Yeah, this seems quite a bit overblown. Let’s look at the entire exchange:
My outrage meter twitched a little, but not much. I would even give her the benefit of the doubt that she had no intention of saying that, and that it just sort of slipped out. Kroft wouldn’t let the matter go after she had clearly indicated the he wasn’t a Muslim. Slimy reporter tactics, if you ask me.
Well, she makes it even clearer in the transcript from Talking Points Memo, which adds to the end of the exchange…
I half agree and half disagree with that; I mean sure, you could take it like she was just being a politician and keeping her options open, but OTOH, and I think the point Diogenes is making is that when you put that qualifier on the end, it’s just as damning as saying it outright, which in this case, shouldn’t make a damn bit of difference anyhow, but it does, she knows it, and she should have kept her response more direct.
What they have in common is that they lose votes with large numbers of voters in the US. As far as I personally am concerned, as an atheist (which is also a vote-loser), being a Muslim and being a devil-worshipper are morally in the same boat, and equally protected by freedom of religion, while child molestation is a serious crime, and should be prosecuted and punished in order to protect children. But I’d probably vote for a Muslim candidate before a devil-worshipping candidate, because the devil-worshipper’s other views are likely to be less mainstream.
Agreed. This is a whole lot of nothing, stirred up by a blog.
Clinton’s remark seems really minor compared to the giant bilious asshole who was asking her the questions.
“Are you sure he’s not a Muslim? Really sure? Really, really, really sure? Really, really, really, really, really sure? Really, really…”
Good Christ, somebody smack that schmuck in the face already.
Sorry, my outrage meter is pushing a 1, 1.5 maybe on a scale of 1-10.
you with the face and Hampshire wrote what I was going to, almost word for word.
No, that’s what good interviewers do: keep on pushing, until the interviewee gives an “interesting” (= embarrassing) answer.
Once again, the concept of “Rovian” tactics has been watered down. It will become meaningless if it continues to be thrown about so trivially.
Amen. She’s answered the fucking question already, dickface! You’re the reason why politicians rarely give straight answers in the first place. Raargh. And seriously, for those who apparently still think she wasn’t categorical enough, consider where her answer lies on the Scale Of Political Directness™:
“I’m very glad you asked me that…”
“That’s a very good question, and I’d like to answer it in three ways…”
“Let me answer that in the form of another question…”
By these standards, she practically asked to be violated with a totem pole if she spoke a word of a lie. Move on. Preferably to matters of actual importance, for fuck’s sake.
Upon further reflection, I think some of you guys are right. I think she probably didn’t mean it to sound as insinuating as it looks in a headline. I also agree that Kroft was being a douche, poking her and poking her, trying to badger her into saying something stupid.
Ego te absolvo, Hilldog. Go and spin no more.
Moral of the story here: Beware of Blogs bearing gifts.
Good on you, Dio. Hillary has done some slimy things in this campaign, but this doesn’t seem like one of them.
No she’s not.
That’s where the Rovian part comes in.
So Giles was being Rovian?
I certainly don’t aspire to Rovian levels of politicking.
Wait, are you saying Giles molests devil-worshippers?
Damn, it’s out now! As if my being born outside the US, not being a US citizen, and not living in the US for 14 years wasn’t enough: this will totally destroy my chances of becoming POTUS.
Not as far as I know.
I do know that he worships devil molesters, though.
I just watched it again. In the beginning, you can see him get an evil grin right in the middle of asking the question. Disgusting.