I didn't see it, but it seems like she made a mistake by saying in effect that calling someone a Muslim is a smear. I realize that was probably the intent in this case, but it is ridiculuous. What if the rumors were that he was a Jew? Would that be a smear? We should repudiate this nonsense that muslim=terrorist. She could have said something simple like, "Senator Obama's religion is his business. While there is absolutely no shame in being a Muslim, Senator Obama says he is a Christian, so as far as I am concerned, he is a Christian."

I didn't see the interview, but to judge from your transcript, Clinton's answer was, in Croft's words, ''just scurilous.''

What IS it with all the weird qualifiers?  Clinton would say that she's only qualifying her statements to the extent that she is not Obama and therefore does not want to speak for him on a matter of conscience such as his religion, but that's just basic bullshit.  

Thought experiment:

Croft: You don't believe that Senator Lieberman s a Southern Baptist?

Clinton: Of course not. I mean, that's, you know--there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

Croft: You said you take Senator Lieberman at his word that he's not a Southern Baptist. You don't believe that he's a Southern Baptist?

Clinton: No, no. Why would I? There's no--no, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

Croft: 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.

I mean, really, with the partial exception of Judaism which is as much an ethnic identity into which one is born as a religion, religious faith is a matter of what one professes.  Obama openly professes his Christian faith, ergo he is, by definition, a Christian and NOT a Muslim and this can and should be known by anyone aware of his words on the subject.  There's no need for qualification of any kind.

I've been working and missed the news. Has anyone new apologized to Obama today? If not, maybe Obama supporters could use this to demand a 5% apology?

In my view, this liberal/white guilt trip is getting pretty old. I am waiting for the popular culture, like SNL, to start joking about all the apologies to Obama.

Hillary's statement is fine. Why even ask her the question? Taking him at his word is exactly what she is doing. What would she know about this otherwise? It's a perfectly complete and reasonable answer. And it's a very silly issue.

But by all means, let's make sure we are obsessively politically correct. Maybe we should demand a 5% apology.

I thought it was fine until "As far as I know." That's straight up weasel words. Pathetic.

pccostello, perhaps it's the company you keep but you're looking like the most sane Hillary supporter on these boards nowadays. At least you're not apologizing for the Civil War -- keep up the good work.

You know, one of the big qualifications for the presidency is knowing how to handle sensitive questions in a live forum, such as a press conference.

Hillary handled this in the most peculiar and squirrely way.  

Now, I've got a lot of problems with Senator Clinton.  But, I've never doubted either her formidable intelligence nor her ability to articulate adroitly.

Her tentativeness on this question certainly raises suspicions that her avowal of belief in Obama's statements was purposely made to appear to have doubts behind it.

As with her periodic tears and dewey eyes, you just don't know what to believe with this woman.

eweiss, yes, you wrote the reply perfectly as it ought to have been.

The proper answer should have been, it shouldn't matter what Barack Obama's religion is, and there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim if that were the faith he chose.  This country was based on religious freedom, and we should never discriminate on the basis of someone's religious beliefs.

Of course that thought never occurred to Hillary Clinton, she's too busy pandering to the lowest instincts and elements of our society, that's Hillary Clinton for you, class pure class.

Please, costello, you're from the camp that claims Obama is a sexist because he used the word 'periodically.' So your lamenting the PC issues surrounding is laughable.

And yeah, the 'as far as I know' is pretty sleazy. What's the point of adding it? She should reject AND denounce it.

Pccostello: You are out there!  Why so silent on the issue of whether Clinton showed good judgment in voting to authorize the war?

No, ChanRobt and eweiss, that is not at all what the reply ought to have been.  It ought to have been Mike's proposed reply: "There is no truth to those emails, and I wish they'd stop and that people would not be so credulous of false emails."

The "what's wrong with being Muslim" response suggests that maybe Obama is one, especially if followed up by "he says he's a Christian so as far as I'm concerned he is one."  That "I take him at his word" formulation suggests that there is some other basis for perhaps labeling him a Muslim, such as that he was raised Muslim, as the email falsely states.  But he wasn't.  The whole thing is one massive lie, and that's what needs to be said about it.  

I used to cringe when Andrew Sullivan called her "Nixon in a pantsuit."  But now I think that's just what she is.  She can't help herself, because she does not care how she wins as long as she wins.  She knows that the emails are working at a low level, perhaps stealing some tiny percentage of votes from Obama.  She needs every tenth of a percentage shaved from what otherwise would be his support, so she gives an answer that allows her to say she's not one of those people who believes the email but also allows the charge to linger in the air, as if it's a question of Obama's "word" against some other credible evidence.  

 Hillary has been around politics enough to know this form of "defending" an accused suggests that others might have legitimate doubts.  If she doesn't know this, what exactly has she learned from those 35 years of experience?

Please voters of Ohio, end her quest before she slimes again.

Make that "the PC issues surrounding Obama." And add 'silly" to "laughable." Silly and laughable.

And while eweiss is right - Obama made that point, that the whole thing is an insult to Muslims and an exercise in fear-mongering - it's not quite that simple. Obama has stated that 1.) he is a Christian, and 2) that he is not a Muslim. So when these whisper campaigns keep up, it's more than just calling him a Muslim (which in and of itself should not be an insult). It is calling him a liar. A liar about his faith. The next question is "Why is he lying about his religion?" And that, quite obviously, leads to an Indiana Jones-style warehouse full of Pandora's boxes of questions.

Interestingly, the Ohio guy on "60 Minutes" who's "heard" that Obama doesn't recite the Pledge and will throw out Judeo-Christian based law for that "Muslim stuff" STILL said he was leaning toward voting for him. Some folks just Do. Not. Like. Hillary.

Why is anyone even asking this question?

Woody, I was struck by the same thing.  Obama may well get the votes of people who falsely think he is a Muslim who hates the star spangled banner. That's how reviled Hillary is!

And yet I still hear Hillary-supporting Democrats earnestly say that Hillary is the safer choice against McCain for electability purposes.  They need to smell the coffee.  Hillary. Is. Toxic.

I think the whole things looks a lot less bad on video than it did on paper, but the take home message from all of this is that this race is over and we are all looking for something interesting to talk about (Mike and Noam included).

Acutally, now that I think about it some more, a 5% apology from Hillary is not enough. Maybe Obama supporters, Tim Russert, TNR, and MSNBC could all demand both a 5% apology from Hillary to Obama and also simultaneously demand a 95% apology from Hillary to Muslims. After all, she attacked them with the OUTRAGEOUS implication that an American presidential candidate might NOT be a Muslim. This is clearly what she was implying. After all, why should she so vigorously assert that Obama is not a Muslim? Is she prejudiced against Muslims? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim that she should deny that he is one?  Would there be something wrong if he were? This seems to be the clear implication of her denying that  Obama is a Muslim!!!!  In fact, she seems to be denying he is a Muslim more vigorously than he is denying it, thus again demonstrating Obama's superior ability to bring us all together!! All of this clearly shows how prejudiced she is!! She didn't say one positive word about Muslims in her entire response to that question, despite having adequate opportunity to do so!!!

Clearly, Hillary should issue a 5% apology to Obama and also simultaneously issue a 95% apology to all Muslims everywhere!!!!

And then, to even things up, Brian Williams should demand that Obama answer a slight variation on the tough question that Williams put to him in the last debate. Obama should be cornered by Williams and asked why Hillary's 5% apology to him is unfair to him and to Muslims. Or, whether he needs another pillow.

pccostello

PC isn't the point in this instance. the point is that she answered using so many qualifiers that she both maintains deny ability and leaves doubt re the honesty of her answer in the minds of those inclined to believe the rumors in question.

Basically a pitch perfect illustration of the personal qualities folks who don't like her don't like.

On top of which, it's just not a smart play. Say Clinton does manage to win the nom. Every one of these episodes represents some percentage of Obama supporters deciding they'd vote for Putin before they'd vote for her.

oh god, here it goes it again...anyone else notice the dissonance that hillary-haters end up massively overestimating her verbal dexterity and political skills when spinning everything she says in the absolute worst possible way, but then deride her political skills in anything else?  maybe she really is that supremely evil.

This whole discussion is so incredibly stupid I really can't believe it. It is a perfect expression of white liberal guilt and racial anxiety, same as the ever-growing list of mandatory apologies in this campaign. Does anyone here seriously think that anyone who actually believes Obama is a Muslim would ever have voted for him in the first place? Or that there are enough of such people to matter anywhere?

For crying out loud, think before you say any more stupid, self-revealing idiocies.

And BTW--is Hillary still a lesbian?

Should we ask Obama?

pcostello, did you see the whole report? Or just look at the transcript of that short excerpt? Steve Croft said that in Southern Ohio, he ran into many people who heard the Muslim rumors, believed them, and cited them as a reason as to why they might not vote for Obama.  Some believed the rumors but were still leaning toward voting for him.

So at least in Southern Ohio, 60 Minutes reported that, yes, pcostello, "there are enough of such people to matter."

Really? Who actually vote in a democratic primary? why haven't i met anyone like this? and croft has run into "many" people? how many of you have run into "many" people who tell you they were going to vote for obama until they discovered he was a muslim. why might croftt run into all these people, but no one else does? this doesn't come remotely close to passing the "too stupid to believe" test. i'd love to see some polling data with crosstabs on this nonsense.

But there is a reason some people like to believe and pontificate about this stupid stuff, and about the myth of Obama's victimization, which his campaign has done so much to feed. It feeds his and their sense of moral superiority, which is the real theme of his campaign. Obama supporters love this stuff because it feeds into the urban legend of their moral grandeur. Obama's emergence over attempted victimiztion by the dark forces of Mordor is a necesary component of the mythology. Half-thought nonsense.

For the last time, the word "periodically" is not itself sexist. Obama's comments as a whole were sexist because he said that she was ruled by her emotions.

I'd just chalk it up to exhaustion on her part. Walking on eggshells like that on 4 hours sleep is bound to be more than a little gauche. But she needs to be more careful.

mollypowell, maybe in Obama's opinion, Hillary is ruled by her emotions.  And, if you say he said it, I believe you.

But, unless he believes and says she's ruled by her emotions because she is a woman, then the remark isn't sexist.

There are men who are ruled by their emotions.  If I observe that a certain man is so ruled, is that a sexist remark?  If I'm a woman, is that a sexist remark.  It the man in question is gay, is that a homophobic remark?

What do all these dumbass, made up words really mean?  "sexist"  "homophobic" etc.  All moronic vestiges of the 70's and 80's.  When the hell is the 21st Century really going to start?  If Obama is going to start it, maybe I will vote for him.

costello,

Check the '60 Minutes' clip for yourself. Kroft interviewed a guy in Ohio who said he was leaning toward voting for Obama but has a few concerns:

- Obama doesn't know the National Anthem (not the pledge, as I mis-stated before)

- Obama "wouldn't use the holy Bible"

- Obama "has got his own beliefs, the Muslim beliefs."

Then the guy said "This is what I've been told."

Now, just to be clear - you're calling that guy a liar? And Kroft, who said that sort of thing "surfaced in a number of our interviews," is a liar, too? You sure seem to be - just say so, clearly, for the record. Maybe you should write SNL to take Kroft down a peg or two.

I've seen some of the fictional e-mails about Obama's "Muslim background" and his deep hatred of the Star-Spangled Banner and the Pledge. Man, I sure as hell hope and pray it doesn't turn out that this type of ugliness is being spread by the HRC campaign. The smears have been around for a long time, while HRC has only been desperate for a little more than a month or so. I hope her folks haven't jumped on that bandwagon.

Tiring isn't it?

ChanRobt is exactly right.  Most of this criticisms here reflect moronic vestiges of the past. - and of course, the pathetic political game of  "Gotcha!"  

I still get a kick out of those folks who attribute Obama's success to "white guilt,"  a conclusion that is not only silly, it iis itself a blatant expression of racism - by any reasonable definition.  

A good point was made about the "smear" issue.

Are we all just supposed to accept the political reality that calling someone a  Muslim is a "smear"  and not consider what that means about our supposedly "tolerant" society and our Constitution - specifically the prohibition of any religious test for public office.    

Obviously the candidates are not courageous enough to tackle this one - political expediency requires that they woo Christian voters and  appear tough as nails against terrorism.  

But shouldn't we explore what it means when candidates are put on the spot by reporters and asked to prove that their faith is true and "correct?"  

If that isn't a "religious test," then what is?

pcostello, let's take your facetious lesbian comment and redo things as follows

Croft: You don't believe that Senator Clinton's a closet lesbian?

Obama: Of course not. I mean, that's, you know--there is no 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.

Croft: You said you take Senator Clinton at her word that she's not a lesbian. You don't believe that she's a lesbian?

Obama: No, no. Why would I? There's no--no, there is nothing to base that on, AS FAR AS I KNOW.

Croft: It's just scurrilous--

Obama: 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.

I ask you, pcostello, had the above interview actually taken place, would you not be putting up your hand to lead the anti-Obama lynch mob?

I guess being muslim is the worse thing a person can be. Worse than being a serial killer or rapist rme. Havent our history taught us ANYTHING? When are we going to stop this nonsense.  Unfortunately we are just doomed to repeat our History. Hillary should be ashamed of herself she is turning into this divisive poor hungry pathetic excuse of a person. She wont get my vote but she may end up winning this nomination and the presidency I hope its a victory she can enjoy. I just pray that the American people WAKEUP and see that anyone who has to win by DIVIDING is NOT someone you want in power. I hope this backfires on her.

Carol

Woody,

If Obama and his supporters didn't like this kind of story, they would ignore it as they have the drumbeat of reporting on the Rezko-Obama homestead in Chicago. They keep the story alive because it serves them.

Frankly, given how fond the press and Obama are of this kind of story, I would not be surprised if Obama's campaign actively hypes the story, as they did the photograph of Obama in Somali dress on an Africa trip. This would fit their generally Rovian approach to this campign--as when Rove apparently hid a microphone in his office wall and then accused the opposition of placing it there.

I have seen no polling or reporting by anyone other than Croft that indicates that this is a menainglful element in this race. But it is the kink of story that Obama and his supporters seem to just love. It gets talked about out of all proportion to its significance.

Obambi endangered by evil!!!! All should now flock to his rescue!!! Defeat the Wicked Witrch!!!!

Give me a break. It's a laughable story line, way overplayed, designed to feed the victimization angle and liberal white guilt. It turns supporting Obama into a chance to make yourself pure. Yuck. The bozo radio show host in Ohio who kept referriing to Obmam's middle name (I won't even say it here--it is so potent a magical spell that he might be harmed by its pronouncemnt) was never going to vote for Obama (or Clinton), nor were any of his listeners. None of these people were suddenly going to vote for Obama or Clinton just because they found out--surprise, surprise--that Obama says the Pledge, is not a Muslim, etc.

Two questions.

1.  Why is popular support for Obama routinely attributed to "white guilt?"

2.  Isn't the charge of "white guilt" itself a reflection of bigotry, however subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) ?

Think of it.  When black voters support Obama, are they too charged with "white guilt?"  Well, of course not.  So why the double standard?

It seems rather obvious.  Beneath the charge of "white guilt" is the expectation that voters will vote based on racial criteria and, most importantly, that they SHOULD.  Voters, evidently, should vote for their "own." If you depart from this racial formula, well clearly your motivations are suspect.

At best it's cynical.  At worst it's racist.  In any event, it's completely wrongheaded and reveals a complete failure to understand what is actually appealing about Obama as a candidate.  

Pccostello, do you want to answer aeromonas' post? I'd appreciate it, for one.

pccostello

First, I am 100% unencumbered by white liberal guilt.

Second, you’ve gone out of your way to side step the only question that really matters here: Which one of the two of them can win in November? Aren’t you even a little concerned that Clinton and her surrogates seem perfectly willing to break the Democratic Party in the process of winning the nomination? Now, you could argue that people are sheep or something, that they’ll vote for anyone with a D beside their name and you would probably be right – but only for most people and that’s where Clinton’s problem is. The last two elections were won on incredibly thin margins; no democrat [or republican for that matter] can win if they inspire base defections without making the numbers up in other sectors of the electorate. Leave the Muslim nonsense aside, and take that whole “I extended my hand,” thing from the state of the union … Every time she pulls that kind of crap, a certain number of Obama’s supporters react by deciding that: “This is everything I hate about politics, I will never vote for her.” True, that’s not a lot of people, not each time anyway, but it adds up. What good is the nomination if she wins in a way that costs her the general?

Hillary put these qualifiers on because this is how she always speaks - in qualifiers.  It's a verbal tic born from years of equivocating, triangulating - it's become ingrained.  I doubt she's capable of declarative sentences.  It's just more Hillary-speak.

Pccostello -- Interesting that you want to talk about everything except why Clinton showed good judgment in voting to give George W. Bush a blank check to launch the Iraq war.  If we should be discussing issues that actually matter, how about that one?

It's becoming hard to read your silence as anything but an admission.

Arsonpluys writes:  "Every time she pulls that kind of crap, a certain number of Obama’s supporters react by deciding that: “This is everything I hate about politics, I will never vote for her.” True, that’s not a lot of people, not each time anyway, but it adds up."

I think that's right except for one thing. I DO think it's a lot of people.  

Maybe it's not a lot of people who would run out and vote for McCain instead.  But I think it's a whole lot of people who will stay home on election day and perhaps even more importantly, approach politics with disgust, disinterest and apathy.  

Hey Molly, your thoughts

"For the last time, the word "periodically" is not itself sexist. Obama's comments as a whole were sexist because he said that she was ruled by her emotions."

What about men who are hotheads and ruled by their emotions, is that sexist as well?

I would argue that Hillary has reacted emtionally to this campaign and thus it is fair game to discuss.  She has cried and screeched in anger in the last month, both emotional reactions to the process.  Why is this off limits?  Had BHO or McCain started weeping would that not be discussed?  

Peace

citizenghost

I agree. I was just trying to be reasonable and non-alarmist.

My sense of this thing is that a Clinton nomination would cost the democratic party at least a third of the African American vote and actively [as opposed to passively] piss echo-boomers off for at least a decade.

Both of which would be fatal. On the one hand because republicans like Ken Blackwell and Lyn Swann will win next time out. And on the other hand because at the up and coming top, the democratic party is actually older and whiter than the republican party. I hadn't thought so, but then I kept seeing all of the veep list; McCain's options are rife with 4O somethings -- the youngest person on either Clinton or Obama's list is 53 (Mark Warner), most however are in their 60's.

gregstolhand, you bring up a good point that ought to be expanded.  If Obama or McCain had started weeping, they'd be out of the race.

Men are not allowed to cry in public about the things Hillary cried about:  that running for president is hard.

It has been said that both Bush's cry easily.  Yes, about sad and sentimental or inspiring and poignant things.  Not about their own travails.

If you all want to talk about "sexism," let's address this double standard.

My standard is this.  Leaders, or aspiring leaders, ought not cry in public about their own difficulties.

In private life, frankly, I am intuitively in synch with the natural response.  A woman crying is not normally discomfiting.  A man crying over his own travails, is.  Exception, of course, would be in a situation of tragedy or personal grief.

Last week, Barack Obama gave a speech in Cleveland to a group of Jewish community leaders. Though Marty

pcc- still flogging that "Obambi" line even though he is, you know, winning?  And I love- love- that you think Brian Williams should ask him if he wants a pillow again as if that was a real thing that happened.  

But please talk about Iraq.  Or, don't: lymon has done a very good job explaining her vote in a reasonable way.  I asked you like a hundred years ago about her Flag Burning vote.  Please explain that.  Explain something other than coming up with increasingly hysterical reasons why Obama is popular.

I think Wandrey has nailed it. I actually doubt it was an intentional effort to muddy the waters; I think she just doesn't know how else to speak except in these kinds of modifiers.

I agree with Mike's assessment of Hillary's answer to Steve Croft's question about whether

She had me at "Of course not."

There was absolutely no legitimate reason to ask Clinton if Obama is a Muslim -- there's no reason to consider her a  source for that type of personal information about him. Anymore than it would be reasonable to ask Obama questions about Clinton's faith. (Imagine if Croft had asked Obama if Clinton is actually "the most Godless woman in the Senate" and a "Secular Marxist" as has been reported online and on talk radio?) Clinton's response was awkward because the question was awkward and accusatory. It weirdly, and passive-aggresively,  pretended to be using her as a source for information about Obama's religion, but its real and only intention was to imply that she, or her campaign, were making the assertion that Obama is a muslim.  

I have noticed that she isn't very good at responding to passive aggressive attacks. Instead of answering a phony question she should have called Croft out on what he was doing -- by asking him directly WHY he was asking her this question and making him defend his question.

Obambi endangered by evil!!!! pccosetello, you are an asshole. Don't make fun of peoples names. What are you 13 years old? His name is Obama, If anyone made fun of Cinton's name, I would call them an asshole too.

Her answer was perfectly adequate under the circumstances. Now can we please move on to something more relevant to their (Clinton's and Obama's) campaigns.

Can you imagine Obama responding to a question about whether Hillary was a lesbian by saying "I take her at her word" and "as far as I know?"

HRC is so profoundly repugnant.

I have no love for HRC, but having seen the clip I think that Kroft was badgering her about this issue non-stop just to get her to say something imprudent.  Sure, she should have avoided those qualifiers, but it's really quite natural to say that in order to get someone to back off from asking the same question seven different times.  To me, this is not the latest example of her Dark and Evil Soul in action.

I can't really add anything that hasn't been said regarding the substance of Hillary's comments.  However, the 60 Minutes clip reminded me of a sign at a HIllary rally that I saw on tv.

The sign said "Obama 'speaks good'.  Hillary speaks well."  Aside from what I considered a subtle statement of prejudice, it seems that Hillary doesn't speak as well as some of her supporters might contend.