Interviewed on "60 MInutes," Hillary Clinton gave the nation a glimpse of her win-at-all-costs mentality. Confronted over whether or not she believed Barack Obama was actually a Muslim, she couldn't give a simple, firm answer and let it stand at that.
Croft: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
Clinton: 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 said. There isn't any reason to doubt that.
Croft sensed a bit of hedging in the answer, and reshaped the question.
Croft: You said you take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim, you don't believe that he's a Muslim... or implying...
Clinton: No, no. Why would I? No, there's nothing to base that on... as far as I know.
I realize that this is something of a political Rorschach test. If you're a Clinton fan, you hear a stern denial. If you're everybody else, you hear her planting a seed of doubt. Watch the exchange for yourself.
To my mind there are two places she has deliberately left the door open a crack.First, as Croft noted, there's a difference between believing something to be true or false, and believing something based on what another person says is true. Consider the different implications in the following sentences:
"I believe it is raining outside."
and
"On the basis of what Jack said, I believe it is raining outside."
The distinction is simple. In the second sentence, if it's not actually raining, blame Jack for the fact that I gave you the wrong information. And that's precisely why Croft followed up. Hillary started off much better the second time around, but quickly took a detour back into the territory of doubt.
"No, there's nothing to base that on... as far as I know."
Once again, it's as if she's suggesting there may still be some information out there that might overturn her thoughts on the matter. Perhaps after we "peel the bark off" Senator Obama, we'll discover some other truth.
Hillary supporters will think me part of the VRWC, but it troubles me that she couldn't just come out and say: No, he's not a Muslim. He's a Christian.
In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.