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

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    so, not fired. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:25:12 PM EST

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    She has (1.00 / 1) (#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.


    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".

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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]

    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?



    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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?  


    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

    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.


    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.

    "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?

    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.    

    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.

    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.


    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?

    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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!

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?


    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.

    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.


    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.)


    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!!

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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).


    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.

    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?"



    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.

    from the Lewis article (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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?

    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.

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

    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.


    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. . . .


    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.

    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:

    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.

    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.

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

    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?'"

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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."



    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.

    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.


    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.


    what are you basing this on, dailyobama? (none / 0) (#102)
    by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:18:15 AM EST
    More on Samantha Power's foreign policy: (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:36:25 PM EST
    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.

    100% mainstream (none / 0) (#31)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:54:34 PM EST
    We recognize Abbas.  Just today Hamas praised the murder of a bunch of Israeli students - the next president isn't going to sit down with their leadership.  Note that HRC is to the right of Obama on these issues.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by BDB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:42:39 PM EST
    The problem isn't that Obama would speak with Abbas and not Hamas (at least not without preconditions, heh).  But that Power in true academic form sets out Principle A, which is some great and wonderful theory developed in the Ivory Tower of academia, and then has no idea how to defend Policy B, which isn't based on Principle A but the cold, hard realities of the world in which sometimes the usurper is a better choice than the elected representative of the people.  

    So perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:09:20 AM EST
    you prefer Madeleine Albright starving a half million women and children in Iraq. Or maybe you like Richard Holbrooke, the most likely Secretary of State in a Clinton cabinet, who was Suharto's buddy in repressing East Timor and who helped to prop up Marcos, who with Warren Christopher had given the U.S. approval for the Gwangju massacre in South Korea back during the Carter Administration, and who supported the invasion of Iraq. And apparently still does.

    Because those are Clinton's foreign policy people. Is that the kind of President you're pushing for?

    I wouldn't say that either candidate (or Edwards, for that matter) is surrounded by the kind of foreign policy people I'd like to see in the next administration. But the ones surrounding Clinton seem to be uniformly covered with the blood of third-world people. Just saying.


    OMG! (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by BDB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:30:04 AM EST
    Do you have to unlearn how to read to be an Obama supporter on the internet (not in real life because I know a lot of perfectly nice Obama supporters in real life)?   Because I didn't criticize the policy that Samantha Power put forward and in fact said it was the right one, I only said that she didn't do a very good job explaining it.  Geesh.

    And while I keep hearing how great Obama's foreign policy team is compared to Clinton's, it is almost always based solely on Samantha Power, who has done good work on genocide.  I notice nobody ever talks about Tony Lake and Susan Rice, who is again talking about how little influence Hillary Clinton had as First Lady in foreign affairs.  Well, she wasn't able to talk Bill out of listening to Susan Rice and Tony Lake about Rwanda, I'll give Rice that.  But it's pretty clearly documented that Bill - and other presidents for that matter - used the First Lady to deliver messages to foreign leaders.  Of course, I'm sure she couldn't compete with the influence of an Assistant Secretary of State and I'm pretty sure almost every Assistant Secretary of State I have known would agree with that, they have almost uniformly been egotistical jerks.

    BTW, I do think Clinton's statement about McCain was a mistake.  Not the tragic mistake others seem to think it was, but not particularly helpful.  I know what she meant, but she didn't say it as clearly as she should have.

    Of course, thanks to Ms. Power, I don't think the press will be focusing on Clinton's comment about McCain, do you?


    Obama must fire her by morning (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by sonya on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:42:06 PM EST
    Otherwise, he delays the inevitable to his detriment.  His earlier quote will continue to be thrown back in his face until he gets rid of her.  If Power has any common sense at all, she'll go ahead and resign.  

    Kinda like Bush saying he would (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:48:11 AM EST
    fire  a certain someone (who's name will not be spoken but who's intials are KR) if they did something and not doing it. Seems to me most, if not all of liberal Blogostan went apecrap about that. Granted the two offenses are nothing alike but the words, and words are supposed to matter, of both men are much the same.

    Once someone says loudly and clearly that they will do something, do they not have to do it or be seen as dishonest?


    Another example (none / 0) (#30)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:54:02 PM EST
    If this is already being picked up by major news outlets (ABC), and he doesn't fire her, I don't see how this doesn't become another example proving that he isn't true to his word. And here, I'm talking about pledges or promises he's made during the course of the campaign that he has broken -- the other obvious example is his hedging on public financing. I'm waiting for someone to put together a video of him saying that anyone trying to tear down his opponent will be fired from his campaign with footage of his "just words?" speeches.

    I emailed Power and she responded (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:45:42 PM EST
    She was pretty reasonable and professional and apologized.

    Apologized to whom? Hillary? (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:58:57 PM EST
    Or you and the rest of us who are offended by it and worry that a senior foreign affairs adviser and journalist herself would so mishandle herself with the international press, and a time when we need to restore our international status rather than again act like amateurs?

    I look forward to the BBC report tonight.  Probably going to refer to us as "the colonies" again.


    Just to me (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:27:39 PM EST
    Says she was quoted out of context, was truly sorry. (It wasn't out of context, which I said in a reply asking her to take responsibility.)

    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:31:16 PM EST
    How the heck could this be "out of context," anyway?  Was it a discussion about Halloween costumes?

    Or monster.com? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:44:45 PM EST
    And what context would justify (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:03:25 AM EST
    the remarks?

    She hasn't apologized to the people of Ohio (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by ineedalife on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:07:37 PM EST
    I saw her apology. It is only directed to Obama and Hillary. She probably doesn't get that she just pissed off an entire state.

    Like somebody up-thread said, an educated fool.


    Said that in my email (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:31:03 PM EST
    though I'm not from Ohio, said how it offended me, somebody who didn't get on the Ivy League track at age 18, had one or two bad breaks but have been fairly lucky in life otherwise.

    I would expect nothing less (none / 0) (#253)
    by Black Mare on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:32:56 PM EST
    I cannot believe how little people here know about Samantha Power, and how much trash I've read that doesn't have anything to do with what I've come to associate with her.

    Her book on the ongoing horrors of genocide is a must-read.  Her others weren't bad either but it's been a while since I've read them.


    Her foreign policy positions (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:48:41 PM EST
    are so outrageous that the Repubs are willing to do almost anything to keep her on Obama's staff.

    uh, (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by kangeroo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:50:13 PM EST
    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.

    is that why he registered these anti-clinton websites?

    I'm not a huge Wolfson fan (5.00 / 8) (#71)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:40:47 PM EST
    but this is pretty funny: ""Apparently nothing says 'hope' like an attack Web site," quipped Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson."

    Wow, I just clicked from the article (none / 0) (#50)
    by annabelly on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:21:13 PM EST
    those sites are active.

    Pity no more debates are (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:53:29 PM EST
    scheduled.  Senator Clinton, how did you feel when Power called you a monster?

    More Likely (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by BDB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:44:46 PM EST
    Senator Clinton would you explain what horrible things you have done that have given Senator Obama's advisor no choice but to call you a monster?  

    And as a follow up,

    How could you do that to Senator Obama?


    Hit that one on the head (none / 0) (#144)
    by KLCarten on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:41:44 AM EST

    speaking of debates (none / 0) (#89)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:56:01 PM EST
    what good can come To Senator Clinton when she is our candidate in October and the question in the Debates is something like, "Senator Clinton, you praised Senator McCain and implied that Senator Obama was not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, why shouldn't voters..."

    And the Media will get a twofer: reminding Democrats that we had a bruising Primary and reminding voters that McCain is a genuine War Hero.

    I admire the short-term politics, because Hillary is doing a credible job of defining Obama out of the race, but long term, these quotes could backfire.

    I was happy to see that only Keith Oberman and Richard Wolfe ran the story, and Hillary is gaining momentum everyday, but I wish she wasn't so strong for McCain.


    Voters aren't entirely stupid (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:04:55 AM EST
    McCain is clearly qualified on this question by prevailing standards, and admitting the obvious truth can't hurt.

    obviously I disagree (none / 0) (#99)
    by dem08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:17:11 AM EST
    I think Hillary has the nomination sewn up. She is in the position to refuse to accept "new" primaries in MI and FL, and Obama is melting. Kondracke has a column about how Obama cannot win a sizable proportion of white voters.

    So what Hillary should do now is be gracious, and point out that Obama brought enthusiasm and new voters (she did this on Jon Stewart Monday night).

    What she should NOT do is make a McCain commercial. McCain has a built-in advantage as The Hawk Candidate because he is insisting on staying in Iraq "and not deny our brave men and women a victory there." That message will resonate among voters for whom the C-i-C is THE issue.

    Add his military service and imprisonment and torture and much longer PUBLIC career, and I see Hillary's statements being featured in an official advertisement.

    I had better be wrong because I like Hillary and Obama is not a viable candidate. And I do feel sorrow for Obama supporters. He ran a good race and you can be proud, but Obama is out of his league.

    (BTW, I love Rilke, "Who if I cried out would hear me among the angelic orders....")


    Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:33:09 AM EST
    aus der Engel Ordnungen?

    That's a prime example of untranslatability of poetry - the dramatic dactyls, the immediacy of the question, the internal rhymes, the sound of "schriee".

    I think Obama is still well ahead - Clinton will have a hard time not only winning but winning clearly enough to overcome Obama's supporters' conviction he should be the nominee.  And either will beat old, economically clueless, and Bush-tainted McCain.  But pretending McCain doesn't have the background to command the armed forces will just get our nominee laughed at.


    The answer (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:53:53 AM EST
    to every problem in the Obama campaign is not to point out something that happened in the Clinton campaign.

    I wish Obama hadn't praised Ronnie Reagan, but he did. Fortunately Reagan can't run again although most Republican candidates are still trying to pretend to be his clone.

    The topic, at this point in time, is what a spokesperson for Barack Obama said. She said it, she should be fired for it. After all he said he would "fire" anyone that did this sort of thing. According to him, words matter. So fire her, she deserves it, and move on. The longer he waits the more chances there are for this silliness to go on. (And it is silly as well as foolish for someone with this woman's credentials to make such a stupid comment.)


    A vaild point ... (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:46:47 AM EST
    the "I know you are, but what am I?" style defense from the Obama campaign and some of his supporters is getting pretty transparent.

    They may believe that Hillary is [INSERT STANDARD HILLARY NEGATIVE ATTACK] but most Democrats, heck, most Americans do not.

    Despite what the press tells us, Hillary is still very popular with Democrats, including Obama supporters.

    The Obama campaign needs to learn to take responsibility for their own failings.


    Might the repeatedly childish replies (none / 0) (#198)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:20:37 AM EST
    suggest something about the age and, well, political inexperience of some Obama supporters? Imagine their expectations of an Obama presidency. Poor babies.

    She is not (none / 0) (#100)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:17:42 AM EST
    defining Obama out of the race. Do the math. Obama is going to go to the convention with more delegates. The race is over. Clinton is now undermining the Democratic candidate. If experience is time in the Senate, she would lose to McCain. If experience is time being first lady, she's tied to Laura Bush.

    Her experience can't get her to get a straight answer when asked what Obama's religion is. Is she too unprepared to know the religion of the man she's been running against? Her experience got the war wrong. Her experience got her to marry Bill Clinton.

    Like I say, the race for the nomination this year is over. Clinton is now apparently running for 2012, and the first order of business is to make sure that no Democrat wins this fall.


    If it is over (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:22:51 AM EST
    Why are you so vehement? Just sit back and relax and enjoy your candidates inevitable win. Some of us will go on deluding ourselves just to be happy.

    No worries.


    Do the math (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Matt v on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:59:09 AM EST
      I hate to disrupt your obvious fantasy, but yes, let's do the math.

      According to Convention rules, the winning nominee must have 2/3s of votes tendered by delegates, not a simple plurality. So, if predictions hold, neither candidate will have the nomination sewn up at the end of Primary season.  

      For backers of Barack to say that Hillary should throw in the towel simply because their candidate  will likely enter the convention with a few more delegates than she indicates that they have little or no understanding of the nominating process.


    logical leaps (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    "Clinton is now undermining the Democratic candidate. If experience is time in the Senate, she would lose to McCain."

    I'm utterly amazed at how some can make such faulty logical leaps. The "Democratic candidate" is yet to be determined. NEITHER candidate has enough votes to win the nomination yet. And Clinton is allowed to make the case that Obama is not experienced enough.  Heck,one of Obama's foreign policy advisors(Susan Rice) even agreed with her. Why is it that the normal give and take of candidates playing up their perceived strengths and their opponents perceived weaknesses is seen by so many Obama supporters as suddenly "traitorous" or beyond the pale when done by Clinton?

    And another logical leap: Why is admitting that your opponent has certain perceived strengths mean conceding them the election? Clinton knows better than to try to claim that McCain has less experience than her. She won't waste her time doing that. That doesn't mean that she won't point out that there is more to a candidate  that simply "experience", that issues matter, and that McCain is wrong on the issues.

    Obama can't win the "experience" argument by touting his own. He has to diminish hers. That's simple politics. No one has been claiming that Obama is being "traitorous" for trying to knock Clinton's experience. Why is simple politics  suddenly a "smear" and "traitorous" when one candidate engages in it, but not when the other one does?  


    apologies (none / 0) (#206)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:28:16 AM EST
    for the double post.

    That comment was good enough (none / 0) (#208)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:29:21 AM EST
    for a repetition!
    Good answer.

    tree (none / 0) (#215)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:44:20 AM EST
    Do the math.

    Tell us how Clinton wins when she's lost the pledged delegates.

    Dream. Imagine. But she cannot catch Obama.

    So you are reduced to somehow win over superdelegates. These are the people who see Obama as being the better candidate at the top of the ticket, who have seen the Clinton campaign ignore many of their states in the primaries and are now seeing her run Republicanesque scare ads against Obama.

    Listen to what they are saying. They are saying that they want the race over before the convention. Hillary can't win without a convention fight. Translate it, tree.

    People here complain about Dean's handling of Michigan and Florida and claim that he's being partisan towards Obama. Translate it.

    When Walter Shorenstein says that the race needs to end that means that the party wants her to stop.

    Don't confuse what the MSM, owned by the oligarchy, is now doing (their repeats of the 3 a.m. ad gave it way more push than the actual airing of it) with what the party wants.

    I've addressed in other posts why what Clinton is doing is destructive to the party. You may not be willing to give up on her candidacy, but the party has.


    How she wins (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:51:34 AM EST
    She wins PA, FL redo, MI redo, stays within 100-150. Obamas numbers collapse, he comes under scrutiny, his team melts down.

    Clinton is the nominee. See how easy it is?


    Please find a new Obamamemo (nt) (none / 0) (#219)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:46:56 AM EST
    wow, and since you decree it, it must be (none / 0) (#110)
    by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:23:18 AM EST
    so, right?  you have a penchant for making inflammatory statements.

    again, I disagree (none / 0) (#124)
    by dem08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:39:01 AM EST
    with Bob, but those of us who support Hillary should try to welcome Obama supporters as much as possible without betraying our principals. And as many people have said here, some of us do wish Hillary wouldn't sound so pro-McCain.

    I for one (none / 0) (#127)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:42:17 AM EST
    enjoy intelligent reasoned discussions, no matter who someone supports. But just being told "its over" and "she did it too" and quoting other misinformation from pro-candidate blogs gets a little tiring.

    And on that note about Sen Clinton being pro McCain: I also wish that Sen Obama would not replay the republican smears against Sen Clinton. If wishes were horses...


    Using an Obama rule... (none / 0) (#137)
    by sumac on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:53:39 AM EST
    Hillary could say "but he (Obama) was pro-Reagan first..."

    yes, it is over, and Thank GOD (none / 0) (#168)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:04:52 AM EST
    Obama has said he will never run again.
    If I never see his face again, that will be too soon.

    logical leaps (none / 0) (#203)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:26:27 AM EST
    "Clinton is now undermining the Democratic candidate. If experience is time in the Senate, she would lose to McCain."

    I'm utterly amazed at how some can make such faulty logical leaps. The "Democratic candidate" is yet to be determined. NEITHER candidate has enough votes to win the nomination yet. And Clinton is allowed to make the case that Obama is not experienced enough.  Heck,one of Obama's foreign policy advisors(Susan Rice) even agreed with her. Why is it that the normal give and take of candidates playing up their perceived strengths and their opponents perceived weaknesses is seen by so many Obama supporters as suddenly "traitorous" or beyond the pale when done by Clinton?

    And another logical leap: Why is admitting that your opponent has certain perceived strengths mean conceding them the election? Clinton knows better than to try to claim that McCain has less experience than her. She won't waste her time doing that. That doesn't mean that she won't point out that there is more to a candidate  that simply "experience", that issues matter, and that McCain is wrong on the issues.

    Obama can't win the "experience" argument by touting his own. He has to diminish hers. That's simple politics. No one has been claiming that Obama is being "traitorous" for trying to knock Clinton's experience. Why is simple politics  suddenly a "smear" and "traitorous" when one candidate engages in it, but not when the other one does?  


    This is a person dealing potentially with (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by frankly0 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:57:24 PM EST
    matters of foreign affairs and diplomacy?

    A top adviser?

    Man, the whole Obama team is starting to fall apart under the pressure of a political campaign. How are they going to deal with a real emergency call at 3 AM?

    If Obama fires her, it's just going to be an admission of how amateurish his team really is -- especially when you combine it with the Goolsbee fiasco, and the Susan Rice idiocy, and the crashing of a call by Obama's campaign lawyer.

    Keystone Kops, anyway you look at it. The Gang that couln't shoot straight.

    I'm unhappy and this illustrates why (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by zyx on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:11:36 PM EST
    I think Obama will be the candidate because he is pretty well ahead and if he goes to the convention with a double-digit delegate lead, the superdelegates won't have the guts not to vote for him, and "defy the popular will".  

    --I think Clinton would be a better president.  I always have.

    --I think she is competitive in the GE and can win--always thought so.

    --I think Obama might have the right stuff--but not yet.  He's just really young and inexperienced for THIS JOB.  This particular job is the biggest job in the world.  Look what happened in the past eight years when we gave the job to someone who wasn't up to it.  Obama needs more experience (especially foreign policy experience--who gets that in a STATE legislature?).  I wish so much that Clinton was ahead, and everyone would say, look, Barack, drop out now, you'll get your chance another day for sure.

    --I'm unhappy, and this probably should be at the top of this list, because if Obama runs and Clinton doesn't, well, that's probably the end of her shot at the Presidency.  He could run almost anytime for the next 20 years--and probably be a better President, if and when, later.


    Yeah, in many ways this goes to the very (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by frankly0 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:36:50 PM EST
    troubling scenario people have wondered about with Obama -- that he was untested, and couldn't stand up to pressure or scrutiny.

    Really, it's just striking -- he receives for the first time in his charmed political life some real criticism and difficult times -- really only a week or less of it by now -- and his whole campaign seems to be falling apart and behaving bizarrely.

    This does not bode well.


    Maybe to a certain extent (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by KLCarten on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:46:28 AM EST
    I am really starting to wonder if these mistakes start adding up on the obama team.  I might be wrong, not sure.  I do know, for me, its really getting hard to vote for him if he the nominee.

    i wanted obama to address this (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:20:52 PM EST
    remark about hillary issue for sure. but this lady's  political smarts seems to be lacking. it is scary to me that obama has such bad judgment in staff. i can see where she might if he were elected have a significant job in wh. please!

    Gwangju massacre. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:18:43 AM EST
    Richard Holbrooke. Clinton's guy.

    Will He Fire Her and Has He Apologized (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by BDB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:10:36 PM EST
    So far he hasn't fired anyone.  And has he apologized?  He needs to apologize.

    It is deeply ironic that Samantha Power who has fought against genocide and who has criticized the first Clinton administration for not doing more in Rwanda would call the person who advised Bill Clinton to intervene in Rwanda a monster.  OTOH, she's indicated that she does believe Susan Rice and Tony Lake screwed up on Rwanda.  They both advise Obama, has she ever called them monsters.

    And I guess Donna Brazile was right about the tone, she was just wrong in assuming Obama would be the victim.  You know what they say about assume, Donna...

    I don't care if it was a (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:14:27 PM EST
    slip of the tongue--what does it say about someone who evens thinks that.  What has HRC done that would make someone think she is a monster.  

    Though I've been extremely disappointed in Bill Maher Real Time this season, he said it best when he noted that if you hate Hillary, it's about you, not her.

    i like how he put that, (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by kangeroo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:21:24 PM EST
    "if you hate Hillary, it's about you, not her."  so true.

    He Should Know (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by BDB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:46:06 PM EST
    If I dislike her divisive tactics (none / 0) (#106)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:21:43 AM EST
    is it still about me?

    If some people here hate Obama, is it about them?

    I dunno about that saying. Seems to be saying, shut up, boy.


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:24:53 AM EST
    I would agree that people who hate Sen Obama does says something about themselves. I don't hate him. I just don't think he is the better candidate. I think the people around him are amateurish and are showing it right now.

    But no hate. No love or cool aid either.


    jesus, bob. you are (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:29:16 AM EST
    getting yourself worked up into a lather.  as for what obama has force-fed his supporters about hillary's "divisive" tactics, well...i think he's projecting and ought to hold a mirror up to himself.  but i suppose reasonable minds can differ.

    I Think I have a theory (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:24:51 PM EST
    On how this happened to Samantha and the Obama campaign.

    They are influenced by blogs.  Blogs are where people say things from behind their keyboards where they don't really have to face the person they're talking about and are never held accountable for what they say.

    She was just being a blogger.  

    Read the 35 comments (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:10:27 AM EST
    to the Martin Lewis piece. A few apologize. Those go "I'm sorry but she is a monster." One goes "the Clintons would eat their own young." Watch out Chelsea!

    Honestly many on this blog don't care for Obama but who amongst would accuse Obama of eating his own young.

    And Arianna Huffington must be losing it. Her columns get more and more bizarre. Tonight is accusing voters in Texas of being "lizard brains." How to win friends and influence people. And people ask me why Obama supporters turn me off? Ah the comedy.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by rosaleen on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:04:57 AM EST
    that Arianna's lost it. She tries to exert way too much control over the political dialogue. Not only on her site, but she is ubiquitous. I think she should run for something, get out of the news/propaganda business. She's a citizen, isn't she?

    I think (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:43:59 AM EST
    like me she holds dual citizenship. I refuse to renounce my Colombian and Spanish citizenship as much as I love the US. Arianna is I think still a dual Greek and American citizenship.

    Her traffic must be down. On one of the blogs that I contribute to, the traffic is up 50% and that's due to the refugee crisis in the blogosphere. That's how I came to TalkLeft. Even the Obama supporters here seem reasonable and people who concede that he has flaws. On some other sites, Obama remains "infallible."

    The Huff Post is different from say TPM and the DailyKos because Arianna started it as a collective of diverse opinion from a progressive perspective. She has thrown both her credibility and her non-partisanship out the window. I only visit to get Obama talking points. Yesterday the headline War Rages Inside the Clinton Camp. This on the day after Ohio. I wonder if Huff Post editors wake up each morning and ask well how can I trash Clinton today? That gets tiresome and boring fast. And if we lose the general election in the Fall, no one will bear more responsibility than Arianna Huffington. Their reporting led to a civil and very uncivil war amongst the progressive wing. I was or am an Edwards supporters and when Lawrence O'Donnell called Edwards a "loser" I was offended. And when Guy Saperstein said Edwards would be kicked out of the Democratic Party if he didn't endorse Obama before Super Tuesday, I was outraged. If that is unity, what does disunity look like?


    I Actually Think Highly (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by bob h on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:47:54 AM EST
    of Samantha Power, and am surprised she would say something so stupid.

    New Statesman article (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by honora on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:19:20 AM EST
    Apparently, Ms. Power has been chatting-up the UK.  There is also an article in the March 6th New Statesman by Sholto Byrnes.  It was before Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas, which were obviously not expected by Ms. Power.  She notes that plans were in place for Clinton's withdrawal and the cherry-picking of the Clinton staff.  "We don't want to end up in a lowest-common-denominator operation, which is what, I think, actually, really hurt her."  Pretty arrogant, it seems that Ms. Power believes that the Clinton staff has too many people ready to say "No, you can't say that"  I think that it is clear that the Obama staff needs a few more of those kinds of people.  Maybe one to follow each Ms. Power, Ms. Rice, JJ Jr, Mrs. Obama, and her brother.

    I guess you didn't get the memo (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:16:28 AM EST
    about OT comments.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by sas on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:41:45 AM EST
    "decries"  her comment?

    He should both denounce and reject........

    Reminds me of George Bush's promise to fire those in is administration involved in the Valerie Plame incident.

    Shae gets a mere slap on the wrist.

    Sorry, I should have (none / 0) (#16)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:37:46 PM EST
    said I got that from another blog and didn't investigate the sources--my bad.  

    I've checked the sources out--they're legit (none / 0) (#20)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:42:26 PM EST

    One stupid statement (none / 0) (#24)
    by rilkefan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:48:15 PM EST
    I don't like everything Power says, but she's a strong proponent of justice in the world and I'd regret seeing her ruined over a slip of the tongue.

    Not a slip of the tongue (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by sonya on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:06:15 PM EST
    Power is a woman of letters who received the Pulitzer for her nonfiction work on genocide.  I daresay that she's familiar with the actions of true monsters.  For her to engage in such irresponsible hyperbole in regard to Senator Clinton was uncalled for and cruel.  

    And where does (none / 0) (#112)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:23:42 AM EST
    Richard Holbrooke fit on your scale of monster/not monster people?

    Ending the slaughter in the Balkans (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:39:37 AM EST
    He gets a fair amount of credit for his work there in my book.  If you want to go after the Carter admin on human rights, feel free - you're probably not interested in a Democrat anyway.

    Right. It's not like she was (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:16:48 PM EST
    Billy Shaheen. He was in the powerful position of being married to the New Hampshire chairwoman of Hillary's campaihgn. This woman is a mere senior foreign policy advisor. Clearly just a cog in the machine.

    oh come on! she was going to have a (none / 0) (#52)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:22:34 PM EST
    very significant place in an obama administration. rice anyone?

    If you're replying to me (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:28:18 PM EST
    I was being sarcastic.

    thanks for the response! (none / 0) (#220)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:47:52 AM EST
    I had to read it twice, too -- (none / 0) (#200)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:21:35 AM EST
    ChrisO is subtle. :-)

    I agree to a degree (none / 0) (#231)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:26:47 AM EST
    but holy &%*(@!, that's a bad statement to make as part of a presidential primary.

    She strikes me, having read up on this a wee bit now, as somebody who should never have been talking to anybody in the press. Supporters get worked up, but there's simply no excuse for somebody honestly thinking that "that's off the record" will fix this sort of comment.

    At any rate, stupid comment or no, it's landed the campaign into another little political tempest right when they didn't want one, and I don't see how they can not fire her or ask her to step down. In fact, the longer they wait to do so, the more news cycle this will take up today.


    Very interesting (none / 0) (#32)
    by obscure on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:56:25 PM EST
    It's a very interesting post from Martin Lewis on HuffPo. He claims to be a satirist, and by the looks of his latest, he's starting to get the hang of it!

    On a serious note, I don't believe that Samantha Power is actually on the payroll for Obama.

    The campaign cleared her interview (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:00:13 PM EST
    so what does it matter if she's paid or not? She speaks as a member of the campaign, or why would it have to clear the interview?

    Well (none / 0) (#47)
    by obscure on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:19:27 PM EST
    I was only pointing out that you since she's not on the payroll, "firing" her isn't an issue. I suppose he could "fire" her from advising him. Either way, I don't see what the big deal is. I interpreted what she said in the context of Hillary's formidablity as a campaigner, not that she was suggesting that Hillary was actually monstrous. Maybe I've got a tin-ear, or people are overreacting yet again.

    Maybe she was just comparing (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by badger on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:50:21 PM EST
    Hillary to Charlize Theron in her Oscar-winning role.

    That's about as believable.


    Overracting? (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:10:55 AM EST
    Either way, I don't see what the big deal is. I interpreted what she said in the context of Hillary's formidablity as a campaigner, not that she was suggesting that Hillary was actually monstrous. Maybe I've got a tin-ear, or people are overreacting yet again.

    Are we doing "What Obama Really Meant" excuses for his advisors now? She called Hillary Clinton a monster. Flat out. What is overreacting in being upset about that?


    now that's fanciful spin for you. (none / 0) (#53)
    by kangeroo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:22:48 PM EST
    Yes, he could fire her (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:23:22 PM EST
    from advising him, unquote. Exactly. It's not just one quote, either -- look upthread at other quotes from her. And this on a day that a seminary in Israel is bombed, leaving students dead. Her timing sucks, too.

    Then (none / 0) (#58)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:24:55 PM EST
    why didn't she want it on the record, if she didn't think it was a big deal...

    Obvious (none / 0) (#64)
    by obscure on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:30:15 PM EST
    For the obvious reason that the Hillary-Over-America Army would be all over it regardless of her intention. I agree that it was a stupid thing to say, and predictably, she'll pay the price for it.

    Overreacting? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:25:57 AM EST
    Here? Anyone see the tar and feathers?

    Please, everyone. Take a look at Clinton's foreign policy advisors if you want to find monsters.


    maybe you should be advising Power. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:32:14 AM EST
    The point is none of them are monsters... (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:17:03 AM EST
    ....the dehumanization of hyperbole makes it so easy to justify all sorts of things. It's a dangerous mentality. There were monsters in history. We all know who they were. No need to ratchet up the namecalling to this level. In a less stressful moment I don't think that Stephanie Powers would be calling either Hillary Clinton or any of her foreign policy advisors monsters. She f'ed up, and she isn't being helped by defenses that tear down other people.

    I know him and like him (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:26:25 PM EST
    He's very funny. And quite up on his politics, even though he's a humorist.

    Jeralyn, you might want to see (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:38:39 AM EST
    an incisive and insightful comment by Oje, #246 in the previous Samantha Power thread -- perhaps worth an update? The comment came just as that thread closed, so it may not be seen but ought to be, as it parses why Power had to know the impact of this.

    hmm, that was an interesting comment. (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:58:18 AM EST
    oje has a good point there.  if what he/she says is true, then it fits right in with obama's youtube apple-ripoff commercial, his secret anti-hillary sites, and his use of gop talking points to attack her for a year.  also fits in with much of the behavior of a lot of obama supporters.

    That's not bad (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:00:50 PM EST
    It's better than I expected.

    I agree that there was nothing (none / 0) (#38)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:02:11 PM EST
    outrageous about her statement.  It was that it appeared that she need to be reminded that Abbas was in fact democratically elected.  

    It would have been a great opportunity for her to discuss the inherent problem with forcing "democracy" in areas of the world for which, "be careful what you wish for" applies.      

    She's been on Charlie Rose (none / 0) (#54)
    by The GrandPanjandrum on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:22:56 PM EST
    several times over the past few years. Here is a link to the video. She sounds pretty reasonable to me.

    She sounds pretty reasonable to you (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:20:36 AM EST
    in the quotes that are the topic of this thread? Sure, she must be reasonable some times. So what?

    Why the scare quotes? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:24:51 PM EST
    Nice usage of scare quotes there, seriously, I mean I know this place is in the tank for Hillary, but what was the point of using quotes around decry there?

    Uh (none / 0) (#233)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM EST
    the quotation marks indicate that it was the campaign's word and not the blogger's.  Not hard to grasp.

    Obamans are scared of direct quotes? (none / 0) (#245)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:14:05 AM EST
    Now we're only allowed to paraphrase the Ones We Have Been Waiting For? New Obama Rules?

    appears the O camp is imploding. (none / 0) (#74)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:43:48 PM EST
    this is going to be his test to see what he does outside the box.

    Its his turn. Hillary has plugged the damn that was leaking now lets see how he plugs his.

    Wishful thinking (none / 0) (#118)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:31:11 AM EST
    Who was the superdelegate today who came over to Obama? Someone from West Virginia, I recall. The campaign is not imploding. Every time you hear a Democratic elected official or some party official saying that they want to see this ended before the convention they are telling Hillary to concede. While they say this publicly they are working to end her candidacy by talking to the money people to cut her off.

    Clinton is not going to get the nomination, and with another week of praising the Republican candidate she won't ever have the chance again.


    well with the bullying the obama camp (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:35:38 AM EST
    has pulled on superdelegates, i'm no longer impressed when sd's support obama.

    she's a bit of a legend (none / 0) (#75)
    by Turkana on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:44:18 PM EST
    on genocide issues. however odious her comment, she's a terrific person to have on staff.

    Maybe, since this was an interview (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:50:01 PM EST
    to plug her book, she sd. something outrageous to assure getting more people to read the book?

    She Is (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by BDB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:50:15 PM EST
    Although that makes her calling Hillary a "monster" even more off, she's studied real monsters.

    But I think her real problem is that she's much too Ivory Tower academic.  It's why she's so dismissive of Ohio voters, many of whom are genuinely hurting economically.  It's why she thinks someone who says something critical about Obama in a tight presidential campaign is a "monster."  

    Perhaps she's someone who studies the great issues of the world but isn't much of the world, if you know what I mean.


    She did spend three years in war zone (none / 0) (#163)
    by jb1125 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:57:15 AM EST
    She's an academic, but she sit an ivory tower all day; she's also an activist and a journalist. She spent some time covering war in Yugoslavia, and she has been one of the leaders on Darfur.

    This is just off the top of my head (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:50:35 PM EST
    but other than Darfur and the Congo, is genocide such a currently pressing issue that you need to have an expert on the subject as one of your five key advisors? I might add that I am totally prepared to be corrected on this issue.

    absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Turkana on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:54:09 PM EST
    kenya just came very close to exploding into genocide. it will remain a critically important issue.

    I say absolutely yes.... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:19:43 AM EST
    ...and I am not an Obama supporter.

    Yup (none / 0) (#98)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:17:05 AM EST
    Obama has said some good stuff about liberal interventionism iirc, and I thought that reflected Power's influence.  I've long thought she tends to stridency, and wouldn't want to see her as a diplomat, but she's an advisor, not a press secretary - she said something wrong in a one-on-one and instantly tried to retract it.

    Nope, it sounds like she (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:23:33 AM EST
    wrote a terrific book that should be read by a candidate's foreign policy staff. There is a difference.

    A terrific person (none / 0) (#88)
    by koshembos on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:54:46 PM EST
    I would change only a little, she is a terrifying person. Only in our society a person with no foreign policy practical experience will be called a foreign policy expert. Studying and writing about a complex and down to earth topic barely serves foreign policy 101.

    Remember Bush saying that he'll fire anyone involved with leaking Plame's CIA job? Obama's mentor is GWB.

    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).

    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?


    Excellent comment -- sending me back (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:18:04 AM EST
    to read it again for all that. Wow, the woman -- good author as she allegedly is by some who've read her here, etc. -- just has to be stopped from saying anything more on this booksigning tour but for "can I use your pen?"

    Has anyone mentioned reading her books? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Kitt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:44:03 AM EST
    A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide

    Fairly encompassing.

    I heard her about 3 weeks or so ago on Democracy Now; she was pretty dismissive of Jeremy Scahill. The discussion was about Kosovo, and other humanitarian interventions.

    On the Huff Obama (none / 0) (#130)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:52:03 AM EST
    this story is of course buried. I had to look for it. It's on the Politics Page and buried off to the side. They have 41 comments (actually mostly anti-Obama). Their traffic is huge and they get 1000s of comments. They have 41 so far. But no no bias.

    Diplomacy (none / 0) (#131)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:55:13 AM EST
    What was the one thing we learned from the Bush Admin. ?  We need diplomats when it comes to foreign policy not academics or bullies.  So, if someone who is in foreign affairs has no basic manners and no notion of being diplomatic, we will be in trouble again.  

    I think (none / 0) (#138)
    by rosaleen on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:00:54 AM EST
    this chick Samantha, being a woman, is going under the bus and for speaking what I can only imagine is the camp line.

    Some think tank may hire her and pay her and she'll work for B.O. through that, somehow. But I think she is going under the bus.

    Brilliant, so if she gets fired then (none / 0) (#155)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:39:30 AM EST
    she is being thrown under the bus because she is a woman?  Glad you have your spin for that eventuality sorted out.

    Obama / Clinton ! (none / 0) (#158)
    by LimaBN on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:58:29 AM EST
    Given that Vice President Cheney has apparently made his office more powerful and influential
    than the President's, one wonders what Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton are achieving in their
    continued efforts for the presidential nomination.

    Obama consistently polls higher than Clinton against McCain.  Clinton displays the "attack dog" characteristics desired in vice presidential candidates.  And it keeps Bill out of the Oval Office.

    What's not to like?

    This comment does not surprise me (none / 0) (#162)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:56:45 AM EST
    Powers is responsible for the lowest moment of the campaign, bar none.
    When Obama was discussing our Afghanistan and Pakistan policy, he also made comments about nuclear  doctrine, and said that he would not use nukes on terrorist training camps.
    Powers backed him up, and came very close to saying that Hillary would use nukes if elected. In my opinion, her clear intent was to frighten people into thinking Hillary would do so.

    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

    Well Jeralyn (none / 0) (#186)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:47:01 AM EST
    If you really do care to know more about Samantha Power you could start by reading

    Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World


    A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide


    Realizing Human Rights: Moving from Inspiration to Impact (New Europe)


    Darfur Darfur


    A biography of Samantha Power

    Not that I think any of you guys really care.  What you really want is dirt.

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#188)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:55:31 AM EST
    What is the point? That if she is accomplished she didn't say what she said? Or that it is ok because she is accomplished?

    I for one think it shows the real stress inside the Obama campaign (they are not as sure they are going to win as they are trying to project), and it again illustrates to me they are amateurs for this kind of mistakes (add that to the little slip up about being ready).

    This shows why I support Sen Clinton. But is Sen Obama does get the nomination I hope his team learns very very fast.


    I would say they are sure they are going to (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:01:03 AM EST
    lose now. Obama has had 3 chances to close the deal, and failed each time. The Nafta business, Rezko, the CIC question (which is very good---kudos to Clinton for that one)---these will all bring Obama down more.

    What is the point (none / 0) (#209)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:32:12 AM EST
    Jeralyn asked for more information about Samantha Power.

    I am shocked that you find this event as some sort of proof about how bad the Obama campaign is and it justifies your opinions.  Just shocked.


    and I'm shocked, (none / 0) (#210)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:35:19 AM EST
    just SHOCKED that you don't agree.

    Why would I agree? (none / 0) (#212)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:36:57 AM EST
    So some off the cuff remark isn't just a gaffe by someone who is in Europe is a sign of endemic problems in the Obama campaign?

    Yeah ok.  


    What she did was incredibly (none / 0) (#213)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:39:42 AM EST
    amateurish. Will  she be as out of control if she represents the US in policy discussions?
    Obama should fire her for this, and GLADLY.

    Yes I know (none / 0) (#223)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    completely outrageous.  

    It's funny how here entire career is meaningless because she made one gaffe.  Nope, who cares whether she would be a valuable addition to our foreign policy planning. She said something mean about Hillary.  Clearly she must be fired.  


    The point is that she lacks self- (none / 0) (#225)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:53:11 AM EST
    control. BTW, this isn't the first time she's gone off the rails about Clinton. Her veiled accusation that Hillary would use nukes if elected was by far the lowest moment of this campaign.

    Fine (none / 0) (#227)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:55:07 AM EST
    So she's out as Secretary of State.  Of course she was never going to be a cabinet office in the first place.

    She needs to be out now (none / 0) (#235)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:32:32 AM EST
    ----she should sever all relations with the Obama campaign.
    Most voters will see what she did as a serious sign of immaturity.. it reflects very poorly on Obama.

    Most voters (none / 0) (#237)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:43:58 AM EST
    don't care about Samantha Power or what she said.  It is a news cycle story.  Samantha Power will go back to what she has been doing next week with nary a blip.

    Unless of course the Clinton campaign really wants to make a story out of someone calling Hillary a monster.  Not sure that is the wisest choice for them.


    Please be intellectually honest (none / 0) (#238)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    I am not pointing to ONE gaff. I am pointing to one gaffe on TV and a pretty inexcusable error in an interview.

    You are happy to point out how Sen Clinton can't run a campaign over money, but this kind of stuff is minor?


    Ms. Power apologizes (none / 0) (#211)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:35:51 AM EST
    "It is wrong for anyone to pursue this campaign in such negative and personal terms," she added. "I apologize to Senator Clinton and to Senator Obama, who has made very clear that these kinds of expressions should have no place in American politics


    And the crickets (none / 0) (#224)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:52:08 AM EST
    continue to chirp.

    I read the apology (none / 0) (#232)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    it's fine with me, I'm not terribly offended or anything. But she's going to have to step down, IMO. Incredibly, incredibly stupid move, politically, and her apology is no longer really the point.

    Why does she need to step down (none / 0) (#236)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:42:26 AM EST
    I don't understand why that is necessary.

    She is not part of the political staff of the campaign.  


    She's a top adviser (none / 0) (#241)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:54:19 AM EST
    that makes her a part of the campaign, whether she's formal "staff" in terms of being on the payroll or no.

    Seriously, is that distinction the one you think changes this? Because that's also politically tone deaf. Whether she's "staff" or "policy adviser" -- a distinction your average American cares not one teensy bit about, really, as either way she's part of the campaign -- Obama now needs to distance himself from her.

    Ignore it if you want. I'm talking political reality. Frankly, I think kerfluffles like this are a distraction from things that actually matter -- oh no, somebody's worked up supporter said something stupid! But the press is making it a major thing, and as a campaign reality, Mr. New Kind Of Politics can't just shrug it off.


    If you are offended (none / 0) (#244)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:10:45 AM EST
    That is just an... 'I'm sorry if you are offended' apology.

    Yeh. It's one of those (none / 0) (#247)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:15:09 AM EST
    "I understand that you feel that way" lines. Means nothing.

    Samantha Power Resign your Harvard position (none / 0) (#234)
    by Chithra KarunaKaran on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:30:04 AM EST
    Is Samantha Power Lawrence Summers' twin from hell? She should resign just as Summers was finally forced to.

    I voted for Obama. I think he delivers an authentic message. So does Hillary. Voters have the legal right to choose through the electoral process.
    But Samantha Power discredits Obama's campaign and devalues the democratic process which the world's nation-states are desperately trying to develop,
     by abusing her First Amendment rights of free speech with her incendiary ad hominem attack against Hillary Clinton.

    Power does not work for the Jerry Springer show does she? She is employed by Harvard and she owes responsibility and can be held accountable for her public statements.

    She is a self-appointed, Harvard-anointed arbiter of the "Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy" at the Kennedy School of Government. She failed to be responsible to this prestigious and well-regarded institution and she is not a global leader by any stretch o0f the imagination.

    As a post-colonial sociologist and a civil society  activist I would characterize Powers' gratuitous verbal violence against Hillary Clinton, as part of of the practice of Systemic Whiteness.
    White folks  in particular exercise unearned skin privilege to damage democratic process for the Greater Collective Godd (GCG) because
    they have a long history of a profound misplaced sense of entitlement under a pervasive structure, system and ideology of Whiteness.
    Because Whiteness is a 3-part structure of Power, any one of us can be impacted and constrained, albeit unequally, by its overarching
    as well as embedded and entrenched characteristic of power.

    People cannot just abandon theory when it suits them.  Power fumbled badly. She exposed her lack of ethical authority in the matter of political debate as part of an election.
    Power should  be held accountable and she should pay the price. Resign.

    But I guess being white, like her colleague on the right, Coulter, with entrenched white skin privilege, she will not.
    Jesse Jackson was made to pay the price when he made his comment about
    Hymietown.   But Samantha Power will probably go "scot" free. (see her interview with The Scotsman)


    Dr. Chithra KarunaKaran
    City University of New York

    Power just resigned... (none / 0) (#242)
    by mike in dc on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:00:22 AM EST
    ...from the Obama campaign.

    Issue over.

    You beat me!!! (none / 0) (#243)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:05:13 AM EST
    The issue is not over, because Obama's poor judgment in having her as his chief FP adviser remains.
    Clinton is definitely on a  roll though---this happened less than 2 hours after Clinton's camp demanded her head.

    Mark Penn... (none / 0) (#246)
    by mike in dc on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:15:07 AM EST
    ...still has a job.  Patti Solis Doyle nearly torpedoed her campaign(they barely recovered in NH).  One of her pollsters implied Latinos wouldn't vote for Obama on racial grounds.  Wolfson compared Obama to Ken Starr, for making a routine political demand for tax returns.  

    And she voted for the war.  Do you really want to go there on the "poor judgment" thing?


    Um, Wolfson is right. (none / 0) (#248)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:16:43 AM EST
    the rest of your points are not worth addressing.
    What Powers did was super-amateurish.

    What, that her judgment has been so great... (none / 0) (#249)
    by mike in dc on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:32:30 AM EST
    ...that she picked a campaign manager who wasted tens of millions of dollars of donor money, so that they couldn't even afford to compete in most of the states that held primaries in February?  That her campaign staff seem to be constantly feuding with each other?  Yeah, guess that's not worth addressing.  I mean, that obviously doesn't reflect on Clinton's judgment at all, not one bit.

    Power isn't a campaign political adviser vis a vis how to win this state or that, she's a foreign policy advisor.  I would expect her to show more discretion, but I would judge her on the merits of her foreign policy chops, not her verbal discipline.

    And she showed the good judgment to resign.


    Yeah, and Axelrod is such a genius, (none / 0) (#251)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM EST

    24-14, man... (none / 0) (#252)
    by mike in dc on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:16:32 PM EST
    ...and Obama has only had a net delegate loss on one of the primary/caucus days so far(-8 or less on 3/4).  I'd say his track record is better than Penn's right now.

    cabinet qualifications (none / 0) (#254)
    by diogenes on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:27:31 PM EST
    I know that her book blasted Bill Clinton for doing nothing about Rwanda.  I don't know what co-President Hillary's role in this was because no White House records have been released yet.

    An Impersonal Perspective on '08 Campaigns (none / 0) (#255)
    by Preacher1946 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:48:49 PM EST
    I suppose most of you will think of me as an oddball in the middle of the political statements and opinions expressed here. I want to ask you  if Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and many others are not all attorneys?  I don't care how genteel they seem to be on the surface, they all are subject to the same flaws! The only thing I can assure you about lawyers is collectively, they are just a little more moral than criminals.  I don't know why you would villify Hillary and crown Obama as the "New Messiah."  What he is saying is not spiritual - it is based on egotistical thoughts that he can be a better leader, though I am still waiting on defined policies from his camp. Most important to remember, he is a Lawyer, trained like other Lawyers, and is subject to other things Lawyers do. People better wake up!  George Bush, Cheney and the rest of that "criminal" empire in the White House have done such a discredit to our democracy that you would pin your hopes on a person who is not really saying anything for the redemption of the soul; for spiritual things cannot be accomplished through physical means, or external to our own souls! It is your soul crying out for the peace and contentment that you desire, which cannot be obtained through material means. In other words, it is an "inside" job. "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven (synonomous with kingdom of God) and its righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you."  Matt. 6:33.  It is a collective consciousness factor where we have allowed all thoughts from our higher self to be supplanted by egotism, materialism, base-natured thoughts, and the violation of the Law of Love.  Lastly, it is important to note that stress is created whenever we have a rhetoric or thought in conflict with what and who we really are character-wise. Obama  pitched his campaign on peace, but the staff persons don't necessarily believe in it, so they speak of their true beliefs and create problems for him, and for him to have them as "Advisors" is problematic.  If that is what he would espouse, imagine more conflict and issues world-wide when we have no solutions for the ones we have now.  i remember George Bush - "I will be a uniter and not a divider." It looks like another horror show with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Harriett Myers, etc... in different skins.