home

Obama Advisor Calls Hillary a Monster

In the latest edition of Surrogates Gone Wild: Obama's key foreign policy aide Samantha Power has called Hillary Clinton "a monster."

We f***** up in Ohio," she admitted. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win.

"She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

Power is a Harvard Law grad.

Ms Power was head-hunted by Barack Obama to become his foreign-policy adviser in 2005 and combines this role with her job as a Time magazine columnist and professor of practice of global leadership and public policy at Harvard.

Will Obama fire her? He should.

Comments over 200, now closed.

< Howard Dean : Doesn't Oppose Seating FL/MI Delegates | Texas Dirty Tricks Update >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "fire her?" (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by OldCoastie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:42:31 PM EST
    doubt it...

    He won't fire her. He won't even be asked abt. it. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:46:13 PM EST
    That's my prediction, anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    Probably Defend Her Remark Instead (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:06:48 PM EST
    of firing her. While they condemn everything the Clinton campaign says or does, nothing seems to be off limits for Obama's.

    No call from the Dem establishment will go out to tell his campaign to "cool it" or Brazile on TV condemning it either.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course he won't (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:25:55 PM EST
    He defended David Axelrod when he said Hillary was responsible for Benazir Bhutto's assassination.  "Well, he didn't say she was directly responsible."  There is no chance of seeing anything more than an apology from this, and maybe not even that.  Obama knows this sort of thing fires up the base.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh, not the base, not the Dem base (5.00 / 4) (#210)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:01:39 PM EST
    but his base. They're quite different constituencies, it seems.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:43:49 PM EST
    I was hoping you'd pick up on that post with this link.  What is going on here!  If this was the other way around, you know HRC would have to fire this person, as she's had to in the past--even if they were volunteers.

    Do you think it would be a good strategy for her to bring this up to illustrate the double standard OR/ would she be accused of whining?  

    Almost like a meltdown of the campaign (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:11:24 PM EST
    three losses (which they maintained are not really losses) and they are already acting this way?  I say that it means that the longer the primary campaign goes, the better for Hillary.  She can can continue campaigning just like she did in Ohio and Texas and watch Obama's campaign self-destruct.  I think that all these gaffes only prove the 'experience factor."

    [ Parent ]
    Not so much a gaffe, (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by texas hostage on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:57:05 PM EST
    but more like an inexperienced operative lacking the skills to manipulate the press (Goolsbee comes to mind). It is quite obvious from the last three days of watching Obama, the Ax and now Powers, that the campaign strategy is not to reply substantively to Clinton's attacks but to re-rollout the October strategy of a.) claim that Hillary will stoop too anything and is evil and b.) throw out strawmen arguments,ie, tax returns.
    Earlier today, Tweety had a whole segment detailing a call inside the Clinton campaign where people said the F word. I wonder if he will devote as much time to Powers use of the word in her interview.
    Also I await the condemnation of the Kos crowd of Powers for advancing arguments that will likely be used by McCain in the general election. I can see the ad now: "Hillary is a monster! Obama's people said she was. Hide your children."

    [ Parent ]
    she said it on purpose (none / 0) (#207)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:00:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    WHAT??? (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:44:20 PM EST
    For the love of peeps.  Amateur hour continues.  Good Lord.  They are off the freakin' RAILS.

    I wonder how many (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:47:02 PM EST
    Time magazine columnists are paid by one of the campaigns. Is that usual?

    I think she is on leave (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:48:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Has Wonkette endorsed? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:06:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Any comments defending the remark as accurate (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:48:27 PM EST
    will be deleted.

    I just deleted one (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:50:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No excuse (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by sonya on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:51:49 PM EST
    Obama should fire her immediately.  Powers shames herself and Harvard.

    Wow, that's pretty off the wall. Did you see (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:51:50 PM EST
    the story about the radio ad in Mississippi?

    Mabus accuses the Clinton campaign of calling Mississippi voters "second class."

    "Now I don't know about you, but I'm tired of people putting us down," Mabus says in the ad. "Tired of politicians trying to divide our nation instead of lifting it up."

    source.

    This is Clinton's quote (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:55:33 PM EST
    "I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress," Clinton told the Des Moines Register in October. "There has got to be something at work here. How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa.'"

    I think that having lives in Arkansas, Clinton knows exactly what she is talking about.  When I heard the quote, I was shocked about Iowa, too.  MIss knows what its problems are--especially the women who live there.  If Obama wants to spin it, let him have at it.  When the shoe is on the other foot, and Obama is taking folks to task, it's speaking truth to power.  When Clinton does it, it's...wrong?

    [ Parent ]

    this is off topic (none / 0) (#176)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:50:05 PM EST
    no more on this here, put it in an open thread.

    [ Parent ]
    And can I say one more thing... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:54:12 PM EST
    ...She's a foreign policy aide? Not good. If they are winning like they say they are, I've no idea why she was freaked out enough to make these kind of comments. I'm not inclined to feel too good about putting people who crack this much under pressure in any positions of responsibility.

    So his foreign policy aide (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:06:51 PM EST
    has displayed horrid judgment.  Let's hope she won't be advising him on say, Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps it would be best if Obama (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:07:43 PM EST
    met directly with world leaders, however repressive, instead of sending out the advance team.

    [ Parent ]
    Samantha Power really does seem like amateur (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by frankly0 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:55:30 PM EST
    hour all to herself.

    As I recollect, she had once upon a time produced a document defending Obama's many foreign policy gaffes that looked to have been produced by the worst sort of political hack.

    I remember that gaffe doc (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:59:59 PM EST
    it was so bad it was actually funny.

    Susan Rice was not much better today, saying that neither Obama nor Hillary was ready to answer a 3am call.  An odd argument at best  :-)


    [ Parent ]

    Susan Rice (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:01:33 PM EST
    bless her heart, once said that Obama had been in favor of withdrawal from Iraq since 2002.

    This is why the President has a press secretary instead of sending his actual advisors out to talk to the media.

    [ Parent ]

    They do just seem to make it up (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:09:53 PM EST
    as they go along.  It sure looks like a little bit of losing has upset the cart with them.


    [ Parent ]
    maybe just maybe they got so many (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:05:18 PM EST
    passes, they thought they could say and do just about anything. i just can't imagine that obama wouldn't fire her, discipline her? but i don't think he will.

    [ Parent ]
    Ick (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:55:37 PM EST
    These are people who are bucking to be the leaders of the free world ;-).

    Not good.

    Lordy (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:56:49 PM EST

    these folks act like a bunch of petulant militant babies name calling, really what would they seriously do in a general election they can't handle his lose of 3 States now, they dont appear to understand they are not entitled to the nomination, it has to be won.  Offensive.  

    Prediction (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by DaytonDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:59:25 PM EST
    I predict we are about to be enthralled by another chapter of "What Obama (in this case adviser) meant.".

    Aha, let's just call it WARM (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:20:20 PM EST
    What the Advisor Really Meant, a subdialect of WORM.

    [ Parent ]
    Out of Their League (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Athena on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:21:44 PM EST
    Let's see - Goolsbee, Power, Rice - the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

    Actually, I wouldn't call this kind of incompetence "change."

    [ Parent ]

    Well, it is okay if you are Obama.... (none / 0) (#234)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:16:41 PM EST
    As long as Obama sticks to the "fact patterns," that will resolve the issue.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm reading (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:00:17 PM EST
    Power's book on genocide right now.  Compelling stuff.  This remark was shameful.

    Yet again proving (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:05:35 PM EST
    that only a woman can really cut another woman off at the knees like this.

    Christ.  So despicable.  And I really hope she was drinking when she said all of this.  She wants to be the foreign policy advisor to the President of the United States and she thinks that throwing in "this is off the record" in the middle of a slur against a major political figure while she is in a foreign country is enough?

    Have we learned nothing from the Dixie Chicks?!?!

    [ Parent ]

    kathy, she didn't ding hillary. (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:06:29 PM EST
    she hit herself on the head with the mallet so to speak.

    [ Parent ]
    I picked that up last week (none / 0) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:10:53 PM EST
    along with Larry Diamond's Spirit of Democracy.

    Anyway I think this comment really speaks to the anger in the Obama campaign regarding some of the overt tactics employed by the Clinton campaign in the past week or so.  

    It is very clear that the Obama campaign has taken the attacks of the past week very personally.  And while I'm sure most of the Hillary supporters here think those attacks are no big deal they are to the Obama team.  

    These weren't poor choice of words smears or gaffes like Bill South Carolina gaffe or Obama's periodically blurt.  These were overt and intentional attempts at smearing Obama and his campaign.  

    It was a poor choice of words.  And Ms. Power should apologize for it.  It is NOT the same as referencing Obama's teenage drug use.  It is a meaningless comment as I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of us know that Hillary is, in fact, NOT a monster.  

    [ Parent ]

    Care to give any examples (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:17:45 PM EST
    of these smears made by the Clinton campaign in the last week?

    [ Parent ]
    Arrogant (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Athena on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    They expect to be handed the nomination.  Too much star-gazing from the media.

    [ Parent ]
    Still waiting for examples, links . . . (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:21:41 PM EST
    as on this site, you don't just say that stuff. Seriously.

    [ Parent ]
    An example of going for the knees (none / 0) (#233)
    by Knocienz on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:16:10 PM EST
    Would be here

    The pretty clear editing of the debate footage to make Obama look 'blacker'

    [ Parent ]

    making obama look darker (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by wasabi on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:22:47 PM EST
    That has been debunked by factcheck.org

    [ Parent ]
    I am sorry (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by standingup on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:32:12 PM EST
    but there is nothing to substantiate that there was editing with the intent of making Obama appear blacker.  This is not a road we should be going down as charges of racist motivation are very serious and should be backed up by significant evidence.  There have been many explanations that provide how this can happen during the editing process without any motivation of other purposes.  

    [ Parent ]
    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:22:45 PM EST
    But politics is what it is. Power lost control and there is no excuse for it. She has to apologize publically for this.

    [ Parent ]
    As I said (none / 0) (#113)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:31:36 PM EST
    I think she needs to apologize.  

    As I said 2 days ago expect things to get really ugly now.  This won't be the last objectionable comment we hear.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:23:28 PM EST
    The Obama campaign is pissed off. The Clinton campaign is also pissed off. I think it won't be long before things really start going off the rails.

    P.S. It's clear that Samantha Power is not ready for primetime. A shame.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah but the issue isn't us. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:23:44 PM EST
    Whether or not we think Hillary Clinton is a monster is beside the point. Last week we were hearing that the Obama camp could take anything that was thrown their way, that the Republicans couldn't rattle them. Now we are hearing stuff like this.

    But do you really think that it hasn't hurt Bill Clinton to his soul to be called a racist? You think it doesn't sting Hillary even just a little bit to be accused of darkening a photograph to make Obama look blacker? Maybe you think all these things are true so you might not give them the benefit of thinking they have feelings. But in order to receive sympathy, sometimes you have to send out a little empathy. Just my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    Jon Stewart said it best (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:29:41 PM EST
    "it's hard to make fun of people when you see them as human beings with feelings."

    I dunno, guys, this is coming from the TOP--a key advisor.  It's getting harder and harder for me to believe that the misogynistic, hateful crap that has overtaken some left blogs is not condoned by the Obama campaign.  What we are getting a glimpse into with these words is how top officials with the campaign feel about Clinton.

    I guess we will find out tomorrow how high up it goes, because if Obama does not strongly denounce what this woman said and distance himself from her nasty words, then we will know the cut of the man.

    [ Parent ]

    Agree -- and I go back to the "truce" (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:54:14 PM EST
    and noticing that Obama said it to his lap, couldn't lift his eyes. Clinton looked squarely at him, at the interviewer, and at the camera. I just have to figure, too, that this "tone" of the Obama campaign is coming from the top. But I thought it was only within our borders. Good lord, this is how his people talk to the international press, at a time when we need to restore our status in the world? Obama's staff has gone beyond amateur hour. This now is getting downright dangerous.

    [ Parent ]
    Look (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:30:07 PM EST
    one of the reasons we get to this stage of hurling insults at each other is the conviction that the other side's smears are far, far, far worse.  I'm sure Clinton's people are just as convinced that Obama has run a scummy campaign.

    You either reduce tensions or you escalate them.  That's how the world works.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with that (none / 0) (#127)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:33:36 PM EST
    I'm not making moral judgments here.  

    Whether people here want to accept it or not the Clinton campaign made a willful decision to go for the knees last week.  

    When you ratchet it up it is very hard to calm things down.

    [ Parent ]

    I totally agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:39:18 PM EST
    When you ratchet it up it is very hard to calm things down.

    And I hope it gives people pause that, apparently, when things get ratcheted up, Obama's top advisors can't handle the heat.

    I would love to see what a 527 or a PAC could do with this quote.  The 3am call will look like a pat on the hiney from your mommy.

    [ Parent ]

    Bet you anything (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:45:01 PM EST
    that Clinton will use the comment to get votes -- and money.

    And it will work...very well.

    The woman is not going to fall apart over this, she's going to use it for gain.

    It will be fun to watch.

    [ Parent ]

    What would (none / 0) (#149)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:40:19 PM EST
    handling the heat look like?

    [ Parent ]
    Again with this? (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:52:42 PM EST
    How did they go for the knees? By running a baby soft ad about "who do you trust?"

    Come on, in the political world the stuff (not counting on this comment) is pretty tame stuff.

    [ Parent ]

    And Obama didn't go for the knees (5.00 / 5) (#227)
    by derridog on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:10:28 PM EST
    when he accused the Clintons of being racists in SC?

    What bothers me about the Obama folks is that they seem to think that their candidate is pure as the driven snow, and that Hillary is the incarnation of evil.   A lot of us watching this from the beginning (I was for Edwards before I turned to Hillary) gave up on Obama because he appeared to stop at nothing, including the possibility of splitting the party --to turn black voters against two people who had always been their friends. He and his surrogates did this by twisting the Clintons' words just like the Rethugs did to Gore and Kerry.  

    I was also turned off by Michelle Obama's petulance in stating that she didn't know whether or not she would vote for Hillary in the GE if she won. Now everyone is jumping on that bandwagon, petulantly stating that they'll sit out the election if Hillary leads the ticket.   I just want to say to the Obama people that this kind of animosity was started by them, but at this point it runs both ways.  When you say nothing when your followers use misogynist insults to attack the other candidate or bullying language and threatening behavior in caucuses and online, then you are inviting the same in response.  You aren't the only ones who think the other side is acting badly, believe me.

    The whole Obama campaign seems to be run by people who are either really young or haven't paid any attention to any other political race ever.   If they think that Hillary's 3:00 am ad was bad, they should have experienced the ad Howard Dean's opponents threw at him to wrest Iowa away from him in 2004 or, better yet, be the target of the "Dean Scream" hysteria by the MSM, conjured up for the sole purpose of planting a stake into his populist candidacy. If that happens, you have grounds for complaint. But there is nothing Hillary has done that Obama hasn't done worse, in my opinion.  Just remember there are two sides to every question.

    [ Parent ]

    Um (none / 0) (#145)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:39:45 PM EST
    It was months ago that Obama decided to deploy the "say anything and do anything" campaign theme.  That was several weeks after his campaign decided it was fair game to portray the Clintons as racists.

    Playing the game of "they started it!" is another great way to escalate the tensions.  Both campaigns were conceived in original sin and there's no way around that.

    [ Parent ]

    Absurd (none / 0) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:41:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What is absurd? (none / 0) (#170)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:47:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That going for the knees (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:52:49 PM EST
    started last week.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't mean to imply that (none / 0) (#196)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:56:36 PM EST
    but it is hard to argue that the Hillary campaign din't definitely stepped up the negative last week.

    [ Parent ]
    It started well before that. (none / 0) (#188)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:53:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But (none / 0) (#135)
    by Korha on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:36:16 PM EST
    Who is going to deescalate them?

    That is my question. And I think the answer is nobody will. The campaign is going to degenerate; I fear for our chances in November.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:40:08 PM EST
    Al Gore will show up and give everyone a cookie.

    [ Parent ]
    this isn't meaningless! no way! (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:08:21 PM EST
    i think it says a lot about the campaign's ideas are. and there is no excuse. the hillary campaign has every right to be angry about this about the slurs by the media. which by the way obama never spoke about that i saw.

    [ Parent ]
    While callling someone Ken Starr (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:02:42 PM EST
    has a negative connotation, especially among Dems, it is not the same type of personal attack as calling someone a "monster," which for obvious reasons HRC isn't.  

    Furthermore, BO used the exact kind of attacks as Ken Starr, so the comparison actually makes sense.  

    Obama is probably a bit (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:04:26 PM EST
    over-sensitive on Starr-related matters.  Judge in Rezko trial worked with Starr.

    [ Parent ]
    Criticism of tactics vs. character (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:12:40 PM EST
    Wolfson's comment:

    "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."

    Wolfson is criticizing Obama's tactics while Powers is criticizing Clinton's character. Huge difference.

    A more analogous comment would be if Wolfson had said, "Barack Obama is Ken Starr."

    [ Parent ]

    Give me a break (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:07:36 PM EST
    Obama is no Ken Star.  When was the last time he brought up Monica?????   HOW is he like Ken Star?  Cuz he asked about her tax returns.  GIVE ME A BREAK.  And no, Hillary is not a monster, but that doesn't make Ken Star ok.

    [ Parent ]
    CST (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:09:35 PM EST
    Explain, please, why your defense of one of Obama's top aides calling a United States Senator a "monster" is okay because of something a Clinton aid did.

    I mean, don't you see that "Clinton did X" does not excuse something that Obama did?  He is supposed to be transcending this sort of thing.  Clinton never made any such claims.

    [ Parent ]

    I am in no way defending the comment (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:15:03 PM EST
    I don't think it is ok at all, I was just responding to the other post about Ken Star.  

    [ Parent ]
    I see that, (none / 0) (#82)
    by BethanyAnne on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:22:52 PM EST
    and my first statement was that BHO should fire her.  I mean it.  He should fire her.  But he has to respond "somehow", and I want to know what is ok to HRC supporters?

    [ Parent ]
    Issues are good. Got any? (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:07:29 PM EST
    Any points to make about issues of restoring our status with the world, via staff interviews with the European press? Or even the Canadian press? Character is an issue in this campaign, according to Obama. How ought he handle a Rovian attack on the character of the other Dem candidate? (For that matter, would this be acceptable if said about McCain? Or is Obama only uniting with Republicans?)

    [ Parent ]
    I guess (none / 0) (#117)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:31:48 PM EST
    you must have missed the allusion to Whitewater yesterday when Obama's campaign said they didn't think Hillary really wanted to get into the topic of shady real estate deals.

    [ Parent ]
    They clearly opened that door as well (none / 0) (#136)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:36:24 PM EST
    when they questioned the Senator's integrity. Glass houses and all of that.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:37:59 PM EST
    You can argue that one side's attacks are all fair game and the other side's attacks are all off limits, but people stop listening to you after a while.

    [ Parent ]
    You could but at this point it appears (1.00 / 1) (#180)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:51:48 PM EST
    everything is fair game.

    Shortsighted from the Clinton camp IMO. She has 48% negatives. Can't afford those to go higher. Obama and McCain have negs in the 30's. They can pick fights with not too much harm and can afford to take hits.

    [ Parent ]

    Negatives: Checked Rasmussen lately? (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:28:09 PM EST
    Overall Favorable Ratings for Presidential Candidates

    Obama's and Clinton's negatives were both 48% on March 4. They're Clinton 50% and Obama 46% today. For the past week they've been within the margin of error of +/- 4%.

    [ Parent ]

    ding ding ding (none / 0) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:40:39 PM EST
    See Kos on the DLC today.

    [ Parent ]
    Whitewater?? (none / 0) (#225)
    by CST on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:09:33 PM EST
    Ken Star may have started with this, but believe me, this is not where he ended, and frankly it was his job to go after whitewater, I don't think that is why everyone has a problem with him.  The problem is, he used Whitewater as an excuse to go after Bill about Monica.

    [ Parent ]
    Judgment (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:09:03 PM EST
    Well, since we are regularly told to support Obama based on his superior judgment, I think it's a good time to question the sort of judgment he's used in hiring his staff.

    Let's see, so far we've got Goolsbee, an economics adviser who decided to dabble in foreign relations and then lie about it. Then Susan Rice admits on TV that her candidate is not qualified to answer an emergency phone call as president. And now this one. He is making the parallels to W. just way, way too easy. If this is what his campaign looks like, how many "Heckuva Job Brownie's" do you think will fill his cabinet?

    Aside from the monster comment, the other disturbing aspect of her statement seems to be her dismissal of Ohio as "the only place they can win". Uh, do they not get the importance of Ohio in terms of winning the presidency? I know you just got your hats handed to you there, but it might not be a good idea to blow them off.

    She forgot Texas (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:28:36 PM EST
    And Rhode Island, which as everyone knows, is full of backward hicks easily duped by Hillary's electoral wiles.

    She's a smart person, but this was just a plain stupid thing to say, and disrespectful--whether on the record or off.  A "new kind of politics" indeed.

    [ Parent ]

    i know some well educated people who (none / 0) (#226)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:10:17 PM EST
    don't have a clue and some folks with little schooling i admire for their brains and common sense. no excuse!

    [ Parent ]
    He really needs to hire some republicans (none / 0) (#48)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:11:17 PM EST
    asap.

    [ Parent ]
    Some grown-ups would be sufficient (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:33:09 PM EST
    -- some professionals, as we don't need this "amateur hour." Some of us are trying to win a White House here. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    please stay on topic of (none / 0) (#240)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:25:30 PM EST
    Power and her comment.

    [ Parent ]
    Nice Mouth. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:09:04 PM EST
    Guess that's what Harvard Law does for you.  Hil had the good sense to attend Yale.

    I love how this person called Hillary a monster, then she says Hillary will do anything to win!

    I've just about reached my threshold for Obama people accusing Hillary of going negative.  I don't see how she could POSSIBLY be worse than him.

    Ah, Harvard Law, That's why (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:17:18 PM EST
    Michelle Obama speaks as she does.  Explains everything. "Tone."

    [ Parent ]
    I believe the duped and filthy poor of Ohio (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:36:12 PM EST
    would call it "Elitist."

    [ Parent ]
    And, well, "Eastern" (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:56:38 PM EST
    with apologies to all of you nice people closer to the coast. Interesting how Obama, a Westerner, sounds so Eastern and elitist, actually -- I think it helped Clinton in Ohio that she still just sounds so Midwestern middle-class. As she says, y'know?

    [ Parent ]
    He won't fire her (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Foxx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:13:06 PM EST
    Didn't fire Jackson, the race baiting memo circulators, didn't comment on the "shameless" insult in Nevada (much worse in Spanish than English) or any of the misogyny he's been benefitting from.

    In fact, I wonder if this was intentional. A lot else said in the interview was as outrageous. Fits in with their theme.

    Or else a window on their self-delusion, that they really believe their own spin.

    I believe Wolson said BO was using (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:14:38 PM EST
    Ken Starr tactics--not that he was like him--I could be wrong though.  Axelrod has brought up Whitewater, and has alluded to the 'scandals of the 90s'--hence, the Ken Starr comparision.  

    Sorry, it's just not the same as calling someone a "monster."  

    I think you're right. It was tactics. (none / 0) (#71)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:20:37 PM EST
    Of course that's ridiculous and hypocritical but that's politics.

    [ Parent ]
    In many ways, what's most (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by frankly0 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:16:03 PM EST
    disturbing about the many "gaffes" being committed by the Obama team is that they are from the very people who are going to offer advice on policy, not just politics.

    Surely, you'd expect some wiser and cooler and more experienced heads among that sort of adviser, wouldn't you?

    But Samantha Power is one of Obama's top foreign policy advisers. Goolsbee is his top economic adviser. Susan Rice is also a senior foreign policy adviser.

    What kind of team is this for governance?

    What kind of amateur hour can we expect from them should they get in power?

    Also-- (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:16:50 PM EST
    enough with the "she did it too" argument.  

    You can't say anything about BO without one of his supports saying "well, she did it too"--as if that has anything to do with the validity of the original criticism.

    Sigh. Cross Ohio off for Obama if he gets the nod (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:18:01 PM EST
    How can you go back there when your camp insults them after your loss. They are obsessed.

    The Obama magic didn't take. They must be stoopid.

    Mabus of Mississippi is trying to say (none / 0) (#243)
    by hairspray on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:28:04 PM EST
    that Hillary has demeaned them by comparing the lack of women in office in Iowa to their own record of women officials.  Hillary's comments there are more nuanced, but she was calling them out for the lack of political women in both states.  That doesn't sound like MS was demeaned as much as chastised.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you making a serious claim that (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    Obama's comments are not gone over? Or his aides?

    I've seen 3 of his aides taken to task on here, and they all have links to a print source. Both camps are held to account for any statement coming out of them.

    Like I said, I personally would like to see her repeat the statement when she's there the next couple of days. I appreciate it when a person in power calls people to task for their shortcomings, especially in a case like MS. Just for the record, I would like to see Obama acknowledge that Sen. Clinton did have a valid point, in that MS has not progressed at the rate of the rest of the country. MS didn't even ratify the 13th amendment until 1995. They deserve to be preached to by both Clinton and Obama, imo.

    Name Calling (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    I thought we were seeing the dawn of a new political figure in Obama?  It's sad that because his campaign didn't win Ohio that they have to resort to name-calling and sling angry words at HRC.  HRC is right...as Ohio goes so goes the nation.  BTW, I am going to start making donations to Talk Left every time I donate to HRC. FINALLY I have found a blog that isn't Barak-centric!  

    Actions aligning with rhetoric again (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by sarahfdavis on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:31:56 PM EST
    I constantly witness the Obama camp damaging their "Unity" brand.
    The product doesn't back up the advertising.

    [ Parent ]
    Great idea, thanks so much! (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:04:36 PM EST
    Much appreciated.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#119)
    by OxyCon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:31:51 PM EST
    Obama is creating a "new kind of politics".
    He's taking politics to a new low.
    He's established that it is possible to denigrate your opponent's judgment for months and get away with it, without getting called out for running a negative campaign. And that your campaign can call your opponent despicable names without repercussion.

    [ Parent ]
    For one, you are conflating character (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:27:04 PM EST
    and judgment.  These are two entirely different things, not to mention Obama brought the judgment thing up.

    Please point me to the comments by Clinton criticizing Obama's character as it relates to Naftagate. I never saw them.  I only saw criticism of his campaigns' actions regarding nafta.

    Good point. (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:45:41 PM EST
    I'd also like to point out that not only did he bring up judgment -- he's basing his entire campaign on it. He doesn't have experience, but boy does he have judgment. Just as the Obama campaign spends their time questioning Clinton's experience, so too can the Clinton campaign question his judgment. If he wants to use his judgment against the war as a reason to vote for him, than it is perfectly legitimate to question that judgement in all sorts of other areas.

    And I suppose a person's judgment is part of their overall character -- but if he didn't want people to dissect it, then he shouldn't have built a campaign on it.

    [ Parent ]

    All I can say is, (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by annabelly on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:32:50 PM EST
    if Mabus is truly "tired of people putting us down," then maybe he could encourage his state to be on the right side of progress, instead of being on the wrong side of every issue of equality since the Civil War.

    Oops! Clean up in aisle 12! (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by annabelly on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:34:31 PM EST
    Sorry J. I have too many windows open. And I just woke up from a nap. Please delete as necessary. Thank you, and apologies for the extra work.

    [ Parent ]
    proves a point (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:38:05 PM EST
    i made years ago: you can send an idiot to harvard, but you'll end up with an idiot holding a harvard degree. i do blame harvard, and all other ivy league schools. when your admissions are based solely on academics, with no value given for "street smarts", this is what you produce. as well, i suspect ms. power has zero actual real world experience, in anything. not the kind of person you want advising you on, um, uh, real world issues.

    but hey, that's just me, i'm funny that way.

    flyerhawk, i've read your posts and refrained from comment. no longer. please substantiate your allegations of "attacks" by the clinton campaign. specifically, the implication that said "attacks" were baseless. provide links to unrelated third party sources.
    otherwise, shut up.

    halstoon! we've missed your inane comments. they finally let you out? what "challenging comments"?

    Just so we're clear, do you disapprove of Obama's challenging comments?

    that miss. isn't a second-class state, for a fair chunk of its citizens? you must be daft boy!

    will she be fired by the obama campaign? not hardly likely; she'll probably get promoted. the "peter principle" is alive and well!


    Not fair (none / 0) (#166)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:46:54 PM EST
    The woman is hardly an idiot.

    Powers "was haunted by her experience during the Bosnia war in the early 1990s, when, stringing for the Washington Post, she reported on the Serb attack on Srebrenica before the massacre of Bosnian Muslims there, but failed to get a story in the paper." (Wash. Monthly, last year) She went on to write an incredible book about genocide.

    Care to take back your ivory tower insult?

    [ Parent ]

    This goes to my observation (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:38:57 PM EST
    that I've been re-iterating over and over again...

    Obama's form of judgment in the White House for 4 years would ensure Republican rule for another 12 at least.  

    The idea was that even though he was less experienced in federal government, he'd hire brilliant minds to help him.

    The brilliant minds he's sent out the last couple of days need to sit down and shut up.  Now....Before they destroy Democrats altogether.

    I completely agree (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:47:38 PM EST
    that just because you can dazzle the people with great rhetoric you are ready for primetime, i.e., running for the leader of the free world.  Barak's campaign spokesperson(s) may want to take a cue from their candidate before they too have to refer to their actions and comments as "boneheaded".

    [ Parent ]
    I still believe in Obama's value to this nation, (none / 0) (#232)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:13:07 PM EST
    to be deployed to the Middle East to deal with that male dominated society.

    I think they would welcome him and he could negotiate low gas prices for us and a peaceful resolution or cease fire, just on his name alone,
    they would think he was one of them.

    It isn't a put down for those who think I'm bashing him. Its reality. I think our problmes in the ME have to do with poor diplomacy.

    GWB didn't help us at all in that regard. Condi Rice? please, she's a woman.

    [ Parent ]

    Sounds like she is as anti-Israel as Farrakhan (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:58:53 PM EST
    In a 2002 interview at Berkeley[4] , that has been widely criticized [5], Power proposed that instead of encouraging negotiations between Israelis and Arabs, the United States should spend "billions of dollars" to send a " meaningful military" force to effect the "imposition of a solution" and create "the new state of Palestine" beside Israel. [6] In March 2008, Power described her previous opinion as "weird." [7]    LINK


    Well That's Dissapointing (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:05:35 PM EST
    Remember.  It's not Obama's job to comment on what other people say about his opponent.

    If the Obama campaign's definition of (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:06:44 PM EST
    a "savvy inside the beltway politician" is being able to refrain from calling your opponent a monster, you just dropped my expectations of an Obama presidency considerably.

    As an author of a book on genocide and... (5.00 / 5) (#246)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:45:22 PM EST
    as affiliate with the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy,  Samantha Power must know that de-humanization is a key step in the escalation of political difference to physical violence. Her comment is truly reprehensible.

    Power made no "mistake" in the typical sense of the word. A mistake often implies misunderstanding or ignorance. In this case, it is not possible to defend Power on these grounds. She knows, as an academic and journalist, that it is the printed and spoken word that affects de-humanization of opponents in political struggles. She knew exactly what that word meant, above and beyond its normal use, in a political competition.

    That Power took the additional step to tell this reporter, "off the record," only implicates her further in knowingly engaging in this kind of dehumanizing attack. Did Power say this to a journalist in hopes of influencing the tenor of his article? Whether she wanted it on the record or not, she wanted the power of her word to shape the content and tone of the article.

    I think (5.00 / 0) (#248)
    by sas on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:34:21 PM EST
    Obama should both denounce and reject the comments.

    When Sheehan mentioned Obama's (4.50 / 8) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:45:29 PM EST
    drug use and speculated on it,  he was gone in one day.

    There's no place for this kind of personal attack in Democratic party politics. She should be canned.

    I think you are right J (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:46:24 PM EST
    It is a shame and shows how nuts these folks have all gone.

    Samantha Power is much better than that.

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously not better in this case. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:51:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    By all these folks, who do you mean? (none / 0) (#49)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:11:19 PM EST
    All Obama supporters, or all people involved with the Democratic contests, or just Obama advisers?

    [ Parent ]
    Everryone (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:26:23 PM EST
    Unfortunately for Power, her public comments require a rebuke, possibly a step down.

    [ Parent ]