one of the best posters here, so it was specific to this particular argument as opposed to a general comparison.
Passions are running high during this race, and I think anyone can fall victim to that. I just want criticisms of everyone to be as fair as humanly possible, and I do appreciate your efforts to expand on your view.
How about this:
Hillary Clinton did not in any way mean to qualify her original response by adding the words "as far as I know"...as far as I know.
Nonsense. She stated her opinion definitively, repeatedly and consistently. Can you demonstrate how it's possible for someone to know with 100% certainty that Obama has never made a comment or been photographed in such a way that strongly suggests he's Muslim? I seriously doubt such evidence exists, but I have no way of stating it absolutely.
That hardly qualifies as "waffling".
What she said was appropriate. There is no way she can be 100% sure of the what Obama thinks about. From everything she has seen and heard he is a Christian and that is what she said. End of story.
Clinton bashing taken to a new level. I am not voting for her so I am not biased.
Quick questions (and they're not rhetorical). Does Hillary have a realistic chance of beating Obama in pledged delegates? I've heard it said that she needs to win approximately 70% of the vote in the remaining primaries to beat Obama in pledged delegates. Accurate?
If that is the case, is her nomination essentially dependent upon the superdelegates voting against the pledged delegates? Is that likely to happen?
man, you clinton apologists astound me
she couldve easily just said no...and told kroft to move on
she didnt....
she carefully parsed her words
Barack has got to think about how he can establish that he is definitely a Christian, as demeaning and insulting as that sounds. He needs to address the people on these issues: not to convince me, but to answer that itching question that will only get bigger as the campaign goes on. I think he could knock it out of the park.