New Yorker's Lizza "gall[ed]" by Clinton's 60 Minutes response, but reported only small part of it
SUMMARY: In a column about Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza stated that Clinton's "disingenuous remark on '60 Minutes' that [Sen. Barack] Obama was not a Muslim 'as far as I know' was especially galling." However, Lizza did not include Clinton's full comment, which made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim.
In a March 17 New Yorker magazine column, Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza stated of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, "Her disingenuous remark on '60 Minutes' that [Sen. Barack] Obama was not a Muslim 'as far as I know' was especially galling." In fact, during an interview on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim and likened the false rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented. Clinton's first comment in response to 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft's initial question of whether she believed Obama was a Muslim was, "Of course not," and she followed the comment that Lizza reported by noting that she, too, has been the victim of "ridiculous rumors."
In addition, Lizza stated: "To watch Hillary Clinton during the final two weeks of the Ohio and Texas primary campaigns, as she defiantly ignored the pronouncements of her political demise and pounded away at her opponent in one more interview, at one more rally, was to bring to mind Jason or Freddy Krueger or the sitting governor of California, those Hollywood cyborgs and zombies who, despite bullets and stakes and explosions, will not under any circumstances be vanquished." Media Matters has documented other instances in which media figures have compared Clinton to a "zombie."
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 Lizza's March 17 New Yorker column:
To watch Hillary Clinton during the final two weeks of the Ohio and Texas primary campaigns, as she defiantly ignored the pronouncements of her political demise and pounded away at her opponent in one more interview, at one more rally, was to bring to mind Jason or Freddy Krueger or the sitting governor of California, those Hollywood cyborgs and zombies who, despite bullets and stakes and explosions, will not under any circumstances be vanquished. Clinton's public performances were marked by an eerily unflappable persistence as she executed an ungentle two-pronged attack: raising doubts about the readiness of her young opponent, Senator Barack Obama, to be Commander-in-Chief and challenging the depth of his commitment to the bread-and-butter concerns of the middle class.
[...]
Clinton's victories and her rhetorical tactics have challenged Obama's principled refusal to play the rough-and-ready game which he brands "old politics." Her disingenuous remark on "60 Minutes" that Obama was not a Muslim "as far as I know" was especially galling. One foreign-policy adviser, the professor and author Samantha Power, betrayed a taste of the Obama campaign's anger at Clinton when she told The Scotsman that Clinton was "a monster. ... The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive." (Power, who also writes for The New Yorker, apologized and resigned from the campaign last Friday.)















The fact that the voters are defining the story of this campaign and not the media is truly a wonderful thing.
Absolutely! And you'd think the chattering class would get out more and talk to real people. If they did they would find out that those of us on the Democratic side feel we have 2 first rate candidates and really prefer to let them pursue their campaigns without having the media run interference for either of them. Whenever you have 2 quality candidates engaged in a tight race things always get heated..nothing wrong with that. Whoever wins will have proven that he or she has what it takes for the general election in November. What is NOT needed is for a commentator or network to take one candidate's campaign up as a crusade. Thanks for the help and all that but really we'd rather you just BUTT OUT!
Actually most of us DO NOT want this dragged out beyond what is absolutely necessary
The math is in Obamas favor and with proportional delegatation he will still be ahead come convention and in the meantime McCain gets to chill out, raise money and enjoy the show
and this is how we lose 08
"Actually most of us DO NOT want this dragged out beyond what is absolutely necessary"
I do. I want them to HAVE to campaign in EVERY state. I'm tired of primary campaigns like the GOPs. What reason does their annointed candidate have to do any more than token campaigning in the remaining states?
I want EVERY state in the union to have a say in who the Dem candidate is. EVERY STATE.
Even if the math says Obama wins anyway
Look, Hillary is a G-damn major name, that she is behind against an upstart no one really heard much of before says it all...she had her chance to win and blew it
Now all Obama is doing is wasting money and time on something that is statistically over and again...McCain is free and clear
Is it worth it even if we lose???
And Iraq continues and another 1000 kids die in the sand
Just for one politicians ego?
"Is it worth it even if we lose???"
Yes, it is. Make them BOTH realize that every state counts, every vote counts, every VOTER counts.
"And Iraq continues and another 1000 kids die in the sand"
What does that have to do with the primaries? The process is what it is and those kids will die regardless. Cutting the primary season short will have no effect on that...but having in continue may have a GREAT effect on the election in November.
"Just for one politicians ego?"
I don't care one whit about anyone's ego. I'm looking at this from the country's perspective. Democrats have got to be made to realize that they need EVERY state, EVERY voter...and they need to fight for them.
"Is it worth it even if we lose???"
Yes, it is. Make them BOTH realize that every state counts, every vote counts, every VOTER counts.
You're missing the point, Doggone-GA. Hillary Clinton can not win, at this point--numerically, she has been out of this race for five weeks, now. Obama has a big lead in delegates, a big lead in the popular vote, and, as of Mississippi, has now won the majority of the states--that's only going to continue as this goes on. Clinton's strategy, for at least the last five weeks, has been merely to suck up enough votes to ensure that Obama can't get a clear win--something at which she has now succeeded--in the hopes of going to the convention and getting party bosses--the superdelegates--to overturn the democratic outcome. By saying this should continue, IOW, you aren't making sure that "every state counts, every vote counts"--you're actually enabling a situation in which the votes of the public could be taken away by party bosses.
"Is it worth it even if we lose???"
Yes, it is. Make them BOTH realize that every state counts, every vote counts, every VOTER counts.
You're missing the point, Doggone-GA. Hillary Clinton can not win, at this point--numerically, she has been out of this race for five weeks, now. Obama has a big lead in delegates, a big lead in the popular vote, and, as of Mississippi, has now won the majority of the states--that's only going to continue as this goes on. Clinton's strategy, for at least the last five weeks, has been merely to suck up enough votes to ensure that Obama can't get a clear win--something at which she has now succeeded--in the hopes of going to the convention and getting party bosses--the superdelegates--to overturn the democratic outcome. By saying this should continue, IOW, you aren't making sure that "every state counts, every vote counts"--you're actually enabling a situation in which the votes of the public could be taken away by party bosses.
* A loss by the Dems in November 2008;
* The Iraq War continuing and another 1,000 of our kids dying in the sand.
If I have correctly interpreted what you wrote, let me ask whether you consider this statement:
1. A measured judgment on your part?
2. Just a wee bit over the top?
3. Way over the top?
4. Your audition script for a guest appearance on The Colbert Report?
If the answer is 1 or 2, do you think you might provide a principled argument for this position?
Dogone-
So how does she win mathwise?
And since she cannot win mathwise what exactly is the value of the wasted campaign money and time better spent smashing McCain...if you haven't noticed even Bush beat us so I think we may need to be a tad more concentrated this year.
If McCain gets the advantage he needs, because Hillary can't put the party before herself, knowing full well she lost in states and delegates and can only be HANDED the nomination via Super Delegate fat cats, and McCain eeks this out then YES...100 more years of war guy will get people killed.
Losing is not an option
NOW BILLY
Good use of humor
Now read above and reply to the actual contention...and no, fretting over a thousand more dead is far from being overblown
but I thank you for playing and as a parting gift you get this 8 track player
It is my understanding that as of the currect position NEITHER of them can get the delegates they need to win outright and no matter who has the higher count it's STILL going to come down to the Super Delegate.
And I would still want them to HAVE to campaign in EVERY state and put their case for the nomination before EVERY voter.
Just for one politicians ego?
You've hit the nail right on the head, Edenscape. Bravo.
"There is a desperation in their tone that says to me that they're scared to death the scenario won't play out exactly as they have scripted it."
So true Socal. The proof is right here at MMFA-- the Hillary-haters have regrouped. Their venom and outrage at any criticism of their candidate has become really intolerable the last week or so.
They are clearly on the defensive-- and they have very thin skins, the whole lot of them.
I can't believe some of the paranoid nonsense I have been reading here about "the Clintons." Because of these people, we will lose in November.
How can we be desperate is we are WINNING states and delegates
BTW has Hillary told the media that Texas no longer counts as she just lost it or is it a given
How can we be desperate is we are WINNING states and delegates?
Exactly! Why not settle down and let the process take its course. If you really are winning what's the problem?
Its called wasted money, it doesn't grow on trees
And you will see the Clinton slings at Obama recycled via the McCain campaign, nothing like being dissed by someone on your own dam team to highlight in tv ads
Exactly! Why not settle down and let the process take its course. If you really are winning what's the problem?
Y'know, I keep telling myself that Hillary Clinton supperters, even though their support for Clinton is evidence of a serious character flaw, can't possibly be as cretinously stupid as they sound. When one of them asks a question like that, though, it does sort of reinforce the conclusion to which I've long been leaning.
this could all be avoided by simply quoting the entire conversation, it is not that long. you can pull a couple of words out of any conversation and make it seem what it is not. those doing so are the dishonest ones.
I could not agree with you more!!
In fact, Mefirst, I am going to cut your words and will be ready to paste them into one of my responses the next time a PROGRESSIVE site does it to a CONSERVATIVE!
Well she didn't fire Wolfson over the Ken Starr bit
and Ferraro is still on the trail
so I'm not so certain that she will fire anyone.....but I digress, if Obama said it and I haven't seen it yet then yes, he should ante up proof
here it is. in the last debate he said the matter of the photo was closed, now he is directly accusing her "campaign" of distributing it. not to mention that obama's campaign manager has said she has an "inexplicable unwillingness" to say obama is not a muslim.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5017324
cool, agreed, he should supply the proof
He didn't make the assertion. Drudge's cited source was an email from Clinton staffers. Clinton insisted she, personally, knew nothing about it, and he took her at her word, but he's never absolved the Clinton campaign of the deed.
I do wonder why I've never seen it before...
But again, if Obama has no proof that she leaked it or propogated it in any way then he should retract that statement, I don't disagree
the photo was used by the tabloid national examiner weeks before it appeared on drudge and was being posted on right wing web sites before. hard to be "leaking" anything that was already out there. but in any case, hillary said she would dismiss anyone who was involved. so let's see if the press is as dogged about asking obama to put up or shut up.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262008/news/nationalnews/pic_is_turban_warfare_99303.htm?page=0
and it was obama's chief strategist who said that hillary has shown her "own inexplicable unwillingness" to deny obama is a muslim, which is totally untrue. why is he not being questioned about that statement?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/11/obama-adviser-says-clinton-must-repudiate-backers-comments/
Probably for the same reason the MSM is giving Hillary a pass for suggesting her or McCain are better suited than Barack
Below is how you really answer the question
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=AuuSWjBvggnGb3niQQ4GnXOs0NUE
Again, I'll say unless he has direct proof that the Hill machine put this photo out he ought not make the claim, however, after reading your article I can see why he was suspicious...the same reason I am
From your NYPOST link
"In December, two Clinton volunteers in Iowa resigned after forwarding e-mails stating Obama is a closet Muslim planning to destroy America. "
Now I have a question for you, with volunteers, staffers and fundraisers all saying things that are off color do you believe A. that it is still far far fetched to take Hills soft denials with a grain of salt or do you think she is having trouble in all her experience hiring competent, manageable people
Obama's monster spouting moron was let go, Wolfson and Ferraro still have jobs...
Again, I'll say unless he has direct proof that the Hill machine put this photo out he ought not make the claim, however, after reading your article I can see why he was suspicious...the same reason I am
From your NYPOST link
"In December, two Clinton volunteers in Iowa resigned after forwarding e-mails stating Obama is a closet Muslim planning to destroy America."
Again, Drudge's cited source was email from Clinton staffers. One can rightly slam Obama for taking Drudge at his word (an admittedly dubious business), but Drudge--not Obama--is the source for the claim that it came from the Clinton campaign. The pose of offended innocence from Clinton's supporters, after they've run the kind of campaign they have, is hilarious, at best.
<>by the way, obama himself today directly accused the "clinton campaign" of sending that photo to drudge. if he knows, he needs to let hillary know, because she said she would fire anyone who did so. if he does not know, he needs to withdraw the accusation.
He isn't the one who made the accusation. Drudge's cited source is an email from Clinton campaign staffers; that's what it's been all along.
Perhaps it might end if Barack Obama simply said: I do not believe Hillary meant any harm...as far as I know. ;>)
Perhaps it might end if Barack Obama simply said: I do not believe Hillary meant any harm...as far as I know. ;>)
LOL
Don't even try to deal with these Obama maniacs. They just make things up.
That's all they've got. Fantasies about their messiah.
Carlil do you have anything to back that up with...we Obamamanaiacs are ahed in the polls, we are winning both states and delegates, gonna win again today
And Hillary is behind and the only way she can win now is if the superdelegates HAND it to her, you know, fat cats and party insiders like her husband and Spitzer
Big whoop Obama wins today. Blacks in Mississippi engage in reverse racism, nobody else supports him there, and that means something...?
Like what Carville said yesterday on CNN-- great point-- just how many Idahos are equal to California....?
I agree ME that Carlil comment is overblown
Now Carlil, riddle me this, no matter who the nominee is, don't we always win California? That's like getting excited that Hillary carried that big swing state Massachusetts...get a grip.
I'm not sure guns will play this year
Here's what I picture...Obama gets any state we always get, the tried and true blues...I feel he has a great chance at picking up a few swings against McCain and possibly a Red or two
See McCain has the same problem Hillary has...McCain has a maverickish record, hardcore GOPers may sit this one out, Hill is a hawk, hardcore peace Libs may sit this out
After the 04 lose to Bush I believe we need every vote we can get
Guns may play though...me I think Obama goes a trifle far there but it does reinforce his lib creds which is ok by me
It is innappropriate. Then why is Geraldine Ferraro, in the Clinton finance committee, saying it?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/12/2187222.htm?section=world
"Well, actually, since her campaign had been using "Muslim" in their letters, and possibly sending out pictures of Obama in a turban, the question is well deserved."
No, it isn't...and it never will be. If they want to know if he's Muslim ASK HIM. Who cares what anyone else THINKS about it? She fell into the trap on the FIRST question...but even the questioner was too stupid to see it and thinks the "trap" was the answer to the last question.
If they want to know about what her campaign sends out...then ask about THAT, don't ask what she THINKS about his religion.
HA! see, we both think the crickets bit is funny ; )
I knew it
"If her campaign has been directly invovled in smearing him "
"IF" isn't good enough. Where's the proof? No proof, no justification. And even IF it's true...why should anyone care what she THINKS about his religion? If you want to know, ask HIM...not her.
You want to know about smears? Ask about THOSE...not about what she THINKS of his religious beliefs. Again, and always, if you want to know that...ask HIM.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/05/clinton_campaign_volunteer_out.html
Why, is it not valid?
We cannot just dismiss this because its a small timer
There is also Wolfson and Bill Shaheen and Ferraro
I agree that Obama should not say Hill leaked the photo without proof
But on the other hand I cannot say that three plus staffers doesn't either A. suggest a pattern of dropping bombs through underlings or B. hiring incompetent folks you cannot manage
neither is good
YO SWINE
Did you just link to Beck and think that was gonna get traction in these parts...man alive, are you serious, I clicked the link and after he said Liberals seven times in one sentence I clicked it off
Beck makes CNN look bad