Matthews again accused Clinton of fostering doubt about Obama's religion
SUMMARY: On Hardball, Chris Matthews asserted that the question -- "Is he, in fact, the religion he says he is?" -- is part of a "tough trio of attacks" Sen. Hillary Clinton is using against Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential race. However, when Clinton was asked recently by NBC News' Andrea Mitchell if she planned to "raise any doubts about ... him [Obama] being a Christian," Clinton responded, "No, not at all."
During the March 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews claimed that the question -- "Is he, in fact, the religion he says he is?" -- is part of a "tough trio of attacks" Sen. Hillary Clinton is using against Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential race. As Media Matters for America has noted, Matthews has repeatedly mischaracterized Clinton's response during a CBS 60 Minutes interview to the question of whether she "believe[d] that Senator Obama is a Muslim." Contrary to Matthews' March 5 claim, her first three words in response to the question were, "Of course not."
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.
Moreover, when Clinton was asked recently by NBC News' Andrea Mitchell if she planned to "raise any doubts about ... him [Obama] being a Christian," Clinton responded, "No, not at all. I mean, obviously, I've been the subject of scurrilous rumors for years, and ... it's hard to get them to go away. ... [T]hey 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."
From the March 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MICHELLE BERNARD (Independent Women's Forum president and CEO): I mean, you know, we kept seeing the Hillary trying to figure, you know, which message was going to work. She was going from message to message. And I think that the ads were very important; they worked. People are scared. She's talking national security. She's talking the economy. And by talking free trade and equating free trade with jobs, people in Ohio, for example, I think got the impression that if she is the Democratic nominee and the eventual president, all of these jobs are going to start flowing back into Ohio.
MATTHEWS: Well, it is a tough trio of attacks. One is trust: Is she -- is Barack Obama cutting deals across the border with Canada while he's saying he's going to be tough on NAFTA? Is he, in fact, the religion he says he is? What else? Is he trustworthy at 3 o'clock in the morning? I mean, this is pretty strong stuff that's being thrown at him.
Anything to distract from true issues, please, and justify their operatives injecting scurrillous and untrue emails into the atmosphere. Tip o' the Rove Hat to the media for keep this alive.
Such bloated tripe doth missie Crissy spew as his constant, disingenuous prattle foments a form of anarchy favored by neocons.
Matthews is a veritable Canker of the Airwaves! As such, he should be inducted into The Vomiteers of America, with SpecialSlop distinction.
Okay media matters needs to open their eyes.
Hillary today said McCain is qualified to be commander in chief and Obama doesn't have the stuff. She is now spreading misinformation worse than what the media is saying.
Is it still conservative misinformation when a Democrat says it?
I'm harkening back to Lieberman and Zell Miller posts.
She is if she prefers McCain to Obama or if she respects McCain but doesn't respect Obama.
The thing is she's a candidate, a politician, she isn't a member of the media. Frank Rich has been cited here and he's not a conservative.
She is if she prefers McCain to Obama or if she respects McCain but doesn't respect Obama.
The thing is she's a candidate, a politician, she isn't a member of the media. Frank Rich has been cited here and he's not a conservative.
So its only bad when the media spouts conservative talking points but candidates can do what they want?
Come on man, that dog don't hunt
If its bad when George W Bush fear mongers is it also bad when Hillary does it?
Yes or No
Yes.
I think I made that clear in my initial post.
But don't expect to see media matters criticizing Hillary.
I find it amazing that you and others don't seem to understand that MMFA is a MEDIA watchdog, not a POLITICIAN watchdog. They don't write about what politicians say, they write about what the media says about politicians.
Which is why they do not write about comments made by Obama or Clinton, but about the media coverage of these comments.
Um, and the misinformation is where, exactly?
John McCain IS qualified for the Presidency- two terms in Congress and 21 years in the Senate tends to do that. Hillary doesn't say she would pick McCain over Obama, just that McCain is obviously Qualified, while Obama's qualifications (3 years in the US Senate ) are nowhere near as obvious.
So again- where's the misinformation?
"Hillary doesn't say she would pick McCain over Obama, just that McCain is obviously Qualified, while Obama's qualifications (3 years in the US Senate ) are nowhere near as obvious."
I agree there's no misinformation there, but she's still giving voters a big reason to choose McCain over Obama. Don't you think that's a problem even if she didn't say she personally would vote for McCain?
I agree with you for the most part, JJAMELE2880, but I'd like to expand on a couple of points. First, the "qualified" issue is as to the role of Commander-in-Chief, a sub-part (albeit an important one) to the much larger job of President. So, even if McCain had more qualifications than Sen. Obama to be C-in-C, that doesn’t make him a better Presidential candidate. Second, IMHO, Sen. Clinton’s "qualifications" argument must be viewed in the context of the Democratic Presidential primary. She maintains that, of the two Democratic candidates, she is better suited to go up against McCain and beat him on the C-in-C issue, i.e., she has the experience/qualifications to match McCain’s, Sen. Obama does not. Sen. Clinton is NOT saying that McCain would make a better President than Sen. Obama.
Rather than "giving voters a big reason to choose McCain over Obama" (as BRABANTIO says) Sen. Clinton is trying to give them a reason to choose her over Sen. Obama to go up against McCain. Unfortunately, she’s going about it in the wrong way and may well have seriously wounded herself.
CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
The grass is green, as far as I know.
Water is wet, as far as I know.
Fire is hot, as far as I know.
YEP, all of the above sounds better when you eliminate the As far as I know BS
And all of those are things that you can physically observe. Assuming that we're living in this material world that we appear to be in, you can be as positive about those things as about anything.
The closest any of us can get to empirical evidence of another's religion or any other opinion is what we are told by that person.All we can know is "as far as I know".
The Sparklett's guy told me he'd deliver tomorrow. Water is coming tomorrow, as far as I know.
I met a guy who told me he liked to start fires. There's nothing to make me think he doesn't like fires, as far as I know.
If you tell me your lawn is green, I'll believe you. Your grass is green, as far as I know.
Got a link that shows its an affirmative
Google search resulted with nada
CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, you're being linguistically disingenuous with that quote. She is saying that as far as she knows, there's nothing (i.e. no facts) on which to base an assertion that Obama is a Muslim. The meaning of her answer was not 'as far as I know, Obama isn't a Muslim'.
And again, must I remind you that according to the Constitution, there is no religious test to be able to hold office? So why does this nonsense matter?
To be fair, it really doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution. It has to do with public perception. If Hillary's first response had been "I don't know" or "It's certainly possible", for instance, that would be saying that such a belief is reasonable. Planting such doubts would definitely be grounds for criticism.
But as you said, her "as far as I know" did nothing of the sort.
And you're right about that, Brab. My point is that Obama's religion (or any candidate's religion) shouldn't be an issue anyway, as the Constitution says that there shall be no religious test to hold office. It's disingenuous for these schmucks on the Right to use religion as some sort of tool to scare otherwise rational voters into believing that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Who cares anyway, even if he were? Even if Obama were a Muslim, do you really think he would be able to push Sharia law in this country, shred the Constitution, etc.? I know, Brab, I'm preaching to the choir, but dang...this is really an issue?
Remember, we aren't at war with Muslims. We are at war with Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Muslims aren't terrorists. So advancing this crap doesn't do anyone any good - and it detracts from the nationwide conversation on the issues.
It shouldn't matter, in most cases. And you're absolutely right that this is about extremist Muslims who don't represent the vast majority of that faith.
It can be a consideration though. "No religious test" forbids a qualification based on faith, like how someone who is 27 years old is disqualified. It's not applicable for voters, because it's not enforceable. They can't ask you if you voted based on religion and then nullify your vote. If Islam was actually a violent religion, and if Obama actually belonged to it, then that would be a valid concern (of course neither of those factors are true). It's not something that should arise very often, since most well-known religions are mainstream. It's more important to determine how a candidate balances their faith with their public duties (such as Huckabee's frightening declaration about amending the Constitution to accommodate God's law as opposed to Obama supporting gay unions even though the Bible specifically forbids such relationships).
Are you telling me that when George W Bush comes out and says Obama isn't a terrorist sympathizer, AS FAR AS I KNOW, you will jump to W's defense???
I'm just saying that Hillary has done some things lately that resemble what we've seen the GOP do and all of a sudden it's ok? I'm baffled.
First three answers were fine
Yes
No gets a !
anything more is wishy washy
Oh its just me
And other Democrats
And the Media
And everybody is nuts but you, is that you're argument? I'm not alone in connecting the many dots here, this is not an isolated incident and you know it. I have many many links fou you to peruse in these threads and I haven't heard one debated.
c'mon please...pick one
it's easier for me to make my point when you see the argument as a whole
Says the cat with no links yet
I'm looking for her exact response now but when it came up in the debate she threw out a great noncommital I have a large campaign and if its like that Obama sold drugs thing or the middle name is Hussein thing then I'll fire those people too ...I'm looking
How many strikes are there in your baseball?
Also what was there for Drudge to gain? Why did he post this?
The Right wants one on one with Hillary and they want this campaign to bleed them of supporters and money as long as possible.
Follow the money and ask yourself who gained by this?
you said "with no proof at all, just like you"
I was just mentioning that that was a nutsy statement for someone who tonight has provided only opinion
Come now, we've been posting all over and that was the lack of documentation I was referencing.
As for proof, well, let's assume Kucinich is happy at home with the wife and Bearded Bill Richardson is holding no hard feelings, Edwards was already out...yeah, that leaves only Hillary to gain so we have motive.
We have a witness with nothing to gain, Drudge
And we have the prior arrests involving Hill sending campaign minions on TV to cast drug selling and middle name mud at the victim and later firing these minions after the damage is done
The Prosecution rests.
Defense?
I have a witness and you do not, though the character of this witness is disputable his motives are nill.
And either she knew or she was asleep at the wheel as rogue campaign managers did as they pleased.
I have a witness and you do not, though the character of this witness is disputable his motives are nill.
And either she knew or she was asleep at the wheel as rogue campaign managers did as they pleased.
and what are you saying Me? That she was aware or asleep at the wheel.
Neither is good, its a choice between complicit and incompetent
Now you're just being stupid. There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton sent the 'Muslim garb' picture to Drudge, or to anyone. You're asking MeFirst to prove that Hillary didn't send it? You do know that you cannot prove a negative like that, right? Again, disingenuous.
The logic of your argument renders it fallacious and therefore invalid.
Wow and then Commonsense presents his argument "Oh yeah Eden, well you are just a doody head."
Thanks for the contribution common
wow, and then edenscape pulls his usual stunt of not responding to a point made, and makes some grade school level comment. and i do not accept the contention that hillary was either aware or asleep at the wheel when it comes to something one of her many staffers and supporters may have said. i don't think she can be responsible for everything said. she can only deal with it. just like obama did with his aide today. although i think that kind of rhetoric is common in his staff, i am not going to put the blame on obama. he did not say it. but according to you he is "incompetent" because he did not know she was going to say it.
ME? Are you back again? Did you want more?
Join me up top, I'm not a lifelong lib Hillary hating alone anymore
So she fires one aide who makes reference to the idea Barack sold drugs
Another aide goes on TV and starts the Hussein mantra and she has to distance herself from that one too
And then the turban pic comes out and I'm WAY OFF BASE to assume she did that too???
Its called a pattern and she followed it up with Wolfson calling Obama Ken Starr
What I want to know is how "Of course not" is inconsistent with "there's no reason to believe it as far as I know". All that opens up is the possibility that there's some reason she doesn't know about. Obviously such a thing could exist.
Something that people aren't picking up on here is that this is an "accepted truth" as opposed to an "absolute truth". Two plus two equals four. There's never going to be any additional information that changes that. Man landed on the moon in 1969. I firmly believe that happened, as does almost everyone else. I have no reason to believe it didn't. There's no reason to believe it was staged, as far as I know. It's still ridiculous on the face of it.
How is that different from what Hillary was pushed to say? All sorts of things are possible, but that doesn't mean you give any credence to those possibilities. There's nothing inconsistent about that, and nothing that creates any "doubt".
Right, that's why I said "There's no reason to believe it was staged, as far as I know".
I've made this point myself, that she's not saying "He's not a Muslim, as far as I know" (which implies being open to such a belief), she's saying "There's no reason to believe it, as far as I know" (which has a much different connotation).
"I'm just saying that Hillary has done some things lately that resemble what we've seen the GOP do and all of a sudden it's ok? I'm baffled."
That's so completely bogus that it constitutes dishonesty. There is no evidence for this view.
Bollocks!!!!!!!!!!!
I am a progressive and every post I have left here has been liberal. I voted for Al Gore, I voted for John Kerry and hopefully I'll soon be voting for Obama.
Olbermann calls it like it is, if Obama was using dirty GOP tricks then he'd be the one Keith picked on. Let's refresh a few memories here with some facts:
Hillary plays the Bush Al Qaeda card http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/08/558650.aspx
Hillary camp puts out pic of Obama in a turban http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23337141/
Hillary wants delegates that don't count seated http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23499719/
Hillary's Daisy cutter 3am GOP style fear ad http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718431.aspx
And lets not forget that Hillary can't even add http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6JOetBHQiEBj09XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTFhamlqbGltBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1lTMTk0XzEyNwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=1227tsirn/EXP=1204931534/**http%3a//www.newsweek.com/id/118240/output/print
The FACT is she cannot win unless she drags this until June and somehow a bombshell drops out of the Obama camp, yet she continues anyway out of pure ego. Just look at the posters on THIS board that all used to agree and are now sniping at each other over who they want to run for the Dems, this is happening all over the country. This unchangeable contest IS tearing the party apart and ANY REAL DEMOCRAT should be able to see that. If Hillary is the nominee I'll stay home. Why? Lets start with the Iraq vote, then the Iran vote, then the compliments to John McCain and the dirty campaign tactics used so far.
You Hillary fans are only lying to yourselves (From earlier thread)
NOW CARL...point by point on my links say I'm wrong
Say she's not running a GOP style fear campaign
The FACT is she cannot win unless she drags this until June and somehow a bombshell drops out of the Obama camp, yet she continues anyway out of pure ego. - Eden...
NONSENSE. My feeling is that she continues because she has enough support to keep her in the race until the end. If she were to give up now, what do you think the Obama camp, not to mention the Republicans, would say? I'll bet it goes something like, "Well, she just abandoned her campaign for President. What's to say that she wouldn't abandon the American people if she were to be elected President?" It would be viewed as cowardice or just plain "giving up". Her supporters (myself included) want her to go on. We want her to finish the race. If she doesn't get the nomination, I can understand and accept that - and most fair-minded Americans can accept that. However, she has the support right now - proven by Tuesday's primary elections. You're just as bad as the Republicans by saying that if Hillary stays in the race it will further divide the Democratic Party. Give Americans some credit. The two campaigns (Hillary and Obama) really aren't that far apart - and the two candidates agree on about 95% of the issues. If you agree with one, chances are, you agree, for the most part, with the other.
I don't say this to make each candidate sound equal to the other. Of course, I'm going to come out and say that obviously Hillary has more experience to do the job well. That being said, however, Obama does bring a breath of fresh air to otherwise nasty American politics. His speeches are great, but sometimes I wonder if they are a bit naive.
Either way, the U.S. will have a great president beginning January 20, 2009.
Get some common sense, how many elections do we have to lose until we realize that our party is less a party than a loss confederation of similar yet opposing ideals. We need unity, hell we can't even hold the line on the dam torture bill.
We have lost to Bush twice, are you ready for a 3rd just because you like Hillary? And so what if she drops out and goes back to being a senator, who cares, isn't the country more important than her ego.
Hillary will drag this to June still behind 100 delegates, she will dump another 5 million of her own money down the hole and in the meantime John McCain will raise money and rest. And when we lose to a fresh and fully bankrolled candidate, because of petty interparty infighting, this time it won't be the Supremes or Nader to blame...nope, it'll be the Hillary die hards.
obviously matthews has had enough time to read her comments on this. kroft: "and you said you would take senator obama at his word that he's not a muslim?" hillary: "right. right." matthews, pretending to be hillary: "is he, in fact, the religion he says he is?" hillary wrote about the atmosphere at msnbc after the "pimped out" remarks. and this is proof of that. given the chance to tell the truth, matthews deliberately lies. sounds like another letter demanding a retraction would be in order.
The point is that if Obama said that Keith Olbermann would tear him up on Countdown, Sueeld's head would explode, and some posters around here would look the other way... as far as I know.
But no, Obama didn't say it and neither did McCain or Bush, Hillary did it
and we all are just being consistent in our condemnation
do you even know what you are babbling about? that question was to pearlene's post and you are talking about olbermann and sueeld?
Testy. Testy again, I said that part was in jest, it was OT but isn't that the most appropriate part. We disagree on this phrase thing, probably not on a whole lot else. But isn't that also the point? My claim is that this petty infighting is destroying the party by distracting our attention when we can afford it the least. Isn't that what we are defining? "And where...and where...is John McCain. He's at home, washing his tights. Safe."
Admit it, that was a fun back and forth. Lots of links. Lots of points made. Fun for all. And you'd have to agree...I do have a point, as far as you know.
let me know when you're just jesting or just being ignorant. we can move it along quicker.
wow...meow
you either have no sense of humor sir or are being deliberately obtuse
my arguments have had plenty substance and my jest plenty wit
you ever see Wedding Crashers? The Maid of Honor speech?
F'n { crickets noise} is funny stuff
it was both a joke and an inquiry as to what your joke was as you were correct when you said I missed it
AS FAR AS I KNOW
What, have they never met? Does Hill not watch the news where it has been gone over time and again that he is not Muslim? Do they not work together? Has she seen him praying on the Senate floor?
Again I posit this question, are we also to defend McCain when he says that Obama loves America too, AS FAR AS I KNOW?
Is he gay?
NO!
Is he gay?
NO!
Is he gay?
NO!
Is he gay?
NO, as far as I know...
Again if No is the answer, nothing else will do. No is no.
So all 4 answers are the same?
A scholarly view on what the phrase as far as I know means
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0271-4442(1891)22%3C105%3ATMITPQ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X
No, he can't be! is very different than No, as far as I know. which implies he could be
Language is old, what can I say
The larger point is that the author disputes the clean nature of the phrase, says he finds it forced
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: (SHOULD HAVE SAID YES, or IT IS RIDICULOUS, but what she did say follows)....."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.
You said she was talking about him, she said against her so I dunno
Honestly, I'm just saying some of us are giving Hill a wider berth than we allow the Repugs, and if this was George Allen the two of us wouldn't be parsing words like this.
you lean too heavy on the insults, I've provided a lot of info that you either ignore or gloss over, take off your Hillary blinders and answer me on the math, in this proportional delegate contest how can she win?
WTF is the point of dragging this primary out?
Please, enlighten me
Your posts are getting shorter but again I'm not pointing crap like that out am I ?
I've made several points, I've put them in different contexts, I've provided links, I've utilized obscure references to pop culture, I've even made jokes about it.
And yet you still act as if I'm making NO sense, none? You concede not a bit of this?
Not concession, context
I was providing the overall context by which I formed my opinion
I think Hillary is smart enough to know that shorter answers are best because they get parsed less, forgotten and don't dog you down the campaign trail. By contrast politicians of this stature understand that long answers get scrutinized, muddled and can derail momentum.
She gave longer answers, not No rather No, as far as I know
not happened to him, but rather what has happened to me
I'm not buying she just once happens to forget her speaking etiquette on the trail on an Obama topical that fuels redneck rage with the Texas primary on the horizon.
Are you forgetting what she is?
She is a career politician and you do not get as far as her by making mistakes, I just love that we give her the benefit of the doubt we deny the opposition.
Sorry man, I'm smart enough to know George Allen made no mistake when he called that campaign aide a maccaca and I'm honest enough to apply that same standard to Hillary.
We are to take Hillary at her word but George Allen had to know what a maccaca meant because it was slang in his grandmothers country.
I called BS on Allen and I call BS on Hill
Shame on you and your double standards
First off, saying that "there is no reason to believe he is a Muslim, as far as I know" is not even in the same ballpark as pointing out a dark-skinned man and calling him a monkey.
As far as your ridiculous accusation of double standards goes, taking someone at their word depends entirely on how reasonable the explanation is. Allen had no reasonable explanation. But everything that Clinton said is consistent with her original answer of "of course not", that she absolutely doesn't believe he's Muslim. I have yet to see any argument for how what she said is outside the realm of normal behavior or decorum.
For a more relevant example, where an explanation is really required, look at what Boehner said about the "small price" of winning the war. Many people took that as meaning the troops' lives, but that was never specified in his answer. Blitzer asked him about money first, and then the troops. So when he said that he was talking about money, that's a reasonable explanation. There's nothing to contradict it at all. When that's the case, then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, no matter who it is.
I'm not supporting Hillary and I sure as hell don't like Boehner, but I'm still fair. Sorry if that concept baffles you.
How about her 3am terror ad word ?
Was that Bushesque commercial cool by both of you Hillary die hards?????
Try and not duck
Didn't I say I'm not supporting Hillary? I think the 3 a.m. ad was atrocious and so was her comment about McCain having a lifetime of experience while Obama has a speech.
Why don't you address my post instead of spouting ignorance?
MeFirst - you're correct. NO means NO to everyone but the media (and other hacks)
BUT - let's not forget that this is all being taken out of context. I've already written twice about how this conversation is being taken out of context. Hillary, while she may be fighting a losing battle, is NOT the one to be taken to task with this article. The issue is Matthews's (and other media figures') inability to leave Obama's religion out of it. It's been debunked. The media needs to move on. To perpetuate these lies is blatant dishonesty. I'll admit, I'm a Hillary supporter. However, like many people in the Democratic party, I'd be happy with either Hillary or Obama (and even a Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket). They share 95% of their views and both have plans for a better America. The way I see it, we will get it right with either candidate. Our challenge now is to choose the one who will beat McCain (which looks right now to be Obama).
Not apt. Is he gay? Of COURSE not
Is he gay, NO
Is he gay NO
Is there any reason to BELIEVE he is gay?
Not as far as I know. THAT would be more like it.
A disengenuous argument. When asked if she thought he was a Muslim she said of course not. When it moved to there is no reason to believe it she said there isnt as far as she knew. Not an unreasonable thing to say. If your point is you dont like Hillary join the club. There is NO evidence that Hillary fobbed off that photo, Druge in NO WAY constitutes evidence and your link even said it was a rumor and Drudge says so, which is redundant in my book. So its a rumor and a rumormonger like Drudge is repeating a rumor. She clearly stated OF COURSE SHE DIDNT BELIEVE Obama is a Muslim. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Clinton and you made a few of them. These two are not among them.
Well thankfully you bothered to read all my posts so you can see this is just one small point I'm making out of a much large one
I've referred to this as Quod erat faciendum or illustration of truth. Politics is tough because you never really do know the truth, you have to take people at their word. After all I have laid out I believe I am on firmer ground not trusting anything she says going forward, even what may just be a lazy choice of words. I honestly don't see where others have such great faith in her honesty and no one has provided anything to prove otherwise.
Sorry, I expect more of my candidates
I've had enough 3am ads to last me a lifetime
again it's Quod erat faciendum
I have little reason to take her at her word and no one is offering anything sans blind faith to persuade me otherwise
Politicians are a dirty, ruthless lot...WTF is different about her?
First you have to make an argument as to why an explanation is even required. You can't address the point that it was four questions in, so it's hard to imagine it was planned. She certainly wasn't eager to say it, or she could have said it in her first response. It doesn't suggest she thinks there's a reason. It doesn't suggest she would accept any new reason.
All it says is that a reason is possible, which is absolutely undeniable.
Once you can cover those points, then you can talk about trust.
again, you latch on to the weakest part of the argument, the one qoute
Yet you avoid the many examples I have provided on this thread of similar behavior, it is called a pattern and it erodes credibility
But hey, be a blind believer...you are not alone, but by the looks of this thread and others you are thinning
The one quote is the entire basis for your criticism of her here. That's the discussion. I'm not questioning the rest of it because it's not relevant to that. That does not prove anything here in and of itself.
You're really proving yourself to be an idiot by accusing me of being "blind" to something here. I'm telling you for the third time I'm not supporting Hillary. I've criticized her before and I'm very sure I'll do it again. You've been asked many times to explain how the criticism of "as far as I know" makes any sense at all, and you've pretty much admitted that you can't. If you could, then I'd agree that she was wrong to say it.
You're the one who has proven that you can't separate your arguments from your prejudices, not me.
Is it a prejudice or seeing a pattern?
If there is mold on one slice of a pizza I'm not eating the rest
So if you work with a few black people that you find distasteful, then you see a pattern, and you can safely assume that all black people share their traits.
The pizza comparison is idiotic because all the slices are the same. The difference between separate comments and incidents should go without saying.
Would you like to dig yourself any deeper?
So trust the liar? Give another chance
Trust the wife beater? He won't do it again
Yes, I'm saying that when I see mold one one slice of pizza I no loner trust the pie as a whole
I'm saying once you lie, or use fear tactics etc I cease taking you at your word...this is not an unfair position, I'm being realistic
And that odd race analogy is just that, odd
Where do you get the idea that I trust Hillary? If there's something that is questionable, then I'm not going to assume that she's incapable of doing something contemptible. Did you get the part about how I thought the 3 a.m. ad was atrocious?
What I'm saying is that you have to show how it's questionable, and you've all but admitted you can't do that.
As for the race comparison, how is it odd? Your entire argument here is that once you see a pattern, then everything is a part of it. And you're talking about Hillary's character. If you don't like the characters of a bunch of black people, then don't you see a pattern?
Please explain with some detail.
Hillary plays the Bush Al Qaeda card
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/08/558650.aspx
>
> Hillary wants delegates that don't count seated
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23499719/
>
> Hillary's Daisy cutter 3am GOP style fear ad
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718431.aspx
>
> And lets not forget that Hillary can't even add
> http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6JOetBHQiEBj09XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTFhamlqbGltBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1lTMTk0XzEyNwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=1227tsirn/EXP=1204931534/**http%3a//www.newsweek.com/id/118240/output/print
Now I think she can add, I think she knows full well that she's not going anywhere and it seems to me she doesn't care
So I see someone doing all that nonsense and then Drudge says he has a photo being bandied about by a Clinton staffer, a few of which already dismissed for similar shenanigans, and you are saying I'm way out there to assume she's up to mischief again???
Solon
When one of you friends lies to you
Do you believe him the next time?
I concede that this is not the point of the thread, but will it ever be? And at this juncture is it not more important to scrutinize one of our own as she turns to the dark side or is it more important to stick to the thread.
Mathwise she is in trouble, and honestly Solon if some of us cannot vote for Hill on principle is that not a red flag that doesn't exist on the right?
i'm saying that when lives are at stake, when rights are at stake...Egos and thread points are not what is at value...truth is
"When one of you friends lies to you Do you believe him the next time?"
Don't you think it depends on what he says? As examples:
"I called in sick to work today"
"I saw Beyonce at McDonalds I asked for her autograph and we ended up having lunch together"
Do you react to the first comment by calling him a liar? What reason do you have to disbelieve that?
See, you have to demonstrate a reason to question it before the pattern becomes a factor.
"How does THAT square with your claim of committment to the truth."
That's a great question. What strikes me as funny is that the whole basis of criticizing Hillary's "Obama has a speech" comment is that if Obama wins she's handing people a reason to vote for McCain. But if Hillary ends up winning the nomination, these sort of tactics could also give people a reason to vote for McCain.
"Circular firing squad" is very apt. Whether it's "Hillary or bust" or "Obama or bust" that attitude does nothing to elect the Democratic president this country desperately needs.
So, based on what he has done so far, I should trust Bush?
Now don't get me wrong, if Obama starts down the fear and smear path I'll criticize him too, but he is not and so far I have reason to trust him
I don't have that ability to trust Hillary, I base that on her judgement in Iraq and on Iran, I base that on her Nafta comments, I base that on the 3am ad, I base that on the al qaeda card she played, I base that on her staffer talking about Obama dealing drugs, I base that on her smearing his experience which is about as long as hers, I base that on her saying she and McCain are more qualified to lead than Obama and goddammnit I'm not the only person on this board saying it. She has a shifty record and yeah, thats why she doesn't get my benefit of the doubt any longer
Circular firing squad? Is that what Pearl, and Lynn, and Round and I and others all are when we point out that the things Hill is doing is the same things we criticized the Bush mob for? Are we wrong to think this election is too damn important for ego and infighting? That if mathematically you cannot win and all you are doing is being Ralph NAder at this point and you stay in that that is putting ego before ideal? The whole netroots is wrong to demand she get out the way? before she splits the party to the point McCain wins and another thousand die in Iraq?
Yeah, I'm the bad guy, point all you want
How the hell do you think that making baseless criticisms of either candidate isn't divisive? If we have belligerence on either side it makes us look unreasoned, which severely undermines the difference between us and the unreasoned Bush Administration. It actually lends credibility to the Nader view that both parties are the same.
I don't know why you can't cram it into your skull that I don't trust Hillary. I don't trust Bush. When Bush made his comments about how lynching isn't a joke, do you believe that? Or did he automatically have some ulterior motive because of his pattern of behavior? How about when he said terrorists never stop looking for ways to harm the American people, and neither do we (paraphrased). Do you believe that he honestly meant he is looking for ways to harm Americans? Even if you believe he's harming Americans, it's baseless to believe that's his goal.
I didn't make the criticism in question, I just found myself believing it because I have lost any faith in Hillary's honesty for all the reasons linked above
You give her the benefit of the doubt
You can't explain what's wrong with what she said, and you're not making the criticism, you're just defending the charge to your last breath. Isn't that sort of "blind" on your part?
So you're fighting for the truth, but you don't evaluate criticism because it happens to match your mindset. That seems enormously inconsistent.
I give anyone the benefit of the doubt when the context bears it out. You can't even give a reason why this is supposed to be a controversy.
Your criticism ultimately seems to be that I'm open-minded. You got me there. Congrats.
Matthews was correct in his accusation. The Hillary supporters are pretending to act like Hillary didn't raise doubts in the same fashion that Republicans bahaved when they innocently used Obama's middle name. That same, "There's a problem with what was said?? What's the problem?" C'mon.
Ok then... AS FAR AS I KNOW, Hillary wasn't raising doubts and Republicans had no alterior motive in using his middle name. I TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD.
How so fawlty? I should just rubber stamp the conservative liberal candidate that is mathematically out of the game due to proportional rules while she runs a campaign straight out of Roves playbook with 3 am ads to the detriment of the party that is now going to lose yet again to the stupid Republicans because we cannot get out sh$#@##@t together???
I'm the fool? Look, if you want tp debate then lets debate. Point by point and link by link but if all you have is a drive by insult then you are no better than the trolls that fling poo here.
I voted for Mr. Obama in the primary and I hope to vote for him in the general election. I am not crazy about Ms. Clinton for many reasons but this issue is silly and sad. The media have taken 5 words out of context and spun it into something that it isn't.
Media Matters also has to take Keith Olbermann to task
Olbermann says he's not campaigning for Obama but by attacking Hillary and McCain he every night he is helping Obama, and he knows it.
Keith has said this week:
Hillary is running a negative/dirty campaign.
And as an example of Hillary's dirty campaigning Keith, every night, pulls out her commercial he claims is "fear mongering."
"Clinton's campaign has crashed."- she's won 3 out of the last 4 states, is that what Keith's calls a crash?
He ask Richard Wolffe did the negative ads win her the states this week?
Implying that's the only reason she won.
He also mentioned a story of Hillary's plane going through very rocky turbulence and everybody was panicking but Hillary was asleep. Then Keith gave us that "do you get my hidden joke, in there?" Meaning if Hillary is sleeping through a rough plan ride, image what she'll do in a rough presidential moment.
MSNBC is trying to make our vote for us.
I have never agreed with Chris Matthews on anything until now. He called this one correctly. Senator Clintor used the question regarding Senator Obama's religion to cause doubt. She should have said no period.
Well, when you're running for office, you can answer questions the way you want to answer. Until then, your suggestion that Hillary should have just said 'No' is nothing more than Monday morning quaterbacking. She could have answered it differently, but she didn't.
The fact that some of you are too blinded by hatred for HC to realize that she didn't say, "As far as I know" to Obama being a Muslim, is just plain ridiculous.
She said, "As far as I know" regarding the fact that there are NO FACTS on which to base an assertion that Obama is a Muslim - i.e. "As far as I know, there are no facts on which to base an assertion that Obama is a Muslim."
Get it?
Dammit we are NOT being blind
Half this board agrees that Hillary is running a dirty campaign and we are lifelong Liberals
I chastised Obama for letting that foriegn relations rep off alone doing interviews, and look she was let go, appropriately. Monster is not what you call someone in your own party. If he didn't get that staffer out I'd be crowing about it until he did. Its called consistency.
Yet Wolfson and his Ken Starr comment gets a pass...
Dammit we are NOT being blind
Half this board agrees that Hillary is running a dirty campaign and we are lifelong Liberals - Eden
--------------------------------------------
If you're "NOT being blind", then why do you continue to misrepresent what Hillary said and it's true context? I don't give a damn what other posters here believe about Hillary. And for you to tell ME that my choice for President is destroying the Democratic Party is just rich. Just because I'm not doing what YOU think is the right thing to do - vote for a guy who knows how to give flowery speeches but has shown no action. Guess what, Jack, I have the right to vote for whomever *I* feel is the best for the position - and you have no right to chastise me for my choice. Politics by their very nature are dirty. SO WHAT if half of the people on this board think that Hillary's campaign has been dirty. The other half believe that Hillary is the best candidate. It's obvious that everyone wants change - and I take offense at you saying that a vote for Hillary is in effect the same as a vote for McCain - it's not. Maybe in your world it is, but in the real world, it's not.
Evidently you don't even read my posts before responding with your nonsense.
I stated earlier in this thread that I would support whoever becomes the Democratic nominee, whether it's Hillary or Obama. I live in California. I voted LAST MONTH. If I had to do it over again, I would vote for Hillary again, because, in my opinion, she is the best for the job. I'm sorry you don't agree, but I respect your right to disagree. You really should extend that respect to others - even Hillary Clinton. Your constant trashing of her proves that you cannot refute her stance on issues.
You and I both want the Democratic Party to be unified behind a strong candidate - and both of them, whether you want to admit it or not, are strong candidates. The difference between us is that I'd like us to unite behind whichever candidate is nominated. YOU want us to be unified under YOUR candidate - and by your fervor, it seems like if you had your choice, you'd force everyone to support Obama. Sounds to me as though it's the people like you who are dividing the party, not people like me.
And one more point: You say that Hillary supporters are dividing the Democratic Party. I don't see that at all. News reports have said something to the effect that if Obama doesn't get the nomination, there will be rioting in the streets by Obama supporters. Whether that's true or not, what does even the hint at rioting say about Obama's supporters?
So, in your response to my post above, where are the rebuttals to my points rather than the general subject change?
Again, you got nuthin'.
What are you babbling about ?
How about this, I'll make it a bumper sticker so you'll understand Hillary/Nader 08
Now riddle me this Einstein, with the delegate count where it is and with proportional wins going forward, how, other than by an insider party deal with the superdegates, does Hill still have a chance???
So while Hill fights math tooth and nail Obama has to waste money and time better spent on McCain who is laughing at home watching the Democratic party tear itself apart. You can see it in the posts on this board.
And what has Hillary done but give poor hackneyed fear mongering speechs??? What are her stripes???
So what are you supporting again.....Jack
rioting in the streets ?
if an election is stolen ? if lives are at stake ?
what do I call those people ?
Patriots...with a capital P
...still wanna know the details of why O's church presented Farrakhan with a "lifetime acheivement" award...
There's bound to be a good explanation by a number of posters here.
Waiting...
You're a person who demands answers; obfuscation will not work on you. Therefore, I'm sure you're waiting for an answer regarding the Farrakhan(sp?) issue, also.
Media Matters also has to take Keith Olbermann to task
Olbermann says he's not campaigning for Obama but by attacking Hillary and McCain he every night he is helping Obama, and he knows it.
Keith has said this week:
Hillary is running a negative/dirty campaign.
And as an example of Hillary's dirty campaigning Keith, every night, pulls out her commercial he claims is "fear mongering."
"Clinton's campaign has crashed."- she's won 3 out of the last 4 states, is that what Keith's calls a crash?
He ask Richard Wolffe did the negative ads win her the states this week?
Implying that's the only reason she won.
He also mentioned a story of Hillary's plane going through very rocky turbulence and everybody was panicking but Hillary was asleep. Then Keith gave us that "do you get my hidden joke, in there?" Meaning if Hillary is sleeping through a rough plan ride, image what she'll do in a rough presidential moment.
MSNBC is trying to make our vote for us.