home

Obama "Decries" Samantha Power's "Hillary is a Monster" Comment

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:19:02 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Samantha Power (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

As a follow-up to my earlier post about Samantha Power and surrogates gone wild, Drudge reports Barack Obama has renounced and rejected his senior foreign policy advisor's remark to a Scottish newspaper that Hillary Clinton is a monster.

According to Drudge (the only place right now this is appearing):

Statement from Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton: Senator Obama decries such characterizations which have no place in this campaign...

ABC News reminds us:

In December, Obama said he had "been very clear to my campaign. I do not want to see research that is involved in trying to tear people down personally. If I find out that somebody is doing that, they will be fired. And I have been absolutely crystal clear about this, and I have been clear about this for a very long time."

Also check out Martin Lewis at HuffPo.

I want to know more about Samantha Power besides her educational and publishing background. If Obama is elected, she could be in his cabinet. What are her positions on foreign issues?

< Open Thread | Puerto Rico to Hold Primary Instead of Caucuses June 1 >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama "Decries" Samantha Power's "Hillary is a Monster" Comment | 248 comments (248 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Globalism. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:22:52 PM EST
    A Harvard professor known quite well amongst the Poly Sci department at Wake. Samantha Power, I believe, has stated her full endorsement of a North American Union (like the EU), and is a major proponent of such free-communications movements such as FreePress.net (She produces articles their occassionally.)

    Ew. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:23:40 PM EST
    There. Boy oh boy do I need to polish up my Internet grammar skills. :P

    [ Parent ]
    Goolsbee (none / 0) (#94)
    by BDB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:07:35 AM EST
    It sounds like she is friends with Goolsbee and was upset that Goolsbee's Canadian meeting was being used against Obama.  Why she chose to address that matter by creating another problem Obama will have to deal with and that will distract from his campaign in the next few days, and just as they were planning to hit Hillary hard, I have no idea.  But it does seem like an amateur mistake (I don't mean in terms of foreign policy, I mean in terms of politics).

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds like she's the nightmare ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:22:07 AM EST
    of the Ron Paul crowd ...

    And isn't Lou Dobbs also always warning of that American Union stuff?

    [ Parent ]

    Can you come up witha link on the NAU (none / 0) (#164)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:58:15 AM EST
    stuff?

    [ Parent ]
    so, not fired. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:25:12 PM EST
    Gotcha.

    Typical Obama (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Jon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:27:53 PM EST
    Not firing her would be the typical Obama pattern wouldn't it? They don't call him Senator "Have it Both Ways" for nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    Reminds you of Bill Clinton, doesn't it! (none / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:30:57 PM EST
    Before you start, I like Bill Clinton. And FDR before him, was also considered pretty slippery.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Nope, reminds me only of Obama (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:32:58 PM EST
    not firing anyone for other crap like this, either. But, oh, he "decries" it. Uh huh.

    [ Parent ]
    He Didn't Decry It (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by BDB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:39:57 PM EST
    His spokesman did.

    [ Parent ]
    Suit yourself (none / 0) (#12)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:35:29 PM EST
    I expect politicians to be slippery. Bill was no exception. Nor do I expect Hillary to be any less slippery.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Please (none / 0) (#79)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:46:50 PM EST
    In the past 24 hours Hillary has three times practically drooled on McCain's lapels with this "We're qualified and Obama isn't" thing. Now that she can't win the Democratic primary is she actually trying to throw the election? What makes her any different from a Lieberman?

    This is treasonous for a party candidate to align herself with another candidate from another party in some kind of bizarre attempt to blackmail the party to ignore the results at the polls and make her candidate. I'm not sure of the context of calling Clinton a monster, but traitor to her political party seems to fit. No matter what she thinks she's not bigger than the Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm Sorry (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by BDB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:52:52 PM EST
    Has Clinton threatened not to support Obama if he's the nominee?

    Has she implied that her supporters won't support Obama?

    Have any of her Super Delegates threatened 1968 if she's not the nominee?

    Has she run a campaign for the democratic nomination based on appealing to Republicans and Independents more than Democrats?

    I've said it a million times, if you want to know what Obama is doing or planning to do, look at what he and his supporters accuse Clinton of doing.

    [ Parent ]

    She has (1.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:21:24 AM EST
    done worse than saying she won't support Obama. She is saying that Obama is not competent, she has emphasized that he is BLACK by darkening his picture, she has advertised that people should fear Obama in the White House because somehow he doesn't have the experience to answer the phone. On the other hand, McCain, who was as wrong about Iraq as Clinton, has experience.

    I'm not sure about whether or not Clinton has implied that her supporters won't support Obama (although plenty here have said so). Rather, she has told them to be afraid if Obama is nominated.

    In referring to 1968 I wasn't talking about riots at all. I was talking about how the Party so alienated its constituency (anti-war) that it fractured and its candidate, saddled with the Vietnam War, lost to Nixon. When Democrats stay home they lose. Obama is going to win the nomination. Everything that Clinton says now is to destroy his nomination.

    Is Clinton now running a campaign to appeal to Republicans and Independents? I'm not sure who Clinton is appealing to by saying that McCain is competent to lead the country and Obama isn't. It won't win her support within or outside the party. The only thing she can do is hurt Obama and herself. That's why it appears that she is now trying to destroy the party. Intentionally.

    I have no idea of the last statement. Obama is not polishing McCain's war medals. Clinton is. Her supporters need to realize what she is doing.


    [ Parent ]

    Obama cannot win if he is (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:34:36 AM EST
    as sensitive as his supporters.
    Clinton is asking if Obama is ready to be CIC. It's a perfectly legitimate question.
    All you have to offer in response is "Clinton is a racist".
    Pathetic.

    [ Parent ]
    Well they are more polished than that (none / 0) (#230)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:15:25 AM EST
    its like championing States Rights when you are really meaning to undermine federal civil rights isn't it, or attacking high taxes when your really targeting a group perceived to benefit from social programs but sorta politely, or calling someone divisive or monster instead of a B. These group grievance cards are ugliness and inflammatory at their core, and I believe very much on display in the Miss add against Clinton and the attacks on Bill Clinton, it dozen's take a PHD in Sociology or Anthropology to get it. So please stop with the Senator Clinton evil racist women stuff we are not buying any and the halo is displaced sorry no pass.

    [ Parent ]
    Not ready is not the same as (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:35:33 AM EST
    Not competent. Why is it a personal attack to say someone is not ready? So you assume everyone is the US is ready on day one to be President?

    I have never seen Sen Clinton say she or her supporters won't support the nominee (unlike the Obama camp). In fact they always say whoever is the nominee will get their full support.

    So its ok if Obama says republicans have good ideas, that democrats don't have the corner on ideas, that he wants to work with republicans, that republicans should be "democrat for a day." But its somehow a huge sin to say the obvious: Sen McCain is more experienced? She didn't say he was right you know.

    [ Parent ]

    How silly! (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:11:59 AM EST
    Proof that "she has emphasized that he is BLACK by darkening his picture" is what?

    An Obama supporter's race baiting claim which have been refuted by Factcheck.org

    These race baiting claims are what will destroy the Democratic Party - not who's ready to be CIC.

    [ Parent ]

    Read the polls (none / 0) (#116)
    by Maggie on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:29:31 AM EST
    Did you watch the returns?  When asked who was campaigning unfairly, the majority said it was HRC.  That's from states that went for her.

    So when you say "If you want to know what Obama is doing..." I practically choked.  Because that's a perfect description of Clinton.  Accusing him of Ken Starr tactics for asking that she disclose her tax returns?  Just a few days after her campaign aggressively dogged him about Rezko?

    But, see, this is how it is with partisans.  They can't see the dark side of there own.  Which is why I cite the poll.  I see HRC as one of the lowest campaigners ever.  With amazing Chutzpah.  You don't.  But the polls are with me.  Not with you.

    To address your question.  She didn't threaten to not support him.  So when she does (if he gets the nomination), just wait for the Republicans to crow about her supporing the guy that she herself has said THREE times is not fit to be Commander in Chief.  They'll ask her to square that circle.  I'm sure she'll have some spin available to her.  But the bottom line is that she has handed them a ton of video footage for them to run in the GE against Obama if he's the nominee of her saying he's not ready to lead.  

    At a minimum, I'd say it goes to show she's not a team player.

    On a side topic, I've been enjoying watching the superdelegate announcements since Tuesday.  You'd think that the SD's for HRC would be coming out for her now that she's got a solid win.  But instead it's a steady inexorable trickle for Obama.

    And I'd like to think at least part of that is because they are smart enough to see that her campaigning style is repugnant to many.  Again -- see the polls.

    [ Parent ]

    I did today (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:37:01 AM EST
    And its working, Sen Obama has dropped in both major tracking polls and she is now leading.

    [ Parent ]
    polls indicate what people are aware of. (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:40:14 AM EST
    with obama making untruthful characterizations about hillary continuously for a year--and a media glorifying obama and bashing hillary--what do you expect people to think?

    [ Parent ]
    You are correct of course, the Press belatedly, (none / 0) (#171)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:17:47 AM EST
    well some, are calling Obama and Axelrod on their roll as the lap poodle Anti Clinton campaign surrogate and began rejecting Obamas talking points all but of course the silly Newsweek, Wapo, MSNBC triage of corporate interest frontMen.  This same exact tactic was used in Mass during the Patrick campaign the liberal Press lets face it are ideologs corporate owned and they look smell act very much like that other fringe we all lack respect for. But with all that its still took another journalist out side of this country to report on another Obama campaign Senior advisers lack of integrity and negative false unprofessional attacks on Senator Clinton, recall the same happened on the Obama Clinton NAFTA attacks and the nod and wink meeting of just kidding we really like NAFTA, the bald faced unprofessional and childlike behavior on display what's with the repeated F's.  One senses that many of the individuals he surrounds himself with are angry aggressive people who hate their mothers or just older authority figures in general.
    I believe this confirms we outsourced Journalism as well, CTV and the BBC maybe where we should tune next.


    [ Parent ]
    I think the Ken Starr reference was (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:03:28 AM EST
    a little more than the tax returns, don't you?

    Citing Wall Street Journal editorial, Obama campaign attacks Hillary on 'cattle futures trading profit.' [Obama campaign memo, 3/5/08]

    On ABC This Week, Top Obama strategist references Whitewater. AXELROD: " I honestly -- with all due respect, I would think that the Clinton campaign would be the last person to be wanting to characterize any real estate transaction as unusual, but anyway, George, I'm sorry." [ABC This Week, 3/2/08]

    Axelrod: `We still don't have the records from the Clinton library.' [Time, 3/5/08]

    Obama campaign memo attacks Hillary on tax returns, demands 'accompanying schedules and attachments.' [Obama Campaign Memo, 3/5/08]



    [ Parent ]
    There will be Bill's oil deal, too. (none / 0) (#199)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    As we know from other past Presidents, people who donate to Presidential libraries often do so for some quid pro quo.

    If President Clinton didn't get involved in one of those thingies then there shouldn't be a problem.

    Clinton loaned her campaign five million dollars last month. Was it just from her book?

    Transparency.

    [ Parent ]

    Media (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:24:55 AM EST
    It could be the media covers everything that Clinton does but refuses to cover what Obama does.  Many people did not know about the four page memo in SC until Russert asked the question in the debate.

    Obama doesn't remind me of Clinton.  He's reminding me of Bush.  Weren't people pushed out for ridiculous behavior on the Clinton side?  I don't want the loyalty at any cost I've seen from Bush.

    [ Parent ]

    Polls (none / 0) (#250)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    You think this might be because the media nitpicks at everything Clinton yet ignores it when Obama does it?  Hmmm.... any correlation?

    How about the repeated polls where she is more ready to be commander and chief?  She is the more experienced?

    He does have a trickle of SDs.  He also has a drip, drip, drip with Rezko, his blaming the media being shown over and over again, his surrogates erring in public again.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, she has (none / 0) (#139)
    by AdrianLesher on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:02:32 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that John McCain is ready to be Commander in Chief and that Obama is not.

    She is effectively endorsing the man who would be Obama's opponent if Obama is the nominee. Liebermanism at its best.

    As I've said before, it doesn't help that Penn is the boss of McCain's chief adviser. Do you think that Penn/Burson Marsteller is any better than Cheney/Haliburton about avoiding conflicts of interest?

    [ Parent ]

    Endorsing (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:10:07 AM EST
    Lets see, she said that she and McCain have a foreign policy record, something that is important to the voters, where is Obama's?  
    "There are certain critical issues that voters always look to in a general election. National security experience (and) the qualifications to be commander-in-chief are front and center. They always have been. They always will be," she said.

    She said she and McCain had traveled to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan together as she repeated a line that surfaced from the campaign trail. She and McCain "bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, Clinton said, while "Sen. Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002," stating his opposition to the Iraq war as an Illinois state senator.

    Swamp

    Please tell us in the 2 years Obama was in the US Senate, what is his foreign policy experience.  Ok, his father is Kenyan and in his childhood he lived in Indonesia for 5-6 years.  

    How many trips did he make to Iraq?  How many hearings has he held?  Where is his leadership in creating a new foreign policy agenda other than he looks better than Bush?  

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm, going to Iraq qualifies you to be (none / 0) (#204)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:26:44 AM EST
    President?

    I recall that when McCain went to Iraq he saw that everything was hunky dory. Didn't someone in his party buy some rugs in the bazaar for real cheap?

    Stellaaa, you seem to be basing your opinion of what qualifies someone to be President by Republican standards.

    Doing ceremonial visits around the world actually qualifies Clinton to be Vice President. But her destructive campaign has disqualified her for that job too.


    [ Parent ]

    NO, she is not she is neutralizing the club (none / 0) (#174)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:26:08 AM EST
    he and the 527 and RNC will play against her once she is the nominee she has begun the general fight.

    [ Parent ]
    "traitor to her political party"? (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by kangeroo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:54:20 PM EST
    um ok, and obama using gop talking points to attack hillary both policy-wise and personally is the model of party loyalty?

    [ Parent ]
    Shame On Our Top Dem canditates (none / 0) (#134)
    by thetruthisreal on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:32:35 AM EST
    Shame on Hillary Clinton for using such tactics not only damaging to Obama but to herself & the democratic party as a whole come this years presidential election in November. it is not in the best intrest of either democratic presidential candidate to hail the other parties candidate as being better suited to be president than your owns. to say that Mr obama has a speech & only a speech compared to the Gop's top runner is ludicrous..this only goes to further show that Hillary Clinton cares more about herself & her goals than the democratic parties as a whole..& i'am sick & tired of hearing about all this dream ticket crap..if Hillary picks Obama for her Vp,, to me that would cement her as a prime hypocrite & if Obama chooses to be her Vp,, he would be seen as nothing more than a sell out..if Hillary thinks Obama is only a Speech & a representer of slum lords & as far as she knows is not a muslim & whole lot of etc..God forbid if she has to sign over the oval office to him for a short while even  if its for a day if she gets sick..because if 3am comes around then he'll answer the phone(Stupid commercial) & according to Hillary if he does all hell will break loose..Hillary has damaged Obamas character so much that if he wins & goes head to head with Mccain the republicans aren't going to to have to do anything except say roll the footage & have Hillary all over the screen saying mccain has a lifetime of experience & Obama is just a speech (Hillary you know Better) we need a president who will bring America back to what it once was RESPECTED..The bush administration has damaged our countries character & thrown us into a recession..we must win Now!! remember Al gore folks & his lose to bush,, remember John Kerry & his smacking from the Bush..if our candidates & fellow democrats do not open their eyes this november we could be facing something very similar  & this time the effects of our parties errors will be even worse.    

    [ Parent ]
    and Repubs will have an ad (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:44:36 AM EST
    featuring Obama deriding universal health care.


    [ Parent ]
    What and calling Hillary a Monster is clean (none / 0) (#190)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:56:07 AM EST
    The saint Obama victim and the arrogance associated with that campaign strategy has been used one too many times. Should we replay all of Gov.  Patrick's attacks word for word on his female opponent in Mass again so you know we don't buy the group grievance being employed here the powerful establishment lady lording it over the por victim Obama beating him down repression act anymore.  Obama should at least attempt to conduct his campaign on the issues and not this peevish childlike persona name calling of flame throwing attacks on Senator Clinton and the Party those not enmamored with his greatness.  Just saying it's the other candidate is not credible or honest so not buying the por Obama mean lady Alexrod she says WE cant stunt.  

    The reality is she is the competitive candidate who can win the big States like Ohio NJ FLa and PA and win the Presidency that's the issue for the Party that is why she will be the nominee.

    Thinking the majority of SDs will risk the blame of a Nov loss for a candidate who cant even hold his own in the Primary without pouting whose staff and spouse have repeatedly displayed great vulnerabilities for the candidate is not going to happen.

    [ Parent ]

    Wouldn't it be silly (none / 0) (#207)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:29:02 AM EST
    for Republicans to be running against Hillary if Obama is the candidate?

    [ Parent ]
    Pointing out Obama's shortcomings (5.00 / 9) (#143)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:12:12 AM EST
    is now dirty politics.  Got it.  

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#180)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:37:43 AM EST
    Candidates are allowed to have different policies. Yesterday I mentioned how much Hillary's plan for Afghanistan are similar to drug policies in the past.

    Last night, in your thread about Powers, I mentioned how many of Clinton's foreign policy advisors had participated in, dare I say it, monstrous policies that repressed the rights of peoples abroad and in fact resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

    In short, Clinton has Republican-like policies and Republican-like advisors who've been involved in Republican-like things.

    Clinton was on board for trade agreements that grievously injured the union movement in the US and working class Americans. Those same trade agreements hastened the flow of wealth to the top one percent while sucking wealth out of the rest of the people. I'm not sure if you hold that as a Democratic or Republican quality.

    As I've written elsewhere in this thread, Clinton lost eleven straight contests by running on her policies and experience. She won Ohio and Texas on fear. That's Republican strategy. And she's switched to this very ugly strategy as it became apparent that she was not going to win the nomination. To pretend that there will be massive shift of superdelegates to her because she is trying to destroy the other candidate by Republican methods is counterintuitive.

    Either Clinton's campaign will shut down soon or she will be ostracized by the party and end up like a Lieberman.

    She's lost without grace, and now she's trying to get even. It won't get her the nomination but it may destroy the party.


    [ Parent ]

    She's lost? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:45:59 AM EST
    Fascinating. I misunderstood this entire voting/delegate process. Somehow I thought one person had to win for the other one to lose. This is interesting indeed. A new page has turned in game theory. You lose without losing or the other side winning.

    [ Parent ]
    No, of course not. . . (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:01:10 AM EST
    No matter what she thinks she's not bigger than the Democratic Party.

    Isn't it Obama who's bigger than the Democratic party?

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton (none / 0) (#182)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:41:50 AM EST
    is being told every day to quit by party regulars. Why? She can't win the nomination now, and she can only hurt the party. And that seems to be her intent. That seems to at least suggest that she's not a team player.

    I don't know what the comment about Obama is based on. Is he bigger than the Democratic Party? No, but he is the presumptive nominee because he holds an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama supporters are telling her to (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:43:39 AM EST
    quit, because they know the blush has come off of Obama's rose, and he could be headed for crushing defeats in the later primaries.
    It doesn't matter if he leads in delegates by a slim margin if he loses the last several primaries by 15-10 pt margins.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:44:31 AM EST
    She is being told daily? This is the hidden gem of a story, can you please provide links? And I mean NOT from Obama supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah right (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:10:15 AM EST
    Clinton admitting the obvious fact that McCain is considered well-qualified to be C-in-C by prevailing standards is treason - Obama's campaign calling him a straight-talker and independent thinker (i.e. 100% of McCain's claim to be qualified to be president) is fine by you.

    [ Parent ]
    rilkefan (none / 0) (#187)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:50:54 AM EST
    You seem to miss the point. There's nothing wrong with being polite with your opponent, even if it's the other party's candidate.

    What is wrong, treasonous, is to repeated laud how qualified the Republican Party's candidate is to be commander-in-chief while running a campaign that your own party's presumptive candidate is unqualified and for that you should be fearful.

    That's wrong. If you can't understand that then maybe you deserve McCain as your next commander-in-chief. By the way, I think that McCain would make a horrible President. Crashing planes, bombing women and children in Vietnam and then getting shot down is not qualified. Kerry wasn't qualified, in my opinion, to be President because he fought in Vietnam. His qualifications started when he got back and started protesting it.

    So if your candidate would rather have McCain as President than Obama, then that kinda makes you and your candidate a Republican, or at least Republican-lite.

    [ Parent ]

    Let's compare messages: (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:00:25 AM EST
    Which message is fair, and which is more likely to resonate with voters?
    1. Hillary is a racist. Vote Obama.

    2. Obama is unprepared. Vote Hillary.

    The choice is clear. Go Hillary!

    [ Parent ]
    Since (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:55:44 AM EST
    one is now the integral core part of Clinton's campaign and one is a reaction to her campaign, I'm not sure the comparison works.

    Do the math. She can't win. Listen to the news how every day Democratic officials tell her to quit the race. She isn't going to win the pledged delegates, she isn't going to win the superdelegates. But she may damage the party by running a Republican fear campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Do the math, SD's can vote (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:59:16 AM EST
    their conscience, and will. Do you really think
    SD's are going to vote for Obama if he loses the remaining primaries badly, and if his poll ratings sink? No, and they dont' have to either.


    [ Parent ]
    Conscience? (none / 0) (#195)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:11:52 AM EST
    What you are proposing is that super delegates should reward Clinton for tearing down the winner of the primaries.

    I will say this once again: Why do you think that every day party officials (superdelegates all) are saying that this needs to be ended before the convention? They are politely asking her to stop this. They see the damage she is doing and they know what this lead to. Obama's coattails can win in more states, bringing more Dems to Congress in the fall. Hillary's campaign is trying destroy the winner in the hope that they will choose her instead.

    Every stunt drooling over qualifications of the Republican candidate, every darkening of every Obama photo, every fear ad is making her more enemies inside the party. Ed Rendell's statement that a black man can't win Pennsylvania may or may not be true, but if this is Clinton's version of hope it is a very personalized vision of victory on a battlefield of bones. Perhaps she has triangulated that this is her only chance. But her chance has passed. She can only hurt the party now.

    [ Parent ]

    You really sound desperate today. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:14:59 AM EST
    How is Clinton "tearing down the winner of the primaries" if she wins the rest of the primaries?
    She IS the winner, in that case. The popular vote is nearly tied now. I see no reason to rush the decision. Let the voters decide.
    As another commenter remarked, the SD switches do not impress me, since I know what kind of strong arm tactics Obama's camp is using.

    [ Parent ]
    How is (none / 0) (#221)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:49:09 AM EST
    Clinton tearing down the winner if she wins the rest of the primaries?

    She isn't winning the rest of the primaries. She'll probably win Pennsylvania with margins like in Ohio or Texas, and with the likes of "black men can't win" Rendell, but most of the rest of the states are in Obama's pocket. What was Hillary's delegate win after her "smashing" win on Tuesday? That won't get her anywhere near the pledged delegates.

    After her recent campaign strategy, how much do you think she'll win Mississippi by?

    [ Parent ]

    By inference, I take it you think (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:54:16 AM EST
    Obama can take the race-baiting to the bank against Hillary. Guess again.

    [ Parent ]
    You must have forgotten that she has won primaries (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:39:57 AM EST
    in some of the most important states, and that really is not something to be ignored.

    Bob, come on, this is just getting silly, really.

    I must have missed the definitive conclusion that (1) the pic of Obama was deliberately darkened and, if so,  (2) the Clinton campaign authorized it.  Until you can provide that proof, you need to let that one go.

    ALL of the superdelegates are not calling for Clinton to end her campaign - that is coming primarily from SD's who are supporting Obama.  We all get that people who want Obama to win would like Hillary to get out of the way of his date with history, but it's not like he already has the delegates he needs for the nomination and she's refusing to acknowledge that - at this stage, we know he will not have the needed pledged delegates, and so, he's just going to have to play this the way it's supposed to be played - with an opponent who has as much of a chance to get the nomination as he does.

    Hillary Clinton is not "tearing the party apart" by any stretch of the imagination.  While Obama is spending his time whining - yes, whining - about the injustice of being made fun of on SNL, and dodging Chicago reporters on Rezco, and obfuscating on NAFTA, and trying to unearth old Clinton history, Clinton is delivering policies and plans on Afghanistan, and giving speeches on the economy and poverty; she is talking WITH the people, and he is talking AT them using rhetoric that is more and more disconnected from what he is actually saying and doing on the ground.  For the love of God, this man is even reminding people that HE won Michigan - a state where he wasn't even on the ballot - what is the deal with that?  He forgot?  

    Obama has been so busy trying to live up to his own hype that he cannot come down to earth long enough to hold hearings or even meetings or visit our European and NATO allies in the one job where he has had the perfect opportunity to make a difference.

    I'm sorry, but the reason this contest is, thankfully,  still ongoing is because Obama has not been able to convince enough people that he is, as Oprah says, "The One."  The longer this goes, the more we are able to see behind the image to the man, to the person who would govern, and apparently, a lot of people do not think he is ready.  Samantha Power is, I believe, a reflection of how desperately the Obama campaign wants Hillary out of the way, and her comment ought to open the eyes of every starry-eyed Obama supporter to the truth of the candidate they support.  It's not as pretty when the rose-colored glasses come off.


    [ Parent ]

    Before last Tuesday (none / 0) (#228)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:05:01 AM EST
    Clinton had lost twelve straight contests. After Tuesday she picked up how many delegates?

    I won't burden you with the delegate count. She cannot overtake Obama in pledged delegates. She must rely on running an increasingly ugly campaign in order to destroy Obama and get superdelegates to jump to her.

    Now explain to me why an uncommitted superdelegate would want to put Clinton on top of the ticket in opposition to the primary results? Because she says John McCain is better than the guy who just beat her in the primaries?

    A couple of days ago I heard Sherrod Brown, who's state went for Hillary, saying that the race needed to end before the convention. Yesterday I heard Robert Wexler say practically the same thing and talking about how there would be a compromise in Florida if all parties were reasonable. Florida is Clinton country. Wexler is not advocating any delegate advantage to Clinton. He is asking her to stop. If they are saying this in public, what do you think that they're telling her campaign privately?

    (The darkened picture of Obama was on her website. You can go to many places on the web to compare it to the original videoshot.)

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's great that you're sending (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    people to that Hillary ad---the one who is so devastating for Obama.
    My god, the guy thinks he's up to being President, and he can't even handle a Senate assignment on a crucial foreign policy topic.
    People need to know this!!

    [ Parent ]
    Why would the One Party, Unity guy complain? (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Ellie on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:36:30 AM EST
    Really. His vision of making nice with the gang across the aisle is looking emptier by the day.

    Is this One Party Comity supposed to occur once the "monsters" in the way are put through the woodchipper?

    In the practice of removing the Mean Lady obstacle to a nicer politics -- following the Bush Regime model of a new bad guy du jour in front of every new corner -- apparently Team Obama gets to sling every insult and innuendo at whim and not get any response. It's like those action movies where the opposition doesn't punch the awesome Kung Fu Master back, but in Obama's case it's critical examination besides dishback, and everyone on Team-Obi gets cookies regardless.

    Which somehow will put an end to the shrillness and bickering. (I. Want. Beer.)

    I'm interested to see if the Obama campaign weeds out the troublemakers in their own operation faster than the current Uniter moved on getting to the bottom of, say, that Libby / Plame mystery going on under his nose, NTM all the other in-house heckuva job nefariousness.

    This isn't even the playoffs but regular season, so my suspicion is growing that this enthusiastic turnout hasn't looked at the real battles awaiting: the election and then governing.

    BTW, I was genuinely baffled at the HuffPo's front page pics of HRC talking to McCain --- ahhhhh HAHHHH! --- in the Senate, where both work as Senators  --- ahhhhh HAHHHH! --- and which  --- ahhhhh HA-oh wait --- Obama has promised to unite.

    Do his supporters expect lockstepping due to his charm rather than what Bush got with extortion and goons?

    If Congress doesn't agree with Obama's Nu Style politics, will his team call the lollygaggers names, like "monster", or conjure accusations of racism if a bad picture appears somewhere?

    Or will the secret to uniting not dividing be more along President Stompy's my way or the tantrums model of governance, with the drama graduating from grade school into later adolescence?? (Door slamming, hurling himself on the bed miffed and listening to loud music on headphones, etc.)

    I want the details of how the Rethuggernaut will be stopped, tamed and reformed.

    [ Parent ]

    Ellie (none / 0) (#193)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:01:44 AM EST
    I don't understand much of what you are writing here, so I won't attempt to answer it.

    But it should be clear why the HuffPo would use a picture of Clinton and McCain together as part of a story narrative recounting Clinton's bizarre hero-worship of McCain over the last 24 or so hours. Do you understand the rationale behind darkening the photo of a black man? Clinton's campaign meme now is that you shouldn't trust but should fear the black man.

    [ Parent ]

    Use your brains please (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Ellie on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:23:22 AM EST
    1. I thought Obama's pro-unity, pro-comity, pro-everyone gettin' along vision was all about getting HRC and McCain together.

    2. The charges of a doctored picture are idiotic and not based on a reasonable grasp of reality. It's computer 101 stuff.

    Until you answer the on-the-record contradictions raised in my previous and others' posts here, simply dumping time-wasting deflections is called "trolling".

    So stop cluttering the discussion so people can't focus on the salient points and FOCUS. These are cogent questions and public record evidence of Team Obama's hypocrisy and don't bode well for his ability to win the election or potential to govern:

    • Obama hasn't lived up to his promise of a new style of politics.

    • He's running away from his own record of backroom dealing.

    • He hasn't fired those on his team who don't practice what he preaches. (His entire campaign hasn't lived up to what he demands of others.)

    • He can't deal with routine criticisms about his abilities and record so it's doubtful he can persuade a ten-times more formidable opposition than HRC to do his bidding.


    [ Parent ]
    Thank you. BoP repeats, repeats (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:45:44 AM EST
    and repeats talking points but rarely replies to the point or provides evidence when requested to do so. It's not quite trolling, IMO; it's more like spamming threads.

    [ Parent ]
    Except (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:36:15 PM EST
    neither Bill Clinton nor FDR are running.

    [I] won't just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.


    [ Parent ]
    Evidentially he didn't tell you what you wanted (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:38:37 PM EST
    to hear.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    no, actually. it's just obama. (none / 0) (#90)
    by kangeroo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:56:05 PM EST
    it doesn't get much worse than the garbage he's pulled in this campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    All he really has to say (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:06:39 PM EST
    is that it was "boneheaded". Those are apparently magic words that clear up any controversy.

    [ Parent ]
    Amateurs (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Athena on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:32:27 AM EST
    Obama, Goolsbee, Rice, Power - novices who want to run the American government.  No thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    I am sure that many Democrats will (none / 0) (#179)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:36:32 AM EST
    stay home if Obama is the nominee, because he is so obviously not qualified to be President.
    I am quite mad about the snow job from the Obama team. I only recently learned how his IL resume was padded by having 25 or so bills dropped in his lap to sponsor, during his last year, for instance.


    [ Parent ]
    Weak (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Athena on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:44:23 AM EST
    He's a manufactured candidate - by the press, for whatever reasons.  His disavowal of Democratic principles and his zeal to find favor with the GOP is completely alienating.

    [ Parent ]
    I am fully in camp Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:45:55 AM EST
    And I agree with every point you've made here, but I don't think Team Obama is totally to blame for snowing voters. They took advantage of a lazy, biased, media who did not do their jobs. They magnified GOP talking points against Hillary by making them acceptable and au courant.

    Hopefully, dare I use hope, Voters are simply getting out of the stupor now. Everytime an Obama supporter is interviewed and they cannot name a policy or issue Obama will take on and how, honest voters realize they can't either. Honest voters are turning on Obama and will soon turn on the US media (a fantastic thing if it were to happen).

    [ Parent ]

    I think Hillary is on the road to (none / 0) (#222)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:49:18 AM EST
    victory now.
    Obama cannot play the racism card again, IMO, and that was the only thing that gave him an edge.
    Clinton is hammering him with substantive criticisms, and he has no  response.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, but he does (none / 0) (#240)
    by Lena on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    have a response!

    To wit: "Where are your tax returns?"

    </snark>

    [ Parent ]

    There Is No Attach On Hillary That Obama (none / 0) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:45:15 AM EST
    will fire a member of his staff over. Obama rules.

    [ Parent ]
    from the Lewis article (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:29:38 PM EST
    tagged at the bottom:

    Incidentally, I apologize in advance to Ms. Power for the use of the word "kosher" in a paragraph adjacent to her name. I am mindful of her long-standing, oft-expressed virulent objections to the State of Israel (in a 2002 speech she proposed that the US spend billions of dollars to impose a Palestinian state by military means) - and I do not mean to offend her by placing a word that she may find offensive so near to her name.

    Holy crap, is this true?  I read it before in a comment on the FL thread (oy, FL won't like this!) Because this is what bothers me about the "unity" thing.  I don't want to be united with people who advocate overthrowing Israel.  I don't want to be united with people who are open members of the Nation of Islam.  I don't want to be united with people who don't support reproductive freedoms.

    Power is not a nut (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:45:32 PM EST
    I'm strongly pro-Israel, but I can tell you that many people who feel the same way are crazy (just like those on the other side of the argument).  It makes no sense to place any value on any statement on the region from someone you're not long familiar with.  Fair two-state proponents (a.k.a. sane folks) know that a Palestinian will cost billions of dollars and require US security commitments.

    [ Parent ]
    but how is (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:48:10 PM EST
    "impose[ing] a Palestinian state by military means" different than what Bush did in Iraq?

    [ Parent ]
    It isn't any different .. (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:04:25 AM EST
    What Power advocated boiled down to the US taking over the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza from Israel. Great for Israel short-term, lousy for the Palestinians and dreadful policy for the US.

    [ Parent ]
    psst... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:52:32 PM EST
    trust Obama.  He knows better.

    [ Parent ]
    Desperate circumstances, desperate measures (none / 0) (#35)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:59:38 PM EST
    The Fence was imposed to separate the two sides - the Gaza withdrawal was imposed - any lasting solution will be forced on elements of both sides.

    Anyway, she's rejected the idea since.

    This is getting off topic though.

    [ Parent ]

    And I just read that Power whined (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:20:31 PM EST
    to the European press that "it's always about what's good for the Jews."

    Oh, it could be fun to rerun the Florida primary, after all. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Link? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:25:24 PM EST
    That sort of thing could pose a bigger problem than this "monster" business.

    [ Parent ]
    Here 'tis (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:28:33 PM EST
    but borrowed laptop is slow and funky, so I hope this works:

    [ Parent ]
    your url (none / 0) (#135)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:43:57 AM EST
    is too long. use the link button above to link it. That should work.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it will. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Iphie on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:07:10 AM EST
    The comment about Hillary was personal and directed only at her, and after apologies are made it will be easy to frame as a one time slip of the tongue. This comment however, adds to a growing perception that Obama is anti-semitic, it continues a story that's already been started. Even if it isn't true, it doesn't help when he's being tied to Louis Farrakhan in the press, and had to be pressed into rejecting Farrakhan's support.

    [ Parent ]
    your link fixed (none / 0) (#72)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:42:01 PM EST
    here.    Note you misquoted Power.

    [ Parent ]
    Gosh, you're right; it's even worse for BO (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:14:36 AM EST
    than what I paraphrased, as it ties the whine directly to him: "So much of it is about: 'Is he going to be good for the Jews?'"

    [ Parent ]
    Eh (none / 0) (#107)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:21:59 AM EST
    The statement is qualified, and even sort of true, unless you're a big fan of AIPAC.  I say this as someone on the record as decrying Walt & Mearsheimer.

    [ Parent ]
    Cream, do you have a link for that? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:27:40 AM EST
    That sounds pretty bad.

    [ Parent ]
    She is not a nut, but she has no (none / 0) (#166)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:01:23 AM EST
    business in politics. She has a horrible ear.

    [ Parent ]
    geez, i bet the republicans are (none / 0) (#45)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:16:41 PM EST
    gleeful. the gift that keeps on giving. the state of israel won't be pleased with that.

    [ Parent ]
    This is more of the same (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by facta non verba on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:31:10 PM EST
    from the Obama campaign. They are no different than any others. They just pretend to be but behind the scenes they act just like Richard Nixon.

    Lawrence O'Donnell railed against John Edwards calling him a loser for not dropping out of the race.
    So who does O'Donnell support? Obama. Is that an impartial journalist? I see no difference. In my book, he is simply an Obama surrogate.

    O'Donnell ain't the brightest bulb ... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:33:56 AM EST
    a few months back he was claiming Bloomberg could win the Presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    Is it enough? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:35:04 PM EST
    Doesn't BO needs to come on TV and strongly condemn that or personally apologize to HRC?

    These are the people who whine even if a Clinton sneezes.

    Three times (none / 0) (#85)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:54:05 PM EST
    in 24 hours Clinton supported the Republican candidate over the Democrat who is going to go into the convention with the lead in pledged delegates. H. Clinton's scorched earth plan won't win her the nomination. She needs to apologize to the Democratic Party.

    She might also apologize to the folks in Ohio now that it's come out that it was her person who winked at the Canadians over NAFTA, not Obama's.

    [ Parent ]

    Two things (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:20:44 AM EST
    One: No need to repeat that same "she has helped republicans" misstatement over and over. Please.

    Two: there is no confirmed version of the NAFTA story, just rumor. Please don't keep repeating an incorrect piece of information. Or provide a non blogger and non rumor source for the "story."

    Thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    More grasping at straws (5.00 / 9) (#109)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:23:00 AM EST
    from Obama supporters. So it's now come out that it was actually Clinton's people who talked to the Canadians? Wow, that is news. Since you state it as a fact, let's play a little game called "match the facts.'
    1. Who's the Obama official in question? Austan Goolsby. This is the part where you fill in the name of the Clinton official.

    2. Where did the meeting take place? The Chicago consulate. Now you go.

    3. Who documented the meeting? Joseph DeMora. Go ahead.

    4. Who was the meeting with? Georges Rioux. Feel free to jump in here.

    5. How did the campaigns respond? The Clinton campaign issued a firm denial. I'll save you a little time. The Obama camp refused to return phone calls on the matter.

    6. Who has been shown to have lied about a meeting even taking place? Obama. Your turn.

    Please close your workbook when you have completed all of your answers.

    [ Parent ]
    good post (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:47:12 AM EST
    It is hard to reason with them by and large. Back in January when I first started paying attention to Obama, I came away with the impression he was just like Richard Nixon. And my prediction was that sooner or later he would unravel. I think we are seeing that now. He looks tired and worried. Also a bit uncertain now and he is in a box. Go negative and that ends the I'm different I am above raw politics. And not being able to throw a jab back sort hinders him against the Republicans, doesn't it? It is clear that Clinton will fight in the Fall and win or lose past that. With Obama, I am not so sure.

    The questions grow by the hour, the answers remain as elusive as ever. He is stuck on that hope and change meme. And it is wearing thin. He is going to lose Pennsylvania. The only question is the margin. Will Clinton get 60% or more of the vote is the only question left there.

    Grasping at straws is right.

    [ Parent ]

    When you build a campaign on (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:18:25 AM EST
    hope and change, on unity and a new kind of politics, and all of your rhetoric in speeches and appearances uses these ideas to build support, you cannot have a different standard for your advisors and other surrogates so that they are free to say what you cannot, especially when you quite emphatically and quite clearly state that you would not tolerate your people saying and doing things that were designed to go after others on a personal level.

    It doesn't get much more personal than being called a monster.  That it came out of the mouth of someone who presumably knows what a monster really is, and that she would put Clinton in that same group, is unconscionable.

    If Obama meant what he said, he would remove Ms. Power from whatever her position is with the campaign; if he doesn't do that, I think we can only conclude that (1) he didn't mean what he said and, if that's the case, (2) we have no reason to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

    Unfortunately, I think this is a pattern with Obama; somehow, the politics always gets personal in campaigns he is involved in.

    [ Parent ]

    what are you basing this on, dailyobama? (none / 0) (#102)
    by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:18:15 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    More on Samantha Power's foreign policy: (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:36:25 PM EST
    From
    Power was then asked whether "there is anyone [Obama] wouldn't talk to." She replied that there was no one among "elected heads of state" and that "he won't talk to Hamas, but he would talk to Abbas."

    The interviewer reminded Power that Hamas was a democratically-elected government and that Abbas' Fatah party lost the last popular vote. At that point, Power embarked on a rambling discourse about America's prior history of negotiating with dictators who have displaced democratically elected governments. But, of course, Hamas has not been displaced, and Power provided no principled explanation for why, under Obama's theory that we should negotiate with the bad guys to avoid the perception of being arrogant, he would not negotiate with Hamas. In fact, Power's scrambling was so transparent that her sympathetic interviewer concluded she did not believe what she was saying. "Dissembling does not come easy to her at all," was his conclusion.

    Original article here:

    Have mercy (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by sonya on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:49:15 PM EST
    Power sounds like an educated fool.

    [ Parent ]
    100% mainstream (