Axelrod Lies About Hillary's Response During 60 Minutes Interview

[Metric System]

Obama Camp's False Description Of Hillary's 60 Minutes Statement
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:06:49 PM EST

Obama chief campaign strategist David Axelrod is making stuff up. Today he said:

"This has been a pattern that we've seen throughout the campaign, whether it was the Bill Shaheen incident, the Bob Johnson incident, Sen. Clinton's own inexplicable unwillingness to make a direct statement on '60 Minutes' about Sen. Obama's Christianity, even though they've shared prayer groups together in Congress. All of it is part of an insidious pattern that needs to be addressed."

Politics is politics. And false outrage is false outrage. But Axelrod has dipped into flat out falsehood here. Forget that Bill Shaheen was fired. Forget that Bob Johnson was forced to apologize.

Axelrod is simply making a deliberate false statement when he accuses Hillary of being unwilling to to make a direct statement about Obama's Christianity on 60 Minutes. She did make such a statment.

Axelrod is making stuff up here.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/11/16649/9376

More from http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002 :

Eric Boehlert writes about Tweety and Hillary's 60 Minute Moment:

Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip at YouTube.

Still, that didn't stop MSNBC's Chris Matthews from complaining on-air last week that it took Clinton "the longest time" to answer Kroft's question.

Lots of eager, tsk-tsking pundits and reporters agreed. They said Clinton was guilty of "hemming and hawing" in response to Kroft's peculiar, repeated insistence that she make some sort of declarative statement about her opponents religious beliefs. And then when she did, Kroft asked that she do it again. That's when Clinton, looking befuddled by the multiple requests, added some qualifiers to her response, including "as far as I know." What stood out in the exchange was not Clinton's responses, but Kroft's weird persistence in asking a question that Clinton addressed unequivocally the first time, as though he was trying to draw out something she was not saying. . . .

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002

[GarbagemanLB]

1. Hillary isn't a Republican, as far as I know. I take her at her word.

[Barack_America]

6. Lol. Unlike Obama being Muslim, there's actually EVIDENCE for Hillary being a Republican.

She has openly admitted to previously being a Republican.

The "evidence" of Obama being a Muslim is all innuendo.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

18. Uh, her words no longer good, didn't you hear?

[writes3000]

2. Clinton immediately made a direct statement. A little while later, she qualified it. n/t

[leftofcool]

3. And yet no word on the breaking news that Hillary just denounced

Geraldine's words

[emilyg]

4. of course not.

[Kittycat]

5. Or fired her... I do remember Queen Hillary shouting Off with her Head over Power.

[leftofcool]

7. Geraldine is not a paid employee or an advisor

She is a surrogate and fund raiser only, therefore can't be fired

[scheming daemons]

14. Power was an unpaid advisor as well.... but she resigned anyway...

...

[leftofcool]

16. Geraldine was not an advisor

she was a fund raiser

[americanstranger]

19. She's on the Finance Committee.

She holds a position, which she can be asked to vacate.

"I'm on Hillary's finance committee...", Ferraro said.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/lifeandculture/ci_8489268

Why hasn't she been asked to vacate her position on Hillary Clinton's Campaign Finance Committee?

- as

[krkaufman]

25. Well, maybe this would be a good opportunity to bring Power back to the campaign. n/t

[karynnj]

8. maybe it was just anonter historical reference

[Barack_America]

9. You call that "denounce"?

I heard the statement and it sounded more like "regret". Certainly not strong enough language to label it "denounce"?

[ProSense]

10. Where?

March 11, 2008

Clinton responds on "insidious pattern"

Speaking to local television in Pennsylvania, Clinton responded to Obama adviser David Axelrod's contention that her campaign had engaged in an "insidious pattern" of inappropriate racial and other remarks.

"I dont agree with that, and I think its important that we try to stay focused on issues that matter to the American people," she said. "And both of us have had supporters and staff members who've gone over the line and we have to rein them in and try to keep this on the issues. There are big differences between us on the issues - lets stay focused on that."

Why hasn't she fired Ferraro?

[leftofcool]

11. Once again, you can't fire someone who isn't a paid employee

[ProSense]

13. Cut the nonsensical noise! Power is gone, and Ferraro should be too!

Wolfson too!

Hillary is a hypocrite!

[leftofcool]

15. She is gone

She will no longer be a surrogate for the Clinton Campaign

[ProSense]

17. "She will no longer be a surrogate for the Clinton Campaign" Link? n/t

[americanstranger]

20. Link?

I mean, you were so honest about her being a part of Hillary's campaign organization and everything.

- as

[CreekDog]

12. well why didn't she "reject" Ferraro's statement also?

since rejecting is stronger than denouncing. :wtf:

[Apollo11]

21. SHAME ON YOU, DAVID AXELROD!

Here once again is the mediamatters transcript:

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 says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

CLINTON: Right. Right.

KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim?

CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

KROFT: It's just scurrilous --

CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. 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.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002

[RBInMaine]

22. She has ALLOWED her surrogates to trash Obama & his supporters.

Most noteably, that bigmouth union rep in OH who sickeningly trashed Obama and his supporters in front of a large pre-rally crowd, calling us "latte drinking, Birkenstock wearing, trust fund babies". As far as I know, she did not denounce this HORRID statement made by one of her major union official supporters. Not one single word as far as I know. So Hillary and her people, as nasty and rotten as they have been in this campaign, better not bitch for one second when Obama and his team punch them back. They've worked overtime to EARN IT and Team Obama is just getting started!! The Clintonites started this knife fight, but you can bank on the fact that Team Obama is going to damn well finish it.

[dchill]

23. Axelrod Lies - Not.

A "direct statement" is completely undone by any qualifier - like, say, "As far as I know." Or the even mare insidious, "I take him at his word." Big Tent Democrat is shilling here, and you know it. This is NOT a news item. It's political bullshit. Axelrod is being smeared by a Hillbot. Nothing to see here - except yet another Clinton Campaign Projection.

[krkaufman]

24. ha! The response time on beginning her answer was never the issue.

Axelrod's statement could hardly be more accurate...

"Sen. Clinton's own inexplicable unwillingness to make a direct statement on '60 Minutes' about Sen. Obama's Christianity, even though they've shared prayer groups together in Congress. All of it is part of an insidious pattern that needs to be addressed."

S.Hillary's need to qualify her responses... "as far as I know" ... "I take him on the basis of what he says" ... is the issue, and Axelrod got it exactly right.