In the YouTube era, nothing goes unnoticed. (And by "noticed," I mean endlessly decoded, debated and dissected on the Internets.) Appearing last night on "60 Minutes," Hillary Clinton was asked by correspondent Steve Kroft whether she "believe[s] that Senator Obama's a Muslim." Her response, according to CBS: "No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know." The clip (above) spread across the Web like wildfire, surfacing on (among other places) ABC.com, Andrew Sullivan and the Politico, where it drew more than 300 comments overnight--most of them outraged at Clinton for "stoking" the blatantly false Muslim rumor.

For those prone to bellyache about the state of politics today--and the longer I cover the campaign, the more I sympathize--the Kroft-Clinton exchange is a perfect little case study in how craptastic the process has become. The culprits:

1) The Media: Why was Kroft asking Clinton whether she "believe[s] Senator Obama's a Muslim" in the first place? Here's the back-and-forth:

“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.

I don't see how Kroft can justify the question. For starters, it's sort of offensive. Asking Clinton to speculate on the issue presupposes that "yes" and "no" are both reasonable responses; Kroft makes it sound as if the Muslim rumors haven't already been debunked. It's like asking Obama if he "believes" that Clinton is a lesbian. Why bother to bring it up when any sane person knows it's false? Secondly, even if Obama's religious background was unclear, which it's not, how would  Clinton's "beliefs" on the subject be relevant? The only person who can answer Kroft's question is Obama himself. And that's the problem. Like so many of my fellow hacks, Kroft didn't even attempt to, you know, illuminate the truth. Instead, he spent precious time with a presidential candidate digging mindlessly for a controversial quote on a hot topic. Over and over and over again. No wonder you hate us.

2) The Candidate: As bad as his question was, Kroft DID give Clinton had an opportunity to smack down the smear once and for all. (And yes, it is a smear--not because there's something wrong with being Muslim, but because so many voters think there's something wrong with it. The fact is, Obama's opponents are using the word as a weapon.) She failed miserably. In an early interview with Slate's Jacob Weisberg, Obama made a startlingly candid admission about politicians (including himself) that's always stuck with me. "That kind of hunger—desperate to win, please, succeed, dominate—I don't know any politician who doesn't have some of that reptilian side to him," he said. It's not particularly difficult to imagine that Clinton's "reptilian side" is on display here. Asked about something false but potentially damaging to her opponent, Clinton, not wanting the negative to disappear completely, seems to have left room for the possibility that it's true; phrases like "I take him on the basis on what he says" and "as far as I know" imply that there may be more to the story than what he says or what she knows. Do I think Clinton calculated this in her CPU while answering? Beats me. Perhaps she (rightfully) objects to speculating on Obama's faith, and, befuddled, was trying to say that she can't see deep into his soul. But either way, it's clear that decades spent in the disorienting fun house of American politics made it difficult for her to answer like a normal human being: No. He's a Christian. End of story. No wonder you hate politicians, too.

3) The Divided Democrats: Check out the comments over at Politico. (Current count: 332.) Some are measured and rational. But most are totally hyperbolic. "I can't even tell you how much I hate this woman," writes "Geez." "Hate. This. Woman." Magna Carta says she's "running on the b**ch platform." Other choice descriptions include "witch," "disgusting," "xenophobic," "filth" and "trash." Politics has always been heated. But part of me wonders if the length and closeness of this year's nominating contest--not to mention the relative strength of the candidates, the passion of their supporters and the touchiness surrounding race and gender--have produced a particularly divided Democratic electorate. As reaction to the Kroft-Clinton exchange shows, Obamaniacs are quick to assume the worst about Clinton. And Clintonistas--take, for example, the elderly lady who recently called to tell me she would vote Republican for the first time in 50 years if Obama wins the nomination--are no slackers themselves. The longer the battle drags on, the sharper these tensions will become. Here's hoping that there's some love left after all the hate.