Wash. Post's Meyerson asserted Clinton "hemm[ed] and haw[ed]" over Obama's religion
SUMMARY: The Washington Post's Harold Meyerson wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "hemm[ed] and haw[ed]" in response to a question during a 60 Minutes interview "over whether [Sen. Barack] Obama really is Christian." In fact, CBS correspondent Steve Kroft asked Clinton whether she believes Obama is a Muslim, and contrary to Meyerson's characterization, during the interview, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim. Her first three words in response to the question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not."
In his March 6 Washington Post column, Harold Meyerson characterized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's remarks about Sen. Barack Obama's religion during the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes as "hemming and hawing." Meyerson wrote: "[P]arty leaders must make clear to the candidates that some attacks and innuendos should be out of bounds -- such as Clinton's hemming and hawing on '60 Minutes' over whether Obama really is Christian." In fact, CBS correspondent Steve Kroft asked Clinton whether she believes Obama is a Muslim, and contrary to Meyerson's characterization, during the interview, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim. Meyerson did not note that 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." Nor did his column mention that during the exchange, Clinton equated the false 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."
Meyerson has previously, and falsely, accused Clinton of "play[ing] the race card." As Media Matters for America documented, in a February blog post on the American Prospect website Meyerson described a phone call that a friend of his in Los Angeles received from what Meyerson described as "a high-decibel gentleman with a very exaggerated, old style -- Amos 'n Andy, in fact -- black pattern of speech, singing the praises of Barack Obama." Without any evidence to support his accusation or any indication that he had attempted to contact the Clinton campaign -- which subsequently "called the allegation "outrageous and baseless" and "completely false" -- Meyerson pronounced the phone call "a Clinton ploy against Obama."
Although the original Meyerson post was taken down, Meyerson posted a second item on the phone call, headlined "The Race Card in L.A., Part 2." Meyerson wrote:
My post occasioned some indignation when I surmised the call came from operatives working for some organization that supported Hillary Clinton. I'm sure it didn't come from the Clinton campaign itself, and I have no reason to think the campaign knew about it.
In asserting he had "surmised the call came from operatives working for some organization that supported" Clinton, Meyerson completely misrepresented his accusation in the previous post, in which he blamed Clinton herself in the headline and referred to the call as a "Clinton ploy" and a "Clinton Dirty Trick."
From Meyerson's March 6 Washington Post column:
Indeed, this year's contest is proceeding much like a political-demographic census, in which the class, race and age breakdown of each state's electorate gives you a pretty fair idea of who's going to win. (The party's gender breakdown doesn't vary much by state.) Handicapping which candidate would run better against John McCain is no easy task, either. Obama can clearly attract more upscale independents than Clinton can, and her claim on less-affluent whites who shifted to the Democratic column in the 2006 midterms looks stronger than his. He'd probably do better in the Mountain West; she might do better in the Rustbelt Midwest.
Eventually, of course, the Democrats will have a nominee -- but how to determine whom without wrecking the party's prospects in November will require sound judgment and firm leadership from Clinton, Obama, party Chairman Howard Dean and other party leaders. First, the party needs to schedule primaries in Florida and Michigan -- preferably in June, soon after Puerto Rico, so that it doesn't add a crisis of legitimacy to its accumulating difficulties. Second, party leaders must make clear to the candidates that some attacks and innuendos should be out of bounds -- such as Clinton's hemming and hawing on "60 Minutes" over whether Obama really is Christian. That caution should be conveyed privately, but if such ploys continue, then Dean, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the as-yet-unheard-from Al Gore should condemn them publicly.
Also, somebody is going to have to focus on McCain, who will merrily be depicting the Democrats, particularly Obama (Clinton is a known quantity), in the worst possible light. If the Democrats are to carry Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan in the general election, they need to put a spotlight on McCain's continuing infatuation with trade policies that have taken the Midwest's good jobs offshore. Obama and Clinton will attack McCain on trade while stumping in Pennsylvania, but their chief focus is more likely to be on attacking each other.
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.
No, Myerson's not insane. But he wants to play with the big boys now, and gain big-time 'respectability,' so he sells out his brains and his integrity.
Happens all the time.
These people just keep beating a dead horse.
Sometimes I think people who make a profession of speaking in a manner intended to mislead, that they have a special Thesaurus of sorts, just for them, that lists various ways to phrase their insults and slanders and lies, so as to cleverly imply something that's not true, without actually stating it unequivocally.
"hemmed and hawed" would be in such a book, under the category of phrases and descriptions that imply evasion and untruthfulness, without actually saying so outright.
I hate people who employ such stuff as that, as much for the fact that they think themselves so clever, as for the mischief and innuendo they work in.
Also, as another commentor pointed out immediately when this first appeared as an item, that Mrs. Clinton of course answered definitively the question asked her, but it was her inquisitor, this guy kroft, that kept hacking away, essentially ignoring Mrs. Clinton's definitive answer, and asking the question again... and again and again, four times in all!
Now, there's not a person among us, who wouldn't be completely justified in feeling insulted, if someone asked us the same question again, to which we had just answered without equivocation.
The insult being that they must think us a liar, and are calling us one, by asking us again a question, that they obviously didn't beilieve our answer, when we answered it in the first place... right?
And that's what the transcript shows this guy kroft doing... his repeated questions that have already been answered, are as much implying right to Mrs. Clinton's face, that he thinks her insincere, if not untruthful and a liar, right?
Every last one of us would and should be insulted, to be spoken to that way.
You know, if in a Court of Law, during Testimony, the Witness is insulted that way, by having the same question repeated even just twice! Even then, the Judge might interject, and say "The Witness has already answered the question"...
But were the insulting questioner to ask the same question not merely twice, but a third and fourth time! Then the Judge might say "Stop badgering the Witness! It is contempuous of these proceedings, and an insult to the Witness, to repeatedly ask the same question over and over, as though you were accusing the Witness of being untruthful... and it is a Contempt of these proceedings, to call a Sworn witness a liar!"
OK, that's not an exact analogy, but it contains the point I'm making: that what kroft did by repeating his question four times, when it had already been answered the first time he asked it, is as much to claim insincerity and untruthfulness on the part of the one he asks those same questions repeatedly... and not only did he "badger" Mrs. Clinton in so doing (which is a contemptable thing to do), but that this worthless "media" also badgers the candidate, by persisting in doubting a thing, that was made unequivocally clear from the start.
"Let's move on..." is what the Judge might say, once he had put a stop to it.
I'm not a big Hillary fan, and the longer the campaign goes on the less I like her, but this is absolutely ridiculous. And the underlying implication behind the whole debacle about Obama's religion, the idea that a Muslim should not be President, is equally ridiculous.
Clearly she didn't "hem or haw", however an absolute definite answer would have been a simple "No", with no "I mean......." immediately following, clearly she didn't do that either.
No doubt she is beginning to get piled on for this rather innocuous whole thing, but the Clintons live in the gray area of unintentional, unclear, "did she say this, or did she mean that", vague world of semantic parsing. They put themselves there back in the 90's and if they want out, they need to be the catalyst...........otherwise the dissection will continue.
It's up to them. I have no sympathy, sorry.
It is if they both have a period at the end.
Look, I have already said I can see both sides of this coin and each makes a good case. I am talking about all the scrutiny this is getting and who is really responsible for it. I say it's the Clintons for straddling this semantic fence for years, sometimes it may come back to bite them in the a$$.......this is probably one of those times.
Of course not.
It has a period at the end, Tommy.
Happy?
"but the Clintons live in the gray area of..... semantic parsing"
LOL! pot meet kettle?
Semantics: the branch of linguistics which studies meaning in language.
"No, No...of course not..."
Definately needs some analysis. I'm not certain where Clinton is going with this...
These are her first three answers to the first three out of five times she was asked the question by Kroft:
1.) Of course not.
2.) there is no basis for that.
3.) there isn't any reason to doubt that.
“No doubt she is beginning to get piled on for this rather innocuous whole thing, but the Clintons live in the gray area of unintentional, unclear, ‘did she say this, or did she mean that,’ vague world of semantic parsing. They put themselves there back in the 90's and if they want out, they need to be the catalyst...........otherwise the dissection will continue.
“It's up to them. I have no sympathy, sorry.”
Tommy,
What the WTF are you talking about?
Okay, one of the Clintons did say “I did not have sex with that woman,” and then tried to defend it by referring to the exact definition of “sex” that the plaintiffs were employing at the time. That’s lawyerly parsing, to be sure, and it’ll drive you crazy for its obvious conflict with common sense, butt:
1) It was in reference to proceedings in a court of law…where lawyerly parsing is what everyone is supposed to do, and
b) That was Bill, not Hillary.
What fuppin “evidence” do you have that Hillary has been engaging in “semantic parsing” for 15 years? What the fupp has she said that would justify your casting suspicion on her “motive” when she clearly gives an unequivocal answer, repeatedly, to a series of repetitious, stupid questions???
I think you’re trying to serve as Judge, Jury, and Executioner of Hillary…and you haven’t trotted out one iota of evidence in support of your position.
By the BTW: don’t even think that Publicans don’t engage in “semantic parsing” and other dodge-n-weave stunts on a regular basis. When Dubya stood affront of the “Mission Accomplished” banner, his premature ejaculation of victory was defended by his peeps as referring solely to combat operations, not the mop-up and governance that would come later (and which they did not prepare for); the same goes for many of the breathless scary scenarios that he and his minions served up prior to the Iraq war—both with respect to their insinuations that Saddam had been responsible for 9/11, and their intelligence-cooking that played up the “threat” of WMDs.
Remember: they never actually said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, butt they cooked up enough slippery insinuations and phony connections with al Qaeda, that the majority of Americans believed that he had been involved.
And it’s not just Dubya and his crew. Reagan did it, Bush Sr. did it, politicians have done it since time immemorial. It’s ridiculous for you and others to somehow decide that Hillary deserves the wrath of an indignant media because…because what? Oh yeah, because her husband has occasionally done what successful politicians do.
his premature ejaculation of victory
Thanks for the morning chuckle.
The Post has no fewer than five hit pieces today aimed at Hillary and her campaign, which is about two more than the daily usual. They spend five paragraphs calling her a liar for her throwaway "nobody has ever won the Presidency without winning the Ohio primary" line, and even devote a big story to how Ohio is not really representative of the nation anymore (message: not to be taken seriously, no long-term message for Obama there.)
The Post has for me joined DailyKos, HuffingtonPost, MSNBC and Air America as "news" outlets to avoid whenever possible, because they are not in the news business as much as they are in the Tear Down Hillary and Get Obama Nominated business.
You have a point about WaPo and MSNBC. I Guess I missed the mission statements of kos, HuffPo and AA. You know, the statements that say that they are dedidcated to the dissemination of balanced factual reporting.
When Air America started up, all the hosts made a point of telling the listeners that the network would be different from conservative talk radio in one key respect: the hosts would dedicate themselves to giving us information from a "lefty" perspective but would otherwise NOT engage in DICTATING HOW THE LISTENERS ARE SUPPOSED TO THINK.
That pledge has been broken- Randi Rhodes especially but not exclusively repeats GOP talking points against Hillary and tows the Obama line every day in her show. Rachel Maddow isn't as anti-Hillary, but almost, and judging from her rant on MSNBC last night about Hillary's "Rovian tactics" (daring to authorize a commercial that suggests she is the better qualified candidate for the Dem nomination- horrors!) she's off the "balance" wagon and will be 100% for Obama in the future.
I never said DailyKos, HuffPost etc are supposed to be pro-Hillary, supposed to be pro-Obama, supposed to be anything. I only commented that I used to like these sites, but now I can't stand them because they are so slanted toward Obama it's become ridiculous for me. Was that too complicated for you to digest? I'll use smaller words next time.
As for the open Democratic forums, what are you gonna do about it? Take some responsibility and work to change the discussion. Stay involved or just give up. It's your call. But the fact that you're so easily dissuaded from standing up for your candidate in hostile territory tells me there's no there, there. For better or worse, Obama inspires Democrats, empowers them to live out loud as proud lefties.
Well, let's see:
I volunteered and canvassed for Hillary in Maryland
I donated money to Hillary's campaign.
I post at blogs that ARE open to letters that aren't 100% pro-Obama (like this one.)
I write letters to Air America and The Washington Post asking for more balanced coverage.
This might stun you, but I don't consider reading and responding to the posts of anonymous people on websites the pinnacle of political activism. But then, I don't assess someone's level of political activity based on one or two blog posts, either.
Do you even realize how utterly contradictory those two sentences are?
Maybe I'm overly sensitive to whining because I used to whine alot myself. But that quote, to me, sounds like someone whining about web communities expressing their collective preferences. So I told him about it.
You got something to complain about to me today, too? I welcome it, if you do. I admire strong opinions, that's why I go round and round w/ JJamele and Mefirst and other lefties. We make each other better by making each other examine why we think the way we think about politics.
ROUNDHOUSE,
I agree that the four outlets you mentioned are big-time Hillary haters, but for different reasons. AA, HuffPo and Kos are too far left to love her but MSNBC wants Obama for a far more sinister reason: they (they being the owners, editors and superstars) don't think a person of color can be elected. That really sucks!
Last week, I e-mailed a complaint to a bunch of lib/prog sites about the blatant anti-Clinton bias on sites that were supposedly neutral with regard to news items regarding the primaries. Only Josh at TPM replied - the silence of the rest speaks volumes.
When you are in an interview you respond the the questioner. If Kroft had left it at her first response that would have been it but he pursued the matter and she amplified on her original answer saying there is nothing at all to the rumor..then used the phrase in question "as far as I know"..she then went on to point out that these kinds of rumors get started all the time and that she herself had been victimized in the past. Doesn't sound too ambiguous to me.
MEYERSON: "...such as Clinton's hemming and hawing on "60 Minutes" over whether Obama really is Christian."
Actually, wasn't the exchange with Hillary about whether she believed the rumors that Obama was a Muslim...not whether he really is Christian? Perhaps a minor point, but IMO it's sloppy journalism. Doesn't this guy have an editor?
I think Meyerson used a poor example to illustrate his point about certain attacks and innuendos being out of bounds.
The far better choice would have been Hillary's apparent endorsement of McCain over Obama. It was one of the most low-rent shots I've ever seen a candidate take at a fellow party member.
"My only point is that soundbites from Republicans opining on McCain that they don't "want this guy anywhere near a trigger" are every bit as useful as Clinton saying he's got "experience". But you still win, of course."
I'm sure he can do that himself... I have no idea if Governer agrees or disagrees with Pete, but it seems totally outside of any discussion yesterday... it seems maybe you're confusing 2 arguments? I, btw, agree with pete, and I think Clinton is making a big mistake. She should offer to be VP, in my opinion, and stop the internal debate in the Democratic party.
Dance, dance. I expressed the exact disguist with Clinton as Pete does above, exactly, on the Fineman thread yesterday. Governor belittled it. I was agreeing with Pete, and to be on the lookout for Governor's snarky comments as he directed at me yesterday, as they may come his way too.
But it's all good, and it's good to see Pete, a principled liberal who identifies crap like this when he sees it.
Agreed, and I'm still reeling over that. Plus she's repeated it three or four times.
Yeah, and if Obama wins the nomination can you imagine the way the Republicans will play her endorsement of him in light of her preference of McCain's experience over Obama's.
It was a hideous thing to say and makes me think even more that getting back in the White House is the only thing she wants to do, the party be damned if she doesn't.
But--I basically agree with you here, Tommy.
I am sure that is what she will say, and it would have been one thing if she just trashed Obama's experience, but to publicly say that she thinks his Republican rival is MORE qualified, is as far as I know, unprecedented.
She will spin it, probably, but it will be exploited by the other side to such a degree that it may be irreparable for Obama, how sad.
And it will be greatly tempered when she endorses him, should he get the nomination. On the other side, there are several republicans who’ve called McCain Screaming Yellow Zonkers, a bell that’s a little harder to unring.
Senator Clinton certainly did equivocate. Her response included "there is nothing to base it on as far as I know". Her answer should have been no period. She took advantage of the question to plant seeds of doubt.
My scorn is, as always, directed at the immoral blatherings of rightwing media dissemblers.
CW, as I wrote in a previous thread I think Hillary took advantage of the opportunity, after repeated questioning, to draw the line as to how far she was willing to personally vouch for her opponent. But what's wrong with that? This is a political campaign. She didn't "hem and haw". She answered honestly and straightforwardly. It was not an attack or innuendo. In fact she stated repeatedly that she did not believe the rumors to be true and that in her belief there wasn't any basis for them. Where's the beef?
I agree. She'd certainly be going too far if she said 'No-Obama is the most devout, honest Christian I have ever known'. I don't feel there was any chance that she went too far in this instance.
“To borrow from another poster: I would want Obama to answer the hypothetical ‘Do you think Hillary murdered Vince Foster’ question with a simple, forceful ‘No’ period, without tacking-on ‘...as far as I know’, or ‘I take her at her word she didn't’--whether it was asked of him one time or 100 times.”
Dave,
Okay…butt she wasn’t answering the question of “Is Obama a Muslim?” she was answering the related, butt different question of “Is there anything behind the rumors?” It’s easy to know that he’s a Christian—he belongs to a UCC church and he proclaims that he’s a Christian. It’s tougher to know whether or not there’s any reason in his background why anybody might think that he is, or was once, a Muslim. That is how a reasonable person interprets her “as far as I know” phrase.
Anti-Hillary people (from the right and the left) are refusing to pay attention to what was actually asked and what her answer meant. In IMHO, they’re deliberately looking for any excuse to vilify her. And it stinks.
It's certainly true that there are people simply out to vilify Hillary Clinton.
However, I am not one of them.
I've supported the Clintons since 1991, have done volunteer work for them, and had been undecided this time---until around six weeks ago, when the tenor of her campaign began to change. It is extremely dismaying to me. Her response here seems to be fit this new pattern.
The first question put to her by Kroft was NOT “Is there anything behind the rumors?”, it was this:
KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
To which she answered "Of course not". She could have left it there, no matter how many times she was asked. But she added what, in my opinion, were subtle qualifiers, like "as far as I know" and "I'll take him at his word."
The rumor that Obama is a Muslim is false-and I think she knows it is false:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
By equivocating, she helps to keep the rumor alive, even tho she most likely doesn't believe it. In my opinion.
Her answer should have been no period. She took advantage of the question to plant seeds of doubt.
And this is the point where many disagree. If you believe she is the anti-christ you can easily credit the statement to nefarious goals. A more rational evaluation suggests it was a poorly chosen throwaway phrase tacked on after answering the same frustrating question four times. Oh I forgot, since she is so evil, every statement has a hidden purpose.
Sorry -- HAVE TO STRONGLY DISAGREE. I THINK BY ADDING ALL OF THE "CONDITIONAL TENSES" AND CONDITIONAL TERMS, "AS FAR AS I KNOW." AND SO OBAMA SAYS -- KIND OF DISCLAIMERS --
Hillary used the "Might be a Muslim" gambit for Ohio and Texas.
It was disgusting.
And I am a bit upset to see Media Matters bashing a long-term liberal, Harold Meyerson for mentioning it.
If you are 'Pro-Hillary," just come out and say it. Don't raise these kinds of "fake issues." it will ruin your long-term credibility.