Clinton: "As Far As I Know" Nothing To Base Obama Muslim Rumor On

Huffington Post:

Ben Smith at the Politico writes:

A weird moment of TV, partially captured in the clip above. Clinton denies she thinks Obama's a Muslim, but her denial seems something other than ironclad, and the interviewer goes back at her on the question.

There are real danger zones for even hinting this stuff, even leaving yourself open to uncharitable interpretations, more with Obama than with any other politician I can think of. And expect a lot more of these moments if he's the nominee.

Here's the full "60 Minutes" exchange, in CBS's version:

"You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?" Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

"Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that," she replied.

"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," Kroft said.

"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said.

"It's just scurrilous...?" Kroft inquired.

"Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that 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," Clinton said.

Read the whole story: Huffington Post

Comments

[DogBitez]

Shame on you, Hillary Clinton.

I'm so sorry that she is our first female Presidential contender. What an injustice to all woman in the U.S. It's a damn shame to waste decades of feminist achievement on Hillary. She uses broom and vacuum analogies, cries when it serves her purpose, goes into a major PMS rage when threatened, uses Repub/Rove tactics against her Democratic opponent. As a woman, I'm deeply embarrassed by her behavior.

[ampay]

I agree. I would like to see a woman get as far as she has on her own merit - not on some man's record.

[sanglug]

I would have given her the benefit of the doubt, but this is exactly the kind of nuance she claims to have the political skills to navigate, and there are just too many parts that work to her advantage.

'as far as I know' -- If I have some reason to believe Obama is a Muslim, maybe because of an email from my cousin, I should feel free.
'on the basis of what he says' -- According to Senator Clinton, Obama says one thing then switches for political expediency, so I should not believe his ‘words’.
'rumors' – Rumors can be true; lies cannot, and at least a few of those rumors about the Clintons turned out to be true.

The sad part is, the Democratic nomination process has gone beyond the 'beating a dead horse' stage, and only John McCain stands to gain.

[Fair]

Well guess what? Hillary was raised Rethuglican, and I guess it's true, once a Rethug always a Rethug.

She's disgusting and I had no plans on voting Republican, that's why I didn't vote for her.

[GetoffMylawn]

Hillary is not a lesbian, as far as I know, and if Hillary says she is not a lesbian then I'll be the bigger person take her at her word, at least until I hear otherwise from Hillary admitting that she is in fact a lesbian, which would be totally fine with me.

[jeromewv]

Thank you, in one parody sentence you explain EXACTLY what is wrong with what she said.

Nothing wrong with being a Lesbian. Why is she so angry about that? He said he thought she wasn't a Lesbian! He said, "No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.", isn't that enough of Obama distancing himself from the "Lesbian" rumor?

[uglybetty]

Is this ,as opposed to the Larry Sinclair and Obama affair in 1999 ??

[BJMS]

Just when you think the Clintons can't go any lower...what a truly despicable human being. I can't wait until she LOSES!!!

[DRaymond]

What's so difficult about just answering a question with "no"? She was using so many qualifying words that I halfway expected her to start saying "well it depends on the meaning of the world is". But of course that's her husband's line.

[CalexenderJ]

I agree that there's a little bit of nitpicking going on here, but Senator Clinton did open herself up to it with her response. Let's break it down:

Kroft: "You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?"

Clinton: "Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that."

If she had stopped right there she would have been fine. There's absolute no evidence that Obama is a Muslim, that's all she needed to say. However she continues with this ill-advised statement.

Clinton: "I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that,"

While subtle, this statement raises a specter of doubt. It implies that there is a basis to think he's a Muslim, but because he's said he isn't and he's an honest guy, I'll believe him. For example, if Kroft had asked Obama if he thought Hillary was a Muslim, I'm positive he wouldn't he have said, "I take her at her word that she is not." This is exactly why Kroft follows it up:

Kroft: "You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...,"

Clinton: "No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,"

You could argue that the "As far as I know" is another attempt to cast doubt on the certainty of his Christianity, although that may be a reach. Kroft with another follow up:

Kroft: "It's just scurrilous...?"

Clinton: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that 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,"

Clinton ends with a show sympathy indicating that the charge is a smear and a rumor, which corresponds to her beginning statements that there's no basis to think that Obama's a Muslim. How you read this all boils down to how clever and duplicitous you think Hillary is. My take is that it was a live unscripted interview, she was caught of guard, and answered as best she could that she didn't believe that Obama is a Muslim, and that if anything, she may have been a victim to her subconscious politician's reflex to hedge all her answers. However, if you hate Hillary Clinton (you know who you are) there is enough here to argue that she was subtly trying to perpetuate the rumor, amidst deny it. I personally don't give her that much credit. Final verdict: innocent albeit sloppy answer.

[jcwtts1]

Why do you have to hate Hillary to believe she is both political and duplicitous. The Clinton's , two votes for President, donated money to her senate campaigns, would have voted for her if Obama weren't running and she had done so many disgusting things over the last three months. I don't hate Hillary, first of all, she is way more liberal than Bill. The fact of the matter is that Hillary, for some reason, believed she was going to walk to the nomination and as late as dec 30th she was sure she was going to clean Obama's clock by wed feb 5. She was wrong. She spent every dime because she thought it was over, and it wasn't. The Clinton's are the most notorious political parsers in the history of the world. It depends on what your definition of is is. Any one remember that? I did not have sex with that woman... miss lewinsky. (oral isn't sex). She was a part of these strategies. According to her she was a top advisory during the white house period. So she was in all these meetings. Of course she hasn't had to prove this. She hasn't shown the emails where she advised on anything.

[Doncaster]

Just in case anyone has forgotten:

1) Hillary still won’t release her tax returns.
2) Hillary repeatedly denies knowing what BET’s Johnson meant with his innuendos, but then later apologizes for his remarks.
3) She used the "Kindergarten Paper" in Dec. '07 to try and discredit Obama.
4) Hillary plays the race card by belittling Dr. King’s accomplishments and stating that Lyndon Johnson did more for the Civil Rights cause than King did.
5) Cynically explains away her loss in S.C. saying, “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, too.” Actually Bill gets credit for that one.
6) Threatens to sue Texas over its primary system
7) Says she never praised NAFTA even though she did so in her own memoir.
8) Demands that Michigan and Florida delegates be counted even though she agreed that they should not and her name was the only one on the Michigan ballot.
9) Hillary cries TWICE. Both times conveniently the day before a big primary.
10) Releases a “Fearmongering” ad about keeping our children safe. Why don’t we respond to this with Bill Clinton's own words. And remind you that Bill Clinton was 46 yrs. old when he took office as president. Barack Obama will be 47.

"Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." --Bill Clinton

11) Releases a picture of Obama in traditional African garb to Drudge.
12) Literally runs her campaign into the ground financially and has to loan it 5 million. And she wants us to trust her with the ENTIRE country’s money?
13) Is currently being tried for fraud in Los Angeles.
14) Said that caucus states are unfair to women and that’s why she loses them.
15) She says smaller states don’t count. And small, caucus states count even less. And she wasn't even gracious enough to congratulate Obama's wins and concede her losses in those "insignificant" states.
16) Fakes getting angry about mailers two weeks after they were released. “Shame on you, Obaaama!!!” Ucch.
17) Cheap shots Obama with Xerox line then steals Edwards closing remarks in the same debate in Texas.
18) Plays the “woman card” during the last debate in Ohio saying it would be great to have a woman in the White House.
19) Embarrasses herself mocking Obama in a campaign rally. “The skies will open…” Ucch.
20) “Obama is a fairytale,” line. Actually Bill gets credit for that one, too.
21) “See? Obama loves Ronald Reagan! He just said so!” Not.
22) Complains about getting first debate questions and references SNL during a national debate when complaining about media bias. I hear Monday she will be quoting Bart Simpson.
23) Reject vs. Denounce tantrum.
24) Sample of Hillary logic. “Boy, things were pretty darn good in the 90’s.” Yes, but you weren’t President, your husband was. “So? I was still a part of the administration.” Oh, in that case, we can blame you for NAFTA. “No, I had nothing to do with that.”
25) Kept a 170,000 check from a corporation that has been on trial for years regarding over 100 sexual harassment complaints. All other Democrats have returned any contributions from this corporation.
26) Can you say Norman Hsu?
27) Now says that if Obama does not sweep all four states on Tuesday than something is wrong with his campaign.
28) And finally, Hillary STILL STILL won’t release her tax returns.

[jcwtts1]

Gotta say that was an excellent (if partisan) summary. Add that Mass got robocalls about Obama not being pro choice the day before Mass primary on super tuesday.

j

[AndrewInToronto]

I would like to address this from a point of view of recent Canadian politics and the issue of religious intolerance. It amazes me that Senator Obama's faith should even be an issue in the first place, let alone that for some reason, being Muslim was somehow a blot upon anyone's character. It is incredible that the interviewer or anyone is allowed to get away with blatant racism as thinking it was appropriate to pose the question in the first place. Similarly it was to me just as offensive in seeing Senator Clinton seemingly try to score political points in the last debate around the issue of statements of verbal support from Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam) for Obama's campaign by seeming to imply that Senator Obama's repeated opposition to anti-semitism were not strong enough to prove that he was not anti-semitic.

In the last year Canadians have witnessed a growing anti-Muslim sentiment initially veiled in pseudo-safety issues in sports but escalating to federal electoral legislation. Almost a year ago to the day in Quebec a young woman, Asmahan Mansour, was in a soccer tournament only to find herself ejected from the game for wearing her hijab. A couple of months later in April in Longueuic, Quebec (though this time at a taekwondo tournament) several members were similarly not allowed to compete because they too wore the hijab. In fact with the latter the ruling by ref. Stephane Menard was the first time this had been an issue in three years of competition.

While these events may have seemed relatively insignificant, they were part of an overall growing religious intolerance designated towards people in general who were Muslim, Muslim women in particular, though not solely in Quebec. (Alberta in November had a similar incident in soccer around the hijab.)

March 2007 saw provincial elections in Quebec at which time the chief returning officer said that Muslim women who wore the niqab or burka would have to reveal their faces in order to vote. Such a decision was supported by the Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair as well as Action Democratique du Quebec's Mario Dumont.

With September approaching and three federal byelections -- all of which were in Quebec -- this seemed to be a potential 'issue' once again. In June Elections Canada's spokesperson, John Enright, reported that under federal legislation C-31 the previous decision for the Quebec election would not be allowed as long as people provided two specific types of identification, much to the opposition of the Bloc Quebecois (a federal party) and the Quebec Premier, Jean Charest. Prime Minister Steven Harper even chimed in on September 9th, saying he "profoundly disagree[d] with the decision." As a result, on October 26th the Conservative Party introduced "An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act," requiring visual identification of voters in future elections, an issue which had never hitherto existed.

And why all this fuss? According to Sarah Elgazzar of the Canada Council on American-Islamic Relations, of the 200 000 Muslim women in Quebec approximate 50 wear the burka or niqab.

While it is not on the same scale obviously as the Nuremberg decrees of 1935, the fact that racism is being legislated in my country is deeply disturbing to me. The goal: to socially isolate and scapegoat in some way a segment of the population as threatening to support fear-mongering and give rise to social anger and intolerance. It is in the same vein as the so-called "clash of civilizations" which President Bush has trumpeted for years as well as the cartoons which appeared in "Jyllands-Posten" back in 2005 and so on. Why is being 'anti-Muslim' is any more acceptible than being anti-semitic or anti-anyone-else?

[jcwtts1]

You raise good points. I get what you are saying. The problem is that the first black candidate to have a chance can't fight the muslim fight. They have to fight their own fight here. He has a chance to do something remarkable, and he has basically won. As a black American he has enough of a burden to fight through dealing with that. The muslim issue is just too much for him to have to carry along with his own. I know this is messed up. I know it is difficult to understand, I find it difficult to say, but the first black candidate can't fight this fight. Not now. Maybe not ever. The nuance of whom we are fighting is too much for someone who isn't yet president to articulate and win.

J

[AndrewInToronto]

I was thinking the same thing, J. Unfortunately the same thing happened here because of the roll-over from the Bush Administrations into Canadian federal politics in the form of Muslim-bashing. This is in part because our Prime Minister Steven Harper has tied his political fortunes to that of Bush, as Blair and Hawke of Austrlia had done to a degree. Here it got so bad last year that a federal political party (the New Democratic Party) which has been a staunch part for social-justice issues failed to step back for fear of losing political support in byelections. It was very sad.

In both situations (yours and ours) it would have been nice if people such as those here were able to give voice at the moments that such racist attitudes were being spoken and hold them accountable.

I am praying that Obama gets elected. I have written this before: not since Gorbachev (and to a less degree Chavez) have I been inspired by a living political leader who has a vision which may finally lead us to participatory democracies in which corporate interests are increasingly marginalized and the workings of government become more transparent.

[on2them]

Hillary is delusional, underhanded and manipulative and will not do what is good for the party. The innuendo in her response regarding Obama's faith smacks of the seed she planted long ago. She has no ethics and will do anything to win. Her threats of suing Texas over their caucus rules is ridiculous when Bill won by the same rules and it demonstrates how out of touch her campaign strategists are.

They are going one further, by instructing her volunteers to do the following:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/1/205349/5724/764/467074

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Texas_caucus_hardball.html#comments

[abellofgrace]

This is typical of her. I can hardly wait until this woman is forced to go.....with all her deceit. There was a time I admired her intelligence and zeal, but now I see her in a different light, and I tell you, that light have shown me how truly ugly Hillary Clinton is, how power hungry and what a snake in the grass she is. It's funny how things can bring out the true person. In hind sight, I realize how calculating she is; her agenda was for HER, not the people.

[in4success]

i think what is telling here is that the blue collar worker being interviewed said he was leaning toward obama, even tho he heard he was a muslim and didn't know the pledge of allegience.

holy shit!!!!!! that's not very fattering to hillary.

heh

[ATL78]

LOL! I was thinking the same thing! He thinks Obama doesn't know the pledge and is a Muslim, yet he's still leaning towards him. How funny!!!!

[Brettster]

I'm totally against Hillary getting the nomination, but how could anyone possibly construe that as somehow passing along the rumor? She's denying 3 or 4 times in very clear terms. Only in politics in the media can "No. No. No. No. No." mean "Maybe yes, maybe no *wink wink* " This is one time where Hillary seems to be giving a clear answer and not taking cheap shots.

[partyofone]

Why does she have to qualify, qualify, qualify? Why can't she just give an answer. If she wanted to help end the rumor, she would have just said "No."

[jcwtts1]

Well said. Hillary is basically a genius. Yale Law, 35 years of political operation, she's great at this stuff. Take a look at the ass whipping she gave the other candidates during 18 of the 20 debates. She's good very very good. The answer without the qualification is no. Then if that is what you want to say, why qualify. Does Senator Clinton molest children. no, as far as I know. Give me a break.

J

[springsm]

Well, no matter what you might think of HRC..you have to admit that Kroft was doing his usual sleazy best to agitate her into something she didn't say or believe. Sometimes I think these wonderkins on these talky shows are as corrupt as the administration and its political party. And this creep reminds me abit of Chris Wallace. You might think that HRC is in a level beneath dirt, but she would not stoop to this slanderous crap. And crap it is. Geez..do I have to eliminate 60 Minutes from my repetoire of stomachable programs entirely. Pickin's are mighty slim these days.

[ScandalousCandice]

Since When is asking a simple question sleazy journalism? Hillary never has to answer for any of her own actions. Someone is always to blame, and when she tries to squirm out of answers she screams foul. It's media bias to ask Clinton to answer for her mistakes or to clarify herself. She is very good at doing that.

[jiggystyles]

WOW... SHE REALLY DID THAT

She should be ashamed!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!