Margaret Carlson Distorted Hillary's 60 Minutes Comments: This Madness Must Stop

[McCamy Taylor]

I am working on the last of my three part series about the press versus the three main Democratic contenders. I have already done "The Press v. John Edwards", "The Press v. Hillary Clinton" (it took four parts since the lies are so numerous and varied). I have about 50 pages of notes on Obama now and I hope to start writing soon.

I was thoroughly dismayed to discover that one of our own, Margaret Carlson equivocated about what Hillary said on 60 Minutes when she was asked if Obama was a Muslim. We all know that Drudge edited her comments, snipping out a little piece of what she said in the middle to make it sound like it was her stand alone answer. A bunch of people who support McCain and who want to see Obama and Hillary engage in bloody fighting all the way to the convention then publicized the story. However, to see a liberal journalist peddling the same splitter lies is too much. What did she have to gain? Does she enjoy watching a fight? Is it more fun for her, a journalist to cover a close contest? Is she an Obama supporter who felt that by accusing Clinton of making a Bitch-like comment, she was helping her candidate?

Here is the article from Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803040012

Here is what Carlson said immediately after watching the first portion of the interview (Tweety conveniently left off the last part in which Hillary described how she had been the victim of smears and sympathized with Obama, I guess because that part didn't make Hillary look like a Bitch). Note that Carlson had seen it before, because she knew about the last part that she did not get to see, so this was not the first time she was being exposed to the clip:

CARLSON: Well, she did say, "I'm the victim of scurrilous rumors, and so, I have sympathy." But she doesn't have enough sympathy to say: Of course he's not a Muslim. This is rumors.

But here is what Hillary really said:

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.

I think maybe the other guest's remarks could have applied to Carlson much better than they applied to Hillary:

SIMON: I think it was exceptional what she said. I think it was a bad way to put it. You can say things on television that we all regret, as we all know, but this was the last thing she said. She could have made her answer more clear and less divisive, but instead she went the other way.

Basically, Carlson chose to fault Hillary for not saying it one way, and yet, Hillary said it almost exactly the way that Carlson claims she wanted Hillary to say it. The result is that Carlson gives the impression that what she really wants---and the reason that she is smiling---is because this kind of controversy delights her.

Again, I do not know if it is simply a journalist crowing over a bloody contest that will give her more to write about or if she is glad to see Hillary look bad---either way, it bothers me, because I am seeing this kind of behavior from more and more journalists.

If the press is playing agent provocateur in order to turn the Democratic primary into a monster truck contest for its own amusement, it must stop, otherwise, we will be defeated this fall.

If the press is playing tit for tat---one blow in exchange for a blow from the other side--it must stop, because most of the "blows" that I am seeing are coming from right wing sources like Drudge, Moonie papers, Fox, anonymous internet sites, Chris Matthews and the like. Whenever there is a cease-fire--as there was a couple of days ago---someone in the press will find a five or six day old interview or they will reprint an old story as if it is new--and the war is back on again. In my research I have seen this pattern over and over again ever since the primaries started.

I'll be watching KO's special comment tonight. I am hoping that he uses the time to bring Democrats to their senses. The real enemy is the GOP. They have already outlined their battle strategy here

http://thepage.time.com/halperin%E2%80%99s-take-ways-mccain-can-beat-obama-that-clinton-cannot/

And lord help us, while we have been attacking each other, they are already up to 11.

[DarienComp]

1. yeah, you left out the part where she says "as far as I know"

Of course, it was equally offensive for her to say:

You know, I take him on the basis of what he says.

This isn't a matter of "taking someone at their word". Taking Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim is not necessary. All you have to do is note the fact that he's a member of the UCC.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. How do we know anything? The ultimate compliment is to accept someone's word.

When you do that you say "That person is reliable, trustworthy, someone whom I respect."

How can any sane person accept "Drudge-think" or "Moonie-think" or "Fox-think". How can you trust an internet site that took a snippet out of a whole answer and presented it as Hillary's answer? Does that make sense? Is it reasonable? Do you think that Drudge's motives were pure or that maybe they might have been trying to cause problems by distorting what Hillary said? That maybe they were lying? Why would anyone want to cling to their belief in that lie? Most people want to get along, right? Who wants to believe that another Democrat is their enemy if it can be shown that the Democrat is their friend?

Is there any reason why an Obama supporter would want to continue to believe Drudge when it lies and says that Hillary is the enemy even though the whole answer shows that Hillary is now the enemy?

Is Drudge the true friend of Obama? Of the Democratic Party?

Wait for my journal "The Press v. Obama" You will see where the smears come from. The come from the right wing. They have been coming there for over a year. And the right wing hates Hillary more than it hates Obama.

[DarienComp]

6. I saw the thing.

I didn't take it from some evil conservative website, I saw it live on 60 Minutes. She qualified her answer at the end with the words "as far as I know". Those words necessarily mean that, according to HIllary, there is a possibility, however slim, that the rumors are true. Otherwise she wouldn't have used the qualification in the first place.

[anigbrowl]

24. McCT, you can't dis them for selective editing and then do the same thing yourself

At least, not if you want to be taken seriously. You took a good premise and then turned it into crap by doing exactly the sort of thng you were complaining about.

[McCamy Taylor]

29. Bullshit. Margaret Carlson asks for a certain answer. I show Hillary gave that answer.

That is the purpose of this post. To show that Carlson watched the video and then has the nerve to distort what it was that she just saw.

This was not the definitive "What did Hillary really say" post.

This is a "Margaret Carlson distorted" post. Read the header.

Since the video that I am telling everyone to watch and the transcript which is in the link which I am instructing everyone to read has the full 60 Minutes answer it has every word that Hillary said---unlike the Drudge answer and the answer which so many Obama supporters have parroted from Drudge.

If anyone makes the argument that clinking on a link is too arduous, then I will know exactly why it is that some people around here are so easily fooled by lies spread by people like Chris Matthews and Drudge and Fox. They are not capable of checking sources for themselves.

[DefenseLawyer]

3. Is there absolutely no objectivity left anywhere?

I mean I understand everyone is committed to their candidate with everything they have. I understand everything is seen through that prism. But come on. As was just pointed out, you left out the most egregious part of the quote: "as far as I know". You had to know that you were quoting selectively in trying to make your point. You had to. Yet you did anyway. And with good reason. No one could objectively look at that answer and conclude that saying something is true "as far as I know" is anything but a calculated, intentional "out"- A wink and a nod to those who want to perpetuate this distortion. When you have to distort the record in order to defend your position, you might want to step back and regain some objectivity before proceeding further.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. Hillary can only answer what she knows. 60 Minutes asked her a second time

as if they were doing a cross examination demanding proof. Her response was defensive, not coy. It was "Why are you asking me?" eyes widened in slight hostility, chin pulled back, less relaxed than she has been before. If she were trying to make an insinuation, her body language would be different. She would smile, lean forward slightly, make sure her eyes did meet those of the interviewer so that she appeared to be casual and keep her voice soft and nonconfrontational.

This smear works best when you read the words.

Everyone needs to click on the Media Matters link and watch the interview.

[DarienComp]

11. Are you suggesting it's possible that Obama is a secret muslim

but you just don't know about it yet?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

16. Yeah and it's also possible Hillary is a closet Republican (more likely than Obama being a muslim).

[DarienComp]

20. There's absolutely no basis for that

...as far as I know.

:evilgrin:

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. LOL!

[DefenseLawyer]

12. First of all

your expertise on body language notwithstanding, the fact remains that you had to quote selectively to try and make your point. Secondly, there are plenty of things I can state as a known fact that "I know" without qualifying them with "as far as I know". The sky is blue. Not the sky is blue, as far as I know. George Bush is a republican. Not, as far as I know, George Bush is a republican. He is, it is a known fact. It is just silly to fail to concede that we add this qualifier when we want to imply that we are not "vouching" for the statement and that is the only time we use it in every day speech. She does know he is not a muslim. Just as much as she knows the sky is blue and W is a republican. She KNOWS. Period.

[McCamy Taylor]

23. Do you know that I am not a Muslim?

[DefenseLawyer]

28. Well there you go.

That's the answer you are looking for, right? We don't really know he isn't a muslim. So maybe he is a muslim after all. Don't you see that in defending your position you made my point? At the end of the day, HRC wanted to leave some wiggle room. Some doubt. She obviously did. I don't know you, so obviously I don't know what your religion is, if any. The Pope, on the other hand, is Roman Catholic. Or would you say he was catholic, as far as you know? She knows Barack Obama. She knows his religion. My kingdom for some objectivity.

[McCamy Taylor]

30. Did it ever occur to you to ask me, Mister or Ms. Smarty Pants? I would tell you.

You know, Democrats used to trust people. We were all in this together. Hillary said she trusted Obama. Why can no one believe that?

You want to know the real reason why? You will not like it. A fair number of you have been brainwashed by the MSM into thinking that she is Hillary the Bitch-witch-robot-laser beam eye wielding-she devil. And I know that you will never read "The Press v. Hillary Clinton" parts 1-4, because you do not want to see how you developed that opinion.

[DefenseLawyer]

34. You've lost me

Are you saying now that Hillary Clinton had to say "as far as I know" because she had never asked Barack Obama if he was a muslim? Are you saying that Barack Obama has somehow been equivocal in stating his religion to those who have asked him? Otherwise, what does my asking you what your religion is have to do with anything? I assure you, I don't have any need to know what your religion is, and it would never occur to me to ask. But, if I knew you, and I did know your religion, I wouldn't need to qualify my answer as your candidate did when asked about the religion of someone that she knew.

[DarienComp]

39. I think

you may be wasting your time.

[McCamy Taylor]

43. No, I am saying that you did not think to ask me "Are you a Muslim?"

When I posed my question. That would have been the normal thing to do. The fact that you did not proves that you are not operating under any normal rules of human interaction. You are just as suspicious and paranoid as this whole message board.

[DarienComp]

You asked him a question.

That question was "Do you know that I am not a Muslim?" I think the normal thing to do is answer the question, which Defense Lawyer did.

By the way, Barack Obama has been asked numerous times if he is a Muslim. His answer is always the same. "No."

[McCamy Taylor]

46. Hillary answered the question. 60 Minutes asked her the question again.

This usually implies that the questioner is not happy with the response and wants something more,as in proof. What proof could Hillary offer except what she knows?

Parsing this is getting a bit silly. You are trying to cloud a discussion that can be solved quite easily since the human brain--the right side--is well equipped to read emotion. The best argument is watch Hillary's face, mannerisms and listen to her voice.

[DarienComp]

48. I think words count. I think it doesn't matter

if she said what she said in a pleasant manner.

But since you insist that Hillary can only offer "what she knows", let me put it another way. She could have said "No, I know he's not a Muslim", but she chose to say "No, there's no basis for that, as far as I know." Those are different statements; one is definitive and clear, and the other leaves wiggle-room. That's what I and others have a problem with.

[rodeodance]

38. yes--you give us the HOW--'facts" develope--How they become to be seen as the "truth"

[rodeodance]

18. hey--i do recall that--they played it on ? lehrer news hour.

[johnnydrama]

4. sorry

her saying "as far as I know" means she doesn't take him at his word.

If you ask me where were you yesterday, and I say I was at the beach.

Then someone asks you where I was, and you say He was at the beach, as far as I know, it means you don't necessarily believe me.

[niceypoo]

5. Olberman and Air America don't want Obama to beat Hillary

They want to destroy her first. They do not care one lick about bringing Hillary's supporters to Obamas side. They should be courting Hillary supporters by talking about policy, instead they attack and abuse both Hillary and her supporters.

1/3 of the Democratic party (70% of Hillary supporters) say they will never vote for Obama. This is a result of this character assassination by the left wing media and Obama's failure to define himself through his policy and it bodes very badly for Obama.

Obama's supporters are destroying the Democratic party, and alienating Hillary's supporters, in their scorched earth glee to destroy Hillary.

[Rageneau]

10. Well put. Sums up how I feel.

[rodeodance]

17. I wish you would send your post to KO--I think you are spot on.

[McCamy Taylor]

22. I do not think KO handles criticism well. I think he needs to learn on his own.

[niceypoo]

25. Done

I support neither candidate. I am embarassed to be a Democrat anymore and it makes me sad watching it unfold.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. I love me some John Edwards, too.!He would not fall for this Karl Rove splitter bs.

He would rise above it. That is why the MSM took him out first.

:cry:

I love Obama and Hillary, both, but sometimes I want to knock both of their heads together.

[rodeodance]

32. :-)---nice you can be so objective:-)

[Major Hogwash]

8. Well, Margaret was spinning as fast as she could, give her some more time next time.

I'm sure she can come up with something much better, something more Christian-sounding, so Hillary won't look like the bigot that she truly is so much.

[McCamy Taylor]

9. Everyone who hasn't watched the full 60 Minutes interview question do so, Its linked

in the Media Matters link. It is very helpful. I did not see the interview and I only read it in the paper, and I thought her answer sounded weird---but it sounded fishy for Hillary who is usually so careful, so I looked it up.

Moral is only you know whats get their news from Drudge. And if KO cites this as one of Hillary's crimes tonight, then he deserves a worst person. But he wouldn't. Would he? Naw. Not KO. Not after all the times he has debunked Drudge.

Except we know from the O'Donnel "Edwards is a loser" mini-scandal that Olbermann does not always keep up with the media news so he may forget where some of the Obama smears originated and he may believe the Huffington Post when it claims that the madrassa story orginated with Hillary (instead of Insight--a Moonie rag) or that 3 Clinton staffers went on a mad rampage spewing about Obama and cocaine (Tweety made up that lie) or any of a number of other lies I have seen in Arianna's mag recently.

And lord help him with the KO estrogen brigade if he goes on a rant with misinformation.

[rodeodance]

15. Thanks. I will as I did not watch--

[Johnny__Motown]

13. Hillary Parsed. her response was unacceptable. All she had to say is, No he is not a Muslim. instead

of adding qualifiers and making sure there was no definitive statement made by her.


She is despicable


I don't give a damn what Carlson said, I saw the entire 60 minutes story and Hillary was shameful.

[rodeodance]

14. REC

[indimuse]

19. great post...thx.

..

[McCamy Taylor]

21. You know Drudge did the story to keep "Obama is a Muslim" alive.

The GOP has been spreading the smears all over FOX, Washington Times and all the right wing blogs , papers and talk radio coast to coast for a solid year. (It will be in my journal). However, they can not peddle it directly to the so called neutral press. To do that they always sell it as "Hillary the Bitch told someone or showed us a photo or held a gun to our said so that we would say that Obama is a Muslim". Then for 1-2 weeks ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPO, AP all talk about how Obama might be a Muslim and how Hillary is definitely a Bitch and Obama supporters give the story even more circulating by getting outraged over it, so that gives the MSM more people to interview. And then Hillary's people get mad, but the MSM isn't interested in their side, because everyone in the pres just knows that Hillary is a bitch. These cycles started a year ago and last a few weeks, die down. The right wing press keeps up the Muslim talk. And then a few months later there is another MSM Muslim fest.

And each and everyone targets both candidates in the same way.

Plus, McCain will be able to use them in the general. Hillary has a fair amount of support from moderate women, who might cross over to Obama. However, the press will be able to go back and show that Hillary was unfairly blamed for Muslim and other attacks on Obama (like racially charged attacks that were not really racial and some drug attacks that she did not make) and they will paint the Obama camp as dirty tricksters who painted Hillary's camp as the villains when they were the real villains. This is the kind of story that the NYT just loves to do. It will look like a "liberal" press piece. And the Obama camp is setting itself up for it by relinquishing the high ground and giving in to the urge to accuse the Hillary camp of things for which their are no proof--like she gave a photo to Drudge.

In the general, "straight shooter" McCain can use that kind of stuff to portray Obama as a corrupt Chicago politician who played dirty against a fellow Democrat, with the "liberal press" as his ally. Women across the country will be outraged.

It is not too late for both sides to call a truce.

[AtomicKitten]

31. I'll just have to believe my lying ears then.

Hillary doesn't eat live babies ....



as far as I know. :eyes:

[rodeodance]

33. we can not have a decent discussion with comments like yours.

[AtomicKitten]

36. Yes, you will find the denial of TRUTH on your part makes discussion impossible.

[McCamy Taylor]

44. Good example. Hillary did not use "eye rolls". That would have shown she did not mean it,.

Thank you atomickitten for proving my point. As I already said, Hillary's aggressive, eyes open, slightly squared posture shows that her "as far as I know" was a defensive comment--as if she was responding to an imagined "How do you know?" that a skilled prosecutor might ask. Maybe Bill likes to rib her. She acted like someone who has been accused of being a know it all, who has been forced to adopt a more "feminine" posture but does not really like it.

Guys, I know why you want to keep reading this the way you do. But watch Tweety. Even he admits that Hillary didn't mean anything bad by it, and he hates Hillary. Tweety is as sharp as they come on body language and nonverbal cues--hypomanics always are.

MATTHEWS: So, it's hard to -- you know, when you read that -- I have to be very positive towards Senator Clinton here -- when you read that, it sounds like she's being, you know, somewhat hesitant here, Margaret. But then when you listen to the way she says it with her inflection, it sounds like she's not exploiting this at all. How'd you read it? How'd you read it?

MATTHEWS: You're going to have to break the tie because I think after listening to it two or three times, I think it's unexceptional what she said. I don't think she was playing anything here politically. But everybody's got a view of these things.

[AtomicKitten]

47. All I have to say to you is that I hope some day you will realize

the truth and the embarrassment for the party many Democrats are feeling now. It is incomprehensible to many of us how you can continue to blame the atrocious behavior displayed by the Clinton campaign on the MSM.

Many of us wait for Hillary Clinton to finally realize the only way she can win is to win dirty (and many don't even think that's possible even with Limbaugh's 24% assistance in Mississippi) and fathom the implications of that on the party as a whole.

The fly in the ointment here is there is every indication she doesn't really care and would just as soon destroy the Democrats' chances of taking the White House in November with the capacious coattails of Barack Obama (i.e., Bill Foster was Obama's guy) than concede the end of the road for her that is very real and that which she pretends isn't a defeat.

But, you go on with your bad self. I choose to celebrate free speech at moments like these.

[redqueen]

35. First of all thanks for all your hard work. You do a great job.

Secondly, I'm sorry... but what about stuff like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5043835

Counting MI among her 'wins'?

Is that manufactured by the media?

[McCamy Taylor]

41. I can go get the link about how Obama called the others to drop out of MI to hurt Hill in Iowa.

That is right. All 5 other Dems told a source who reported online that contacts in all the Dems camps confirmed that the other Dems were instructed by Obama's camp to drop out of the Michigan primary (since it wouldn't count) and let Hillary remain the only one on the ticket, since this would anger voters in Iowa, who were made at Michigan for their early primary. All of them wanted to hurt Hillary (the front runner in Iowa at the time) so they agreed.

Right now, the link is buried in my journal "The Press v. Hillary" I won't say which volume, but if you want I will go find it.

So maybe Hillary should claim Michigan, since she was the only one who took the political hit in Iowa for being on the Michigan ballot.

I am sure that this source is as reliable as Drudge claiming that Hill gave him the photo or Insight claiming it got the madrassa story from Hill.

And then, there is the South Carolina blogger who says that reps from two different Dem camps were trying to peddle the story about Hills affair with the Muslim female aid while that primary campaign was going on. Who were her biggest rivals again in that state? You guys want a link to that one? I havw always wondered why the MSM has not picked up those stories. I think they are waiting for the general. The NYT will probably include them in their "Obama is a corrupt politician " expose.

Be careful about throwing stones and think about the unity ticket.

[redqueen]

42. I appreciate that stones are being thrown from every direction.

But this was not an unnamed contact who said the MI vote was "fair". It was Hillary.

What was your last sentence supposed to mean?

[McCamy Taylor]

45. That the unity ticket erases all the mud from the general. Look, the facts are

that if either one runs without the other, the Republicans are going to use the strategy "That dirty SOB". If it is Hillary they will call her a Bitch and say she cheated and compare her to McCain whom the press will say is clean. If it is Obama suddenly the press will say "Hold on there, the Clintons did not use race in South Carolina, Obama did. The Clintons did not make religion an issue, Obama did. The Clintons only mentioned drugs once, but Obama mentioned it first in his autobiography. That Obama isn't a uniter. He is a Daley style dirty politician after all."

McCain already announced that if Obama is the nominee he will use the Obama is a Chicago Daley style corrupt politician strategy. Do not doubt that the RNC can get get some journalist to "correct the record" and show that everything that the press has been saying that is to Obama's advantage and Hillary's disadvantage recently is the other way around---and that Obama knew it. This time, it will be Obama who is not given a chance to respond. If Hillary tries to support him, they will just say she is showing party loyalty.

The same goes if Hillary is the nominee.

That is why the two of them either need to back off right now and denounce each and ever media smear as "RNC generated". Or they need to do a unity ticket, to show the people in the general election that none of the arguments mattered, no one's feelings were hurt, they knew all along the fires were being stoked by the RNC.

The risk we face is that a female nominee or a Black nominee is a great achievement. I worry that both of them may be so eager to get the nomination that they lose sight of what is important---getting the hell out of Iraq. I don't care if we get a purple striped nominee. I want the war to end. But it would be a feather in either cap to be a nominee and if either lost they could say "It was because I was Black or because I was a woman." I worry that both of them care more about the nomination than they do about what is good for the Party and that is what is making them fight so hard.

[Levgreee]

37. it's a fact that Obama is Christian. Hillary has been well a cquainted with him in the senate

she knows this.

If someone asked me if Hillary was Christian, I'd answer "Yes, she is." Same with Obama. "Yeah, he's a Christian."

Compare what she said to normal language, that people always use. How Hillary talked is starkly different, a manner people typically only use when they have some doubt.

[LisaM]

40. Yeah, and Margaret Carlson also said it was so much fun to mock Gore in 2000

And look what it got us. She giggled about it, and then published a book with a picture of herself standing there with W and a big grin on her face.

Hillary answered the frickin' question. Go read yesterday's posts on what Joe Scarborough did to prove the point that if you keep badgering someone on a pointless question, you can pretty much make the answer sound any way you want to.