Hillary Crossed the Line
It may be true that an untidy cat box could beat sad sack John McCain this year.
But.
Senator Clinton, please shut up.
Every charge you angrily hurl at Barack Obama gives the Republicans a talking point.
On yesterday's 60 Minutes, you crossed an unforgivable line:
"You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?" Steve Kroft asked her.
"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.
As far as I KNOW? What if the situation were reversed?
"Sen Obama, What about those smears that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian who likes to skinny dip with her Iranian 'assistant...' and 'gal pal.' What do you think about those rumors?"
"She is a heterosexual happily married to former President Bill Clinton, as far as I know," Obama responds.
Who are you, Senator Clinton?
You are doing exactly what the Republicans do when they campaign.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I agree. It was a great opportunity for Hillary Clinton to score points with her critics (like me), but instead, by waffling on a denunciation of a racist email smear, she showed herself to be a dishonest and vile human being.
Here's a great Hillary Haters game. Imagine any answer she could possibly have given, and then put the Hillary Haters spin to it. Have fun!
When Hillary Clinton gets asked questions like that, she can never 'win' the right answer in the minds of Hillary Haters, because they have a limitless store of Hidden Agenda motives to ascribe to her.
But sainted Obama is forgiven any sin.
It amazes me that everyone keeps cutting off her final comment on the subject:
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.
She is clearly calling this a smear. Be fair.
" No, I"M the victim. Everybody hates ME." "Didn't you folks at 60 Minutes get the script?" "The media hates ME, their biased against ME" "Don't you watch SNL?."
Agreed, I thought it was shameful how she tried to turn it around and put the focus of "victim-hood" onto herself.
First of all, Hillary said that Obama is not a Muslim many times. Secondly, it is not Hillary's responsibility to inform the nation about the religious practices of Obama. Thirdly, what if he is a Muslim? Who cares? What is so fucking offensive about that? It is not like spreading rumors that he is a child molester.
So apparently you see nothing wrong with spreading lies about people. Enough said.
Seems to me like a tempest in a teapot create on a slow news day.
Sounds like 5 very clear statements stating that she does not consider the idea that Obama is a Muslim to be a salient one.
Then, when she says "As far as I know" she seems to be specifying that her statements are based upon knowable facts and not on innuendo.
There's nothing wrong with being Muslim. Consequently, asking if Obama is Muslim is not like asking if he's an ax murderer. We can assume that Obama is not an ax murderer because it takes a serious deviant to be one and we can infer from what we see in his character that he is most likely not one. However, when declaring one's belief regarding his religious orientation, it is best to go on know facts and trusted testimony.
HRC says that there are no facts that she knows of to support the idea that he is a Muslim and that his own words are the basis for her belief that he is not.
What exactly is wrong with her being clear that she is basing her decision on his words and the facts as they are known by her?
Would it really be appropriate to say "Oh, Obama couldn't possibly be a Muslim" as if Muslims are unacceptable or such a monolith that one can spot one just by looking. Seems that it would be an insult to Islam to act as if the idea of an Islamic Obama is a bridge too far.
Step to the side and picture it. Sure, she could have said that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but she would be accused of being a Muslim lover. She would lose the vote of some hicks who are Muslim haters, so she does not defend religious pluralism in general, or Muslims in particular.
So step to the side and realize this sort of legalistic smudging governs these people. It may be a tempest in a teapot, but she gets more votes by adding "as far as I know" than to stand up for Obama's true religious affiliation. She poured a little water on a nasty little political weed. As far as I know, this sort of tactic is not commendable in a leader.
To add "as far as I know" gave a little oxygen to the fire.
Hillary Clinton was born a Republican, raised a Republican, and entered Wellesley College as a Republican. In 1969 she may have left Wellesley espousing politically correct Democractic ideals but her soul bears all the indelible features of a Republican Conception: airs of privelege and entitlement, intelligence uninformed by feeling (empathy) but compensated by compassionate condensation for the truely needy as long as they remain in their place and don't claim equality with her. Oh, and let's not forget that unique undeveloped Republican conscience that can never quite transcend the letter of the law to appreciate the spirit and virtue of the law. "If you can deny it, rationalize it, or just get around it, then you haven''t broken it !!" From Gonzo's Bedtime Tales and Other Parodies".
Once a Goldwater Girl, always a Goldwater Girl, that would explain her preference for McCain over Obama.
http://dai
Excuse me, but I was born to Republican parents (members of the John Birch Society at that), raised a Republican, went to the College of William and Mary and joined the Young Republicans. The first and last Republican I voted for was Barry Goldwater. I certainly never voted for Bill Clinton; he was too much of a Centrist for me.
It is just plain wrong of you to imply that people's values never change. You may be right about Hillary Clinton, (as far as I know) but you certainly incorrect in making generalizations based on your understanding of HER life experiences.
as an ardent obama supporter who enjoys knocking hillary, i don't see anything of significance here. she obviously wasn't suggesting he was a muslim, and tacking this phrase on to the end of the sentence seems to be simply a nod to the fact that she knows as much about his religion as anyone else does. why would anyone even ask her what religion she thinks he is? like she would have any insider info about obama's spirituality. i see nothing inappropriate about her response, and i wouldn't call it an attack of any kind.... she's made plenty more inappropriate moves we can knock her for.
Totally agree here, we are missing the forest for the trees. I'm also noticing that some Hilary supporters are getting increasing hostile, angry, sarcastic and strange (weird religious mocking etc). I know that I've said my share of not nice comments too but it actually occurred to me that the only people benefiting from the Democratic party being split into two hateful groups right now are the Republicans and the media. Let me remind everyone (including myself) that the Hillary supporters and Obama supporters are actually on the same Democratic team. The fact that we are so passionate about our chosen candidates is a good thing. Most of us have spent 7 years being completely demoralized by what the Republicans have done to this country. So the fact that so many of us are engaging in the Democratic process, and following the issues and our votes are outnumbering the Republican votes so far by what -- 2 to 1 (don't remember the exact number) means that this is really our chance to take back the White House. Let's not lose it by generating so much hate within our own party that we lose the prize. I think that we can discuss the issues, and we can agree to disagree but we still have the same goals. I'm just as guilty as anyone for getting overly passionate and crossing the line--but I will do my part to be more respectful, hopefully everyone else will to. I'm stepping off my soapbox now....
Sorry, I'm not on any team that thinks the ex-gay movement is legitimate. And that would be Obama's team, not Hillary's. HE has slit the party and is hoping to squeak by with the nomination. The media always loves a circus. This circus brought to you by Obama.
I agree with the two comments below about Hillary comparing favorably her experience with John McCain's and saying that all Obama has done is "give a speech." I would expect this crap out of John McCain running mate!!
I hope the Super Delegates do an intervention on Wednesday morning and put Hillary in her place...ba
We do not need these gutter politics from you.
Right, the gutter politics we need is Obama Brand gutter politics. Like campaigning with anti-gay gospel singers. What a friggin' panderer. Politics as usual.
Tom, you forget that Obama never gets asked any questions. When the MSNBC flap was going on, did anyone ask Obama "do you think some channels are leveling sexist attacks on Clinton?" No one asked if he thought the pimping remark was unappropriate. And he certainly never spoke out. There were 2 instances that he expressed some sort of opinion. Before New Hampshire, where CLINTON was asked about her likeability (not him), he injected with the tepid "your likeable enough Hillary." After South Carolina he was asked about Bill Clinton's remarks comparing him to Jesse Jackson. He didn't say " Yes those were racist comments shame on them." And he didn't say " The Clinton have a history of working with the African American community so I am giving them the benefit of the doubt". He said "That's unfortunat
Also, my mother got one of those emails (before her primary in MI) , and she asked me about them. I told her he has been a member of the same christian church for 20 years. I explained to her why those stupid pictures don't show him with his hand over his heart. I did not say " He is not Muslim " 20 times. She got it the first time. Let Obama mention it 20 times but stop asking everyone else to waste time on it. His issue isn't the only one out there.
Obama has been asked lots of questions, including those asked by Clinton herself in debates. He has had good answers for 90% of them. That's a pretty good score. Nbody gets them all right.
He got Iraq right and that's the most important thing.
Additionally, he has behaved like a civil human being, not like a pre-programmed puppet.
Getting Iraq right is only important to those apathetic voters who couldn't be bothered to do something about it themselves. Funny how someone who wasn't in a position to do anything is now some kind of hero. He risked nothing with that one speech. Hillary risked a lot. I admire those who take risks. He plays it safe all the way, like voting present 100s of times.
It's bizarre that Hillary is willing to fan the flames of religious hatred/distrust, while McCain scolded his own supporter last week for doing a similar thing to Obama. I mean, what are the odds: a Republican candidate for president with more moral integrity than a Democrat? Hell is seriously freezing over.
As voters go to the polls tomorrow, one hopes that they will consider which candidate has pledged to restore the constitution back to before the damage that Bush as done to it. This choice is clear:
http://www
http://www
http://uni
http://www
The status of our constitution, which guarantees and protects our rights, should be the number one issue. Without it, we are all in danger.
That was a low thing to say, even for Hillary. Give us all a break!
The more Hillary speaks the more the negatives go up. On Monday (3/03) she said to the effect: she and John McCain bring a life time of work and experience to be president, while all Obama has done is give a speech in 2006. Does this mean if she loses the nomination she will vote for McCain?
Howard Dean needs to get in and stop this blood-letting. She is giving the reBushlicans all of the ammunition they need for the general election, and she is dividing the party.
I guess defending herself is dividing the party, but, broadcasting to the whole world that if she gets elected, I won't vote for the Democratic Party is not dividing the party.
If I say I would suggest looking at the mirror before looking at the other sounds good here, will it work fine? I believe, it will....
So now Hillary is saying that McCain has more experience than Obama, expressing her admiration for McCain. Should Obama get the nomination, the question becomes will she support him or will she throw her support to McCain, a la Joe Lieberman?
If Hillary prevails after this, I too may go with the more experienced candidate, John McCain. I mean if years in the Senate are the criteria by which we are being asked to judge the qualifications of the candidate, then John McCain wins hands down.
Hillary may wind up being hung by her own petard, if for no other reason than irony is often God's favorite form of humor.
Hillary and Bill Clinton are examples of one of the oldest maxims in human history:
WE BECOME OUR ENEMIES.
I have to agree, Tom, that moment, when she said, "As far as I know," was like when Bill made the remark about Jesse Jackson. It was gratuitous, completely unnecessary and uncalled for, and done to take advantage of the situation for their benefit. It seemed just cheap at first.
But, it was obviously PLANNED in advance. It was something discussed in the war room at length. PBS has already done a special linking this specific smear to the Hillary campaign, and even described how these tactics were something the Clintons probably LEARNED FROM LEE ATWATER when Bill ran against Bush in '92.
Dirty Politics 2008 (video)
http://www
(transcript)
http://www
Keith Olbermann did a piece on it with Rachael Maddow, tonight. I thought she summed it up really well. (She's been doing a lot of that lately.) She said it was like joining the Republicans to take down somebody on our side.
IN A PRIMARY, THAT'S TREASON.
I just can't see how (whatever happens in the election tomorrow) the delegates don't step in and take this thing away from her, for the sake of the party. Those comments, and ones like it that are sure to come, will do real harm in the Democratic party.
If it is percieved that "white" lady is being allowed to trash "the people" with impunity, gratuitiously, with no regard for her challenger, or real muslims, (especially our black muslims) but specifically with a bent towards the marginalized in our party, it can cause real problems with EVERYONE in the party. The soul of the Democratic party is...
FAIRNESS.
If neither Bill, nor she can manage that, then something's got to be done. Swiftly, and finally.
Seriously, are you insane? The story you linked to didn't say a word about Hillary, other than to say she was the victim of the majority of the attacks. And I think you're notion that " something's got to be done. Swiftly, and finally." needs a little more explanation, because it sure sounds like a threat.
Watch the film. They don't offer proof, but the implication is there. It's a simple case of "qui bono," and clearly, with the innuendos about drug abuse pedalled by Penn, and then the antics of Bill, it was team Clinton that planted the seed.
And, I wasn't making a threat against Hillary, I was suggesting the same thing Bill Richardson discussed on "Face the Nation" on Sunday, that after tomorrow, the person who's ahead in pledged delegates should be considered the nominee, and we should move on.
Did you know that at no time since the Iowa caucus has Hillary ever led in either the popular vote, pledged delegates, or number of states; that her favorability rating has never, in her political lifetime, even during her years as first lady, EVER gone beyond 45%; and that at no time during this or last year has she beaten John McCain in head to head matchups, nationally?
Did you know that, even if she wins all the primaries tomorrow, she will need to win ALL THE REMAINING PRIMARIES by a margin of 65% to break even with Obama? (and that's including Michigan and Florida if they held a re-do, which is pretty unlikely considering they took a poll and discovered only 24% of Floridians want to vote again, and she only won Michigan by 11% when the only other name on the ballot was Dennis Kuscinich and "uncommitt
As Bill Maher would say, "Blogger, PLEASE!"
The former "first lady" had her chance. Now let's move on.
Tomorrow we have primaries in Ohio and Texas, as well as Rhode Island and Vermont. The MSM, most polls, and the conventional wisdom predict an Obama sweep of Vermont, Clinton holding onto Rhode Island, Obama eking by in Texas, and Clinton taking a close-but-still decisive win in Ohio. This likely divided result does not bode well for Obama's campaign, or, more importantly, the Democratic Party. But more on that in a minute.
Suppose things go another way, and the senator from Illinois has a great day tomorrow, winning not just Texas and Vermont, but the great blue-collar prize Ohio. Oh, what the hell, Rhode Island would be nice, too. If Obama can scrape by with wins in both of the big states tomorrow, I believe the nomination fight could be over. The media will pile on Clinton to drop out, superdelegates will start to shift en masse to Barack, and divisions within her campaign may stretch from existing cracks to Lois-Lane devouring fault lines.
I don't believe Senator Obama has to win both of the big states by big margins for this scenario to come to fruition. If he wins both Ohio and Texas at all, I believe it's over for Clinton, and that she'll likely be out of the race by the end of the week.
Let's countenance the opposite, and say that Clinton wins everything tomorrow except for Vermont (she's not going to win Vermont even under the best of circumstances). Flush wish $35 million in donations from last month, this campaign is going to claim the following: 1) she has regained the momentum; 2) she is the new frontrunner; 3) she is the new frontrunner despite being behind in delegates, because she has won BIG STATES, and Obama has apparently won little wimpy ones.
This is a recurring theme for the Clinton campaign, one they have been pushing ever since Super Tuesday, with increasing urgency after having lost the last 11 straight contests. Obama only wins small, reddish states like Idaho, Nebraska, and Alaska; Clinton wins big, true blue states like California, New York, and New Jersey. Never mind that Obama has won densely populated states like Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Washington—these little pissers named Delaware, North Dakota, Maine, and Hawaii have clearly spoiled the barrel.
So a trifecta tomorrow for Clinton, despite the delegate math still clearly against her even with these wins, would guarantee that the NY senator carries on to Pennsylvania, where Ed Rendell waits with open arms, racist musings, and promising poll numbers.
Back to my opening paragraph: an Ohio/Texas split is the most likely scenario. It is the one that guarantees that while all the odds and indicators are stacked against Clinton, the moral victory of taking Ohio will prove too much for her to drop out. So while the delegate count will still be stacked against her, she will likely assume that if she can win Ohio, she can win the next, demographi
That's seven more weeks of Clinton being behind in pledged delegates, and losing super delegates, but still retaining some level of self-appointed viability. Seven weeks of continued character assassination of Barack Obama. Seven weeks of Clinton waving the bloody shirt of Florida and Michigan.
Seven weeks of John McCain and a united GOP campaigning against the Democrats, while the Democrats campaign with increasingly bitter, trench warfare tactics against each other.
So, no, I'm not really looking forward to tomorrow. I seriously doubt the outcome will be decisive in any way. And that's a bad thing for Obama, the Democratic Party, and the country's prospects of digging out of this hole anytime soon.
I don't mind if this goes all the way to the convention, as long as it is fair and decent. However, as far as I know (to quote a genius) it will get more bloody and the Republicans will laugh all the way to the bank. I'm truly pessimistic. I see more rovian tactics (they worked, right) including lies, cheapshots, lawsuits and the rest. Bush bled the economy dry with his war, the Democrats are gonna bled dry their donors. The Republicans won't even need to finance 527s, the Dems will do it for them.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
