NY Times' Herbert misrepresented Clinton's comments about Obama's religion, asserted they were "one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign"
SUMMARY: New York Times columnist Bob Herbert misrepresented comments Sen. Hillary Clinton made on 60 Minutes about Sen. Barack Obama's religion and asserted that Clinton's remarks represented "one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date."
In his March 8 New York Times column, Bob Herbert misrepresented recent remarks Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made in response to a question about Sen. Barack Obama's religion and asserted that they represented "one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date." Herbert wrote, "[60 Minutes correspondent Steve] Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: 'No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.' " But as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, during the interview on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim. Indeed, Clinton's first comment in response to Kroft's initial question on the subject -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- was, "Of course not."
Clinton's full reply was: "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 then said, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim." Clinton answered, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft again asked, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim ... or implying, right?" did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? There's no ... No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know."
Additionally, Herbert did not 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."
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 Herbert's March 8 New York Times column:
And then there was Mrs. Clinton on "60 Minutes," being interviewed by Steve Kroft. He had shown a clip on the program of a voter in Ohio who said that he'd heard that Senator Obama didn't know the national anthem, "wouldn't use the Holy Bible," and was a Muslim.
Mr. Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know."
As far as I know.
If she had been asked if she thought President Bush was a Muslim, would her response have included the caveat "as far as I know"? What about Senator McCain? Why, then, with Senator Obama?
But she did also say "as far as I know". There was a far better way for her to answer that question ("NO."), and she either goofed it, or answered ambiguously on purpose.
I'm sorry. But I still feel that there's something amiss with her answer.
"As far as I know," implies something could be there that she might not be aware of. It's ambiguous. Again, she either goofed or answered that way puposely. It's an unfortunate answer.
This is a great point, MeFirst. Unless she had a preplanned conspiracy with her 60 Minutes interviewer, there's no way she could have known that he would ask, then ask again and again. Only if she knew ahead of time that he would ask that many times could it matter what she said the last time.
Context, people, context!
And a bit more on context: I've said it in other threads, and it bears repeating here.
Her response "...as far as I know..." was added in as a response to the fact that there were no facts on which to base an assertion that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Why does everyone miss that?
the people who do, want to miss it.
The answer, whether she meant it or not, is ambiguous. I honestly don't know if she did or didn't.
If she goofed, or if she didn't, it still is a terribly unfortunate answer.
I don't know. I don't have an answer for you. You think I am being evasive, somehow.
What I am saying is that the words 'as far as I know," are ambiguous and unfortunate.
but what you were saying is that the as far as i know comment could have been deliberate. so i am asking why would she wait to say that? if the intention was to plant some seed of doubt? how did she know the questioning would continue? i think what you are saying now, in your non answer, is that it makes little sense.
No, what I am saying, and have since the beginning, is that the words "as far as I know" are ambiguous. And I don't know if she goofed or not. AND that those words were unfortunate for her to say.
I haven't changed my answer at all.
I think you think you're "gotcha"-ing me, and I don't know why. I will try to elaborate further for you to hopefully let you understand I am not some rage-blind Hillary hater or something. I wish the words hadn't been used. I honestly don't know why she said them, and have no idea whether she meant to or not.
Either way, it's a problem for me, "as far as I know" isn't a forceful enough response.
Jumping it at this late point, I think it's clear that what MeFirst is challenging is your assertion that any ambiguity was "on purpose," a phrase it appears you're trying to retract (since you haven't used it since) without admitting you've done so - but then again, you insist "I haven't changed my answer at all," which means you're standing by the phrase.
So:
1) Assuming the phase "as far as I know" was not just a "goof," which would make this whole discussion pointless, was Senator Clinton deliberately trying to leave/create ambiguity over if Senator Obama is Muslim?
2) If you say "no" or "I don't know," you are indeed changing your original statement and why did you say that she was doing it "on purpose?"
3) If you say "yes," then MeFirst's question takes center state: Why would she have waited until the fourth time she was asked to do so?
I will tell you my own suspicion, which I freely admit is just that, which is that you don't actually think she did it on purpose but initially reacted that way because, as do many others, you suffer from the back-of-the-head notion that every single thing she says or does is calculated and purposeful.
And may I say in conclusion that geez, I really hate feeling like I have to defend Hillary Clinton.
I am hardly "dancing" here. I am actually the only one to have a different opinion here, so to describe my posts as "dancing" is absurd.
To start with, Kroft's job is to ask hard questions, so I have NO problem with his asking more than once. I am not sure why the fourth time matters more or less than the first. You can actually look at his questions as four OPPORTUNITIES for her to clear the air, and instead she only muddled it more. I also think that he asked more than once because the tone she set was one that perhaps wasn't strong enough, and he saw an opening for further discussion. And then her answer at the fourth question perhaps justified all the questions, because she pulled back instead of answered more strongly.
LarryE- I don't think your 3 point question really holds. What I originally said was, she either goofed (in my opinion, badly), or she didn't. I never said conclusively I held either view, because I don't know what was in her mind. But I do think it's a problem, and I think there was a far batter way for her to answer. How does that change my first statement?
Either way, in my opinion, if the words were indeed a goof, her tone throughout, unlike Obama's, was rather blase. Given the fact that her campaign had some past problems regarding race, I think she could have been FAR stronger with her response, if only to clear the air about her past issues. And the "as far as I know", yes, after continued pressing, only brought the conversation further down the path of ambiguity, rather than the opposite. I have a problem with that.
So was it on purpose? I don't know. I hope not. Either way, I think she handled the question poorly.
"I am hardly "dancing" here. I am actually the only one to have a different opinion here, so to describe my posts as "dancing" is absurd."
"Dancing" as in "avoiding the question".
"To start with, Kroft's job is to ask hard questions, so I have NO problem with his asking more than once. I am not sure why the fourth time matters more or less than the first. You can actually look at his questions as four OPPORTUNITIES for her to clear the air, and instead she only muddled it more."
Please explain how the first answer was unclear. If you can't, then there's no reason for Kroft to keep asking, because there's a difference between "hard questions" and "badgering". If you don't think the fourth question matters, try imagining how you react if someone asks you a question repeatedly when you've answered it. It might be an illuminating exercise for you.
"I also think that he asked more than once because the tone she set was one that perhaps wasn't strong enough, and he saw an opening for further discussion. And then her answer at the fourth question perhaps justified all the questions, because she pulled back instead of answered more strongly."
He asked her if she believed it. She said in no uncertain terms that she did not. How is that not strong enough?
"LarryE- I don't think your 3 point question really holds. What I originally said was, she either goofed (in my opinion, badly), or she didn't."
I think what people are looking for is for you to either a)explain how waiting for the fourth question makes sense if it was intentional or b)retract your comment that it might have been intentional. Is that unfair?
"And the "as far as I know", yes, after continued pressing, only brought the conversation further down the path of ambiguity, rather than the opposite. I have a problem with that."
Further down the path of ambiguity? What was even slightly ambiguous before that, please?
Some specific responses would be nice.
"Please explain how the first answer was unclear."
I said her tone wasn't strong enough, and Kroft saw a reason to press. With the past issues her attack campaign has faced- the picture she may or may not have released, the fired subordinates who used "Muslim" in capiagn letters, and the like, she had good reason to play the question far more forcrfully than she did. Given the amount of time that goes into rehearsing such responses, I think her casual tone was surprising.
"I think what people are looking for is for you to either a)explain how waiting for the fourth question makes sense if it was intentional or b)retract your comment that it might have been intentional. Is that unfair?"
It was the third question, it turns out. Anyway, I think to play the question casually and pull back at the end could make sense if she were trying to hold back from a more forceful denial. Taking the question as a whole, her manner and words seem less emphatic than they should. So no, I won't retract.
"I said her tone wasn't strong enough, and Kroft saw a reason to press. With the past issues her attack campaign has faced- the picture she may or may not have released, the fired subordinates who used "Muslim" in capiagn letters, and the like, she had good reason to play the question far more forcrfully than she did. Given the amount of time that goes into rehearsing such responses, I think her casual tone was surprising."
What are you expecting, her to throw a shoe at Kroft out of rage? She said "of course not.", which is definitive. If she answered the question adequately but he didn't think her tone was strong enough, then he could have addressed that another way besides asking her questions she'd already answered. I wonder if you've heard of this "right-wing echo chamber" that's out there, as well. If she gets too forceful with her responses, then that's going to be taken as suspicious. "Why is she flying off the handle about this question?" or whatever other nonsense.
"It was the third question, it turns out. Anyway, I think to play the question casually and pull back at the end could make sense if she were trying to hold back from a more forceful denial. Taking the question as a whole, her manner and words seem less emphatic than they should. So no, I won't retract."
But that relies on the idea that she had any reason to believe the questioning was going to continue. The idea that she used a tone that she knew would lead him to repeat an already answered question is a little far-fetched, to say the least. She's going through all this mental manipulation to say that there is no reason to think he's Muslim as far as she knows, which is not suggestive of anything anyway.
It's her fourth answer. Do you really think that cutting someone off when they're repeating a question is "casual"? You'd think most questioners would get the point.
No. I think a strong, bold statement denouncing the inherent bigotry of the very question would have been far more appropriate. Something uniting the dems against the outrageous pervasive prejudices of the right. Instead we get essentially a "meh", and a "as far as I know".
She fell far short. Curiously so.
So anything less than a wholesale condemnation of the question indicates some carefully-plotted response where she knew that her "tone" would lead someone to repeat a question already answered so that she could cleverly express the undeniable concept that she's not omniscient.
That's some solid criticism right there. What could be more obvious?
Omniscient? Hyperbole.
Yes, in my opinion, giving less than an extremely strong response to this line of questions deserves scrutiny, given not only the bigoted overtones of the rightwing against Obama's perceived race and religion, but the possibly questionable tactics her own campaign has waged in the same manner. And pulling back at the end with a "as far as I know" only adds to the problem. I think being seen as trying to hold back from giving a wholesale condemnation of this recent outpouring of prejudice against a fellow Dem is the last image she should be portraying. She didn't do enough, at the very least.
"Omniscient? Hyperbole."
No it isn't hyperbole, that's the point you keep missing. Saying that there's no reason to believe something, as far as you know, is undeniable. Is it possible that someone somewhere has a compelling reason to believe the moon landing was staged? Yes. You can't possibly say otherwise, because you don't know. That's completely consistent with calling the concept ridiculous, which is why it's not "backing off" of anything. It doesn't compromise anything she previously said.
I still don't see anything "meh" in her response. She answered in a firm tone. Just because you want her to say something beyond the scope of the question doesn't mean that the answer or the tone of it is inadequate at all.
So it doesn't matter that she definitively stated that she doesn't believe that Obama is a Muslim, she has to raise her voice or get stern with Kroft or something. She answered it calmly, so maybe she's lying.
What tone do you want, exactly?
Watershed;
You have an obvious bias against Senator Clinton. Are you a shill for the looney right-wing of the Republican Party, or an Obama supporter that has watched too mush "American Idol"?
I don't think your 3 point question really holds. What I originally said was, she either goofed or she didn't. ... How does that change my first statement?
Because your first statement was that either she goofed "or answered ambiguously on purpose." (Emphasis obviously added.) It was the assertion that it might have been done deliberately that has been the point of contention all along.
So was it on purpose? I don't know.
Does that mean you are retracting the phrase "on purpose?" And please, a simple, direct yes or no. You did use the phrase, so there's no point in answering as if you didn't. If you want to expand on the one-word answer, please do. But start with either yes or no.
You need to understand I don't have a horse in this race. I genuinely do not have a preference. Clinton and Obama are 95% the same on policy, whichever one is nominated will be slimed by the GOPpers, and either is capable of beating McCain. But at this point I simply can't escape the feeling that you are trying to leave open the possibility that Clinton was being deliberately vague about Obama being Muslim without admitting you're doing it. I would very much like to be disabused of that notion and a simple "yes" to my question above would do that.
Don't be disingenuous, you want Obama to win the nomination. Just because you'll vote for Hillary if that doesn't happen doesn't really prove anything.
I know that and it doesnt matter. YOU dont have to be a rightwinger to buy into rightwing spin. That is pretty obvious.
I guess this will just go on and on, with people disagreeing about the meaning of "as far as I know".
Neither Clinton nor Obama were my first choices as candidates, I would prefer Obama, and never thought I'd be defending HRC as much as I have here several times since the campaigns started.It looks like those who see "as far as I know" as some insidious sneaky stab will never think otherwise.
Unless we're going to hold candidates to yes or no answers, the type of repetitive questioning directed at them is going to get different, more detailed answers, just as any person responds to what sounds like the same question being asked over and over. It's only natural for the person being questioned to think maybe they've missed the questioners intent, or not given a complete answer, and to add more info. to their answer.
Nobody knows what another person's religion is. Religion is an opinion, and the only thing we have to go on regarding the issue is what that person says. If I'm asked about somebody elses opinion or feelings on any topic, the best answer I can give is based on the isecond-hand information I have, "as far as I know". I might add that phrase for somebody who continued to question me about something I couldn't actually prove.
On top of all of that, as a member of the non-religious minority of the world, I can't believe the topic itself has any meaning at all in the presidential elections of a nation that is not a theocracy.
I consider myself a radical agnostic. Not that it matters. :)
I think that this question itself is an insult to Muslims. Why should his possibly being a Muslim be "scandalous"? Of course its because people are bigots and think being a Muslim is somehow wrong.
I don't think he's Muslim. I do think Hillary's answer of "as far as I know" has a hint of ambiguity that should never have been there, and has the potential to feed the hatred of bigoted anti-Muslims accross the country. I am sorry she said it.
Mefirst, I am not sure why you are so combative with me. I ma pretty sure we're on the same team here. (I am wearing my "don't trust the corporate media" T-shirt as we speak!)
I am saying, once again, that to use the words "as far as I know," whether intentionally or not, was a gaffe, and feeds a certain bigoted mindset.
If I were to answer questions about this, as a presidential candidate, I would make DAMN sure that my words wouldn't be ambiguous.
i am not being combative here, this is a discussion board. you know the old saying about the kitchen and the heat. and i am on no one's team but my own. i am judging you on your own standards here. if you say you do not think he is a muslim, that means pertaining to the knowledge you have. "as far as you know", he is not. now, me, i have no problem with that statement. but by your reasoning, you did not rule it out. you left open the possibility that there could be truth to it, something you do not know. you wanted a iron clad guarantee from hillary, you failed to do that yourself.
"I don't think he's Muslim."
It's noteworthy that this isn't even as definitive as what Hillary said. Watershed is leaving open the possibility that he thinks there's a reason to believe that Obama is Muslim. Hillary explicitly denied knowing of one.
If leaving open the possibility of there being a reason to believe Obama is Muslim is a gaffe, then anything can be. It's impossible to assert the lack of such a reason.
If you're comparing a random commenter on MMFA and a candidate for President, we are in big trouble.
I "think" a presidential candidate has a great responsibility with their words. I "think" knowing what the situation was with Obama, with the bigotry being hurled at him, that the use of the words "as far as I know" sends out a message of ambiguity that certainly wasn't necessary, and that very easily, knowing how much candidates rehearse for moments such as these and make the most use out of their words, could have been avoided.
I would have liked a more forceful response- and one that addressed the bigotry inherent in the "scandal". I "think" that's a reasonable way to look at this.
Except she said definitively that she didn't believe that he was a Muslim. That answered the question in itself, and the "as far as I know" does not contradict it at all. Wasn't that the question, what she believed? The question wasn't some objective "is he a Muslim". She's not the authority on what Obama believes, all she could do is express her view.
She did that three times and has not contradicted it.
He said he's a Christian. OK.
Still would like to hear what reasoning goes into his church giving Louis Farrakhan a "Lifetime Achievement Award". Is that too much to ask?
LF is a holocaust denier. Only thing worse is an AGW denier, right?
So.......what's goin' on with that Lifetime Achievement Award? Maybe it's for arm wrestling...just wanna know.
and hillary did not say that he was not a christian. she said with the best of her knowledge he was. she said she "took his word". to me, that means she "took his word". try and keep up.
LF is a holocaust denier. Only thing worse is an AGW denier, right?
Farrakhan is a lot of things, but he's not a Holocaust denier.
OK.
I should have said that he has a lot different take on the Holocaust, and associates with deniers.
And...I would like to hear why he deserves a Lifetime Achievement Award from Obama's church.
Not saying ANYBODY is disagreeing.
I assume that people would like to know the same thing I would like to know: when a church gives an award to a David Duke or a Lou Farrakhan, that church gets an opportunity to explain itself.
Has anybody heard that explanation? And what will be Obama's stance on said explanation, since he is a member of the church, admires the pastor, etc. etc.
Well if nobody's disagreeing with you, what's your point? Obama's commented on Farrakhan, so he obviously disagrees with the church already.
What other information is relevant to Obama, or anything else?
Ooookaaay--Obama's religion is not part of this discussion?
Anybody running for office should want y'all for the Press Corps. Nothing but softballs and whitewash.
No, I think that if Obama were handling these situations in the same way, I would ask the same questions. His responses to Kroft on the same subject were far more appropriate, in my opinion.
Just saying. :)
"If you're comparing a random commenter on MMFA and a candidate for President, we are in big trouble."
I think the question is, do you think "I don't think he's a Muslim" is a reasonable comment or not? If not, why did you say it? If you do, then you're recognizing that what Hillary said is reasonable as well.
If it's just a political concern, why criticize her for that? Isn't it really the fault of people who take it the wrong way, and Kroft in the first place? Just about anything can be spun to someone's disadvantage if people really want to do that.
WATERSHED:
Why is it up to Hillary Clinton to DECLARE STRONGLY what ANYONE's Religion might be?
Should she adamantly defend George W. Bush's claim to be a "Christian" ... which is quite strong, but whose ACTIONS fly in the face of a variety of Christian Beliefs? (like caring for the poor, being honest, not making a false idol out of money?)
This is yet another example of trying to make a SCANDAL out of nothing at all. Hillary's answers were emphatic, and perfectly acceptable on a topic which calls for knowledge of another's "spiritual self", a topic on which NONE of us can honestly state with certainty. It's ALWAYS "as far as I know" when it comes to another's religion. She said she takes Obama at his word. NEW TOPIC. (although the "gotcha" press keeps asking the same question, hoping for a different answer.)
If I'm asked if the sun is going to come up tomorrow, I'm going to say "yes". If pressed, I'll still say "yes". If pressed further, I'll say "well, as far as I know the sun will come up tomorrow." Because nothing is certain, not even the sun rising tomorrow, and if you push me enough, I will admit that there is uncertainty in almost everything.
I don't believe my husband has ever had an affair. If asked, I'd assert with great certainty that he has not, but if pressed, I would admit that my certainty has limits, and I would admit that "as far as I know" he has been faithful to me.
This nitpicking about her third answer to a question is Hillary-hating at its worst.
Would I be correct to assume that the term pragmatics means nothing to you? (Hint: don't guess. Go look it up. Because if you rely on your intuitive feeling about what this term means, you'll almost certainly end up being mistaken and looking stupid.)
Anyway, you should first educate yourself in pragmatics a bit. And then come back and analyze the structure and sequence of the Kroft-Clinton exchange.
Let me give you a quick tutorial on how someone who is attuned to pragmatics would analyze the Kroft-Clinton exchange in relation to your suggested requirement for what Senator Clinton should have done, viz.:
"There was a far better way for her to answer that question ("NO.")."
OK which version of the question? The first one, the second one, the third one, the fourth one? All of the above?
Mirabile dictu! She did answer equivalently "No" to all of these questions. As Warner Wolf would say: "Let's go to the video tape."
Clinton answer to 1st version of Kroft's question: "Of course not"; "no basis"; "isn't any reason to doubt that." Score: 3 pragmatically equivalent "no"s
Clinton answer to 2nd version of Kroft's question: "Right. Right." Here's your first bit of technical pragmatics. "Right" viewed in isolation is an affirmative. But coming as it does here after the negative in Kroft's immediately preceding implied question, "he's not a Muslim," "Right" reinforces the negative and is the functional equivalent of "No he is not." And oh yes, you have noted that Clinton emphasized the negative by repeating it twice, right? Score: 2 pragmatically equivalent "no"s.
Clinton answer to 3rd version of Kroft's question: "No. No."; "there's no." Even the "Why would I?" put in the form of a rhetorical question expecting a negative response is functionally equivalent to a "No." Score: 2 explicit "no"s and 2 pragmatically equivalent "no"s.
Fourth version of the question: "No."; "nothing to base that on." Score: 1 explicit "no" and 1 pragmatically equivalent "no".
So let's check the scoreboard. In answer to four different versions of the same question from Kroft, Senator Clinton, in the period of about 21 or 22 seconds, as I timed the video clip for these questions, piled up 3 direct "no"s and 8 pragmatically equivalent "no"s.
That's a total of 11 denials of the well foundedness of the belief that Barack Obama is a crypto-Muslim. Not bad for 22 seconds.
But your feelings somehow tell you that this was not sufficient to satisfy your own standard that she answer "NO" to the question? That a tossed out "as far as I know"* somehow swamps the pragmatics of 11 "no" and "no" equivalents in a 22 second exchange?
* There is, by the way, a very detailed pragmatic analysis of how that "as far as I know" functioned in the exchange, and not at all as a dog whistling away of the effects of the 11 "no"s and "no" equivalents. Indeed, it acts as a reinforcer of those 11 "no"s and "no" equivalents. It would take more space than is available here to explain this. But let me give you a hint, Watershed. Look back at Senator Clinton's response to the first version of Kroft's question. Do you see the two "you know"s? For someone not versed in pragmatics, these parentheticals appear as non-semantic space fillers. They're not. They are highly significant for understanding the pragmatics of this exchange, and particularly for understanding how, by the time Clinton gets to the fourth version of Kroft's question, "you know" has morphed into "as far as I know." For your homework, see if you can figure out what has gone on here.
As you might say, "Sorry. But maybe you should do a bit of a reality check on your feelings." And some formal education in pragmatics might help a bit too. Gee, if only there were a "Pragmatics for Dummies" book available at Barnes and Noble.
But, oh? Did I misunderstand you? Was all you were saying was that in a television interview on "60 Minutes," with its own stylized and nearly 50 year old tradition of what constitutes a back and forth sequence between the interviewer and interviewee, Senator Clinton should have broken new ground and given Steve Kroft only a one word answer to each of his four questions? Just so that anything more than a Joe Friday routine would not rouse your feelings that the deceitful Hillary was up to her old dog whistling tricks again?
Get real. Go read up on your pragmatics and come back when you want to have a rational discussion about this matter, not one based on your feeling, which I'm sure, alas, is genuine – but totally out of synch with anything approaching an objective understanding of what was going on in that Kroft-Clinton exchange.
Very nice. You're making the key point, that the "as far as I know" doesn't qualify her previous answers in any way, it is completely consistent. It's "ambiguous", but nobody can explain why.
"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."
As for whether she thinks that Obama is a Muslim or not, "ridiculous", "smeared" and "rumors" should also be three "no" responses as well, right?
First as to "ridiculous," "smeared," and "rumors."
The basic answer to your question is, Yes, these are additional instances of pragmatically equivalent "no"s. And the only reason I didn't include them in my previous analysis was because I was focused on explaining what was happening up to the point of the supposedly "sleazy" (Bob Herbert) or "unfortunate" (Nicholas Kristof) "as far as I know" parenthetical by Clinton.
But you are so right to bring this issue up, if only because it cinches the case even further for the pragmatic analysis of what Clinton said.
Let me explain.
First, let me say that I would actually unpack what Clinton is saying here into "ridiculous rumors" and "smearing rumors" – even though it is clear in this case that the rumors that are ridiculous are pretty much to be considered as smears as well. But the conceptual distinction is important for the pragmatic analysis of this final statement by Senator Clinton – which I will call the "coda" for convenience in reference.
Thus, rumor can function in many contexts as a fairly value neutral term in relation to the two transcendental (as that term is used in some philosophical circles) parameters of "truth" and "good/goodness". Thus, all rumors are not false (i.e., not true), and, similarly, only a subset of rumors are of a smearing (i.e., not good) nature.
However, as soon as I attach the adjective "ridiculous" to "rumor," I am pretty unambiguously saying that that rumor is not factually true. Though I have not necessarily made a moral judgment about it. But then as soon as I also attach a variation of "smearing" to "rumor," I am pretty much saying not only that it is not true, but that it is also bad/wrong/not good (pick your disapproving word) -- and in a moral sense.
The relevance of all this to the coda?
Well, in characterizing something to be a "ridiculous rumor," I am minimally saying that I don't believe it, and that it would be quite surprising to me if any reasonable person believed it. In short, I am very much saying: "No, I don't believe this." And that is, of course, another instance of a pragmatically equivalent "no" as you have pointed out.
And so too with "smearing rumor," though now we have a twofer here. Not only am I saying "I don't believe it," but I am also saying "It is wrong for anyone, including me, to propagate it if we consider ourselves to be respectable moral agents." In this sense "smearing rumor" articulates a very strong form of pragmatically equivalent "no". It says "no" both at the level of truth/belief and "no" at the level of good/action.
So, the coda in the Clinton-Kroft exchange ups the total of pragmatically equivalent "no"s by 2, from 8 to 10, and gives us a grand total of 13 "no"s and pragmatically equivalent "no"s, as articulated by Senator Clinton.
Of course we now have to add the additional 13 or so seconds which the coda took to deliver to the 22 seconds of the quadruple question sequence. So Hillary is now "down" to the scarily thin total of only 13 "no"s or pragmatically equivalent "no"s in the space of 45 seconds.
Oh, dear.
"C'mon, Hillary, let's get more emphatic about this. Only 13 denials in 45 seconds? What with this sort of 'hesitancy' Watershed's delicate sensibilities might lead him [I'll assume "him" until instructed otherwise] to 'feel [you] did not answer strongly enough.'"
Ah yes, Watershed's "feelings" again. He is bursting at the seams with them, so much so that there does not appear to be a lot of room for rational, fact-based analysis.
Turning to another point you made – that would be back to you, Brabantio, someone who is clearly willing to park his feelings at the door when he is doing rational analysis -- let me quote you, because this requires a very refined – in terms of pragmatic analysis -- understanding of what went on in the Kroft-Clinton exchange.
"[T]he 'as far as I know' doesn't qualify her previous answers in any way, it is completely consistent. It's 'ambiguous', but nobody can explain why."
I know we are on the same side in the substance of this matter, but if I understand what you are implying, I would actually demur from the above statement in a couple of ways.
1. In fact, "as far as I know" DOES qualify what came before.
2. And I think I can explain why, when properly understood in terms of a pragmatic analysis, it is NOT ambiguous.
I hinted at this to Watershed, but from his response he appears not to have been able to tear himself away from his feelings and even take the trouble to pull out his dictionary to look up pragmatics. So I don't think I can rely on him to have picked up the hint and done his homework on this matter.
So let me try to explain what's going on.
Ordinarily when we make statements in routine contexts, e.g., "The cat is on the mat," we do not bother to qualify them with the implied (to simplify the point): "I think (believe, know, or whatever the context suggests our state of mind might be) the cat is on the mat."
But as pragmatics point out, that does not mean that this "deep structure" of intentionality is not guiding what we say explicitly. Indeed, a good part of pragmatics can be viewed as the task of trying to piece together in a coherent fashion the clues that are provided in explicit speech with the underlying state of mind which dictates why the overt speech is uttered in the way that it is.
However, in some contexts we do make explicit, with varying degrees of strength, what our underlying state of mind is. That happens very often with politicians, who have long since been conditioned to signal their intentions lest they be – inadvertently or maliciously – quoted out of context. (Gee, who would ever do that sort of thing, especially to sweet ole Hillary?)
And that is exactly what is going on in the Kroft-Clinton exchange, not in any invidious sense, but simply as a function of natural speech patterns and a trained reflex to try to not be misunderstood in a damaging sort of way.
(Of course we all know that Senator Clinton is actually a very skilled liar who, in league with psychological [vide Carl Bernstein] or perhaps even real [vide some of the soi-disant "Christian" blogs on Hillary] demons is pathologically and/or fiendishly dedicated to trying to deceive all of us every time she speaks. But that is a matter for another thread.)
In this light, look at the two "you know"s uttered by Clinton in her answer to Kroft's first version of his question.
Those may seem like wasted words to the untrained eye, and, indeed, it is not even necessarily the case that Clinton – or anyone else in a similar position – would actually be fully conscious that she was uttering them. But what those "you know"s do, very precisely, is send a signal to Kroft (which he may or may not pick up in any particular case) that Clinton not only believes the rumor about Obama to be false from her point of view, i.e., in terms of her own first person belief, but she is pretty sure that any other reasonable person would consider it to be false. With that any other reasonable person ranging from the specific second person singular "you" in the person of Steve Kroft who is sitting across from her (note the subtlety in language we have lost with the fading away of "thou," "thee," "thy," etc.) to the generalized second person plural "you" of literally anyone who might dialogically address this matter with her – or, indeed, with any other "you."
In short, the "you know"s are quite explicitly inviting every possible second person interlocutor to join with her, as reasonable people, in denying the rumor. And, by the way, to join with her in denying it because of the reasons she has provided, namely, that Senator Obama has denied it and there is otherwise no evidence to think that it might be true even in the face of his denial.
We can summarize this for the moment by saying that by introducing the "you know" Clinton is universalizing her first person denial of the truth of the rumor to the level of a second person plural universal denial that she thinks any reasonable person would make.
This is a very strong form of denial for that particular rumor.
But notice what happens as the exchange continues. As most people have noted – but people like Bob Herbert and Nicholas Kristof, not to mention our friend Watershed, have chosen to ignore it in terms of its pragmatic import, for whatever reasons – Kroft pretty aggressively pursues Clinton on the question. He won't take "no" for an answer, even as the "no"s continue to pile up relentlessly over a very short period of time. Indeed, by the time we get to the fourth version of the question, Kroft has managed not to take a succession of no fewer than nine "no"s or pragmatically equivalent "no"s by Clinton for an answer.
Indeed, he has managed to blow past the fact that she has even been almost continuously shaking her head "no" throughout this whole sequence, thus punctuating her stated belief with her body language. Go back and look at the tape if you missed it.
Steve, my son, what part of "no" don't you understand?
(Oh yeah, forgot, that Hillary is such a good actor when she's lying.)
So by the time we get to the fourth iteration of the question it is by no means surprising, indeed it is almost predictable, that Clinton might start to back off of the universality of the claim with respect to other people, indeed even possibly with respect to Kroft, who has been pretty closely grilling her on the matter. By the way, I think Kroft was just doing what he perceived to be his job and I ascribe no malign intent to him in this matter.
[Though in another thread, if it ever comes to that, it might be fascinating to start speculating on what is behind the aggressive Steve Kroft NOT having pursued Senator Obama AT ALL when Obama hung out there a very pregnant:
OBAMA: … Clearly, it's [the crypto-Muslim rumor] a deliberate effort by some group or somebody to generate this rumor.
KROFT (in the follow up question that never came): Some group? Do you mean to suggest any group in particular?]
And back off linguistically is exactly what Clinton does when she says "as far as I know." In terms of a pragmatic analysis, she backs off from her earlier universal claim and takes refuge in her still very strong statement of personal belief – a belief which she does not abandon or undercut one iota.
In this light, "as far as I know" is not a phrase that just randomly popped up in the situation – let alone a dog whistle that has Clinton signaling that other people should not be taken in by all of her previous denials. And the nature of this backing off is not really ambiguous – at least not for the most highly probable reading of the information available publicly to everyone who has read the text and/or viewed the video.
In fact, the "as far as I know" is actually organically linked to the "you know"s back in the answer to the first question. It represents a backing off from the universalizing second person plural form of the "you know" to the more limited first person singular of "as far as I know."
Notice, by the way, how this analysis can be made even more perspicuous by pointing out how "you know" in the universalizing second person plural form can be read as elliptical for "as far as we all know." Substitute "I" for "we all" and we have the move from the universal warrant back to the individual, first person warrant, which is, of course, the fundamental platform which undergirds any speech utterance which is going to even attempt to get to the universal level.
And do keep in mind that all of this happening in about 20 seconds. It is not as if Clinton's state of mind from maybe 20 seconds previously has somehow faded away into the mists of the past at this point – especially since that whole time period has relentlessly been filled up with essentially one question and one answer. There has been no shift in the topic which might materially diminish the vividness of the "you know"s at the beginning by the time we get to the "as far as I know" 20 seconds later.
To further underscore the organic nature of the retreat from the second person plural to the first person singular, consider what Clinton might have just as easily said if Bill happened to be sitting beside her – atypically silent! – as this exchange progressed. When she came to her answer to the fourth question, it would have been no surprise to hear her say, not "as far as I know," but "as far as we know," meaning in this instance not the absolutely universal "we" but the small community "we" of Bill and herself – and perhaps her campaign staff – all of whom she would be including in the group of reasonable people who would believe as she did, and share her reasons for this belief.
It just so happened that she was alone – for dialogical purposes; of course there were TV people around – with Steve Kroft. And so the "as far as I know" was perfectly natural – and perfectly unambiguous to anyone who does not have an agenda against Senator Clinton, even if they may not have gone through the pragmatic analysis that I have just gone through to piece this whole thing together analytically.
In summary, the pragmatic analysis of what went on in that exchange shows that, not only was "as far as I know" not a dog whistle or otherwise ambiguous, it was intimately linked to the universalizing "you know"s which had inaugurated the exchange. And though it does represent a backing away from the universalizing function of those "you know"s, it is only doing this under dialogical pressure. But it is at the same time actually reinforcing Clinton's own denials at the level of the first person I – denials unambiguously pounded home up to this point by a cascade of 11 "no"s and pragmatically equivalent "no"s.
But, as it turns out, Clinton retreats from the universal plane for only a brief instant. And this is the point about which – absent unflattering blind spots which it would not be useful to speculate upon here – it is really difficult to understand how or why Bob Herbert and Nicholas Kristof were deafeningly silent.
What do I mean?
Well, almost as if to anticipate the possibly bad faith motivated and certainly ripped-out-of-context analyses that followed on the exchange, Clinton immediately goes into the coda to this entire 45 second sequence, and in that coda climbs right back up to the universal level.
She does this first by including Obama in the class of people like herself who have had to labor under false rumors (an implicit jump to minimally the small community "we" level). And then, via the moral condemnation bridge ("smeared"), ends up smack dab back on the universal level.
How so?
Because not only would it be unreasonable ("ridiculous") for these rumors to be countenanced, it is also morally wrong to "smear" someone. And even anyone (serial universality) who might not want to commit himself on the truth of the rumor, would surely – if at least he were a morally good person -- have to commit to the judgment that, if the rumor were false, it would be wrong to propagate it.
We are up to our eyeballs back in universal territory.
Let me add a final observation to show the relevance of this sort of pragmatic analysis, a form of analysis which has been dismissed as "pedantic" by Watershed, who has, of course, thoroughly read up on pragmatics and knows that he don't need no stinkin', highfalutin, pointy-headed pragmatics to tell him when Hillary affirms something to be true or not true, or affirms something to be right or wrong. All he needs is his "feelings."
For those of you who, while surely having feelings, are also interested in dispassionate rational analysis from time to time, go back to the coda. Look in particular at the word "Look." How does this translate?
Well, in terms of a pragmatic analysis, it translates precisely as a universalizing imperative. It is not just the "look" of "You [singular] look, Steve Kroft." It is the "Look" of "Every one of you, i.e., the universal everyone, all of you who have properly aligned moral sensibilities, pay attention, and join together with me in assenting to the moral judgment that these sorts of ridiculous and smearing rumors should not be countenanced."
Still not convinced?
Well, now look a bit further into the coda. Do you see the re-emergent universalizing "you know" as in "anybody who gets, you know, smeared"?
Again, Watershed calls all this pedantic. I prefer to call it (an important part of) the unfeeling -- but that is a virtue here -- science of linguistic interpretation.
And thank you, again, Brabantio, for asking.
"1. In fact, "as far as I know" DOES qualify what came before...2. And I think I can explain why, when properly understood in terms of a pragmatic analysis, it is NOT ambiguous."
Of course. My point is that since the question is about Hillary's view, it doesn't undermine her clear comments on that. "As far as I know" should go without saying, because our knowledge of anything outside of our own minds is limited to at least a minor degree. And naturally I'm referring to others who are claiming it to be ambiguous, but can't explain what the "doubt" is that's created. Does it leave open a possibility that he is Muslim? Sure, insofar as some doubt exists no matter what she says. Is it possible that Elvis is alive and wandering the convenience stores of Kalamazoo, Michigan? Yes, I was not there when he died, much less do a DNA match-up on the corpse. Is it ridiculous to imagine? Hell yes. Just about anything is possible, but you have to have some rational reason to believe it.
Everything she said is consistent with her personally disbelieving the rumor, and that's all that she's able to say with any authority. "Qualify" wasn't the best word to use, it seems.
It's interesting analysis. It seems some people aren't willing to evaluate it and address it properly, and it certainly makes their position look even more irrational.
I accept your, well, qualification of "qualify."
In so far as that word might suggest that Clinton was backing down from her own personal belief in the matter, it was the wrong word to use. I should have perhaps said something very direct like "referring back to the 'you know's" so that there was no ambiguity that "as far as I know" was in any way diluting the strength of her own personal belief. Because she wasn't backing down at all from her own personal belief, as the concatenation of 11 "no"s up to that point and the subsequent two additional "no"s in the coda make very clear.
"as far as I know" is only tempering the strength of her parallel claim about her assumption as to the scope and strength of the beliefs of the universalized reasonable "you"s she had reflexively invoked with the "you know"s. And her backing down on those "you know"s was quite understandable under the circumstances of the almost badgering pressure she was getting from Kroft.
But, of course, even this backing down was only momentary, as the "Look" and the "you know" of the coda make clear.
Thank you again for your refinement.
By the way, an effective test of the probativeness of this sort of analysis – for anyone who sincerely doubts it – is to make a tape of your own conversation for, say, a day. And maybe a week later go back in and analyze it. You'll be stunned to see how all of those seemingly "junk" words you use really are providing an almost stenographic record of the nuances of what you were thinking at the time.
But then again, this sort of analysis would not work for Hillary Clinton, because she is merely a programmed robot with no trace of humanity or human sensibility in her at all.
I think I'll head over to the New York Post thread to see if the usual trolls are out and about.
Thank you for reading my overlong response.
I never said that anything I am saying is any "standard". Of course I have been giving my opinion here. Isn't that the point of these posts? Where, anywhere in this thread did I state that my opinion was a standard? Please show me. I will gladly use the phrase "in my opinion" or "to me" more often to further prove that these posts of mine are indeed, my opinion.
What I am saying that her tone of her response, to me, and her use of the phrase "as far as I know", to me, gives me pause. I don't think I'm alone. In fact, I know I'm obviously not.
My (NO!) was not literal, but a representative of the way she could have answered- a forecful "capital N, capital O, exclamation point". I have been saying all along, I feel she did not answer strongly enough. Again, to me. I think her tone held a hesitancy. And her "as far as I know", was, to me, an extremely poor choice of words. The bigotry behind the very "need" for thequestion is horrid, to me, and to leave any doubt about that, (which there obviously is, and not just to just some rabid rightwing dogs, either), is the wrong way to go.
Speaking of tone, your condescending tone in your pedantic post gives me little desire to respond to you. Yet I do. Is there really any need to discuss things in such a manner? I have been polite to everyone who disagrees with me here.
Feel free to say "gotcha" about any aspect of pragmatics I am missing.
What several different people have repeatedly tried to explain to you is that your opinion is not based in reality.
I could hold the opinion that you're a Republican in disguise. If you show me your Voter ID that shows that you're a registered Democrat, I could still maintain that you're a Republican in disguise. Then you could show me your contribution records and your voting records, and you might even show me that you ran for public office as a Democrat. If after all that I still said that I held the opinion that you were a Republican in disguise, it would be my opinion that was foolish. Others would be within the bounds of a reasonable discussion to tell me that my opinion was not supported by the known facts.
Your opinion is not supported by the known facts.
Hillary very clearly rejected the notion that there was any doubt. She didn't know that she'd be asked the question four times, and so to claim that her fourth answer is the only answer you will look at in isolation, rather than her whole answer in context, totally weakens your argument.
But I still feel that there's something amiss with her answer.
And I feel that there's something amiss with your reading comprehension. Out of context snippets or a response to the fourth version of the same question (asked and answered) do not a scandal make.
Then don't be intellectually lazy. MMFA CLEARLY debunked what was a none issue but you seem to buy into the notion that something untoward was intended. If you read carefully, you can see the grammatical sleight of hand committed by Herbert by separating the sentences into two. Rather than "as far as I know" being a subordinate clause to "There is nothing to base that on", Herbert gave them equal weight notwithstanding that is NOT how HRC said it. This subtely changes both the intent and relevance of the latter clause. And then of course he repeats it to make sure that is the phrase the reader is left with.
You took the bait.
No, Tbone, I actually watched the interview myself, and cringed when she said the words. I thought that it was the worng sentiment, and I wondered immediately why she said it.
So again, if it was a goof or not, it was unfortunate.
And there is literally NO reason for you to insult someone who disagrees with you. I am polite to you, you be the same with me. How about that?
Mr. Kroft asked Mr. Tbone if he believed that Watershed was a dupe. In one of the sleaziest moments of this thread to date, Mr. Tbone replied: "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know."
How's that?
Come on, people. Anyone who makes any kind of deal out of this is a moron.
"As far as I know" was a clear mistake with no meaning, such as happens in extemporaneous speech all the time. Jeez, don't you people talk? Don't you know how it works? Unprepared speech comes out wrong, all the time, for anybody.
Of course there are those idiots who want to get the "real", "hidden" persona, and to them those little slips are more significant than what is repeated over and over again in speeches. If that policy were applied to them, they would not survive.
And then there are those "Hillary is so disciplined that every little word is exactly as intended" types. You'll find that every one of them somehow simultaneously believes that Hillary has run a lousy, undisciplined campaign.
Again, is there any need to insult someone who might have an issue with the ambiguity of "as far as I know"? I am merely stating my opinion.
I think she could have been more forecful with her answer, yes, even the fourth time.
Your posts show that you clearly don't understand the imperfect nature of extemporaneous speech. That's moronic.
And I'm insulting not only you, but people responding to you in a halfway manner, wasting time attempting to carefully parse Hillary's statement. There is absolutely nothing here, and it should be obvious to anyone who has ever talked before.
No one knows 100% of anything about anyone so answering as far as I know is correct. "No" is a definite so Hillary answered the question correctly. Why I imagine if it was Obama answering that stupid rumor about Hillary’s sexuality he would be correct if he answered as she did.
Do you believe Hillary is a lesbian?
No
An you take the Senator at her word that she is not a lesbian?
Right Right
You don’t believe she a lesbian?
No No why would I? There’s no
Or implying right?
No, no there nothing to base that on as far as I know.
So yeah, Hillary's answer was correct. You can't be 100% sure about anyone or anything. When some on the right call Hillary a cold calculating lesbian bi*ch, it could be true. No one can be 100% sure and there is always room for doubt.
Unless you can state with 100% certainty that there's no picture or story anywhere in the world that strongly suggests that Hillary is a lesbian (even if that evidence is misleading), then there may be a reason to believe she's a lesbian. You just don't know about it, and there's nothing to say you'd believe it even if you did. That doesn't qualify the doubt of the rumor in any way at all.
But I'm sure we'll see this dead argument a dozen more times anyway.
Pearlene
You are without a doubt my favorite poster here but I must disagree on this issue. There are plenty of things to slam Ms. Clinton about. I don't think this is one of them.
I don't think that the Clintons are the savey politician that they are given credit for. Ms. Clinton's comment about Mr. McCain having more experience than Mr. Obama was idiotic and will be used as an endorsement in republican ads if Mr. O wins the nomination. To me that is a legitimate reason to knock Ms. C. That is something that she needs to explain. I don't think she needs to explain 5 words taken out of context that, to me, clearly showed that she did not beleive that Mr. O was any other religion that what he claimed to be.
That said, my great fear is that because of Cinton campaign gaffes and over emphasis of non issues we will see another four years of a disasterous republican presidency.
Skipp, thank you for the kind words.
I’m sorry but I not only do I think the Clintons are savvy, I think the Clinton are absolutely brilliant. Politics has been the life work of the Clintons and they are masters of the game.
I’ve read a lot of reasons why some feel she answered the question with a definite “of course not” first so her 4th answer including “as far as I know” does not negate her initial answer. I guess this could be the very reason I don’t agree with a lot of folks, I think while her first answer is a definite “no” her 4th leaves room for doubt and is a conflict of her first definite “of course not“ answer. I can’t simply ignore her 4th answer of “as far as I know”. To me “as far as I know” means I can only answer for myself, there may be someone else who knows something different. While that was the correct answer, ass someone said, you can never be 100% sure of anything or anyone, IMO it leaves room for doubt. Some have said the media is making a big deal out of this but I said when this first started all Hillary had to do to end the endless media scrutiny is to simply say “No I don‘t think Obama is a Muslim. Now some would say she’s already answered the question but I would ask if you don’t want the media to continue to over emphasis non issues, step up and speak out and end the speculation over what you said. … Unless you enjoy having to media continue to speculate about your opinion of Obama’s religion. Sorry but clearing this up seems pretty simply.
Tommy said that there are different ways of looking at this and I must agree.
This must mean that she is contradicting herself? Right, right???!
:-)
I agree with others who have said this is extreme nit-picking. It's the result of a desperate search to find smears where by any rational understanding none exist.
I do find it worthy of note that Herbert was also the one who in January misquoted Bill Clinton as calling Obama's campaign - rather than what he was actually addressing, Obama's claim to have opposed the Iraq war all along - a "fairy tale."
I wanted to leave a one-line clever comment but I should make this clear. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster (as far as I know) or has broken a law, probably since I've been born, but adding as far as I know and "Taking Obama on the basis of what he says" leaves wriggle room for idiots who believe Obama is some sort of Manchurian candidate. Hillary seems to say things that regular people will take one way and undecideds will take another. Sort of like Bill Clinton's "I will end welfare as you know it," which meant good altruistic things to liberals and stereotypical welfare moms tossed out on their ears to angry white males and conservatives.
If you want to make that comparison, it would be "there's absolutely no evidence of that, as far as I know". That doesn't leave any wiggle room that isn't naturally there anyway, because it's always possible for something to exist which you don't know about. It doesn't mean you think there is evidence, or that you'd believe it if it surfaced.
That's a significant difference from "She didn't kill Vince Foster as far as I know", which suggests much more openness to that possibility.
HRC is not stupid....that comment, as ambiguous as it was, was deliberate and intentional. Her goal was to walk the fine line of not supporting Obama while casting doubt in the minds of potential voters..it worked
Clinton's remarks were indeed sleezy. Her “as far as I know” would not have been used if she were asked if John McCain were a Christian—and you know that. I am a mature woman who supported Hillary when she was first lady and wanted to do something significant during her time in the White House. However, I do not support her destructive tactics in this campaign. She dove into the mud in recent weeks and she’s splashing it at the entire Democratic Party. I refuse to support her and will do everything I can to support Obama. What Hillary is doing now is justifying everything Republicans were saying about her since 1998 and I am completely disgusted with her and her campaign. She IS a monster!
How about the full qoute ME
When you include that first sentence your argument is blown away
and when you listen in debate when Hillary tries to strangle him with it as she did the Farrakhan denounce nonsense word parsing then your argument is further annihilated
"We are allowed to differ in opinion are we not ?"
The disagreement with you has nothing to do with whether there's an attack strategy or not. You have no argument that this comment is part of any such strategy.
Remember this?: "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 found yourself believing something which you've now admitted is a weak argument and you can't support it in any way. But you still believe it, apparently. I'm sure if some right-wing troll behaved that way you'd be sticking up for him because he's allowed to disagree, right?
Watershed's backed himself into a similar corner. Everyone has the right to disagree, but what makes for a reasoned conversation is objective analysis, open-mindedness and logic. If you don't make that effort, then you deserve to be criticized. Would you disagree?
Brab
Kid, you are still talking yesterdays post
If you bothered to read the one above before lashing out you'd see I was questioning Me's Obama dig
That or you did read it, couldn't defend it and went for the easy attack
I read it and understood it just fine. I stated at the time that I thought that controversy was overblown as well.
If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I was addressing your idiocy about not being allowed to disagree. I was pointing out that your admittedly blind adherence to your view is not part of a reasoned dialogue. You can disagree, but you shouldn't be surprised when people want you to make a rational argument.
Is that clearer now, or should I use smaller words?
This woman has no shame!! She knows better, she's a trained lawyer and knows the power of the use of words from her days in the White House. I mean whose husband was the one to ask what the definition of 'is' is??!! So she knows exactly how to parse words and leave just enough doubt to the point where she didn't say he was a Muslim, as if that's a bad thing or something(I don't get it?), but left the door open as if there's some other underlying possibility. It's like she was describing a married Republican: "Well, he's married and has children and he's a straight man, as far as I know." Even though he's been rumored and wrote about to love cocks and likes them like crayola crayons - in all colors!!
She knew what she was doing, this is just a part of her 'kitchen sink' strategy that played out on national tv. She should be made to pay a price in Pennsylvania when she loses, which she will!!
Kroft was playing "gotcha" by asking the same question four times. I think Senator Clinton showed great patience by not getting exasperated and angry. Just think what the media reaction would be if, after being asked the same question for the fourth time, she became angry and snapped: I've already answered.
Herbert is unfair because he does not quote Clinton accurately here. However-as I've weighed-in another thread-I do sincerely believe that Hillary should have replied more emphatically. Although her first words were "Of course not", she should have left it at that. Kroft, I think, sensed equivocation when Hillary added what --to me as well-- were subtle qualifiers. That's what prompted the question to be asked again.
As I pointed out before: if an acquaintance of mine was asked if I drowned kittens, I'd appreciate if they'd answer (correctly, btw) "No", without adding "as far as I know".
Dave,
It may be that Hillary suffers from Kerryitis in that she cannot simply answer a question with a smple "No." But has the irrepressible urge to bloviate.
I do not believe was Machevellian in her reply. She simply responded as a politician who does not know when to shut up.
Bloviating? Are you kidding?
AA, I'm sure you were just looking for an opportunity to take a dig at John Kerry, but let me ask; Off the top of your head, name a politician who has a good solid record of answering with a simple "yes" or "no" during interviews. A Republican will get you bonus points.
Isn't it interesting that when someone expands on the concept of "no", saying why they don't believe it, that's wrong because it leads the questioner to continue asking. But a one-word "no" answer, which could easily prompt a follow-up of "why not?" is the proper thing to say.
This is easily the phoniest controversy I've ever seen.
Col.
You are right, it was a dig against Kerry. In my estimation he is the king of bloviators. I was astounded during the debates and his campaign how he would pontificate endlessly while not actually saying anything. I was constantly amused and never disapointed.
You are correct that politicians as a whole, never say in one word something they can easily turn into a sound bite. Hillary simply fell into it. As I stated earlier, I do not believe she was intentional in dangling that hanging eqivication. She simply did not know when to shut up.
At least with Kerry, you could tell which language he was speaking. I know many people, whose first language is not English, who are better speakers than the one we're not allowed to mention, the guy we're supposed to get over, the guy who is not running.
He said plenty as he ATE BUSH ALIVE in those debates. The only way to maintain what you claimed is true if is you are just so dim you cannot understand the English language. I know you wingnuts think that everything is black and white and any suggestion of nuance or complication just confuses your simplistic minds but I personally LIKE seeing that someone actually understands the issue enough to give a comprehensive answer that wouldnt fit on a bumper sticker. I dont care if it confuses the simpletons.
Solon,
What I found interesting is Kerry couldn't beat a guy who had trouble putting two sentences together without pausing enough for a commercial. :-) I think that speaks to the content rather than the delivery.
Geez, talk about bloviating without saying anything, AA. ;0)
In case you forgot, I was asking for an example of a politician who gives one word answers. Since Kerry is obviously the exception, you must be able to point a few of these out.
Policy questions will cause politicians to evade giving a simple reply. It's the nature of the beast. But this wasn't a policy question.
Bet that gratuitous Kerry quip causes convulsions of laughter to some.
I thought we were discussing Bob Herbert's misrepresentation of Hillary Clinton's comments about Obama's religion on 60 Minutes. In truth, we must take Obama's word for what his religious beliefs are. None of us, including Hillary, are in any position to know, without any doubt, what Obama truly believes, so "as far as I know" seems called for. It is very troubling that Herbert's bias has led him to discard his journalistic ethics to the extent he has in this case. It will make me look at his columns with much more skepticism in the future.
The attack on Bob Herbert misses his point in that article. It ignore the fact that what was offensive was not just Clinton's words, "as far as I know," but the fact that she paused for a beat to lend emphasis to an expression of uncertainty; the expression on her face and vocal intonation also made clear the "but who knows?" character of the remark. But you need to actually watch the 60 minutes clip to see that: not just read Herbert's article.
Media Matters needs to read up on conversational implicatures: they are a staple devise in politics. And not make tendentious attacks on well-respect columnists.
It was the one of the "sleaziest moments of the Clinton campaign," just as Herbert said.
It IS very much like the question, "Do you know that John McCain is a Christian?" Well, I presume so, but since there has been very little press on the subject, I really don't know. Now, if Steve Kroft asked me that question, I'd say, yes, as far as I know, which isn't much.
I used to work in this field, and at one time I interviewed someone who had been on 60 Minutes. He said that his clips were about a minute in the final show, about pesticides in agriculture, but that they burned about an hour of film to get that, with the interviewer asking the same question several times. He was fairly treated, on the one hand, but he also felt a bit burned, because they took the one cut that made him look a little stupid, sighing at first, it seemed at the question itself, but it was really just being asked the same question being asked again.
On the fourth time, she's asked, she puts in a tiny qualifier. Here's one: was she asked a fifth time? Or a sixth? Or, and I haven't watched that sequence closer, but is this even the order the questions were asked in?
I like your blog because you are pro-democrat, but at times you seem to get a little carried away in your unflagging support of Hilary Clinton. Some of us feel that you could be more even-handed, at least when dealing with democrats, than you are now. I don't like that Hilary "Lieberman" is campaigning for McCain. lwk (blu2waz)
Why does Media Matters keep claiming that Hillary is being misrepresented when she is quoted as saying "As far as I know"? She did say it and, as Matthews and Herbert et al have correctly noted when referring to it, it's a qualification you couldn't imagine her using if the question were asked of anyone else.
Why doesn't she know. Obama didn't fall out of the sky yesterday. There are ways of finding out that he is not a Muslim, and we do know he's not. So what's the question in Hillary's mind?
Equally to the point, what's the question in Media Matters' Mind?
"There are ways of finding out that he is not a Muslim, and we do know he's not. So what's the question in Hillary's mind?"
If you'll actually read the transcript, you'll see that "as far as I know" applies to there being no reasons to think he's a Muslim. She expressed no doubt about her not believing him to be a Muslim, she expressed doubt about something she couldn't possibly assert under any conditions. Do you know that there's no evidence anywhere in the world to suggest Obama is Muslim? How?