The funny thing about the Hillary-Haters is that they project so fiercely. They lie about what she says, they are vehemently ugly in the way they talk about her, they make shit up to attack her--all the while talking about how evil she supposedly is for having those very characteristics.

The loving left is much like the religious right--oxymoronic.

you have to be kidding me. that, "as far as i know" was without a doubt a qualifier, and was almost certainly placed there to create a vague doubt before a very important primary. i think you are being very naive about the nature of politicians in general, and hillary clinton during a presidential race in particular. you think that she didn't know this question would come up during her interview after all the controversy surrounding the photo her campaign alegedly leaked? of coarse she knew it was going to come up, and she sure as hell had a practised answer ready. she certainly chose her words carefully, it only makes sense that she would. therefore you have to question why would she add that "as far as i know." why would she answer a question with an obvious correct answer she knew was going to come up in such a cloaked way? particularly when she answers much tougher and complex issues like questions about health care so affirmatively. she cerainly answered this question as vaguely as she possibly could, to keep as much as possible a sense of doubt as to whether he was or wasn't, while still maintaining any sense of credibility.

I agree with you about "as far as I'm aware." Like you and like Hillary, I'm a lawyer, and in our world phrases like that can come from force of habit. It doesn't necessarily mean she intended to add anything by it. Certainly, given the context she deserves the benefit of the doubt.

On the other hand, when you say, "When I point out that the media often makes misstatements and unfair characterizations with respect to Hillary Clinton, that's less about me supporting Clinton than it is me supporting, well, accuracy" what are you asking us to believe? That you don't have a clearly established bias? Please. That you don't think your bias reveals itself in your posts generally? Again... Or that even though you're usually in the bag for Hillary, this time you were honest? Is that really what you want to say?

Seriously, why bother? There's no shame in having a point of view. Yours precedes you, and you're not about to convince anyone that on some days you just put it aside so we can trust you as an oracle of objectivity. If you're saying that, biases notwithstanding, you try to call it like you see it, and you don't advocate beyond your honest opinion, well aren't we entitled to expect that from everyone? And isn't anyone who does go beyond that pretty unlikely to admit it?

With all of the qualifiers permeating her statement ...

And wasn't it certain people at her campaign that circulated the muslim email smear?

And wasn't it her campaign that released the photo of Obama in traditional Somali clothes to the Drudge Report?

With all of the qualifiers permeating her statement, and the supposition that she wouldn't deliberately lie -- at least not on national TV -- and the previous insinuations coming out of her campaign, why would anyone doubt that she was sincere -- what reason would there be to believe those qualifying statements would possibly be sowing seeds of doubt rather than strict palaver?

Then again, why couldn't she just say "no, I don't believe he's a muslim"?

The "As far as I know" comment happened because she said to herself, "Hold on a second, this whole Muslim thing is obviously a big deal. I've said 'No' enough times, so why don't I give a little wiggle room at the end, just to plant the seed..." "Um, not as far as I KNOW."

For Obama supporters, it's "There's nothing wrong with hating Muslims and people with the name Hussein, as far as I know..."

How subjective that thing called "accuracy."

The "as far as I know" was a qualifier to be sure. Did she qualify her rejection just to cover herself, just in case? Or did she qualify to keep doubt alive? Either way, she qualified her rejection; she hedged her denouncement.

Excellent post once again Rachel.

Of course Media Matters has had its hands full with article after article after article about the mischaracterization of Clinton's comments over the last few weeks, but unfortunately, people only hear what they want to hear.

Since the majority of those who hate Hillary can't name anything non-circumstantial as reason for doing so, they cling to this. They cling to someone saying "there's nothing to base that on as far as I know" as a reason to believe that Hillary's divisive.

It couldn't possibly be the people spinning what she said who are divisive. And after reading the quote and watching the clip over and over again, people still won't get it because they simply do not want to. They have chosen their leader and you're either with them or against them.

I mean, we could take comments from Obama about his "allegiance to the black masses" and call him a racist. But no one does because he's not - it's evident in the full context of his words. Just as Clinton's words in full context make it clear she doesn't believe he's a Muslim.

What's really funny is that none of the people up in arms about Hillary's comments even care that the real issue is having an issue with a Muslim.

My goodness. They are actually letting you post? But you are not a raving Obama cultist and actually care about truth, justice and the American way. That is verbotten on Huffpost. The only acceptable position for Mz. Arrianna, is to characterize Clinton as evil, manipulative and racist and Obama a all things good, saintly, God like. After all, Obama's campaign constantly, almost every single day, finds some statement by Clinton, or her campaign, worth notifying the press, that those statements are unequivocally racist ,and the press doing their best imitation of saying, "yes massa". The very, very, very sad fact is that it is the Obama campaign, mostly via Axelrod, who keeps injecting racism into the campaign, and if Axelrod was African American we could claim "reverse discrimination". Notwithstanding the over 90% African American vote for Obama.

ANOTHER FEMENIST HAS TAKEN THE TOKEN!!

ANOTHER FEMENIST HAS TAKEN THE TOKEN!!

ANOTHER FEMENIST HAS TAKEN THE TOKEN!!

ANOTHER FEMENIST HAS TAKEN THE TOKEN!!

NEED I SAY MORE!!!!

ENUFF SAID!!!!!!!!

Oh sure, I agree with the premise of this article. And Hillary's not a lying, shrill, race-baiting, two-faced, phony scumbag.....as far as I know. I mean, I know some people say she and her husband have all kinds of skeletons in their closet just bursting to come out and that this is why they refuse to release those tax returns....but I know of no basis for that. And if Hillary says she didn't mean to bring the Democratic party to it's lowest point in decades by making this nomination campaign one of the ugliest in history? Well.....I've been given no reason to doubt that.

wow, i knew sklar was an irrational clinton hack, but for her to go to the lengths she's done to defend the grotesque behavior of her candidate, well, it's nauseating. what's next rachel? a treatise on why saying that obama is the affirmative action candidate is a fair and balanced observation? your columns as of late are generally idiotic in their defense of mcclinton, but this one, and i'm sure the ones to follow, are just plain low. why don't you use your considerable brainpower to advocate that racism, as well as sexism, are not acceptable just because your candidate benefits from it? i have no respect left for your politics and you should be ashamed to defend clinton's tactics. but i guess winning by any means is more important. that's why mcclinton will lose this thing. most dems can't stomach it. i guess you can.

Remember Leona Helmsley, the Queen of Mean? She and her husband owned a lot of hotels. She supposedly was really mean to their children, to everyone who worked for them. I don't know if she was or not, but that was her reputation. Well the question is this: was the press, and the public, critical of her because she was a woman? Or is it because she was a really nasty person?

Hillary Clinton's running into that same situation. Yes she's got a history of antagonism with some right-wingers. But I think Democrats, liberals, progressives did not have any negative attitudes towards her at least before she got into the Senate. Yet by today I know many people, let's say liberals, who detest her. What happened? It can't be because she's a woman, because she was a woman several years ago, and people liked her then.

I didn't read this remark by Clinton the way others did. I didn't interpret it as Clinton trying to suggest Obama was a Muslim. But when we look at the past few months, and the Clintons recognizing that each campaign theme they choose is a loser (Experience. Change. Vote for me because you like my husband. Ready on Day One) they have settled on the one theme that seems to be getting Hillary votes: "Vote for me. I'm white and the other guy isn't."

So Hillary now has earned the reputation of being a smarmy racist in her attacks on Obama. She's like chicken little now, nobody believes her. If she didn't want to be known as a racist, then she should never have adopted her most recent theme. It is clear that the Clintons are trying to raise racism across the country in the minds of Democratic voters, then they can go to the Superdelegates and tell them Obama can't win the general election because too many voters won't vote for a black person.

If the same standards that are being used against Hillary were applied to Obama the press would be questioning whether he was sexist for saying "she's trying to throw the kitchen sink" Maybe "kitchen sink" is code for women being inferior from Obama.

Hillary wasn't saying "no," she was planting enough just doubt so that a person with even a tiny bit of doubt would vote for her.

That is vile and despicable.

Have you seen the kinds of emails going around? Someone I know was sent one from someone she used to go to church with who cc'd about 20 people. It was pure, lying filth. I was asked to respond because I am an Obama grassroots worker.

Even after I had given facts on all the issues (Christian, patriotic, didn't use a Koran, etc.), the original sender told me not to butt in and give her "lies."

When you are dealing with rumors like this, you cannot be ambiguous. You must be CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL. And Hillary Clinton was NEITHER!!

If Hillary or anyone from her campaign said something as simple as "the sky is blue" they would be attacked as racist for mentioning a color. Chris Matthews and Olbermann would scream that "she's trying to use color against holy Barack!".

If Barack "Chauncey Gardiner" Obama said the same simple statement "the sky is blue" the msm would declare it to be brilliant and insightful.

You are fighting a losing battle here. Because her comments are heard as part of a broader pattern from the campaign, it's really impossible to hear them in another light.

I don't think Croft was after her---he just heard equivocation and sought clarity.

Well, since I actually watched the segment I don't need a Clinton apologist to tell me how to interpret it.

My immediate reaction was that Senator Clinton deliberately left open the window of doubt about his religion. Deliberately. I even called my sister, a lukewarm Clinton supporter, within minutes to ask if she'd seen it and how she interpreted it. And her interpretation was the exact same as mine.

If she had meant the statement in a sort of WTF-are-you-asking-this-again kind of way, she would have just said I've already answered that and why are you continuing to press this issue?

She is not stupid and she is not tone deaf. That answer told me (and my sister, incidentally) all we needed to know. And the Ferraro incident has now cemented our opinions. That's two votes in PA that she won't be getting.

Rachel,

You don't seem to understand. Try this example:

Imagine there's this job you want, it's your dream job. Now imagine someone is checking your refererences with someone who knows you really well, (let's not pretend, Hillary knows Barack VERY well). They ask this person if you're using drugs? Do you want this respose;

Reference: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
Interviewer: And you said you'd take Rachel at her word that she's not a Meth addict.
Reference: Right. Right.
Interviewer: You don't believe that she's a Meth addict or implying? Right.
Reference: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

Or how about if someone is asking if you've ever abused a child. Let's try that one on:

Reference: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
Interviewer: And you said you'd take Rachel at her word that she's not abusing children.
Reference: Right. Right.
Interviewer: You don't believe that she's a child abuser or implying? Right.
Reference: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

A definitive answer is; No, she doesn't use drugs, or No, she doesn't hurt children, or No, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. She knew it, you know it, and I know it. The entire statement was crafted so everyone would hear something different based on their particular disposition. You heard a defined, strong denial, I heard her sowing doubt and using dubious verbal tactics. What did the uncommitted voter hear?

Would this still be an issue or would you have written about it if she had simply stated no? This wouldn't have even appeared on HuffPost, but Clinton decided to make it bigger because that's what she wanted.

That is the real issue.