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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute 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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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."

    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."

    she said it on purpose (none / 0) (#207)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:00:19 PM EST
    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
    Has Wonkette endorsed? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:06:36 PM EST
    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
    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."


    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?


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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  :-)


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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."


    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.

    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?!?!


    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.

    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'


    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

    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    Absurd (none / 0) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:41:32 PM EST
    What is absurd? (none / 0) (#170)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:47:58 PM EST
    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.  

    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?

    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?)

    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.

    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.

    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%.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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!

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

    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. . . .

    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.

    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."

    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."

    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?

    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."  

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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".

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


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

    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.

    Would a two-week suspension (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:31:39 PM EST
    by sufficient?  

    There still is the problem of the pattern (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:59:13 PM EST
    of this behavior, if you know what I mean.

    Yes indeedy. I figure this (none / 0) (#218)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:07:15 PM EST
    one is good for what--2 days of blogging?

    yeah, I wonder why no one has asked (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:21:06 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton about her past drug use.  You're right.  This is very troubling.

    You must be joking (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:25:36 PM EST
    Power called Clinton a monster.

    It was worse.

    Shaheen was fired. Power has to step away from the campaign for a period at least.


    I have a read on you now (none / 0) (#192)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:55:18 PM EST
    If you want to comment here you need to stop dealing lies.

    Thank you. About time (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:00:35 PM EST
    as it's just not worth the time, trying to deal with all these commenters' claims without evidence.

    so now fighter = monster? (none / 0) (#224)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:09:26 PM EST
    Muhammad Ali = Jeffrey Dahmer?
    Beowulf = Grendel?
    Batman = the Joker?
    Superman = Lex Luthor?

    nothing to do with each other (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:47:28 PM EST
    Hillary is the candidate, not Bill, she hasn't used drugs. Her NH campaign official who suggested Obama be asked more questions about his drug use resigned.

    This woman called Hillary a "monster."

    There's no place for that in our party.  


    Spyguy (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:47:42 PM EST
    If you think that is acceptable to call any person, much less any Dem candidate, you have come to the wrong blog. Move right along to some other site.

    Your comment has been deleted.

    Firings (none / 0) (#21)
    by BethanyAnne on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:57:15 PM EST
    Yeps, Obama should fire her.  Just like Clinton should fire the folk that called Obama Ken Starr.

    How is that the same? (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:59:24 PM EST
    I mean-really.  This woman called Clinton a monster and basically said she couldn't understand why anyone would like her, and then went on to insult all her unwashed and working poor voters in Ohio.

    That's the same as saying Obama was using Ken Starr talking points?  



    Seriously. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by liminal on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:13:24 PM EST
    I found the comment about Ohio voters even more insulting.  

    I think the charge was (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:00:49 PM EST
    the Obama campaign was acting like Ken Starr.

    A stupid thing to say but hardly comparable to this.


    When Obama's campaign is sending out (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:27:15 PM EST
    e-mails to the press about tax returns and bringing up cattle futures in those emails then the comparison is very valid.

    you have a tendency to go off topic (none / 0) (#190)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:54:25 PM EST
    Please don't. There are open threads where you can direct the conversation. This is about Power's comment.

    Sorry, I didn't realize I had a habit (none / 0) (#222)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:09:06 PM EST
    of doing. I was responding to the person above who said

    Yeps, Obama should fire her.  Just like Clinton should fire the folk that called Obama Ken Starr.

    and was supplying the link that the other responses to the poster above hadn't to help the person understand where the Ken Starr comparison was coming from.

    I'll just go back to reading and not posting since I didn't realize I had a habit of going off topic. Thanks for your time.


    Nobody called Obama Ken Starr (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:33:27 PM EST
    What was said was that Obama was using tactics similar to Ken Starr -- there is a difference.

    great (none / 0) (#34)
    by joei on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:05:32 PM EST
    even better, wolfson will get one additional talking point every day to talk about samantha powers

    From Sean Hannity on a.m. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:02:36 PM EST
    (no idea if its correct), Susan Rice, who also advises Obama, sd. neither Obama nor Clinton was ready to answer the red phone.  

    Here's the link (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:08:05 PM EST

    They are truly freaking out.  Remember, that group may someday have the power over the red phone;-).


    The funny thing is (none / 0) (#30)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:03:24 PM EST
    did she acutally think such a comment would say off the record?

    A do-over remark. (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:05:00 PM EST
    Yes, clearly -- as the add-on at the end (none / 0) (#229)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:10:40 PM EST
    explaining the most basic Journalism 101 stuff (seriously, it's in chapter 1 in the textbooks -- the four levels of background, off the record, etc.) is not commonly put at the end of news stories.

    For the record (none / 0) (#58)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:16:25 PM EST
    If Samantha Power said that the comment was off the record then the Scotsman should not have printed the comment.  That is unethical.

    wrong (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by dissenter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:18:07 PM EST
    As a former journalist

    Off the record only works when the ground rules are set before the interview. You don't get to make an outrageous comment and then say....Off THE RECORD.

    Any experienced spokesperson knows that.


    Any Journalism 101 freshman knows that (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:11:40 PM EST
    it's in chapter 1 of the textbooks. Really. I used to teach it.

    I have been told there is no such thing (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:19:52 PM EST
    as "off the record" when a person agrees to talk to the press.  The interviewee can say it but it means nothing, unless there is an agreement ahead of time between the interviewee and the interviewer.  

    Unless your Tim Russert... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by ivs814 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:41:30 PM EST
    with him Republicans are always off the record

    You are exactly right (none / 0) (#86)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:23:56 PM EST
    and it even explains that farther down in the body of the story.

    There can be off the record (none / 0) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:30:10 PM EST
    If you say so and have agreement PRIOR to speaking.

    For the rrecord (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:27:27 PM EST
    You do not get to declare a comment OFF the record AFTER YOU SAID IT.

    Did you read the article? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:28:11 PM EST
    They have an section at the end of the article. Ground rules are set up in advance of the interview. There are no take backs. Ms. Powers shouldn't have run her mouth off. She wasn't joshing around with a member of the docile US press corps.

    Read the bottom of the article (none / 0) (#89)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:24:11 PM EST
    by pre-arrangement, it was on the record.  Saying something is off the record does not make it so, unless it's an unusually friendly publication.

    The problem is saying it in the first place.


    Consider the remark (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    if it was tours. If it was not, how would you know to quewstioin the deleteiojn?

    But this does give me ANOTHER opportunity to explain something - this is Jeralyn's blog.. She let's me write hre. We demand civility and respect for ourselves, for the candidates and for fellow commenters.

    Failure to adhere to that will result in comment deletions, suspensions and if necessary, bannings.

    This blog is not a democracy nor a pure free speech zone.

    We welcome disagreement but not insults and incivility.

    Our judgment on these issues is the final one. Once we decide to delete, the issue is closed.

    There is not inconsistent application (none / 0) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:38:01 PM EST
    Frankly, the Clinton supporters do not complain when their comments are deleted. It is only the Obama supporters. Let me be clear, working the refs does not work here.

    BTD, you are such a monster. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:41:22 PM EST
    Frankly (none / 0) (#179)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:51:20 PM EST
    I hear you but you certainly do not indicate a lack of preference. But that is not my biggest problem with you right now. I find that you give out a lot of false information. That we do not like here.

    You need to get better about your information.


    Good G-d (none / 0) (#74)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:21:17 PM EST
    she's up there with Jesse Jackson Jr.  And I LOL'ed at "Surrogates Gone Wild".  That's too awesome.

    You asrer hearing wrong (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:23:56 PM EST
    That is a complete falsehood what you just repeated.

    Beyond that it is off topic deflection and will not be tolerated at this blog.

    Stick to the subject of the post please.

    The ones (none / 0) (#88)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:24:06 PM EST
    the previous commenter seemed to be setting.

    For instance Hillary saying something like this...

    "I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

    "I believe that I've done that. Certainl


    Leaving aside the extremely dubious notion that Hillary or McCain have somehow demonstrated anything close to that, why does she continue to praise John McCain over Barack Obama?

    I think she is making a mistake and (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:39:57 PM EST
    I have condemned her for it.

    I still await the condemnation for Obama's character attacks on Clinton. From you and every other Obama supporter.

    Candidate partisans are candidate partisans and never condemn their onw favored one.

    You fall in that group imo.


    I condemn the attack by Ms. Powers (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by CST on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:52:52 PM EST
    It was the wrong thing to say, and yes, offensive.  

    Well you aren't one (none / 0) (#181)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:51:50 PM EST
    to hold much of a positive opinion for anything I say.

    I am not a one of those people that gets up in arms every time a candidate says something mean about my candidate.  

    As a matter of fact the only comments I have criticized are her praising of McCain over Obama which I condemn, not because it hurts Obama per se, but because it hurts the Democratic Party.  If Obama were to pick Hillary for VP, or vice versa, how does she explain away these comments?

    As for things the Obama campaign has done that I don't care much for.  I don't like some of their ads and I specifically objected on this site to their NAFTA mailers which I felt were misleading.


    uh (none / 0) (#123)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    why does she continue to praise John McCain over Barack Obama

    Because even she can see that McCain has the experience and ability to answer the 3 AM phonecall?  Not anyone's fault Obamafans can't.


    More "Poor Judgment" (none / 0) (#95)
    by OxyCon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:25:57 PM EST
    From the Obama campaign.
    These people are amateurs.

    And beating. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Arbitrarity on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:29:10 PM EST
    The pros.

    Yeah, right (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by OxyCon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:48:20 PM EST
    You got Bob Baurer crashing campaign press conferences.
    You got "Hope" Axlerod talking about how after all of his phony hope rhetoric, he's going to begin a scorched Earth smear campaign.
    You got Obama's press guy Plauff(?) loosing his mind in interviews.
    Now this Samantha Powers is vilifying Obama's opponent.

    OBama's campaign is in full-on freakout mode.
    Their glass jaw has been exposed.
    All they are good at is caucusing and fooling gullible people.
    There won't be any caucuses come November for a bunch of fanatics to be camped out at all day long.

    Hillary wins where Democrats win. You can't even name 5 states that Obama has won that has ever gone in the Dem column come presidential election time, and if you think Obama will win these piddling caucus states come November, I'm giving away a free bottle of "male enhancers" to the first 100 callers.


    I guess that's why Obama lost those states (none / 0) (#249)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:23:12 AM EST
    Because "any Democrat will win where a Democrat will win". It has been shown that most Democrats prefer Hillary, 2-1 I believe.

    Obama's wins come from Independents and Republicans plus that third of Dems.

    Progressives prefer Hillary, period. That explains why he wins mostly states that go to the GOP in GE.


    That's one powerful crystal ball you've got there. (none / 0) (#202)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:58:06 PM EST
    They will go into the convention with more money, more delegates, and the popular vote.

    That's quite a statement. Were you one of the people who correctly predicted the demise of the Clinton campaign after Iowa, and after SC, and then again after Super Tuesday?


    Impossible, Really? (none / 0) (#238)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:21:21 PM EST
    Your suggested outcome may be possible, even probable -- but it is by no means a given. There are a number of scenarios that could turn your prediction on it's head. As a political junkie, I'm sure you've come across at least some of the alternative outcomes to this primary season.

    Among other things, (none / 0) (#104)
    by frankly0 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:29:06 PM EST
    the comment and the entire set of her remarks shows what a poor loser she is -- and, to the extent she's reflecting the sentiment of the Obama campaign, what sore losers they are as a group.

    No class. No class at all.

    Politics of hope? Yeah, sure, tell me another fairy tale.

    Whatever you're hearing (none / 0) (#108)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:29:45 PM EST
    is patently wrong.  You must be new or something...(no biggie, I'm fairly new here too), but if you page back to one of BTD's posts about NAFTAgate, you'll be able to read the memo and the discussion about it.

    I don't think it's so bad. (none / 0) (#115)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:31:43 PM EST
    It's not good, and she should at least be made to apologize, but I have to say that I blame the overheated atmosphere in part.  In certain circles this kind of statement is simply par for the course.

    Campaign spokespersons (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:37:55 PM EST
    are--and should be--held to a higher standard than blog posters.

    Still, it's likely the result of inexperience. You can say whatever you want behind closed doors, but in her position, you have to know how to deal with the press. O/T, last year she used the phrase "drank the Kool-Aid" in referring to her meeting wtih Sen. Obama and becoming an advisor to him. Kind of funny that even Obama supporters toss that phrase around.


    It is pretty bad to say (none / 0) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:36:07 PM EST
    when you are giving an on the record interview. Samantha Power is an accomplished person who has never been on a political campaign as far as I know. It shows.

    It's a pretty. . . (none / 0) (#159)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:44:21 PM EST
    stupid thing to say.  I don't think Power is an official spokesperson or anything, she's a policy advisor, right?  I don't think folks like that really have much business talking to the press anyway unless their giving a briefing for the campaign.

    It wasn't a good thing to say, it wasn't nice, and it wasn't smart politics.  But when I say it's not so bad I mean it's not misogynistic, it does convey false information, it's not crude.  It's just an extremely poorly thought out way of expressing frustration and dislike.


    The csampaign authorized her to speak (none / 0) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:47:14 PM EST
    for the campaign to this reporter.

    Then hopefully. . . (none / 0) (#242)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:27:25 PM EST
    the campaign will lean on her for an apology.

    The return of the Harvard Brainiacs... (none / 0) (#131)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:35:47 PM EST
    and I fear they will meet the same fate.

    Bill Clinton used to be President of the US (none / 0) (#174)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:49:39 PM EST
    He has close personal friends in every government in the entire world.

    Is Power a foreign policy for Transylvania? (none / 0) (#178)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:51:02 PM EST

    Foreign Policy Advisor, I meant to say ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:56:13 PM EST
    I hate typoing a joke.

    FTR (none / 0) (#193)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:55:34 PM EST
    While I think that Samantha Power made a dumb mistake, probably because she thought that her comment wouldn't get picked up off in cheery Scotland, I do not want to see her leave the campaign. She should apologize.  End of story.

    I think she is exactly the kind of people that need to be on a President's staff.  This a woman who has devoted her life to human rights and coming up with sound plans to solve real world crises.

    I find it sad that so many people here are willing to crucify her because she isn't a savvy inside the beltway politician.  Heck one poster her even implied she was a misogynist, which is downright shocking.

    hijacking the thread (none / 0) (#209)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:01:25 PM EST
    and going off topic aren't allowed. Either are personal attacks. I'm cleaning the thread.

    I give up, comments closing (none / 0) (#241)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:27:10 PM EST
    I put up an open thread. I'm not going to spend all night moderating these comments. The thread is closing.

    Monster (none / 0) (#247)
    by Dax on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:01:53 PM EST
    Oy.  People need to seriously chill about this primary, on all sides.  I'm trying to believe that this lengthy contest will not damage our chances in the fall, but it's hard for me to look at it that way.  Regardless of who ultimately prevails, the longer this goes on, the higher the emotions and the less time there is for the supporters of the losing candidate to step back, get over their disappointment and anger, and put things in perspective.  

    The monster comment was childish, petulant, and definitely amateurish.  I don't see it as a "negative attack" in the political sense -- it doesn't prompt some damaging media debate about whether Hillary is really a monster.  It damages no one except the speaker and the principal (in this case Obama).  I kind of feel sorry for Obama on this one because it's just cringe inducing and, whatever you think of him, he clearly prides himself on trying to keep his own emotions in check and not being a hothead.  And if we're being honest, this incident is pure gold for the Clinton camp.

    What's more interesting about this is that it's a window into the fact that the high emotions we see in various blog posts (on both sides) exist within the campaigns as well.  I have no doubt this is currently the case within both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.  

    Should he fire Powers?  I don't know.  That would be the politically easy and expedient thing to do.  But by all accounts she's a very astute foreign policy wonk (though obviously not a diplomat!).  Firing her is the easy thing to do.  I think I'd be more impressed if Obama gives her a public dressing down but doesn't fire her.  That would be the less "politics as usual" outcome.  We'll see.

    Is this what Hillarys Camp was hoping for (none / 0) (#250)
    by KLCarten on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:24:35 AM EST
    meaning that these kind of mistakes eventually start piling up.  Makes you wonder if they are really up to do the job.  It also really makes it hard for me to vote for him if he ends up being the nominee.