If politicians intentions were as clear as frequencies of light, I would be a much happier person - I am a physicist; I revel in all things objective.
Alas, I'm forced to rely on the nuances of tone, delivery, and context to figure out what a politician is really saying.
"I feel like you'd have to think she's a pretty vile person to believe any of those things." Well, my view is of her being more opportunistic than vile. I have great respect for Sen. Clinton, and I don't doubt her convictions that she believes she would be the best President. I just think she's willing to make false political attacks to put herself in a more favorable position. That is, I believe she thinks the ends justifies the means.
Also, responding to another of your posts, I don't think she had any planned attack on Obama's religion, but I felt that she could have debunked that ridiculous rumor much more strongly, like how Obama publically debunked Sen. Biden's "racist" remarks.
Finally, let me say that I would support Sen. Obama if he were a Muslim (as I celebrated Congressman Ellison's electon in 2006). I realize, however, that many people have a problem with electing a Muslim President, and I feel Sen. Clinton was, to an extent, playing off of some people's fears and concerns in her interview.
But I am honestly curious about your view of the interview. Clearly I disagree with OrangeFur here (though I have no beef with him - I respect his interpretation of the interview, mine is just different), but it makes a difference to me if you're suggesting to me that I'm a) way off base in my interpretation of the clip or b) should just fall in line and not say anything critical of Sen. Clinton because that will make her supporters more likely to support Sen. Obama.