Obama: "I take her at her word" - Democratic Underground

Nine

(472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Mar-08-08 04:39 PM
Original message

Obama: "I take her at her word"

I wonder why no one objected when Obama used this apparently vile phrase in reference to Hillary Clinton?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?pagewanted=all

At the Cleveland debate in response to a question about the native garb photo:

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I take Senator Clinton at her word that she knew nothing about the photo. So I think that's something that we can set aside.

Was Obama implying that he really thought Clinton was behind the photo? I saw that part of the debate live and when I later saw the brouhaha here about Hillary using the same phrase, I first wondered if she was somehow using that phrase on purpose to draw attention to his earlier response about the Drudge photo, which was not exactly convincing in light of his statements a day earlier:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

the notoriously right-wing, scandal-mongering Drudge Report website ran a photograph of Obama dressed in the traditional clothing of a Somali elder during a tour of Africa, attached to an assertion, without evidence, that the Clinton campaign was "circulating" the picture....The alleged "circulation" amounted, on close reading, to what Drudge's dispatch said was an e-mail from one unnamed Clinton "staffer" to another idly wondering what the coverage might have been if the picture had been of Clinton. Possible e-mail chatter about an inoffensive picture as spun by the Drudge Report would not normally be deemed newsworthy, even in these degraded times.

Except by Obama and his campaign, who jumped on the insinuating circumstances as a kind of vindication. The Drudge posting included reaction from the pinnacle of Obama's campaign team. "It's exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world," said Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe, who also described the non-story as "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election" and "part of a disturbing pattern." Although he never explicitly spelled out the contours of this pattern, he was clearly alluding to race baiting. Later in the day, Obama himself jumped in, repeating the nasty, slippery charge that the Clinton campaign "was trying to circulate this as a negative" and calling it a political trick of the sort "you start seeing at the end of campaigns."

However, when I looked at the actual full quote by Clinton, I don't think that's the case. Here it is:

“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.

“It's just scurrilous…?” Kroft inquired.

“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,” Clinton said.

When you actually watch the clip of her saying that, her statement comes across better. I think removing her inflections, expressions, etc. - all those clues that help people understand each other better in real life - I think removing those clues and just reading a text version distorts the statement a bit. And I think just posting selected bits of her statement definitely distorts it (especially leaving off the part about "ridiculous rumors"). She gave a perfectly reasonable statement in my opinion. If she seemed to qualify her statement too much, I think that's just a reflection of her background. I think that certain professions - lawyers, scientists, journalists (at least the good ones) - tend to be more careful with how they state things than other people. A scientist will say "this provides evidence..." while a layman might say, "this proves..." A lawyer might say, "I have no reason to believe this is true," while some of us might say, "That's not true."

However, I would argue that Obama had much more obligation to be stronger in his denial than she did in hers. The Muslim question was a ridiculous question, and you could tell by Clinton's tone and manner she thought it was ridiculous. Kroft was a jerk for asking her about it at all much less pressing her on it three times. The Clinton campaign never claimed Obama was Muslim. But Obama did accuse Clinton of being behind the photo, based only on the word of Clinton-hating Drudge, who never provided evidence. In fact, Obama took it a step farther; Drudge claimed the photo was e-mailed from one Clinton staffer to another. The remark he attributed to the staffer who allegedly sent it seems to have to do with lopsided media treatment of Clinton. But Obama and his campaign manager both suggested that the Clinton campaign itself deliberately sent the photo to Drudge in order to smear Obama. Furthermore, Obama said it was part of a pattern. The idea is ludicrous. If the Clinton campaign wanted to leak the photo, they could have sent it anonymously to anyone they wanted. If Hillary had accused Obama of something so heinous based only on the word of Drudge, the uproar would be enormous. But Obama gets his ugly little stab in and no one calls him on it. He acted in the debate as though he were above the whole affair after accusing her twice the day before. He owed her an apology, not a weak "let's set it aside". This is so typical of Obama's campaign. Sneak attacks and public posturing as the above-it-all candidate.