Q: "Do you believe that Obama is a Muslim?"
HRC: "No, of course not. I take him at his word."
Take.him.at.his.word.
Well, if I needed another reason NOT to vote for her...she delivered.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Well, well....Hillary takes Barack ' at his word'.
Tonight on 60 minutes Steve Kroft talks to Hillary and Obama as well as voters. This is a quote from Clinton:
Take.him.at.his.word.
Well, if I needed another reason NOT to vote for her...she delivered.
Take.him.at.his.word.
Well, if I needed another reason NOT to vote for her...she delivered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
LOL You are as bad as the peudo-Pundits on FOX and CNN.
That Man is Christian.
You keep reading between lines and squinting for political inuendos you'll loose your eye-sight.
Shazza,
You are missing the point here.
First of all... it really isn't necessary to read between any lines here. Clinton has been making it plain to observers what exactly she is attempting to do. There is clearly an effort by Clinton and some of her allies in big media to keep raising this issue... Clinton raised this issue when she knows he's Christian. Why is she even bringing it up?
And the point that you are missing is that these messages are not intended for those of us who pay attention to the news everyday. I think the majority of informed observers and political analysts are aware that Obama is not a Muslim.
On the contrary...these messages are intended for those who may not be as aware of what is going on. They are for people who may not know much about Obama....or who may be new to the Obama/Clinton race. Often, people don't really begin to pay close attention until the race reaches their particular State.
These messages are intended to scare those White voters who may already be apprehensive about voting for a non-white. And the intended goal of Clinton and the Republicans is to put enough doubt into the minds of certain voters about Obama. Clinton wants people to feel that Obama (because of his race and the rumor about his religion) may not be a safe bet....and that they should vote for who they are more familiar with (another Clinton). It is designed to play on the fears of voters. This is some of the nastiest politics that I have ever seen. It's worse than the Swiftboating of Kerry in 04'. ...and worse than Willie Horton in 1988.
And isn't it interesting that the Clintons are using the same playbook that the Republicans plan to use in the General Election (if Obama is the candidate)?
But the point is... we are not the target audience for these messages. Less informed, sheltered whites from Ohio and Texas are the target audiences (and there are thousands and thousands of them...and they will be voting Tuesday). I used to live in the great State of Texas, spending a considerable part of my youth in the State... i'm also familiar with the Demographics of Ohio, having traveled there many times. The people of Texas and Ohio (especially Texas) are a little more sheltered in their own enclaves when it comes to issues of race & religion....especially in Suburban and Rural Texas (which is basically where I lived). In other words... they may be more prone to issues of xenophobia than people who are exposed to more cultures. So this is a strategy that could have some limited affect. It's not necessarily because they are bad people... it's just the cultural and social reality....and Clinton is attempting to take advantage of it.
While we may see the obvious... the facts may not be so clear to Whites in Texas and Ohio... who may only keep up with the news ever so often.
This is a very calculated and underhanded strategy that Clinton is using.
Keep in mind that it is a strategy that might shift a few thousand votes (which is all that Clinton is hoping to do). In a close election... a few thousand votes could be huge.
AI/Rikyrah,
I agree that the Clinton camp has been trying to bludgeon Sen. Obama during the Democratic race. Likewise, I agree that Hill's attacks are giving the GOP tons of fodder for the general election. But I'm with Shazza on this one. Honestly, I just don't see any hint of indigination in that quote. In fact -- if anything -- I see it as an acknowledgement of Obama's "word" being honored.
In this quote (at least from what I gathered), Hill is essentially sayin' "If his momma named him Clay, Imma call him Clay...". In this case, she's saying "If he says he's not a Muslim, then he's not a Muslim." This one doesn't call for a riot. Trust.
I can point out a thousand and five things that Hill has done to clearly attack Obama; and that would be sufficient enough. But manufacturing things out of thin air are not helping Obama's cause. If anything, it's taking everything that Clinton is saying and playing the "Obama card". Not good for the brotha's campaign.
I'm just sayin'...
She knows what the questions are going to be on 60 Minutes. She could have requested that 60 minutes not ask the question (when the question has been answered a million times). I guarantee you that they looked over the list of questions 10 times.... it's a question that she could have removed from the list.
Why is the issue constantly raised? Asking the question (at this point) only serves one purpose.
The question was raised for the purpose of reminding voters that there may be some question about Obama's religion....that he may be a terrorist... that voters should not trust him.
I think this is the point that Rikyrah was making... and I agree.
I'm also cautious about conspiracy nonsense and going overboard. But I have been observing the media for 20 years and know when i'm being fed bull***t.
We can agree to disagree.
And Rikyrah is not the only one with questions about the matter.
Follow Link
We're not crazy!
Not that we needed any validation or affirmation...but others are asking the same questions.
"These messages are intended to scare those White voters who may already be apprehensive about voting for a non-white. And the intended goal of Clinton and the Republicans is to put enough doubt into the minds of certain voters about Obama."
-These messages are meant to scare VOTERS, period.
"The question was raised for the purpose of reminding voters that there may be some question about Obama's religion....that he may be a terrorist... that voters should not trust him."
...or the question could've been raised so that Hill could come across as being a person who is not trying to attack Obama with sensationalist ties to terrorists.
If Hill was up to anything with that segment, she was trying to convince the world that she's not enemies with Obama. Now we all know that to be FALSE. But I think that's all she was trying to accomplish. Again, tossing out conspiracy theories make Obama supporters look paranoid even while Obama himself has demonstrated nothing but class and collectivity.
It aggravates me to no end when folks suggest that you are a conspiracy theorist & that you are paranoid & crazy, when you raise valid questions about this election.
People supporting Obama are rightfully suspicious of what the Clinton camp is doing... It is Clinton & her surrogates who are to blame for that. Not Obama supporters.
And as the article points out, Rikyrah isn't tossing out a conspiracy theory, or pulling anything out of "thin air".
It is a question that analysts from major networks are also looking at. Even white pundits are able to see through what Clinton is doing.
We can debate the issue, but I ask that you debate without suggesting that we are crazy conspiracy theorists.
"It aggravates me to no end when folks suggest that you are a conspiracy theorist & that you are paranoid & crazy, when you raise valid questions about this election."
"People supporting Obama are rightfully suspicious of what the Clinton camp is doing... It is Clinton & her surrogates who are to blame for that. Not Obama supporters."
-Watch it, AI.
They'll call you a cultist.
"We can debate the issue, but I ask that you debate without suggesting that we are crazy conspiracy theorists."
Easy killer. I never said (nor, as far as I can tell, implied) that conspiracy theories are somehow synomymous with being "crazy". Shit; I'm a conspiracy theorist. I make no bones about that. I wouldn't be suprised if the feds are keeping tabs on your blog this very minute (smile for the camera). I'm just pointing out the fact that every little thing that Hill does shouldn't get credited as some nefarious attempt to destroy Obama; especially when Obama himself hasn't even made that claim. Again, I don't deny that she's pulled some real fouls. But some stuff is...well...just incidental.
I mean, if she decides to wear a lighter shade of lipstick at the next debate, it's not because she's trying to disassociate with all things dark (that was a little racial humor). OK, OK: That was a bad example. But you get my point.
These messages are intended to scare those White voters who may already be apprehensive about voting for a non-white. And the intended goal of Clinton and the Republicans is to put enough doubt into the minds of certain voters about Obama.
--------------------------
You got it, Angry Independent. I just heard the latest poll from Zogby, the highly-respected pollster, on the Ed Schulz' talk show. He said Hillary has pulled ahead slightly in Texas; and she's ahead by three points in Ohio. He said there has been positive movement for Sen. Clinton since she began running the fear-mongering 3 a.m. ad. Later, in the interview, he admitted that race is playing a big part in this race: that some white ethnics (although he used different terminology) may have been looking for a reason not to vote for Obama; and the NAFTA thing plus the fear-mongering ad may have given the excuse they were looking for.
Post a Comment