Hillary Clinton: As Far I Know

[berni_mccoy]

Run time: 03:27 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7eAnx6Vxrs   Posted on YouTube: March 03, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: March 03, 2008 By DU Member: berni_mccoy Views on DU: 1526

 
This is more than the 30-second snip the Clinton supporters were complaining about.

[frog92969]

1. Those attacks against BO are disgusting!

And straight out of the right wing playbook.

[Rageneau]

2. Why didn't Obama have the decency to say that Hillary is not behind the "Muslim" rumors?

Obama did something as bad or worse than Hillary on that 60 Minutes piece.

Obama knows HRC isn't behind the e-mail smear campaign saying he is a Muslim, but he let Kroft and the public believe that she MIGHT be by not making it clear that he knows she is NOT. He hemmed and hawed and said the rumors were coming from somewhere -- he didn't know who, and they had been coming (get this) "since the start of the campaign." (Now, who might that be?)

He did not make it clear that he knows Hillary is not involved. He did not even go so far as to say, "I have to take her at her word she was not involved," or "as far as I know, she was not involved." Instead, he insinuated she might have been behind those rumors and then he let than insinuation stand. By doing so, he was every more guilty of an insinuated attack than Hillary was when she said, "As far as I know he is not a Muslim."

IOW, if Obama expected her to say, "I KNOW he is not a muslim," He should have said, "I KNOW she was not involved in spreading those lies" when it was HIS turn to set the record straight.

[flor de jasmim]

4. Because he was not asked to point at Hillary, and...

if he HAD said something like "mind you, I'm not saying that Hillary or her campaign had anything to do with it," it would have sounded MORE like an accusation. Only if he had been asked directly about Hillary would it have been appropriate to say anything--and look, I'm sure he realizes that it is just as likely a Republican smear, or even more likely.

[lapfog_1]

5. First off, how do YOU know she isn't behind it?

The photo thing was never PROVED that it came from Hillary, nor was it proved that it didn't. We have Drudge claiming that it was... but I don't put any stock in what Drudge says.

Second, he wasn't asked the question "Do you believe Hillary is behind this email campaign?"

Hillary WAS asked the question directly "Do you believe that Obama is a Muslim"...
and she said "no, he isn't, AS FAR AS I KNOW"

[Brotherjohn]

11. You're doing exactly what you accuse Hillary of doing. Worse, really.

"We don't know whether or not the photo thing came from Hillary. Now, I don't generally believe Drudge, so 'as far as I know', it's not true..."

Worse, you say you don't put any stock in the evidence, but you head your post implying she could be behind it. Then in your post you say you don't put any stock in what Drudge says. But you also say "it wasn't proved either way".

You're completely and explicitly leaving the issue open and implying she's behind it, when you have no evidence to back up the smear, and in fact say you don't even trust the evidence.

Hillary strongly denied she believed the smear, said a LOT more in her answer indicating she believed him, and did not believe the smear, and the "as far as I know" was a minor (and factual) part of it with very little emphasis on her part (just by the makers of this video). She did not answer a simple question with the few words you state. You just choose to place emphasis on those words.

[galadrium]

17. He's not a Muslim.... "as far as I know" - Hill

[Brotherjohn]

21. You act as if those were her only words, and the only time the Q was posed. See post 16 below. (nt)

[ihavenobias]

23. Great point, especially in light of how Hillary's camp responded to the photo issue

It was damning IMO. I mean, it's insulting (not to mention suspicious) that they tried to flip it around and say that the photo was *only* an issue because Obama said it was divisive. My reaction was "are you f*ng kidding me?".

It was a total right wing move, so if it *didn't* come from the Hillary camp it clearly came from the right, in which case it was CLEARLY meant to be divisive!

"...If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry..."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clintons_response_the_days_Drudge.html

[stratomagi]

3. What I find interesting

is that the man said he was leaning towards Obama DESPITE having some reservations about (Insert smear here).

[bluestateguy]

6. I was more disturbed by that dumb, bearded man

He was just plain ignorant. People who are that dumb should not be legally allowed to vote.

I am serious about that too.

[Gore1FL]

7. I don't see him as dumb

I see him tas terribly misinformed, by someone he probably trusts. It sounds like he has a lot of issues that take his time away from being politically informed.

I can't always stay as informed as I would like and politics is a hobby for me. I can't imagine people who are dealing with medical issues and job issues,.etc all the time who don;t follow politics as much as I like to as being dumb, in so much as simply taking the low hanging fruit when thye get it and assuming they it isn't rotten.

That has been the problem of the last seven years--not that people are stupid, not even that they are uninformed, or even incurious, but rather intentionally misinformed by what are assumed to be credible and trusted sources.

Just my honest opinion. (as well as a stab at places like Fox)

[Apollo11]

8. SHAME ON YOU, Steve Kroft, for asking Hillary about Obama's religion!

AND SHAME ON YOU, Obama supporters, for accusing Hillary of trying to gain some kind of political advantage by supposedly encouraging voters to be fearful of the possibility that Obama might be a Muslim.

PLUS PROPS to Hillary for dealing with this question with clarity and truthfulness! B-)


Hillary Clinton on CBS - 60 Minutes - March 2nd, 2008 (my transcript)

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

HILLARY: 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.

KROFT: You said you take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

HILLARY: Right. Right.

KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim?

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

KROFT: It's just scurillous ...

HILLARY: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumours. I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who gets, you know, smeared by the kind of rumours that go on all the time.


You can see the whole video here:
www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3897988n

The part about Obama's religion is all in the final 3 minutes.

Hillary's answer is very clear and absolutely truthful.

The problem with this whole discussion is that it confirms and underlines the widely-held prejudice that there is something wrong with being a Muslim. As if being a Muslim would somehow make a person "less American" than a Christian or a Jew or an Agnostic or an Atheist/Humanist/Rationalist.

If you ask, me, I think Hillary should have said "Well, as far as I know, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. Not that there's anything wrong with that!" B-)

[berni_mccoy]

9. Give it up already. Her answer was ridiculous. And he wasn't supposed to ask?! Yeah, right.

The only answer she should have given was "No." Adding "As far as I know" validates the rumor. And by pretending not to see it you are proving to be as much of a bigot. SHAME ON YOU.

[ihavenobias]

24. Yes, the ONLY appropriate answer was no, period. The End.

I noticed immediately when she said "as far as I know". It bothered me tremendously. I get it that people have slips of the tongue, but I don't see this as that.

And I know people can read into phrasing sometimes. Except that both Hillary and Obama are masterful politicians. Just about everything they say is planned and deliberate when going on a show like 60 minutes, and the "as far as I know" was clearly political phrasing.

[Brotherjohn]

10. Jeezuz, talk about tempest in a teapot! Looping the video of "as far as I know"...

... doesn't make it a sinister comment! They might as well have put an echo at the end ("know, know, know, know, kn... kn... kn.... kn... KNOWWWWW...."... cue scary music and tape of Muslim call to prayer). :tinfoilhat:

It's not as though she said, pausing contemplatively... "Hmmmnnn... As far as IIII know!" and glared into the camera. It's all about context, and emphasis of words.

This was the same thing as saying "whatever, it's nothing". Especially when preceded by the adamant denials that she believed it. There IS nothing, as far as she knows, that indicates he would be a Muslim. There's nothing sinister about saying that. It's a way of speaking. She only relates what she knows to be the facts. My wife teases me about doing that all the time, but she's just being as factual and literal as she can be, and not meaning to imply anything about Obama.

It WAS an idiotic, out of place question for Kroft to Ask Hillary and she was a bit taken off guard by it because of that. But she still, i think, did a good job of relating that she thought it was a meaningless issue.

Move ON, people!

(FTR, I'm not a Hillary supporter.)

[berni_mccoy]

12. Trying to excuse it away as a non-issue won't make it a non-issue.

There is no denying that the response is despicable.

[Brotherjohn]

13. Well, there IS, and I did. Your opinion, my opinion.

The only thing there is no denying is that YOU believe her response is despicable. So don't for her. I wouldn't either, but it certainly would be over something more substantive than this.

You are making assumptions that a phrase had a lot more meaning that I believe it did. The English language, in fact the exact same words, can be used to convey almost completely different meanings based on intonation, stress, pauses, etc. There is nothing hardcore factual about this. It's your (and my) opinion about the meaning of a phrase. The word despicable" itself is subjective.

[berni_mccoy]

14. I think many more independent minds share my perspective. You are entitled to yours.

[Brotherjohn]

20. I am independent. I am NOT a Hillary supporter. She was my third choice among the 3 major Dems. (nt)

[galadrium]

15. I can't believe those dumbasses they interviewed

Thats what you get for listening to right wing radio. I wonder how they feel looking like total fools on national TV.

[Brotherjohn]

16. I suppose you're saying Hillary knew Kroft was going to ask her the same question a third time?

Read the transcript:

(1) KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?

HILLARY: 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.

(2) KROFT: You said you take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

HILLARY: Right. Right.

That's all completely unambiguous. If he hadn't kept pestering her you couldn't have any issue with her answers.

I guess third time's a charm, and Hillary, waiting for what she (of course, because she's psychic) knew would be the third posing of the same question ("You don't believe that he's a Muslim?"), pounced with the sinster "as far as I know" (after saying" No. No. Why would I? There's no ... No. There's nothing to base that on..."

He's hammering the same question over and over again. Eventualy, you feel the need to explain why you have your belief.. which the "Why would I?" indicates she is doing. And for Hillary, the reason why she would NOT believe such nonsense (as she has already repeatedly and unambiguously stated) is that nothing SHE HAS SEEN indicates he would be a Muslim. "As far as I know" is another wayt of saying that.

[berni_mccoy]

18. Please stop spamming this thread (unless you like kicking it). Everyone knows your opinion.

[Brotherjohn]

19. Ummm, isn't that what threads are for? Discussion?

Just b/c I posted the same thought on the subject (relevant to both threads) in two threads doesn't mean I'm "spamming".

Everyone knows your opinion too. That doesn't mean you can't keep posting additional thoughts, and responses to other posts, on the subject.

[berni_mccoy]

22. You posted your opinion once. It was discussed. Keep doing it though...it makes Clinton supporters

look desperate.

[Brotherjohn]

25. I make clear above that I am not a Clinton supporter.

What I am deperate for is anyone but a Republican to be in the WH. And more and more every day I realize that our best chance for that is in fact Obama, NOT Clinton.

My posts above each expressed a different thought on the same subject (except, okay, one referenced another; so I wouldn't have to repeat it but it was directly relevant to answer that post). But, um, they have to be on the subject. Otherwise I'd be posting in a different thread. And, um, we don't have to change our opinion to keep posting in the same thread. My posts have all been direct, thought out, responses to specific things posted (yes, all on the same subject and yes of course, all positing the same general opinion).

I am sorry you take it personally, but when someone posts a thread, they should expect it to be discussed; and sometimes by people who strongly disagree.

[berni_mccoy]

26. I'll "take you at your words" that you aren't a Clinton supporter.... "As Far As I Know."

[Brotherjohn]

27. Hah! Some humor injected, at last!

Look, I don't think it's just you, or just Obama supporters. I think Hillary supporters have been just as guilty.

I think, however, that the Dem primary has become WAY to invective and desperate, perhaps understandably so given the stakes. But any Dem should be able to tear down the Bush empire should they run a halfway competent campaign (and I think so far Obama has shown he can run a better one). Both Clinton's and Obama's campaigns and supporters have been looking to find a kink in the opponents armor to the point of sometimes tearing them down for things that don't exist (I know you think this one does and I'm not trying to get into that again; at this point we can agree to disagree). But in the big picture, I think it's been counter-productive, and we're doing John McCain's work for him before he has to.

For the record, I posted extensively last week that I thought Hillary's campaign was off the mark (though I thought the response a bit overblown) in suggesting she's more equipped to handle a "red phone" moment, and I thought Obama's response was completely fair and right on the money.

Also for the record -- and this is my HONEST opinion about our candidates -- I was hoping for Edwards. I'm really still hoping for an Obama-Edwards ticket (I think it would be a slam dunk). My second choice is Obama. I never was super enthusiastic about either Obama or Clinton, although I'm becoming moreso about Obama every day (and less so about Hillary). I think their platforms, from a general standpoint of how they would govern and how they would go about fixing the giant mess they will be left with, are not massively different (but they both are massively different from what we have now).

I have also always thought both Clinton and Obama face big electability hurdles. The hate for Hillary among Republicans (and some more conservative independents) is so entrenched that I fear she would mobilize that constituency. On the other hand, and I am a caucasian from the Deep South, so I know there is still deep-seated racism, and I know there are still a LOT of good-ole-boys (and people who claim to be enlightened but are good-ole-boys at heart) who would never vote for a black man.

That being said, the Primaries in the South have encouraged me. While they are Dem only, they have also showed how effective at mobilizing Dems of all races, creeds and colors Obama is; as effective, I fear, as Hillary would be at mobilizing people to vote against her. The stakes of this election are so great that I want a Dem in. ANY Dem. Period. And a big factor in my choice is whichever can most easily gain the WH.