The link for the transcript is http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/60minutes/main3894659.shtml

How can she categorically deny what he believes? She can say that he's said x and y, she believes him and there's no reason to doubt it, but what could she possibly say that's any more forceful concerning her position about what's in his head?

I believe the guy down the street is a good guy and I'm basing that on years of observation and from what he has said, but I can't state with absolute certainty that he doesn't daydream about committing criminal acts. I'm not in his head, so I can only speak to what I have seen and to what I have heard.

Well why doesn't Obama explain why he goes to a christian church that believes in promoting an American value system, instead of one that promotes a black value system. That doesn't sound like a guy who wants to unite the country does it? This is a church that loves Farrakahn, gives him awards.

You go out of the loop - you are exactly right.

She is scared, her back is up against the wall, and all she has to look forward to if she loses is Bill's philandering.

Oh well . . .

"Barack Obama is a Christian, but really, the question offends me as we do not have a religious test for office in this country."

That's all she had to say.

So it would be okay for me to say I believe Hillary is hetero-sexual because she says so, and I take her word for it?

Here's a link to the clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LHFREDHB-nQ

It is that last 2 seconds "...as far as I know..." that gives me the chills and says much too much about Candidate Hillary. That being said, I think it is important not to blow this out of proportion. Call attention to it, by all means, but let people watch it and draw their own conclusions. Obama's strength comes from his ability to remain above the fray while the Clinton campaign self-destructs. Remember what he said during last debate? I'll paraphrase it as a directive for the last two days of this campaign: Let's leave the whining to the Clinton campaign.

The scariest aspect of this and other Hillary bits is that you can easily imagine the sleaziest, dirtbag GOPer giving the same answer. If you had those words coming out of the mouths of Tom Delay or Karl Rove, no one would be shocked. And that just goes to show how far Clinton's campaign and its backers (the true Kool Aid drinkers) have sunk.

The exchange is clear:

“You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

“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.

I think the country has had enough of these types of lawyering comments and defining what "is" is.

If Obama was not such a nice guy, he should answer as far as I know, she is not a lesbian, but I know it is not his style and probably it would not be wise either. But this thing it is really disgusting

Okay, ES.

You say you're not a racist? I'll take you at your word... I will now give MY take on The Black Value System. Not the church's take--I don't represent them and don't talk to any of the leaders there, but this is solely MY opinion.

Ahem.

I will focus on the "Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"" that everyone likes to glom on to. This is a plea for middle-class blacks to not fall into the trap of thinking that their success makes them better than those blacks that are not as successful.

This is the success that they will presumably obtain from their "self-discipline" (another one of the black values), hard work (another one of the black values) and "dedication to the pursuit of education" (yet another one of the black values). It goes on to say, "...So while it is permissible to chase “middle-incomeness” with all our might, we must avoid...the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.”

Note that I cut out a lot of good stuff in that last quote in the interest of space. Maybe you could read it yourself -- http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

It *is* liberation theology. It is *not* separatist or socialist.

At the risk of sounding like a mushball, I agree with both Clear Thinker and Furion, and I don't think your points of view are necessarily opposed to one another. I don't think Hillary is trying to smear Obama, it is just she that incapable of giving a straight, unqualified answer. What this clip tells me is that Hillary is a political creature in the mold of her husband at his clumsiest, and she would therefore make a lousy candidate in the general election. Equivocation doesn't win over voters, and Obama has already proven he can handle the silly season with aplomb. It seems obvious to me who would be better matched against McCain.

1 Billion Muslims around the world are watching his election. The use of their faith as some sort of scarlet letter or badge of shame against a candidate is deeply insulting And only reinforces the idea that American interference in the Middle East is Ideologically based, based purely on a deep seeded animosity towards their faith.

I think she looked ... uncomfortable.

-- Like half of her brain was sharing indignation about this sort of thing (innuendo that he's different/dangerous, implicit accusation he's a liar) being thrown at any candidate and wanting to come out strongly in defense, perhaps in the fashion Angry Vet suggests above. ----- But the other half, the Mark Penn-controlled part, the never give up 'fighter' part, reciting "You NEVER give an opponent a break or even a hint of support. If they are on the edge of a precipice and even if you know it's bogus, still give a little push because, who knows, he might fall, it might change at least one vote".

She's not usually that inarticulate and she doesn't usually look that flustered at what is a really easy question. As a number of people have observed (Dee Dee Meyers just today), "She (HRC) is better than her campaign." ------------ But if she's going to be president, then the buck does have to stop with her. I don't want to have people saying 4 years from now "she was better than her presidency."

would have strongly denounced the idea that a candidate is being falsely attacked based on religion or race?

Wow! Let's see, under the Clinton Rules, how STRONGLY did she have to denounce it. Plunged a sharpened pencil into Kroft's eyeball for even uttering the words? Would that have been enough for you?

Take a breath. This is getting ridiculous because it was a ridiculous question to ask. What she knows of Obama's faith is what he's said. And 'take him at his word' is what I do when anyone tells me about their religion.

Jesus.

Is it possible to be a secret Muslim? What with all the praying, facing Mecca, requirement for facial hair for men, no pork, etc. it would be hard to hide.

So the evidence would seem to show, as far as I know, that Obama isn't a practicing Muslim.

Either Clinton deliberately allowed doubt about Obama's faith to creep in the debate, in which case she is a conniving and divisive politician. Or she is too stupid to figure out that anything but a forceful answer was what was required here. Either way she loses. Definitely not presidential material.

AS IF I needed another reason as to why I'd NEVER vote for her...I got one tonight.

Everytime she's been given the opportunity to take the high road, she fails to do it. That is her true character, or lack thereof.

Superb post!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was a horrible question.

Amazing. I'm happy a few people think there's no there there.

For the rest of you slicing and dicing words, were you as hard on Michelle's "1st time proud" comment, and do you think the Obama campaign should have caught these "they're only words" in a stump speech?

If, as some have said, "there's no there there" why did Kroft feel the need to repeat the question? Hillary's words, tone of voice, and body language all clearly projected hesitation and Kroft reacted to that by asking the question once again. If Clinton had any integrity she would have said--forcefully and without hesitation on the first try--something like: "First, it shouldn't make a damn bit of difference what his religion is, second he's been a Christian all his life, and third it's downright shameful that people are trying to use 'Muslim' as a slur." But Hillary instead said, "there's no basis for that . . . as far as I know." The worst thing about her answer was not that she left the door open that he might be a Muslim, but that she tacitly accepted the underlying proposition that it would somehow be bad if he were. That's downright despicable.

Bodes badly for her telling the truth as a president, doesn't it? And to bring it back to herself. Always about Hillary, Hillary's trials, tribulations, dramas.

She has no real experience except ceremonial. And the hit jobs done on Obama this past week, no positive press all weekend. If he can survive this, he's the best politician ever.

So by her behavior, we are assured of nothing but mud, distortions, underhandedness, lies if she is elected president.

Who will not act quickly if the phone rings at 3:00 a.m., but start a committee, work hard to write a 10-point plan, after polling first.

I cannot believe, after loving and defending the Clintons for years, what she has become. I'm horrified

Is anyone astounded at how easily these slimy asides come out of her mouth? She's been doing it non-stop since New Hampshire, and ratcheted it up to a feverish pitch the last few weeks.

This isn't the campaign's fault. This is the spirit and essence of the candidate.

In 2000, so many people said Bush would have to govern from the center, he didn't win the popular vote, etc. The last conversation I had with my brother before he died December 5, 2000 was this exact conversation. But I had listened to the man throughout the campaign: I saw lack of desire for intellectual arguments, surrounding himself with sycophantic yes-men, a level of smear against his opponent that I had not heard in national politics (I'm from Chicago, I know nasty politics). I heard "I, I, I" when I expect a president to say "we". I saw someone elevate stupidity as if it was a virtue. And no matter what the external issues were, I predicted that he would lurch us so far to the right, start a war with Iraq at the earliest possible chance, try to make us a Christian nation, and shred the Constitution that he didn't understand or respect. Not making this up -- this is what I predicted in 2000.

Now we have a democrat surrounded by sycophantic yes-men. Who at the first blush of resistance to her coronation, circulated lies, distortions and fear that would do Karl Rove proud (this, in the weekend before New Hampshire). Whose sense of entitlement blinds her to any resistance. Who treats anyone who sees the world differently than she does as some kind of stupid ing her opponent. Who takes the petty, slimy road at every possible opportunity. Who has disdain for the idea of motivating and convincing people of her policies. Who is so personally battle scarred that she thinks she can smite all republicans into dust (she's never been able to do it before, I don't know why she thinks she can now). Who drags the country through her personal dramas and vendettas. Who, for all her talk of "fighting for us" has never fought for us. She's fought to protect her behind and her husband's, but never fights for progressive policies against political will. She is Bush when it comes to foreign policy.

And that is the president we will have if she becomes president. It will make the attacks of the 90's pale in comparison. The 60 Minutes piece proved it beyond a reasonable doubt: she can't even be a little gracious when it comes to the issue of the smears on Obama's religion.

She is shameful. And shame on America if they nominate her.

Excellent!

"As far as I know" was a perfectly legitimate response. Kroft asked the question. She answered it satisfactorily. Kroft asks the same question. She answers it again, and "as far as I know" was about saying "why are you asking me this question again. Unless you know something I don't, its ridiculous."

As for Clinton not using what some people consider the 'correct' answer, this was an interview in which Clinton decided not to be as guarded as she usually appears -- this was Clinton the person, not Clinton the candidate talking. And she answered the question as any person would.

clearthinker -
I think I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. I'm so terminally chilled by her behavior but there are still so many good people supporting her that I try as best I can to see what they might possibly be seeing.

And sometimes there are glimpses of someone better, or at least more intelligent, somewhere under there. Why else would she be so awkward/uncomfortable when hitting the really stupid low blows? (and that's still what this incident looked like to me: uncomfortable) And in her Senate career, she hasn't had a "clanger a day" as she has in this campaign. (I'm still waiting for her to go 48 hours without something cringe-inducing, or nausea-inducing, happening.)

But, for the most part. and for the part that matters. you're right: the "fighter" always wins and controls things, doesn't it? From the point that Sen Kerry muffed that joke and she, er, threw him under the bus, this campaign has been simply unsavory. If she were not running this way, a prolonged primary season would only strengthen the Democrats, but as it is, I'm just praying that somehow the voters of Ohio decide to surprise us all and END it! I'm not hopeful .. but very wishful.

The Clintons are shameless. I never thought I'd agree with right-wingers, but in reading an article where they just wanted an apology from Clinton-love-struck Democrats who would never acknowledge the right's call of foul against the dirty political tactics of the Clintons. Republicans are relieved that Bil & Hill have revealed their win-at-all-costs-even-if-it-means-taking-down-the-Democratic Party-with -you strategy, and many Dems are now disgusted.

What can I say, they're right. Not only is this another example of their disgustingly divisive and nasty politics on par with Bill's South Carolina Jesse Jackson comments, it's on the level of the biggotted remarks of former McCain backer Bill Cunningham's rants against Catholics. (I'm Catholic and just as found myself agreeing with the light from the right that on Clinton ugliness that was always there but I was too love-struck to see, I was equally happy and cheering on wacko Bill Donohue as he has taken whacks at McCain and Cunningham).

I was starting to feel a little sorry for Hillary her SNL appearance and the building consensus in the Sunday political programs that she's toast, but not more. When she loses, she will have earned it and deserves the tears that she's bound to shed.

Shame on you Hillary Clinton!

I like your favourite quote, Christian Foust. In contrast to your strange posts, it reads like an endorsement of Hillary.

“Problems will always torment us because all important problems are insoluble: that is why they are important. The good comes from the continuing struggle to try and solve them, not from the vain hope of their solution.” - Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

Another utterly ridiculous attack on Clinton. Shame on those making it. And to all those who had suggested "better answers" that she should have given, well, it's too bad you're not running.

I dislike Hillary, and am an Obama supporter, and I see NOTHING wrong with her answer.

Just because we dislike a candidate, doesn't mean everything out of her mouth is an attack on Obama.

She even repeats again "No, no, no..."

If anyone thinks "something is up" with her answer, they are seeing things.

Wow. Apparently when asked if she thinks Obama is a Muslim, replying "Of course not" doesn't men "no", but rather is a slimy, Bush like smear in your world. Get off the hate machine, will you? It will give you cancer.

The Muslim thing is not her problem. She's under no obligation to enter a spirited defense of Obama, nor is she under an obligation to go on about the Muslim religion.

I just looked again at Obama's South Carolina flyer, in which he really goes on at length about his Christian faith. I din't see a word about how it's OK to be a Muslim. I guess it's just Hillary's obliogation to take on that issue, huh?

Once again the Senator showed a lack of judgment with her reply.

Two answers would have been acceptable:

"I, like the rest of the American people, should take Senator Obama's word about what his faith is."

Or:

"Faith is a private matter, not a political qualification."

Instead, what we got from Hillary Clinton was the usual innuendo and evasion.

Compare with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us4jbRlrAaA&eurl=http://bennettdan.blogspot.com/
It's a much clearer indictment than the Hillary case you cite.
I would say it is clear that while obama denounced " farrakhan's anti-semitic comments" (minute 3:22), Obama did not reject his support and endorsement. (minute 4:01).
Clinton rightly said (minute 7:40), although inarticulately, that Obama should not only denounce farrakhan's statements, but should reject Farrakhan support entirely, as in, tell Farrakhan his endorsement isn't wanted or accepted, and to not let Obama's name pass from Farrakhan's lips.
Obama changed the subject and seemingly purposefully, misinterpreted Clinton's challange. Obama went on to say that he "rejects and denounces", but used no noun. what He was ambiguous about what he was rejecting, but assuming Obama was referring to Obama's own quote, Obama was rejecting Farrakhan's statements. He purposefully did not mouth the words " I reject Lous Farrakhan". He did this because he was afraid of offending Farrakhan's racist supporters.
Hillary asked of him to reject farrakhan's endorsement, and he did not,. and the obamatons clapped and cheered. It was weasely behaviour that we saw from the likes of Ron Paul, who would not reject endorsements from white supremacists.
Lets be clear, Farrakhan is a racist, not just his ideology. Obama is a wimp for not just saying it, and has lost my support.
Its not just about what Farrakhan says about jews, he the worst kind of charlatan and hater and should be called on it. Obama is afraid to offend his followers. This is sad.

After reading all these comments, I would bet that all the anti-Hillary comments have come from Obama supporters. For myself, I am still undecided between two outstanding candidates and I saw NO malignant thinking in her response. Compare this to McCain's response to the Rev. Hagee's anti-almost everyone's vituperation.

Michelle Obama did not say it was the first time she was proud of America, she said it was the first time she was "really proud" of America. Without the "really" (which is indicative of a substantially higher level of enthusiasm or pride), the right wing has used it as an attack point because the deletion of "really" changes the meaning and inflection.

If the Clintons want to use GOP tactics to win the primary, that it their prerogative, but make no mistake about it, it will hurt them with lifelong supporters, like me -- it already has and it will only get worse. Hillary has no red phone moment of her own to point to, and she has more than her share of Rezco's whose close relationship with her and Bill has not only created teh appearance of impropriety, but (in the case of her infamous commodities trade) actually put hundreds of thousands of dollars of ill gotten gains in her pocket. We are asked by her to view all of that as GOP shenanigans, election year propoganda brought out to tarnish her reputation, but then she goes and uses innuendos, "as far as I knows" and other qualifiers to allow scurrilous crap to continue to float around while she pulls out all the stops for a win at all costs victory.

Obama's ultimate victory in the primaries, and then in the general election, will hopefully spell curtains for the tactics used by the GOP, and, sadly, the Clintons, to win election no matter how corrosive it is to the party, to their reputations or to the sensibilities of their supporters. Get over it? I think not.

I am an Obama supporter, and I absolutely can't stomach Hill or her divise, manipulative,talking-out-both-sides-of-their-mouth campaign.

Having said all that, I don't think she was trying to keep the door open about Obama being Muslin with her "As far as I know" comment on '60 Minutes'. She said "No" and "Absolutely not", etc. at least 5 times, and I do think the "As far as I know" was just a reflexive lawyer habit. And like I said- I am a highly suspicious person when it comes out of anything from the Billary camp.