Fineman called Clinton's comments on Obama's religion "positively Nixonian"
SUMMARY: Discussing Sen. Hillary Clinton's answer to a question about whether she believed Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, Newsweek editor Howard Fineman said that Clinton's answer was "positively Nixonian in its pauses and innuendos." In fact, Clinton's first three words in response to the question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not."
During MSNBC's coverage of the Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island primaries on March 4, Hardball host Chris Matthews stated that when asked on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes whether she believed Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, "Hillary Clinton took the longest time to answer Steve Kroft's question the other night. I don't know whether to read too much into it, but everybody has, that she played a bit of a game here." Newsweek editor Howard Fineman later said that Clinton's answer was "positively Nixonian in its pauses and innuendos." He added, "Look at it and look at it carefully. There was nothing accidental about it." Fineman also said, "Hillary was brilliantly Machiavellian in sounding indignant while at the same time raising doubts about Obama."
In fact, Clinton's first three words in response to Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not." Additionally, Clinton made clear at the end of the exchange with Kroft that she was likening the rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "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."
During the March 3 edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted that Clinton's campaign is "[g]oing after" Obama "in this Muslim issue" and claimed that she "g[ave] up a clear chance to dismiss these bad stories being pushed by bad people, that he's not the religion he is, clearly to try to disturb people." Matthews added: "She had a clear opportunity on 60 Minutes to clear that up, and she didn't take it." Later in the program, he played a clip of Clinton's 60 Minutes interview in which the end of Clinton's answer was cropped so it did not include a remark in which she clearly stated that she did not believe that Obama was a Muslim and added that she too had been "the target of so many ridiculous rumors." Matthews then repeatedly highlighted only part of Clinton's comments to suggest that she had left Obama's religious beliefs in doubt.
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 7 p.m. ET March 4 edition of MSNBC Live:
MATTHEWS: It seems to me that Senator Clinton has been very effective in the last couple days, at least by the lights of the media trying to cover this before the voting gets counted tonight, in bringing into question Barack Obama's trustworthiness, in regard to his economic adviser's talks sotto voce with the Canadian consular official. And whether that was a wink that we're really not serious about looking at NAFTA again. This whole question of his religious faith. Everyone knows he's a Christian. He knows it, we know it. Yet Hillary Clinton took the longest time to answer Steve Kroft's question the other night. I don't know whether to read too much into it, but everybody has, that she played a bit of a game here, just as she did with John Kerry to get him out of the race a couple months ago by taking that joke of his, about if you're stupid you'll take us to Iraq, as some kind of statement that if you flunk out of school, you get drafted. The worst possible interpretation of that joke to kill John Kerry. Is she now on a route now to destroy the credibility of Barack Obama if that's the only way she can win this nomination?
FINEMAN: Two things, Chris. First of all, if you look at the big picture, Hillary is running an almost entirely negative campaign right now. We tend to forget that. That's what the kitchen sink is all about. It's not about her, it's about him. And she's hoping that the crossfire of her campaign and the McCain Republican campaign will weaken Obama dramatically. The second thing is, Hillary Clinton doesn't do anything by accident. I watched that CBS tape of Steve Kroft's interview very, very carefully, and Hillary was brilliantly Machiavellian in sounding indignant while at the same time raising doubts about Obama. She said, "Why, I have no reason to think that he's anything other than a Christian." I mean that was -- I'm a reporter and an analyst, not an editorial writer, but that was positively Nixonian in its pauses and innuendos. Look at it and look at it carefully. There was nothing accidental about it.
MATTHEWS: OK, thank you, Howard Fineman.
If it's a non-issue, then why are you making an issue of it?
There's no issue here. She said 'no.' She said 'no' many times.
and let's not forget that newsweek hired the traitor karl rove to write a column.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/newsweek-hires.html
Chris Matthews is a total disgrace to America and our values...
a twittering, corportate snake.
The problem with MSNBC is that they have had some success and it has all gone to their heads. And instead of working to improve on that success they have decided to be Obama crotch massagers. Olberman always goes first, no sloppy seconds for him. They try to instigate issues with the Hillary campaign and resolve issues for the Obama campaign. Dana Abrams is the only person with any clout at MSNBC who is actually working to improve his show and be a refferee in this battle instead of a cheerleader for either side. I respect him and his efforts. It is a shame that he is no where to be found discussing the election returns. I guess they need two Obama water carriers anchoring the coverage. You never know when Matthews' leg tingle could cause a collapse so Olbermann has to be at his side to keep the water moving.
What MSNBC is engaging in is a blatant pandering to the Obama demographic. It's all about ratings and money-- they made a corportae decision to be the Obama network.
But since the SNL joke, they're on the hot seat a little (after all, it was their own network that nailed this silliness) so they're in a tight corner right now.
By the way, anyone remember Olbermann's indignancy last week about the SNL sketch? Talk about thin skins.
He's getting worse.
Tonight on Countdown, Olbermann dishonestly tried to assert that Hillary won Texas because of the Republican crossover vote, a la Rush Limbaugh.
But he completely ignored the fact that the R vote banked for Obama instead. He then went on to arrogantly ridicule O'Reilly for his criticizing MSNBC for their Obama bias--
He has become a disgrace. BOR has been more balanced about this race than KO!
What about Fineman?, afterall he is the one who compared Hillary to Nixon.
There is no comparison between Hillary and Nixon. I watched this year's debates, and I remember watching the Kennedy/Nixon debates in 1960. And unlike Nixon, Hillary Clinton neither perspired profusely nor looked like she needed a shave.... :-)
Thats what Chomsky says. He did do things that would give the Limbaugh/Hannity wing of the GOP fits.
In the 1960 debates, Nixon's advocacy of social programs is astounding. He sounds like Dennis K.
Kennedy comes off like a tightwad.
Governor,
I am not so sure they are ignoring any of her statements, but rather evaluating them in context as well as how well the Clintons parse words. I am sorry, it is the reason that there is suspicion and raised eyebrows whenever they are in full campaign mode, and their words are so scrutinized. They have brought much of it on themselves.
This can be viewed either way honestly, I believe.....and I can see both sides, so can the pundits, apparently.
What part of her first reply ....
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.
Requires any parsing?
FINEMAN: She said, "Why, I have no reason to think that he's anything other than a Christian." I mean that was -- I'm a reporter and an analyst, not an editorial writer, but that was positively Nixonian in its pauses and innuendos. Look at it and look at it carefully. There was nothing accidental about it.
I agree, she does look pretty “Nixonian” when Fineman’s fake quote is attributed to her.
"The media has cost the Democrats the election in the last two"
Well, perhaps if Obama is the nominee this fall and the Republicans take their anti-Obama strategy direct from the Clintons by replaying her recent statements about how her and McCain are experienced, yet Obama has only given a speech, then you can continue to blame the media.
Ridiculous.
It's called campaigning Tommy. I'm sure the eventual Democratic nominee will have loads of soundbites from McCain's primary opponents as well.
Would you rather Senator Clinton roll over like Gore and Kerry did?
Governor, I specifically said when a McCain opponent compliments Hillary? Which is what Hillary did and at the same time slammed Obama.
Do you have an example of Romney complimenting Hillary and in the same quote slamming McCain? Because I have never heard it.
I've seen you repeatedly make the charge that almost everything the Clintons do and say is carefully planned and calculated. Frankly, I think you're hugely overstating it and that more is spontaneous than you give them credit for. When I watch the video of H. Clinton giving her answer the "as far as I know" simply comes off as a throwaway end-of-statement addition. I couldn't see anything calculated about it. If it had been calculated, she wouldn't have waited until the third time she was pushed on the question because there was no way to know there would be a third opportunity.
The disagreement on how calculating the Clintons are will never be settled because there's no way for us to know. I just don't get the impression that they are more so than any other politician.
oddly enough, being a muslim is perfectly okay. you wouldn't know that, just by listening to the braying of the asses, but yet, there it is. now if there were rumors that sen. obama were a member of the KKK or black panthers, we'd have something worth spending time on. we don't.
part of the sense that i get from sen. clinton's response, and it's just my speculation, is "i can't f*ing believe we're wasting time on this nonsense!"
this tends to explain the not-so-veiled "omg, you're an idiot!" tone of her answers.
It seems to me that the media is working awfully hard to keep this Obama is a Muslim story in the spotlight by not shuting up about it. And of course it's a double treat for them to blame Hillary.
IMO, Hillary wasn't playing any sort of "Nixonian" games here. But whether folks want to attach a sinister motive on her part or not... it's over. ONLY the media is keeping it alive!
I 100% agree. And I personally find it a little offensive that whether or not Obama is a Moslem is such a carefully analysed issue. To me, the implication of this questioning and the focus on this issue is that there is something WRONG with being a Muslim. Clue: there isn't.
There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, that is not the issue. It's the fact that Obama has said he is a Christian and some in the media, and perhaps opposing campaigns, are questioning his sincerity.
It certainly IS the issue. I'm saying that by constantly questioning it, the media is insinuating that there IS something wrong with being Muslim, or that it's relevant to Obama's electability. You would have to assume that if Coulter constantly refers to B. Hussein Obama, as an ultra-conservative, she thinks there is a negative connotation to a Muslim name, (as well as the 'Saddam' link). It's pretty obvious that Republican's like the idea of Obama being drafted as Muslim, because they have a base that would vote AGAINST a Muslim.
It's definately NOT just a question of Obama's sincerity. Anyone can see that.
O OK. So first the negativity associated with being a Muslim not the issue, and now it IS the issue and you're looking to deflect the blame from the right wing... you can't have your cake and eat it too Tommy. make up your mind.
And who brought up the issue is irrelevant to the reality that the media is running with this ad nauseum. Libertarians are supposed to be about individual responsibilty. The media should be mature enough and responsible enough to realise that this is an inappropriate line of questioning.
Nowhere in my post do i suggest that the issue arose only because of Republican actions, and there is nothing even remotely resembling a 'slam' against Ann Coulter. Don't misrepresent me, ta. You're just posting for the sake of it because I can't really see what your point is. I'm saying that this line of questioning implies it's a negative attribute to be a Muslim, and I'm saying that it's wrong and the media is failing us via focusing on this issue. I'm also saying republicans would love for Obama to be quietly thought of as a Muslim. Do you have any sort of relevant response to that at all? Are you saying I'm wrong about the Muslim negativity? or are you saying my 'ire' is 'misplaced?' (in which case, you obviously misinterpreted my post, which is a shame).
Backtrack now, then why do you specifically mention Ann Coulter and the Republicans then? You brought them into this discussion after you said the smears against Obama were to scare people against Muslims. I told you that Hillary Clinton supporters had a hand in that as well, as I evidenced with Bob Kerrey. When you flail, you waste my time.
Backtrack now, then why do you specifically mention Ann Coulter and the Republicans then? You brought them into this discussion after you said the smears against Obama were to scare people against Muslims. I told you that Hillary Clinton supporters had a hand in that as well, as I evidenced with Bob Kerrey. When you flail, you waste my time.
Lol.... you don't even have an argument you're just rambling... i give in. you win at this lol. I never said 'scare people' fyi... are you scared of Muslims tommy? I never said Clinton supporters didn't have a hand in it. All this is semantics that detracts from my points, and like i said, you can have this one. If you don't have something relevant to say, don't respond to my posts lol.
Well, considering it was one of Clinton's supporters, Bob Kerrey, that was one of the first to single out Obama's middle name, ...
What a load of crap Tommy. It wasn't Bob Kerrey that was the first to single out Obama's middle name, it was Republican strategist Ed Rogers on a Hardball appearance. And Obama responded immediately. This happened several weeks before the Bob Kerrey incident.
You're hysterical. What I meant? Can you read, I said "one of the first". It was even quoted back to me. You get ridiculous when you can't make your points coherently, don't you?
dude you can spend all day calling tommy on his bs, but he persists in his irrelevant posts regardless of how well you take him to school. we're now down to him being wrong about who said waht, which is all tangential to the original post in this thread regarding whether being a Muslim can ethically be labelled a negative attribute by the media. The way i raed it, Tommy said 'its irrelevant because the treatment of Islam and Muslmis is not the issue' and then when i said it was, he said 'well Clinton started it by having a supporter use Obama's middle name.'
Stupid much?
yawn
This is obscene.
I hope the public hasn't lost interest in the things that really matter, even though the "Librul" media doesn't report those things.
I agree, it is obscene!
It just boggles the mind.
So "tricky" Hillary is being compared to Nixon.
All I can say is that Hillary could have taught Nixon how to be a dishonest pol.
My take is that because Hillary Clinton was being peppered by the interviewer, despite having already clearly spoken she didn't believe the "scurrilous" Obama/Muslim rumors, she took advantage of the opportunity to convey that she was not vouching for her political opponent.
If for example a friend of Obama's was asked the same question that Hillary was he might reply: I am a close friend of Barack Obama and if he was, or ever had been, a Muslim I would know about it...and I can assure you with certainty that Obama is not, nor has he ever been, a Muslim. In fact, I know he's a Christian.
In effect, Obama's friend could vouch for him...that Obama has never been a Muslim and that the rumors are false. In effect the rumors are presumably dispelled by someone in a position to know.
Hillary answered the question truthfully. She said she didn't believe the rumors and as far as she knows they are false. However, in contrast to the hypothetical response of Obama's friend, Hillary cannot vouch for Obama not being a Muslim. However, as far as she knows, he's not. There's a difference.
This is a hotly contested campaign. Hillary is not going to vouch for her opponenet if she doesn't have to. She took the high road in her initial response but the interviewer appeared to persist. IMO Hillary simply took advantage of the situation to additionally convey that she was not vouching for Obama.
In my further opinion too much is being made of this. Hillary did answer truthfully...but, hey, this is politics.
Rep. Keith Ellison, an actual Muslim said it best:
Rep. Keith Ellison, in an interview with The Huffington Post, said the Clinton camp was "opportunistically trying to reap the benefit" of voter concerns about Obama's religious beliefs. Ellison, who is a declared supporter of Senator Barack Obama, faced fierce religious attacks in his election to congress two years ago.
"People are going to throw some stuff on the wall and see what sticks and at this point the Clinton camp is trying to do whatever it can to be successful," said the Minnesota Democrat. "And if that means benefiting from political bigotry, I don't think they will try to put a stop to it."
I have to disagree with Ellison here. If the reporter had asked her just once, even twice about Obama's religion, we wouldn't be discussing this now. If Hillary was trying to advance the notion that Barack was a Muslim, she would have did it with her first response (instead of saying "Of course not") because she had no way of knowing the reporter would ask her multiple times about his religion.
These guys are in their own little hack's heaven with this one.
They get to keep mentioning the words Muslim and Obama in the same sentence (you probably noticed how much they loved doing that, even before this "as far as I know" crap began), and now they get to add into the very same sentence, the words Clinton and Nixonian... or other words they might consider as some sort of slander, in describing the "as far as I know" crap.
They're in a little hack's slanderous heaven with this one.
They get to hack away, trying to kill the only two birds they want to kill, with this one stone.
"Liberal Media....?"