Vieira falsely suggested Clinton didn't say Obama is not a Muslim
SUMMARY: NBC's Meredith Vieira asked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: "On 60 Minutes over the weekend, you were asked about Senator Obama and whether you believed he was a Muslim, and you said, and I'm quoting now, 'I take him on the basis of what he says. There isn't any reason to doubt that, as far as I know.' Why not just say simply, 'No'?" 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 an interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton on the March 5 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Meredith Vieira asked Clinton: "On 60 Minutes over the weekend, you were asked about Senator Obama and whether you believed he was a Muslim, and you said, and I'm quoting now, 'I take him on the basis of what he says. There isn't any reason to doubt that, as far as I know.' Why not just say simply, 'No'?"
In fact, Clinton's first three words in response to CBS correspondent Steve Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not." Additionally, when Kroft again asked, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim?" Clinton said: "No. No. Why would I?" Further, 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."
Responding to Vieira's question on Today, Clinton said: "Well, I went on to say that I've been the subject of a lot of rumors that, you know, have been totally made up, and, you know, this is a scurrilous rumor and it should be, you know, obviously rejected out of hand. I don't know what more Senator Obama or his campaign or any of us can say. You know, it shouldn't be believed."
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 5 edition of NBC's Today:
VIEIRA: Let me ask you one last question before I let you go. On 60 Minutes over the weekend, you were asked about Senator Obama and whether you believed he was a Muslim, and you said, and I'm quoting now, "I take him on the basis of what he says. There isn't any reason to doubt that, as far as I know." Why not just say simply, "No"?
CLINTON: Well, I went on to say that I've been the subject of a lot of rumors that, you know, have been totally made up, and, you know, this is a scurrilous rumor and it should be, you know, obviously rejected out of hand. I don't know what more Senator Obama or his campaign or any of us can say. You know, it shouldn't be believed.
VIEIRA: So, some in his campaign have said that you were feeding the stereotype. Was that your intention or were they --
CLINTON: Of course not. Of course not. You know, this campaign needs to be about what we're going to do for America and it needs to be about the differences between us on the issues that affect the people of this country.
VIEIRA: All right, Senator Hillary Clinton, thanks, and once again, congratulations.
This makes me feel better about Clinton. Her response was apt, though I have noticed she has a (nervous?) tic. You know, a nervous tic. You know. You know.
Sorry, but if I were her, I'd work on that.
Wait a minute, during the debate thread a couple weeks ago when I wondered why MMFA didn't chastize Tim Russert for uncritically leaving alone Mrs. Clinton's lie regarding Obama's statement about wanting to bomb Pakistan, I was reprimanded because Obama was right there to defend himself - no criticism of the media person was warranted.
Well, isn't Mrs. Clinton right here to defend herself?
You're talking about two different facets of media responsibility. Criticism (which goes to the heart of balance) vs. honesty.
Russert was balanced, Vieira was balanced.
Russert was honest, Vieira was dishonest.
Russert was not dishonest (Hillary was), but he ensured balance and criticism by allowing the target to respond to the lie.
Vieira was dishonest, but she also ensured balance and criticism by allowing the target to respond to the lie.
This site is about the media. Not the candidates, the media. Why is that so hard to understand?
One candidate says something misleading or untrue about the other and the other is right there and is given the chance to respond, that simply is not something MMFA would cover.
When, as here, a member of the media says something misleading or untrue about a candidate, that is something MMFA would cover. As is the case where such falsehoods are raised, the target is not there to respond and the media involved lets it pass without challenge.
(With, of course, the additional proviso that it's conservative misinformation that MMFA addresses.)
I just don't see where the confusion lies outside the minds of those insistent on proving MMFA is "pro-Clinton" or "pro-Obama."
"the fact is you let Clinton off the hook"
DEAD WRONG, AGAIN.
I'm not going to speak for Solon, but as far my reply to your diversion on the previous thread that you speak of, THE FACTS ARE:
I called Hillary's accusation a "lie" no less than 3 times,
I called Hillary's accusation a "smear,"
and I accused her using the smear to forward her own agenda.
It's all there, see for yourself.
-AND-
I called it a "lie" again in my reply above.
What else do you want me to do? Call her the 'b' word?
I overlooked another one:
I flat out called her dishonest in my above reply.
I guess my accusations and adjectives just aren't harsh enough.
Thanks for the link, Pete.
Alright Pete, I can see your point, and Lost's and Solon's, and the others. The debate format is different than an interview, I will give you that. I apologize for jumping down MMFA's throat on this one, it was uncalled for.
Thanks for pointing out my error here.
- tommy / Wednesday February 27, 2008 4:00:14 PM EST
A week ago Tommy apologized for misunderstanding the difference between a person in the media making an error in an interview and a politician saying something that's not 100% accurate in a debate. Yesterday he made a similar mistake but failed to apologize and forgot that he had already lost this argument last week. I long for the days when people of different political persuasions could fairly discuss the issues and could be persuaded via adequate debate to reject losing arguments.
I hope that MMFA's efforts help that fair debate return.
What purpose is there to keep bringing this up?
Is the media attempting to instill in their viewers minds that Obama might be a Muslim? Or are they trying to simply hound Hillary by making it appear she was suggesting Obama might be a Muslim?
Geez I wish the media spent as much time on the really important issues as they do this crap.
I don't get it either, Jeter, It makes no sense. Do we have to stand up and echo Mr. Joseph Welch: "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" Is it that hard to understand that this is simply the media feeding on their own endless loop of crud? Are there no mirrors in TV?
Once again, I wish Sen. Clinton just said "Sen. Obama is a Christian."
Because mainstream media is all about the narrative, and this fits into the, to them, exciting "Obama is accused of being a muslim" storyline. Whether it's true or not makes no difference, it's the STORY that IS the story.
It has little to do with any bias from them, and everything to do with latching onto and trying to squeeze viewers out of controversy.
I'm new to this board so please bear with me... I'd like to share several points.
The Media will do whatever it take to use "FEAR" and the "RACE CARD" to attack Senator Clinton. By all accounts of their behavior, the Media is running the campaign for Barack Hussein Obama. Clinton makes a statement, the Media hounds her for stirring up fear. Case in point: There was nothing wrong with the effective 3am-in-the-morning ad that Clinton ran. She was merely stating she was the better candidate to run the White House.
The Media also blasted the Clinton campaign for showing a darkened picture of Obama (playing on the "RACE" card), but by all accounts, the Media finally attributed the photo to digital lossiness. What a cheap shot. The Media and Obama already put Clinton down time and time again. Until recent weeks, the Media showed darkened pictures of Clinton next to bright photos of Obama (and Edwards when he was still in the hunt). We received mailers urging us to vote for Obama, and those mailers showed a terrible-looking, darkened photo of Clinton. There were other times the Media showed Clinton's back or simply showed Obama's face while talking about Clinton. That's downright disrespectful of a candidate and downright sexist behavior on the part of the Media (and the Obama campaign). Yet they can't take the same shot when the same happens to them.
On the topic of whether Obama is a Muslim. That's a VALID QUESTION. Obama claimed he has been Christian for the past 20 years. So what was he the first 26 years of his life? As a voter and conerned citizen, I want to make sure which side our next Predident will be on when confronted with terrorism threats. (Both candidates have good ideas to shore up our ailing economy.) I find it puzzling that the Media, who usually digs into the background of every newsworthy candidate, refuses to report on Barack Hussein Obama's background and exposure to Islam (to any degree).
Correct me if I'm wrong re the following facts and observations: Obama's dad was a Kenyan Muslim. His Mom married a Muslim, so she was either a sypmathizer or covert to Islam to marry his Dad. Obama's step-Dad was also a Muslim (from Indonesia). Obama lived a number of years in Indonesia (86% Muslim), regardless of which non-Muslim school he attended. This has a major bearing on his views of the world and on how, if elected, he may run our (predominantly Christian) nation. Yet neither the Media nor Obama wilingly explains in detail about his heritage and his exposure to Islam. I find this troubling. What are the Media and Obama trying to hide from the public? If they have nothing to hide, then let hear why the American people should not be concerned with his Muslim family. And what about his Muslim support base? Let' hear the truth for once, please.
Unfortunately-- on other threads-- many Obama supporters have expressed outrage about Hillary's supposed conduct at this interview. So it's not just the media-- it's the over-pious Obama people, too.
It's a phony issue.
Funny that these same media meatheads who keep asking the same ill-informed questions and perpetuating the same stale talking points, the ones that insist on badgering their subjects with the same question over and over while ignoring every answer, can come back and condescendingly ask these same subjects why they didn't just give a yes or no answer.
Maybe if they just handed them those sheets we used to get for school quizzes (Scan-Tron?), and a #2 pencil, and let them fill in the appropriate bubble, the bobbleheads would be happy. Not bloody likely.
Is this a trick question Oscar?
:0O
I really don't see what all the ballyhoo is about when it comes to Senator Obama's middle name. He was given that name by his parents.
Now, if he had made a name change later on in life, and perhaps converted to Islam, that would be something to be concerned about. But such is not the case.
The continual feeding of this rumor is suspected by many in the voting bloc as just another mechanization of the Clinton machinery. It's politics, and if Obama wants to survive these nasty attacks, he must make the decision to come out fighting.
He can no longer afford to play Mr. Nice Guy with the Clintons.
"The continual feeding of this rumor..." (EOdell)
What Rumor?