Media react to sec. of state rumors with suggestions of a rogue Clinton agenda, Clinton as Obama's "enem[y]"
SUMMARY: Discussing reports that President-elect Barack Obama is considering naming Sen. Hillary Clinton secretary of state, several media figures have responded with smears, including speculation that Clinton would pursue her own agenda as secretary of state and not Obama's, references to Clinton as Obama's "enem[y]," and speculation that Obama is considering the nomination because if Clinton remains in the Senate, she poses a threat of challenging him for the Democratic nomination in 2012 and can "mak[e] trouble" for him in the Senate.
Discussing reports that President-elect Barack Obama is considering naming Sen. Hillary Clinton secretary of state, several media figures have responded with smears, including 1) speculation that Clinton would pursue her own agenda as secretary of state and not Obama's, with at least one pundit speculating that she would attempt to set up a "parallel government" and another suggesting she might use the job to position herself to deny Obama the Democratic nomination in 2012; 2) references to Clinton as Obama's "enem[y]" with invocations of the adage from The Godfather: Part II that Obama is considering the nomination out of a desire to "keep[] his friends close and his enemies closer"; and 3) speculation that Obama is considering the nomination because if Clinton remains in the Senate, she poses a threat of challenging him for the nomination in 2012 and can "mak[e] trouble" for him in the Senate.
Examples of media figures suggesting that Clinton would pursue her own agenda as secretary of state and not Obama's
- During the November 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, MSNBC contributor Michelle Bernard asserted that Clinton "will run a parallel government" as secretary of state and "could give him [Obama] some cover, and she could also walk -- go around the world acting as if she is not the secretary of state but the United States -- the president of the United States. That's a huge danger for him. It's a very, very high-level job." Host Chris Matthews then asked Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, "[W]ould you trust her to be a loyal subordinate, or believe she would be a bit too aggressive as a colleague?" Donahue responded:
DONAHUE: Well, let's take past as prologue. I mean, how did she handle herself during the nominating fight? How did she handle it when Obama was coming up upon her and then lapped her? She didn't handle it very kindly. She didn't allow him to have his piece. She went negative. She tried to bury him. And I think that he should take a lesson from that. I mean, I understand this idea of hug your friends tight, hug your enemies tighter. I think that's often true. If you look at it, you and I were talking about [Nicolò] Machiavelli and The Prince. Absolutely true stuff in there. And I think it's smart to do it. But what will she do overseas? Will she be laying out the groundwork should Obama have only one term? Will she be, in fact, trying to create only one term for Barack Obama?
- Fox News host Greta Van Susteren suggested that if Clinton is named secretary of state, both she and Bill Clinton pose a threat of "freelancing." During the November 14 edition of her show On the Record, Congressional Quarterly reporter Jonathan Allen asserted that the appointment "would also give Barack Obama complete control over Hillary Clinton's political future because she would be serving at his pleasure." Van Susteren responded: "Except for the fact that you've got her potentially -- any Cabinet candidate member freelancing, and you've got her husband out there freelancing."
- James Taranto, editor of The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, suggested during the November 14 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight that Clinton was interested in the secretary of state position because "[i]t would also put her in the line of succession."
Examples of media figures referring to Clinton as Obama's "enem[y]"
Media figures and political analysts also asserted that Obama might be following the strategy of Michael Corleone from The Godfather: Part II -- that Obama might name Clinton secretary of state to "keep[] his friends close and his enemies closer." Such figures include Donahue, Fox News chief White House correspondent Bret Baier, Fox News political contributor and managing editor of The Washington Times' digital media operations Jeff Birnbaum, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez, and CBS sports commentator Boomer Esiason (during an appearance on the November 14 edition of Fox & Friends Weekend).
Examples of media figures suggesting that Clinton might cause trouble for Obama if he does not include her in the administration
Media figures also asserted that Obama might name Clinton secretary of state because she might otherwise challenge him for the presidency in 2012 or cause "heartache" for him in the Senate. Such figures include the following:
- On the November 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle said, "President-elect Obama, of course, would have every reason to consider her for secretary of state, because having her serve in his administration would neutralize his chief Democratic rival."
- Also on the November 14 edition of Special Report, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer stated, "I would agree with Fred [Barnes, fellow panelist] -- she's a reasonably good choice. But what's so sort of cynically brilliant and impressive about this is that with her out of the way, Obama is not going to have to show up in Iowa or New Hampshire in 2012. He has now cinched the renomination."
- NBC News political director Chuck Todd said on the November 15 edition of MSNBC Live that if Obama names Clinton secretary of state, "there is a lot of upside politically for Senator Obama. You bring -- you get one of your chief rivals, somebody who could cause you a lot of heartache in the Senate, Senator Clinton, and you get her inside your administration. You take somebody that could be a potential rival to you in 2012 out of the picture as well."
- During the November 14 edition of CNN Newsroom, Sanchez asked Patricia Murphy of CitizenJanePolitics.com, "Is there something to do with wanting to have Hillary Clinton as your secretary of state if you're Barack Obama here?" Murphy responded:
MURPHY: Well, there could be. Certainly, the question is, do you want the Clintons inside your tent or outside your tent? Do you want your rival outside making trouble for you or do you want to bring them in? You must have 100 percent trust with your secretary of state. You cannot have somebody out there advocating for themselves and not for you.
From the November 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Well, here's the question. Because of the very reason that Jennifer mentioned -- she is a notch or two to the right of this guy Barack Obama. She did vote for the war resolution. She did oppose -- or support naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. She has spoken positively of keeping permanent bases in Iraq. She's a bit of a hawk on the Middle East. She could give him some cover on any Middle East deal that is struck with Israel and Middle Eastern countries.
BERNARD: She could give him some cover, and she could also walk -- go around the world acting as if she is not the secretary of state but the United States -- the president of the United States. That's a huge danger for him. It's a very, very high-level job.
MATTHEWS: Jennifer, would you trust her to be a loyal subordinate, or believe she would be a bit too aggressive as a colleague?
DONAHUE: Well, let's take past as prologue. I mean, how did she handle herself during the nominating fight? How did she handle it when Obama was coming up upon her and then lapped her? She didn't handle it very kindly. She didn't allow him to have his piece. She went negative. She tried to bury him. And I think that he should take a lesson from that. I mean, I understand this idea of hug your friends tight, hug your enemies tighter. I think that's often true. If you look at it, you and I were talking about Machiavelli and The Prince. Absolutely true stuff in there. And I think it's smart to do it. But what will she do overseas? Will she be laying out the groundwork should Obama have only one term? Will she be, in fact, trying to create only one term for Barack Obama?
MATTHEWS: [unintelligible] You guys are so suspicious. Look, I think that since she lost the fight for the nomination, Michelle and Jennifer, she has been not just a good soldier, she has sang the tune of this guy. She's been illustrious, she's been admirable. She -- her spirit seems to be with him. Bill's a little more troubled, obviously, by what happened. But she's been totally with him, and that's why he's obviously thrown her name out. Why would he even be thinking of her if he thought she might be insubordinate?
BERNARD: Well -- well --
MATTHEWS: Why would he think of it?
BERNARD: -- because there are a lot of people out there, particularly women, who are saying, "We've had Madeleine Albright, we've had Condoleezza Rice, let's have another woman in the -- you know, in the top post at the State Department." There will be people also, I will tell you, who will be saying, "Why not Susan Rice?" She was one of his chief foreign policy people --
MATTHEWS: OK -- OK -- this is so hot --
BERNARD: -- throughout the campaign.
[...]
MATTHEWS: We're back with Michelle Bernard and Jennifer Donahue for more of the "Politics Fix." Jennifer, you're up there in New Hampshire, we're down here. I have to tell you, it's amazing to watch how these things develop. First of all, the word comes out tonight -- here we are on Friday night -- that Hillary Clinton has been offered the job if she wants it. That's the word that's floating around. And then she's coming back, the senator from New York, and saying, "Well, I want to look at a couple things like, is Joe Biden gonna get in my way as vice president?" I would assume that among her other concerns are, which are stressed here in the news reporting, is who's gonna get Defense, who's gonna get CIA, who's gonna get NSC, the national security adviser. In other words, she's sort of dictating terms here in what looks to be a proffer of a job. Jennifer, it's an extraordinary position of power she's in, in what normally would be considered one of the great prizes in the world she's being given.
DONAHUE: Yes, and I think this reflects how she behaved in the idea of who was gonna be the vice-presidential candidate that Barack Obama picked, so she's got a competition going on with Biden. Biden's the vice president. Her strength: HHS, Supreme Court -- there's plenty of places -- education, children. These are things that are near and dear to her. I just don't see where she's a foreign policy expert to the extent of Chuck Hagel. Team of rivals? Chuck Hagel. Colin Powell. Both sides of the aisle. Sam Nunn.
MATTHEWS: Right. Well, Jennifer, do you think -- do you think there's an ingenious Machiavellian streak in Barack Obama, who wanted her to hang herself with these public demands, the fact that they're being leaked --
DONAHUE: Ah -- I think --
MATTHEWS: -- and therefore he tried to bring her aboard, but she set too many standards, too many conditions. He just couldn't do it. He couldn't give away his presidency.
DONAHUE: Yeah, I think that's a really good point. I mean, this man can think two steps ahead of any opponent, and that's what we've seen. We see it with him meeting with McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Rahm Emanuel, sort of brokering this big meeting. This guy thinks way ahead of anybody else. That's how he got here; he'll continue to do that. He picked Rahm Emanuel not to be someone who could bring people in every party together but to keep his own party in line. That's what Rahm Emanuel knows how to do. Are they going to keep Hillary Clinton in line? Yes. Are they going to keep watch on her? Yes.
BERNARD: No, they're not going to keep her in line if she's secretary of state. If she's secretary of state --
DONAHUE: Well, that's why she's not gonna get it.
BERNARD: -- she will run a parallel government. It will be a huge problem.
DONAHUE: I don't believe she'll get it.
MATTHEWS: If he hires her, he cannot fire her.
DONAHUE: She's not gonna get it.
[crosstalk]
BERNARD: Well, he could fire her, but it would look horrible. He can't do it.
DONAHUE: He can't do it.
MATTHEWS: That's the prob -- well, we'll decide --
DONAHUE: Michelle, you're right.
MATTHEWS: -- I think you two are probably the toughest people in the world who are on it.
From the November 14 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren:
ALLEN: Well, I think, obviously, there's only one person that makes this decision, and it's President-elect Obama. And he'll choose who he thinks is best for that job regardless of who he thinks owes him or who he believes he may owe.
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you believe that? I mean, is that how these decisions are always made?
ALLEN: I certainly hope so.
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean -- anyway, I mean --
ALLEN: It's not how these decisions --
VAN SUSTEREN: That's how the decision -- we all say that's how the decision should be made --
ALLEN: It's not --
VAN SUSTEREN: -- but sometimes you make political decisions.
ALLEN: Well, but the political decision may, in fact, be Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons. One is that, obviously, the Clintons are well-known around the world and well-respected around the world. It would send a message about how Barack Obama wants to do business in a sort of team of rivals kind of way. And it would also give Barack Obama complete control over Hillary Clinton's political future because she would be serving at his pleasure.
VAN SUSTEREN: Except for the fact that you've got her potentially -- any Cabinet candidate member freelancing, and you've got her husband out there freelancing, as well, so you could --
From the 3 p.m. ET hour of the November 14 edition of CNN Newsroom:
SANCHEZ: Is there a little Machiavellianism going on with this, because look, think about it.
MURPHY: Who would accuse somebody of that?
SANCHEZ: Well, you know the expression, keep your friends close, but you want to keep your enemies closer?
MURPHY: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Is there something to do with wanting to have Hillary Clinton as your secretary of state if you're Barack Obama here?
MURPHY: Well, there could be. Certainly, the question is, do you want the Clintons inside your tent or outside your tent? Do you want your rival outside making trouble for you or do you want to bring them in? You must have 100 percent trust with your secretary of state. You cannot have somebody out there advocating for themselves and not for you.
SANCHEZ: And then there's the Bill Clinton effect, which we don't get a chance to talk about.
MURPHY: The effect, yeah.
SANCHEZ: Boy, that would have been good.
It's great having you on.
MURPHY: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: You're fabulous. It's fabulous. Thank you so much.
From the November 14 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
TARANTO: Well, Mrs. Clinton pretty much can't run for president till 2016 anyway, because it's unlikely she will take on President Obama in 2012, and it's unlikely that he'll -- that he will not seek re-election. So this may actually be the most sensible course for her, assuming that he's interested in giving her the job, and if she wants a high-profile position. I would also note -- Michael mentioned that it would get her out of the country. It would also put her in the line of succession.
From the November 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BAIER: Coming up next, is President-elect Obama operating under the idea of keeping his friends close and his enemies closer? What's behind the meetings with Hillary Clinton and John McCain? Some breaking news about that after the break.
[...]
BAIER: Jeff, politically smart move?
BIRNBAUM: I think it's a very smart move. As you pointed out, as the old adage goes, you want to keep your friends close and your enemies closer, and by bringing in Hillary Clinton, he keeps an eye on Hillary Clinton. In fact, she has to work with him. This is very much like another president from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, who filled his cabinet with rivals.
[...]
KRAUTHAMMER: If she is secretary of state, he [Vice President-elect Joe Biden] won't be. That's how the Clintons operate, and I'm sure if she accepts the job, it's going to be under those terms. She is not going to split the job with the Sage of Wilmington.
What's really ironic here is that, if you remember, for about half a year, she was touting her credentials in foreign affairs and Obama was ridiculing them. And you remember, there was this little episode about her being shot at in Tuzla? But I guess change has come to America, and now all of that is behind us.
I would agree with Fred -- she's a reasonably good choice. But what's so sort of cynically brilliant and impressive about this is that with her out of the way, Obama is not going to have to show up in Iowa or New Hampshire in 2012. He has now cinched the renomination.
In the Carter administration, [Sen. Ted] Kennedy [D-MA] challenged him as his presidency weakened. The Clintons have owned the party for 16 years; it's now Obama's. He knows that if he weakens and if he ever has a challenge, it would be her. And now, if she accepts, it won't be her.
From the November 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends Weekend:
ALISYN CAMEROTA (co-host): Let's look at another top story that we're covering and that is, what's going to happen with Hillary Clinton? Has President-elect Barack Obama offered her the secretary of state job, and if so --
ESIASON: Yes.
CAMEROTA: -- would she take it?
ESIASON: Is my neighbor Bill O'Reilly around here somewhere now that we're getting down into this? I like it.
CAMEROTA: No, you were telling us that you have some thoughts on this.
ESIASON: You know what? I think she should take it. You know what? She's 61 years old. And just think: Bill and Hillary traveling the world. And now, all of a sudden --
CLAYTON MORRIS (co-host): Wait, you think Bill's going to go? He has the house all to himself.
ESIASON: Well, he can go one way, she can go the other. That'd be fine. But, you know, I think that she's --
DAVE BRIGGS (co-host): When the cat's away.
ESIASON: -- intimately qualified to become secretary of state, and I guess it goes back to the old adage, if you're Barack Obama, you know, keep your friends closer, but your enemies even closer than your friends. So I think this is going to be an interesting thing, and it would be -- I think it would be good for her. You know, they'll name a bridge after her around here for some of the stuff she's done in the Senate, as a state senator of New York.
MORRIS: And now, you're known as a tough guy, obviously, NFL legend. Now, she's a tough woman, OK?
ESIASON: She is.
MORRIS: And former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton saying, "Look" -- I don't know, he predicted this -- but saying, "Bringing her into the White House" --
ESIASON: Right.
MORRIS: -- "don't ever hire someone you can't fire." Is she too un-fireable? Is she too tough?
ESIASON: That's a good point. You know, and I think you've got to be really careful. But I think, also -- I would imagine that Barack Obama is extending an olive branch and showing people that he's trying to be a uniter, especially within their Democratic Party.
And listen, I'm a McCain guy. I'm an independent. I voted for John McCain. But you know what? Barack Obama is our president right now, and I think he deserves our respect, of the office, and we have to see what he does before we can start really criticizing all the decisions he's making.
From the 8 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on November 15:
ALEX WITT (anchor): And for a bit more on today's top political stories, we're joined by NBC's political director, Chuck Todd. Yay hey. Nice. On a Saturday, some OT for Chuck. Hello.
TODD: Good morning, Alex.
WITT: How likely is it, Chuck, that we're going to see Hillary Clinton as secretary of state? What do you think are the potential pluses and the pitfalls to it?
TODD: Well, I think the likelihood is fairly high. I mean, the -- this wouldn't get floated out there this seriously if she weren't going to be seriously considered, because the last thing Obama wants to do is alienate the Clintons and somehow embarrass her, have her considered and then say, "Oh, we're not going to appoint you. We're going to appoint Bill Richardson." So, I think it is very serious at this point.
And there is a lot of upside politically for Senator Obama. You bring -- you get one of your chief rivals, somebody who could cause you a lot of heartache in the Senate, Senator Clinton, and you get her inside your administration. You take somebody that could be a potential rival to you in 2012 out of the picture as well. Senator Clinton wouldn't be able to get involved in Democratic politics very actively at all from secretary of state. It's just not kosher these days to practice politics when you're at a position like State, attorney general, or the Pentagon.
So, there are a lot of political upsides for him. The question is, what are the upsides for her? And I think there are more there than people realize. The biggest: She really doesn't have a big portfolio in the Senate. She would like one, but I think she is struggling to get it. There's a lot of people in her way, seniority-wise, and going over to the State Department would, I think, give her -- would raise her profile in a way that maybe she won't be able to do in the Senate.
From the November 14 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume:
ANGLE: President-elect Obama, of course, would have every reason to consider her for secretary of state, because having her serve in his administration would neutralize his chief Democratic rival.
DOUG SCHOEN (Democratic strategist): He would ensure the loyalty of somebody who got close to 18 million votes against him in the Democratic primary and has made it clear that she was going to speak up for her constituency and the issues that she cares about, were she to stay in the Senate.
[...]
ANGLE: But why would Senator Clinton want to serve in the administration of the man she ran against and may want to succeed? For one thing, she is still the junior senator from New York with no prospect of even chairing a committee, while the alternative is pretty attractive.
[...]
ANGLE: So, if the job is officially offered and she takes it, many Democrats think both would benefit. He removes his chief rival from Congress while gaining an experienced hand at his side. And she gets a great and challenging job and yet another credential, if she decides to run again.
Not only is the honeymoon over, it never started.
slightly OT, but watching the "press" is almost as fun as watching right wing christian preachers display what they really are! Implosions are really fun to watch. ;)
Church parishioner sez pastor singled her out for the Obama sign on her car
By John Amato Saturday Nov 15, 2008 12:28pmDo you see a pattern here? More and more of the lunatic fringe are losing it. Here's the latest one.
I'm going to keep a list.
Yes, but these people are dangerous. They don't go away lightly. They are all very big on reprisal.
remember when Mathews stated he hated her ? That might have been an unintended revelation of truth , the only fact that exists in their minute minds.
God, you're not kidding!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/15/presidential-election-spu_n_144095.html
Notice how these cowardly lunatics are...always doing things under cover of night. Not brave enough to stand up for their convictions. But since they all make over $250,000 they just don't want to lose their good jobs. They have to be angry about possibly paying more taxes..what else could they be afraid of...being treated fairly? Now that is a novel concept.
Bullys are all cowards--they won't face up to even the POSSIBILITY of somebody who can stand up to them. I'd bet that most of them also vehemently deny being racists, even when caught red-handed.
Hillary has the support of about half of the democrat voters...and Obama knows it.
While it might work very well for Obama to have Hillary in his cabinet and under his thumb...I don't see Hillary excepting SoS and limiting her options by working for Obama.
She has much more influence...for or against any Obama policy...as one of the most powerful senators in congress...and Obama knows it.
who are 'democrat voters'?
Good God, you're an idiot. You'd do better sealing the widening cracks between the conservative evangelicals and the nascent progressive evangelicals in the base of your own Party rather than seeking to leverage fictional power struggles in the Democratic base.
No. Scratch that. Keep it up, wes. This DaDa reprise, this art form of believing your own bs can provide a few minutes entertainment for us until Obama is seated in the White House and begins picking up more and more former Republicans as we set about getting this country back on track.
There's a lot of assumptions in your post. Do you have any facts to present?
Talk about posting just to see ones' fingers move. What are you drinking? Dumb, I mean, RumFlavored KoolAid.
I do not think that Obama is "worried" about Hillary...He is the President-elect. Your premise is right out of the X-Files. Another unexplained line from you "under his thumb". How about working as a team? Sounds to sane for you...You call Muldar and I'll call Scully. You reasoning has no reason, just keyboard confusion as usual.
P.S. How many democrats voted for Hillary in the general election?
OK prince...you win.
I have now officially moved Hillary to my list of most trusted politicians...always voting with the country in mind first...never making a political calculation when exercising her vote...team player all the way.
Obama should waste little time in announcing his intention of asking her to serve as his SoS...and Hillary should waste little time in accepting his offer. She has had her day in the sun as a presidential candidate...you said it best when you asked "how many democrats voter for Hillary in the general election"...with the results being damned few.
Even Hillary must recognize that receiving such scant support in the general election means her dreams of the presidency are over...all aboard the Obama change train. Heck, even ole Tonto had a pretty good life...subjecting himself to serving Kemosabe.
Hillary and I are both examples of debunking the theory that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Further discussion is senseless...Hillary for SoS.
Actually, your previous point of discussion was senseless.
She has much more influence...for or against any Obama policy...as one of the most powerful senators in congress...and Obama knows it.
Wes, your theory might make sense if Hillary Clinton wasn't a "Junior" Senator.
"Junior" in terms of party seniority and lack of any committee chairmanship And Majority Leader? She'd first have to go through Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer, who are Reid's (the current Majority Leader) deputies.
And Hillary's main focus, health-care reform? Already being proposed by Max Baucus.
Hillary has a well known name, but that name currently does not equate to power in the Senate.
Oops. You're making sense again. Cut it out--you aren't fighting fair. Facts have a liberal bias!
What the media should be doing is pointing out that as Sec. of State Clinton will be effectively removed from ever having a hand in bringing quality universal healthcare to Americans. The Zionists running both the Bush and now apparently the Obama administrations seem to want to make sure that universal healthcare doesn't come to America, at least not a truly progressive healthcare. Looks like we will have pretty much more of the same from Obama, Bush Lite, same torture techniques, same pro-war Likudnik neo-con types running the bakstage show (Rahm Emmanuel et al).
When I read that Invasion Architect Ken Adelman endorsed Obama I just about voted McCain.
The media will never make an issue out of the fact that Jews and anti-war American Gentiles, Democrats, Progressives and a few Republicans are at loggerheads over the Arab conflict. But since progressive Howard Dean has been forced out by Rahm Emmanuel (yeah, I know...Dean resigned) and Steny Hoyer is second in the House and Lieberman is being welcomed back with hugs and kisses, we can all pretty much see where the power lies and where it's taking America. You can also get an idea of it by seeing who is getting bailed out and who isn't.
Zionists making sure that Universal healthcare does not come to America?
What do they get out of it?
The Zionists running both the Bush and now apparently the Obama administrations seem to want to make sure that universal healthcare doesn't come to America, at least not a truly progressive healthcare.
Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009. You might want to wait until he takes office before you criticize him.
Some advice -- because I love the mainstream media and I want to help.
If you want to be right every now and then without doing the slightest bit of work, don't repeat the same novel over and over. Make up a new novel every week and you'll score a hit every once and a while. Then you can play the clip of you being right for a few months until you're accidentally right again.
The viewers won't notice you changing stories every week because they aren't paying attention. And if a few emailers catch on, the trash bin is right there.
She tried to bury him...
Eaxctly when did that happen? It never did.
Heh, heh. As far as I know she never implied he was a Muslim.
that's correct. she never did.
That's what I said. As far as I know Obama is not a Muslim and as far as I know Hillary never implied he was.
which makes makes your answer to carlileb somewhat confusing. what did that mean?
What's so confusing? If you don't think Hillary was implying Obama is a Muslim with her, "as far as I know," phrase, why be uncertain about my use of the phrase in regard to her?
So, as far as I know, she wasn't trying to imply Obama is a Muslim.
i think the key phrase is "as far as i know", since that is what the whole controversy was about. you keep using it, so i would have to assume you are making some point. i personally do not think she was implying it, and i don't need to qualify it with "as far as i know". so do you think she was implying he was a muslim. yes or no?
How can I say definitively what she meant? She didn't really leave a definitive answer. As far as I know she wasn't trying to imply Obama could be a Muslim.
At the very least (and I understand the reporter hounded her on the point) I think she treated the question poorly. I think she was unnecessarily ambiguous given the fact that Barack himself had previously very unambiguously stated that he is not a Muslim.
On the broader point carlisle was addressing of Hillary trying to "bury" Obama...it was a tough campaign, she was trailing late and the best option she had left was to go negative. I understand the difference between highlighting a candidate's negatives and an unethical attack on a candidate's character. I think Hillary aggressively pursued the former, while McPalin slavishly pushed the latter.
I was basically just giving carlisle a slight elbow, but I'm glad you got involved and got me thinking.
i didn't find her to be ambiguous at all. she said "of course not", and she said she took him on "the basis of what he says". "as far as i know", which was after all the previous times she emphatically stated her position, simply meant she had no information to think otherwise. given the numerous times she said she did not believe he was a muslim, i see no ambiguity. she then said she had been the subject of "ridiculous rumors" herself, clearly casting the allegations about him as ridiculous.
Kroft pushed the question hard, he clearly had an agenda, but I found her answer drawn out and ambiguous. All she had to do is say, "no" and move on, like she did in the same interview when asked if she should concede defeat.
The very fact that you could not fully understand what I meant by the phrase, "as far as I know," shows it to be an ambiguous statement. If it were a concrete answer like, no, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
you were being ambiguous, not her. you were using the phrase to make a point, which is what i said i assumed you were doing. and that is what you were doing. the idea that it means something because she did not simply say "no" and nothing more is ridiculous. "of course not" is a definite unambiguous answer.
You're right about one thing, I was using her phrase to make the point that it's not concrete language.
Had she stopped at, "of course not," that would have been unambiguous. Had she stopped at, "I take him at his word," that would have been unambiguous. She was content to answer questions of ending her campaign with a simple, "no."
She invited ambiguity into her answer, not me. To say otherwise is, in your words, ridiculous.
Anyway, who cares? She did her best to become president, she's still kickin' and she will still have plenty of work to do reversing the Republican follies of the last 8 years.
I'm off to work.
Later.
it was concrete language in the way she used it. what's ridiculous is to read words like "of course not", "i take him on the basis of what he says", "no. no", "ridiculous rumors", and find any ambiguity in there. there is no one and only way to answer everything. just because you have some script that you insist must be followed to the letter does not make it so. and you were using the phrase to mock her answer and suggest that she was implying he was a muslim. you're the one making the ambiguous statements. such as "she didn't really leave a definitive answer." she did, over and over.
your answer to carlileb was really meant to suggest that she was implying he was a muslim. which is the way i took it, so i said that's correct, she never did imply that, and you said "that's what i said". well no, it's not what you said, and it's not what you meant, in your answer to carlileb. you meant she did imply it. if not, then what?
Script I insist must be followed my a**
Jesus, you're uptight. Actually, no, no, no. Of course you're not. There's nothing to base that on. As far as I know.
See how that cuts when you're on the receiving end?
Beyond your own arrogant insistence that I'm ridiculous, you have not been able to show that her final, "as far as I know," is an unambiguous phrase. You have gone to great lengths to divert attention from her use of it to my use of it. You focus on her use of other phrases and my use of, "as far as I know," but you avoid her googley eyed use of, "as far as I know," as her final answer.
I do not find the phrase, "as far as I know", to be an adequate way to dispel a disgusting rumor that not only impugns a self-professed Christian, but maligns an entire religion.
Like I said, though. Who cares. She lost and there's still work to be done.
i've seen that argument before. she had to say exactly these words, nothing more and nothing less, and because she didn't, that meant she wasn't being clear. and you are claiming your use of it proves the point that it's ambiguous. it doesn't. you used it in a different way. and her "use of other phrases" such as "of course not" and a half dozen emphatic statements apparently have little to do with it? whatever you say. if it doesn't fit your theory, toss it out? she said no, no, there is nothing to base that on, as far as i know. that's pretty clear, it means everything i heard says he is not a muslim. and you think "as far as i know" maligns a religion? uh, then why would you call it a "disgusting rumor" that impugns him?
to be clear, you are saying as far as i know is not an adequate way to dispel it. but that still leaves you to explain what you call a disgusting rumor that impugns him.
Don't play stupid. You know that rumor was hatched to instill fear and loathing in small minded voters.
But whatever. St. Hillary does no wrong and the beat goes on.
i'm not the one playing stupid. according to you, the rumor "maligns an entire religion". first of all, i never suggested it did or that there would be anything wrong with being a muslim. but more importantly, you cast it as "a disgusting rumor that not only impugns a self-confessed christian". that's you making the assertion that calling him a muslim "impugns" him. i am aware that some people attempted to use it that way, but what you wrote suggests the same thing. that it's some slur to call him a muslim. if that isn't what you meant, then how is he impugned?
You're not playing? You are stupid?
How is an entire religion impugned? Ask Obama. He said the same thing.
you're doing your very best to avoid the point here. you said:
"i do not find the phrase, "as far as i know", to be an adequate way to dispel a disgusting rumor that not only impugns a self professed christian, but maligns an entire religion".
i asked you "how is he impugned", him personally, not the religion? you are the one that said it was a "disgusting rumor". you're the one buying into the rhetoric by saying those things. because what you are saying is that he's a self professed christian being impugned by the rumor.
You're trying to turn this into a roundhouse is a Muslim hater or something. That's pathetically thick headed. You know the intent of the smear was a disgusting attempt make Obama an outsider, not one of us, the other, un-American. That's how he was impugned.
i'm well aware of the intent of the rumor. i've said it several times. i don't disagree that was the intent. i don't think you are a muslim hater, but i just found the way you put that very curious. it requires an acceptance that it is a disgusting rumor, that he is being impugned merely by calling him a muslim.
You know what? I'm sorry for being so surly with you and Brab.
I still have strong feelings about the ugliness unleashed in the primaries. I don't accept the Muslim smear as having any basis, that's why I had such a negative reaction to Hillary's response. I just don't think she handled the interview well. She was very good in several debates about calling a false premise a false premise when questions were obviously loaded. In my view, she could have called out Kroft like she did Wolf Blitzer.
That's all I have to say about it. Thanks for taking the time to follow up here. You always make good points, I just don't agree with you very often.
On my behalf, I appreciate that. I didn't refresh before posting last time.
A couple of things. First, on this post, you say "I don't accept the Muslim smear as having any basis". That's what Hillary said herself, that there's no basis for it. Obviously your understanding any possible basis relies on the extent of your knowledge. Second, regarding your post below, you have to be able to separate a criticism of someone's words and actions with a criticism of the person. Person "A" said one ridiculous thing last year, person "B" said a thousand and three ridiculous things. They're not both ridiculous people. You have to have that avenue available, or you wouldn't ever be able to point out the folly of something a person you generally agree with says. Just as an example, the bus ads taken out by atheists that say "why believe in a God" are absurd. I agree with the sentiment, but it's not something that should be sold to people anymore than someone's Catholic beliefs should be pitched to me. That's not what personal religion (or lack thereof) is all about, so I will call their actions whatever I see fit even though I would probably agree with them on a million other issues.
Bear in mind what she was referring to. It wasn't "He's not a Muslim, as far as I know". That would be ambiguous, and it's how this was often summed up at the time. What she said was that there was no reason to believe it, as far as she knew. When you're talking about a conclusion, you leave room to think you might believe there's some evidence ("he may be a Muslim, because of this and that, but he's not as far as I know"). When you're talking about evidence, there's no question that you don't believe in the conclusion ("I know of no reason to believe that, so I absolutely do not believe it"). Hillary's comment fits into the latter category. Also compare the phrase "there isn't any reason to doubt that" with "there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know". There's really no difference, since obviously there could be a "reason to doubt" that Hillary didn't know about either.
To expand on this, note that there is a major difference between an objective and subjective viewpoint. When she's asked what she believes, she can answer that in no uncertain terms, and she did.
"You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim."
"Of course not..."
That's a subjective viewpoint, reflecting her personal conclusion. Now, having said that, she goes on to explain why that's not just something she believes for the sake of her own party or something. It's something that should be understood on an objective basis, because there's nothing to base that belief on. It's quite arguable that the very reason she didn't just end with "of course not" is that she wanted to emphasize why we should not have believed that Obama was a Muslim either.
I always supported Obama over Hillary, but taking those words as being some sort of "invitation" to believe something about Obama is absurd.
I'm absurd? Please, kid.
There's no reason to believe you're a wishy-washy liberal wet noodle, as far as I know.
Sorry to be cruel, but that's what illustrating this point requires. It's what being told I'm absurd requires.
Her answer was lame. She knows better than anyone that vicious rumors need to be stopped dead in their tracks.
and she mentioned those "ridiculous rumors" as her last statement, but you somehow want to overlook that.
It would only be cruel if you lent some weight to your words. Your lack of a substantive response fails to do that, so I brushed it off quite easily. It's also not very well thought-out to use subjective and relative labels, as opposed to something like "Muslim" which is pretty clearly defined. This is another reason I don't take your response as anything more than an immature, knee-jerk reaction.
What I said was that she was trying to stop the rumors by explaining how nobody had a reason to believe them. Saying "she knows better than anyone" isn't inconsistent with my argument in any way, shape or form. As has been pointed out, she even talked about the nature of the rumor herself, which would suggest that she does indeed know that they need to be stopped in their tracks, and that's exactly what she was trying to do.
You admit Kroft had an agenda, you admit he asked the question several times. If it were you, would you really think this was normal behavior? I would be expecting him to pull out a picture of Obama in a Mosque praying towards Mecca. It's perfectly understandable from a psychological viewpoint, it's not inconsistent with a single thing she said anywhere else in the interview, and it didn't negate her definitive declarations about what she believed about Obama. Taking this one phrase and acting like it somehow made her multiple answers ambiguous is, again, absurd.
You're the guy who can't ever resist posting hundreds of squabbling lines of the least important tiny details every time a certain conservative author here says something. And I'm immature?
Check yourself.
I see this differently than you and all your circular psychobabble will not change that.
Now you and Mefirst can go ahead and claim intellectual superiority over me, pat each others pompous backsides, because you can rationalize away an incident that struck a visceral emotional chord with more folks than just me. I'm not willing forget the overarching nasty tenor of that moment in the campaign. I FEEL she was dissembling. That was my initial reaction and it didn't change much upon reflection.
There. I said it. My thinking is rooted in an emotional response to her answer. Now go ahead unload on me some more for being a "knee jerk," reactionary, Assert your unbelievably awesome rational dominance over my lowly instinct. Go ahead be a condescending prig a little more.
At least I can say I have been honest in my thinking. Can you?
I know I'm overly tenacious. I pursue my points. It's not quite the same as what you're doing, obviously.
If you want to admit that it's a purely emotional reaction, that's fine. Just bear in mind that's exactly what Tommy does so often. He has an emotional reaction and then lashes out when his arguments are shown to be lacking rationality. "Circular psychobabble" is exactly the sort of thing he loves to say when he doesn't have a point to make. Think about it.
I don't really think I need to apologize for calling your unsubstantive and insulting responses to be "knee-jerk". You really want to say that you have no logical argument, but pointing that out is "condescending"? All I can tell you is that you should try to make better arguments, then. What do you say to wingnuts to FEEL that John Kerry was insulting the troops when the context showed that clearly wasn't the case? What do you say when they refuse to adjust their thinking to accommodate logic and reason? I suspect you look down on their arguments, and rightfully so.
I can say I've been honest in my thinking. Can you demonstrate how I haven't been? Good luck. Bear in mind I myself supported Obama and also criticized Hillary for other incidents, so there's no bias on my part.
Purely emotional, that's a nice turn of the screw. We both know you are misrepresenting what I said. I said my thinking was rooted in an emotional response and that it didn't change much upon reflection. Rooted and purely do not have the same meaning, obviously. No doubt, an intellectually superior person like yourself can see the difference. And no. Tommy never, ever admits his thinking is emotional in nature. In fact, you and I both know he chides liberal thinkers for eschewing rationality in favor emotion. So just drop that line of attack. It's false.
But I get it. You will not admit that the enlightenment model of the rational mind is an antiquated animal. And I don't blame you. You have probably spent a ton of money and invested countless hours devoted to bending your mind to fit that mold. However, given that 95% of all human decisions are rooted in emotion, do you really, I mean really, want to argue that emotional responses are not rooted in their own natural logic?
By the way, If as you say, there's no bias on your part concerning Hillary, are you implying that the third guy in this discussion has a bias?
i don't think he was implying that at all. i saw it as him saying that just in case you thought he had a bias, he was an obama supporter. i didn't take it any other way or as any criticism of me. that's you making an assumption. as far as tommy, he says things, gets challenged, and then spends 20 posts backtracking and insisting he didn't say what he said. and i would suggest you drop the pity party line. if you can make arguments, make them. don't attack other people who disagree, or call an argument ridiculous, by casting your opponents as trying to be "intellectually superior" to you. it doesn't make somebody "pompous" to find you argument absurd. you're picking out one fragment, not even the complete sentence, which began no, no, and insisting it negates an entire conversation. as pointed out, this site is frequently pointing out that practice by others , picking out one line or part of a sentence, and mischaracterizing what was said. and like i said, stop playing the victim.
Whatever hypocrite. You call me ridiculous and then grouse about having it given right back.
i said your argument was ridiculous. i never called you ridiculous. you make a lot of assumptions. such as brab implying that i was biased. he never said that and i didn't take it that way. had i thought he did that, i would have replied to him. he made a valid argument, that he was not a hillary supporter, so that made him a nuetral observer. that was not an attack on me, except in your mind. and that really goes to your perception of things.
That's fine. I did make a flawed connection on that, I see that now. Sorry about that. But there are no neutral observers in politics.
Concerning your use of ridiculous, I think anyway, to separate the argument from the person in a personal argument like this shows a certain lack of conviction. I think it's an escape mechanism that allows one to insult another without taking responsibility for the personal dig.
i realize it's a fine line. but there is a difference. it's like the way scalia and ruth ginsberg are close friends, but they call each others arguments all kinds of names. there is no "lack of conviction" in what i said. i say what i mean. i realize it's a personal dig, but it's not the same as calling you a ridiculous person. which is a way of saying your opinions are completely worthless. i have friends at work who listen to limbaugh, and when they say something, i smile and say that's ridiculous. it doesn't mean i think they are ridiculous. it's the difference between saying i'm hypocritcal in something i said, and calling me a hypocrite. like i say, some of this is perception on your part. i really don't see how you could see brab's argument as an attack on me. makes me think that the bias is on your part. and nuetral observers? yes, there can be, because brab does not care for hillary, but he didn't let that interfere with his judgement on what she said. anyway, i think we've said it all.
I don't see a single hint of logical thought in your argument. Not one little tiny bit. You can't refute any point that contradicts your emotional response, therefore your argument is purely emotional. I didn't say Tommy admitted anything, and obviously he's a hypocrite. I specified that "He has an emotional reaction and then lashes out when his arguments are shown to be lacking rationality", which is exactly what you did. You get some credit for admitting it, but it doesn't make your argument any more tenable.
I really, I mean really, do want to argue that "natural logic" does not necessarily bear a defense. A racist will refuse to vote for Obama simply because his "natural logic" tells him that he's different. Obviously "fear of others" has a natural logic to it, but that's not an acceptable basis for action. I'm sure that 95% of decisions includes what color car you buy, what you watch on television, etc. I hope you don't really want to argue that political decisions should be in that category. They should have some basis in rationality. Most people probably don't have that sort of grasp of the issues, but then most people don't spend their valuable free time on discussion forums where issues are expected to be discussed on an informed and rational basis, like you do.
I wasn't implying anything about mefirst. You suggested I wasn't honest, so I was simply eliminating the only possible explanation for that supposed dishonesty. There's no reason to believe what I said had anything to do with anyone else, since I was defending myself.
"I'm sure that 95% of decisions includes what color car you buy, what you watch on television, etc."
And what stocks you buy, and what candidate you vote for and how you perceive issues. I'm not saying that political decisions should be raw gut reactions, I'm saying human decisions are rooted in human emotional responses and it's not even conscious. The brain operates as a series of network associations that are activated usually without our knowledge.
But whatever. You're having a reaction to my statement about natural logic that is itself motivated by your feelings that logic is independent of emotional impulses. With the example of racists not voting for Obama you're stretching the bounds of what I ham-fistedly termed, "natural" logic to include utter ignorance. That's pretty cheap, but necessary for you to be able to claim I have not refuted your points in any meaningful way. I haven't bested you, I know that. I just want you to come off your high horse and look at things differently, because these discussions are rarely zero sum games where the winner takes all. In that regard, I've held my own despite your insistence I have not answered you well.
You're on a discussion panel where you explain your political views based on knowledge and reason, in case I was too subtle about that. We rise above mere emotional reaction. We mock the people who vote for a guy because they'd rather have a beer with him. If you don't have some rationale behind the criticism, then recognize that and don't forward it as if it carries some objective legitimacy ("She invited ambiguity into her answer, not me. To say otherwise is, in your words, ridiculous." - obviously you wouldn't accept someone calling your argument "ridiculous" because they feel differently, therefore it implies there's something more to it).
Please do explain the difference between criticizing Hillary's comments without any valid basis and refusing to vote for someone without any valid basis. What is the "natural logic", or whatever term you would now prefer, behind essentially saying "Hillary was wrong to say that, for reasons I can't possibly explain"? If you aren't using the correct term, or aren't accurately portraying your meaning, then you can't very well claim that it's some "cheap" tactic if I misinterpret you.
If you want me to look at this differently, give me a valid view to consider. Seriously, you feel a certain way and I'm supposed to think you held your own based on that alone? Like I'm supposed to accomodate that and say "hey, maybe Hillary really did issue unequivocal denials and waited for the question to be asked an unnecessary and unpredictable third time to use a phrase that didn't create any genuine ambiguity but which she knew would be taken out of context in order to smear Obama, because some anonymous guy on the internet simply feels that's what happened". I also think it's hilarious that you want me to look at things differently, while when I give you a perfectly understandable explanation for why she didn't just stop at "Of course not", you said "I see this differently than you and all your circular psychobabble will not change that". And on that note, you should probably have realized that sort of empty dismissal would clearly fall into the category of "not answered well".
"You're on a discussion panel where you explain your political views based on knowledge and reason, in case I was too subtle about that. We rise above mere emotional reaction."
No. Not entirely we're not. You're stuck in the rationalist trap.
"We mock the people who vote for a guy because they'd rather have a beer with him."
Yes we do. Rightfully. That's not what I'm saying though and you know it. Go read more carefully what I wrote because I'm tired of you trying to make repeat myself over and over.
I did give you a valid view, you can read it again. But you're simply being too pig headed to admit I made valid a point (possibly because you're a bit angry with my own pig headed adamance.) And you're being too pig headed to admit that you are overstating what I am saying about the way emotion influences reason.
You're not even trying, that's disappointing.
I'm done.
So saying that political debate is based on more than emotional reaction is a "rationalist trap"?
Remember you said;"Assert your unbelievably awesome rational dominance over my lowly instinct." Your instinct is all I'm seeing here, and that's why I'm using these comparisons. He's not like us, therefore I won't vote for him/he is like us, therefore I will vote for him. Racism and tribalism are instinctive, but as a civilized society we strive to be more enlightened. We try to base things on reason and a sense of fairness, and those that don't are rightly criticized.
If you have some argument to make about how your emotions give your view validity, then make an effort to establish that. You back off of the "natural logic" phrase, but you don't explain it or provide some alternative to tell me exactly what the hell you think your point is. I'm basing what I'm saying on what you've said, so if I'm "overstating" it then you should have taken up my request for clarification.
We may be influenced by emotion, but that doesn't validate conclusions all by itself. It doesn't trump arguments about how that conclusion makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Closest guess I could make
There was an entire thread over at the huffington post with liberals spewing the same nonsense as the corporate media. You'd think it was a right-wing blog with all the assuming, speculation and mind reading going on.
A nation of ax grinders really do need an inspiring figure (Obama qualifies) Too many of our citizens refuse to drop the ax.
"if Clinton remains in the Senate, she poses a threat of challenging him for the Democratic nomination in 2012"
Oh yeah, she's really going to sabotage Obama just so she can try and take over in 2012. Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Don't tell me a damaged Obama presidency wouldn't give more political leverage to the GOP than to Hillary.
and what would stop her from resigning from the post of secretary of state and saying she could not support his policies anymore, and then declaring her candidacy in 2012? nothing. if she's going to run, she will. this stuff is gibberish.