Power Resigns From Obama Campaign

By Big Tent Democrat

Samantha Power resigns:

With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an advisor the Obama campaign effective today. Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign. And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months

It is sad yet appropriate. Samantha Power is a good person who said an inexcusable thing. I think she had no choice.

NOTE - Comments closed. I hope supporters of both candidates can exhibit better discourse going forward than I saw in this thread.

< Ras MI and FL Revote Polls | Undermining "The Will Of The People" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Sad all around. . . (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:19:34 AM EST
    Sad that it's come to a point where people (grown-up people, I mean) are talking the way that Power did, sad that speaking (even in an ill-advised way) has become a firing offense, sad that if she hadn't gone she would have become the issue for the next week or two.

    I agree, she had no choice.

    What she did was extremely immature. (none / 0) (#6)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM EST
    I think that kind of comment, coming from a woman who was his top adviser on FP, is highly damaging.
    People are going to say "Was this the woman he had in mind to negotiate over nuclear weapons treaties and the like?" and they'll wonder what Obama was thinking.

    It's kind of amusing (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:28:35 AM EST
    to watch her claim that she actually has all kinds of deep-seated respect for Hillary.  Obviously she doesn't.

    I agree with BTD that she is a good person who is on the right side of issues that matter far more than political sound bites.  I don't know what her role might be in an Obama administration, but I'm pretty sure if Bush can have convicted felons in the White House, Obama can have people who once said something mean about a primary opponent.  I'd love it if we could stipulate to this so that we don't have to endure the wails of martyrdom.

    The lesson here is about message control.  If you have a policy advisor who's something of a loose cannon, you can't just have them running willy-nilly around Europe making statements that are going to be attributed to the campaign.  There's a reason why the White House has policy people and press people, and keeps them separate.

    Look, she implied Hillary would use (none / 0) (#11)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM EST
    nukes if elected. I have no respect for Powers. She has no business being ANYONE's FP adviser.

    eh, where did she say Hillary would use Nukes? (none / 0) (#21)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:33:30 AM EST
    I haven't read the full remarks but I was under the impression that she meant Hillary was going "nuclear" in the primary.  i.e. it was a metaphor.

    no, way back when Obama made (none / 0) (#30)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:36:11 AM EST
    his threat to invade Pakistan, he also talked about nuclear policy. He said he would not use nukes on terrorist training camps. Powers expanded on this, as if it were a big deal that Hillary would not change our nuclear deterrence policy by promising not to bomb terrorist training camps.
    Why? For me, the clear implication was that Hillary wanted to reserve the right to use nukes.
    The idea that one shouldn't lightly meddle with a nuclear deterrence formula which has worked for 60 years did not occur to her.

    Weak tea. (none / 0) (#42)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:39:42 AM EST
    You're attacking Obama for ruling out nuking Pakistan?  And I thought this was the Democratic primary.

    No, that's not what I said. (none / 0) (#46)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:41:05 AM EST
    No it's what you spun (none / 0) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    Obama was criticized for that comment for being "naive" because he was unilaterally ruling out the nuke option.  And yes Hillary was one of the people that was criticizing him.

    Here is what Powers said: (none / 0) (#65)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:54:29 AM EST

    Barack Obama's judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America's prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.


    This is the accusation that Hillary will use nukes. The entire premise of the article is wrong, by the way: there was no conventional wisdom that attacking Iraq was necessary. In fact, the realist foreign policy crowd thought the idea was crazy.


    Where (none / 0) (#76)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:04:11 PM EST
    did she suggest that Hillary advocated using nukes in that interview?   The only time she even mentioned Hillary in that memo was about the argument

    Read what she said before the quote you pulled...

    When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use - inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.

    And for you to suggest that there was no conventional wisdom about attacking Iraq before the invasion simply defies reality.  Our entire foreign policy aparratus supported the invasion.  If that isn't conventional wisdom what is?


    If you can't understand plain English (none / 0) (#78)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:07:13 PM EST
    there's no point having a discussion.
    Hillary is part of the "conventional wisdom" crowd, per powers. Those are the people who propose using nukes, per Powers. Ergo, per Powers, Hillary proposes using nukes.
    Anyway, I put up the quote. Others can judge for themselves.

    Im not sure of the Party power structure (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    and I know I am not a Party member but in a country ruled by a two party system it dose not compliment governance if one Party is weak and the other can corrupt completely as we have seen in this last decade so I have a passionate interest in the next President.  

    So I have no intrest in seeing the Party weakend but presenting a front runner exspousing change and hope caught with his had in the ole politics as usual cookie jar 4 times in recent days, even if KO gets it or not, is bad not just for Obama, but also the creditability of the Democratic Party to put forth a capable honest Executive for consideration by the Peoples in Nov.  

    We have had the NAFTA just kidding incident, the Rezko trial begin- no criminal wrong doing - but a boneheaded financial transaction - and new RNC sound bite of  true who dose need lobbyist when your have bundlers Chicago style, now the BBC interview the nod and a wink concerning the Obama Iraq withdrawal stump speech as not a committed plan but just talk.

    She also accused Clinton of "deceit" and said she "is stooping to anything."

    yes, I am really really unhappy.


    ohhhhhh (none / 0) (#82)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    When she said conventional wisdom she was really talking about Hillary.


    Clearly I can see why Hillary would get upset over that.


    True, but my guess it has nothing to do with (none / 0) (#83)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    Senator Clinton but with her Iraq nod and a wink BBC interview which is, explosive, even if it were not on the tail of another Obama adviser being sent out of the country to say thats talk to get elected not his real intent, the NAFTA fiasco.  The Dem Congress needs to speak on this now this has been a fear of ours for sometime that they say one thing.

    OF course she can (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:38:17 AM EST
    s long as Hillary as VP, is ok with it.

    Wes Clark loves Samantha Power so he probably can smooth everything over.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by BDB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:51:12 AM EST
    She is one of the better foreign policy advisors Obama had.  But she had to do this for the good of the Obama campaign.

    Nothing will prevent her from coming back to an Obama administration, if there is one.  Whether she'd be invited to join a Clinton Administration is another story, which is a shame.  It's also a shame that an otherwise bright person would become such a blind supporter of any candidate.  But that isn't exactly a new phenomenon this year.


    I read her talking about her first meeting (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:21:16 PM EST
    with Obama -- and she essentially said it was one of those epiphanies so epidemic these days.

    Not the point (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    Nobody's supporters are saints, and every campaign in history has had a certain portion of supporters who are a little bit over the top. Or a lot over the top.

    The degree of seething, blood-curdling hatred of Clinton among some Obama supporters -- note that I'm not saying "all" or "most" -- is way, way beyond anything normal in politics. One doesn't have to be a Clinton supporter to see that.

    The contrast of those supporters with Obama's message makes it even more politically toxic, too.

    I've seen some pretty vitriolic statements (none / 0) (#51)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    by Hillary supporters in comments on blogs as well.  Implying that this is an Obama problem is wrong.

    How serious do you think this is for Obama? (none / 0) (#2)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:20:01 AM EST
    She was also telling Europeans that Obama doesn't mean what he says about Iraq, btw.
    Where is Obama going to get forward momentum now?

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:34:54 AM EST
    I don't have the quotes at hand, but back around the time Obama first announced, he made comments along the lines of how it's impossible to predict conditions two years from now, it would be irresponsible to make specific predictions concerning troop numbers, and so on.

    A few months later, when the debates started in earnest, Obama was right there with the rest of them pledging to withdraw specific numbers of battalions in a specified time frame.  Obviously this is hypocritical, but it's how the primary game is played, by everyone.  I enjoy how primaries pull everyone to the left, but I frankly don't enjoy watching stuff like withdrawal from Iraq turn into a mindless bidding war.  "You'll get the troops out in 11 months?  Okay... I'll make it ten!"

    So Power's unfortunate candor is really just taking Obama back to where he was in the first place and where he's probably been all along.  When we watch the Democratic primaries, we have to try and keep our ear finely tuned to the BS portions because some of these promises are just not getting kept.  Either Clinton or Obama might do something to improve NAFTA, for example, but I'll eat my hat if either of them withdraws from the treaty or does anything to radically alter it.  Just not gonna happen, no matter what the campaign rhetoric says.


    Falling Apart (none / 0) (#75)
    by americanincanada on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    I think it's terribly damaging, especially if you actually watch the video.

    Power makes a lot of sense about Iraq. But of course if Obama said those words to the public, said what he actually means, he would sound just like Hillary.

    Also, that's not the only point in the interview where she is forced to play the WORM game.


    Obama's campaign is falling apart. If he can't take a slight amount of heat from Hillary what in the world is he going to do against the republicans?


    What will he do? (none / 0) (#85)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    "If he can't take a slight amount of heat from Hillary what in the world is he going to do against the republicans?"



    And her admitting that ethnic cleansing (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:39:17 AM EST
    was a fair description of Obama's plan for Iraq, "moving people in and out of neighborhoods." Power ought to have been stopped from talking to the press long before this. As the NAFTA flap shows, other countries are taking Obama's "just words" more seriously than are some of his supporters. When she talks, it is affecting our foreign relations now and in future, no matter who is the next president.

    IMO it's mostly bad timing (none / 0) (#7)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:24:12 AM EST
    he was just getting his footing back with the big fundraising number. This throws him back on the defensive for a cycle, where he certainly does not want to be right now.

    And with FL naybe voting again (none / 0) (#13)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:30:59 AM EST
    her views on Israel -- and thus probably his, as Obama picked her as his senior foreign policy adviser -- are going to get coverage now.  

    With her views, he would do well to take the delegates he has there now.  


    Doesn't she also (none / 0) (#17)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    support a North American Union. That is gonna go down in MI like a ton of bricks. Lou Dobbs will hammer them...day in and day out on this alone.

    Isn't (none / 0) (#29)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:35:42 AM EST
    the North American Union kinda one of those conspiracy theory things that no one actually supports?

    I thought so (none / 0) (#33)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:37:19 AM EST
    But I did read an article somewhere awhile ago about her thoughts on this and she was for it. I just can't remember where I read it. I am going to try and research it today if I have time.

    Agreed on all counts (none / 0) (#3)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    I think Power made a terrible political mistake, and this result was unavoidable. You never, ever, ever say things like that to the media. There is no "off the record" that you can count on, especially in a super charged primary.

    I don't see how she could have not stepped down.

    it's especially difficult to go off the record (4.50 / 2) (#15)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:31:29 AM EST
    after you have already said the controversial line.

    not really sad (none / 0) (#4)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    and not really appropriate.  all she said was HRC was a "monster" about wanting to win:  

    "She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything,"

    Oh my goodness, calling your opponent a name and accusing them of being willing to do anything to win.  The Nerve!  But, isn't that the gist of about half of the anti-Obama comments being written here?

    This disavow this and reject that needs to stop.  Say what you want, we use to have this thing called free speech.  But then we also use to have "off the record", but hey life moves on.

    Free speech isn't the point (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST
    she can say whatever she'd like, of course. But her quote is politically damaging -- it would be for any campaign, and it's even more damaging coming from the campaign of Hope!.

    Maybe it seems really minor to you because it's minor compared to the disgusting vitriol thrown around the internet on a daily basis, but to the average voter, this comes off very badly. Most Democrats do not hate Hillary Clinton the way she's hated on many of the blogs, and I'm very serious when I say that the worst possible thing that could happen to Obama's campaign is for the level of bile coming from a small portion of his supporters to be brought out into the public awareness.


    Understand this (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:25:11 AM EST
    You do not get to call Clinton or Obama a monster AT THIS SITE.

    Your comments will be deleted and you will be banned.

    Just wanted to make sure that was understood.


    I took a brief stroll (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Paladin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:32:12 AM EST
    over to the A-blogs and it's amazing how many commenters cheered Powers on and agreed with the comment.

    As many of us have commented over the past month or so, it is very, very unfortunate how this has devolved.


    Understand this (none / 0) (#14)
    by po on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:31:22 AM EST
    I didn't -- so don't insinuate that I did or threaten me with some sanction I don't warrant.  No need.  All I did was quote what was said.  

    But, if HRC is suppose to be the ONE to take on the GOP Hit Squad, but gets all worked up about someone calling her a "monster" because that person believes "she'll do anything to win" . . . well, we've got a lot to be concerned about.  Last I heard sticks and stones can break bones, but names are suppose to hurt you.  Monster, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg when the big guns come out . . .


    Do you have a link (none / 0) (#26)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:34:53 AM EST
    to Hillary "getting all worked up" over the comment?  

    Exactly (none / 0) (#34)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:37:21 AM EST
    Clinton's whole argument that she's taken the hits and remained standing is a joke.  She's never won a seriously contested election, and the attacks in the 90s were overwhelmingly directed at Bill, not her.

    Not how I remember the 90's (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:40:22 AM EST
    and the attacks in the 90s were overwhelmingly directed at Bill, not her.

    They both took an immense beating in the 90's. These attempts to rewrite the 90's so that Hillary Clinton wasn't attacked viciously, constantly, and over every tiny thing are just silly.


    Meh (none / 0) (#55)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:46:06 AM EST
    wishing doesn't make it so.

    I'll go with my lyin' eyes (none / 0) (#59)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:49:23 AM EST
    on this one, thanks. I know what I watched and heard in the 90's.

    uh Obama too -- he's never had a serious (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:47:32 AM EST
    election challenge. What? Alan Keyes?

    You mean other than the (none / 0) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    one he lost?

    I know (none / 0) (#64)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:54:25 AM EST
    but he's not pretending that he's able to fight the right wing.  Not only was Hillary mainly a sideshow in the 90s battles, but the only time she did try to take on the GOP she failed spectacularly.  If people want a fighter, they should at least look for one who actually wins the fights.

    Oh, really? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by plf1953 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:11:02 PM EST
    he's not pretending that he's able to fight the right wing

    And just how does he expect to win the GE should he be the Dem nominee?

    Will he "unity" and "hope" them to death while he's being beaten senseles by the right wing smear machine?

    Let me just say this, if he isn't planning to "fight the right wing," whether in the GE or once elected president, should he be so lucky, then he doesn't deserve the Democratic nomination.


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:40:06 AM EST
    You defended its use and I wanted to make sure you understood that it was not allowed here.

    Your attitude is entirely offensive to me and I am suspending you for the day.

    Come back tomorrow when you have cooled off. All further comment from you today will be deleted.


    worked up? (none / 0) (#79)
    by SarahinCA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    I'd say this is more about Obama following through on his word that anything like this would result in firing, because it's now how he wants to run his campaign, rather than anything Clinton has to say about it.  Not to mention, I don't see any evidence she's even referenced this at all today.

    Saying garbage on blogs anonymously (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:33:09 AM EST
    and saying it to the press as a senior advisor to a presidential candidate are not the same, d'ya think?

    Good on the Obama Campaign (none / 0) (#5)
    by glanton on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:23:10 AM EST
    And good on Power for not making excuses, pleading "context," etc.

    Hahaha, that's exactly what she did (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:34:08 AM EST
    for the first news cycle on this, with her non-apology. Catch up.

    Good. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ramo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:30:52 AM EST
    She needed to resign.  The viability of the Democratic nominee is more important than doing whatever it takes for a particular candidate to win.

    Now, we need to see some reciprocity from the Clinton camp.  Can we expect Wolfson, who was deliberately trying to smear Obama in public, to reciprocate?  Can we expect Clinton to apologize for her pseudo-endorsement of McCain?

    Yret again (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:37:17 AM EST
    Obama supporters look foolish making this argument.

    Wolfson said the Obama CAMPAIGN was using Ken Starr-LIKE tactics. A stupid statement to be sure, but not the same thing and you only make yourself look foolish if you insist on equating them.

    Obama himself called Clinton's policies "Bush-Cheney lite" so unless he is going to resign from the race, I doubt he will insist on Wolfson doing anything.


    Bush-Cheney-lite and specifics (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ramo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:58:41 AM EST
    Demagoguing your opponents' openness to diplomacy is Bush-Cheney lite.  I think it's also fair to characterize Obama's demagoguery on mandates in a similar manner (i.e. Gingrich-lite).  This is rhetorical gymnastics, but fair game.

    About the Ken Starr situation, Obama's camp was asking for transparency on tax records coming on the heels of the Clinton camp talking about Rezko.  Both are digging for dirt, but there's that whole subpoena power that makes the analogy ridiculous as well as total reciprocity in this situation.  It's just a fundamentally bizarre characterization.


    Wolfson Reciprocate? For What? (none / 0) (#67)
    by plf1953 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:55:03 AM EST
    Please tell the rest of us here what Wolfson did to "deliberately try[ing] to smear Obama in public?"

    Facts and links would be good.

    Or, perhaps, we should say the same thing about all of Axelrod's and Pouffle's smears of Hillary.

    Yes, off with their heads, too.


    Wolfson: (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ramo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:02:43 PM EST
    "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."

    You think that's a smear? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by plf1953 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    When all the underlying substance is proof that that is exactly what the Obama campaign was actually doing?

    Yeah, I guess its the same thing as your top foreign policy advisor using ugly epithets to describe a sitting US senator and former First Lady, and the other leading Democratic candidate for president of the US.



    Underlying substance? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ramo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:28:12 PM EST

    Is Clinton behaving like Ken Starr as well, given her campaign's pretending that anything incriminating has come from the Rezko?

    What Ken Starr did, if you don't remember, was use massive public resources and legal authority to go for a pointless digging expedition.


    Powers (none / 0) (#19)
    by magster on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:33:23 AM EST
    I had heard that she was a possible cabinet candidate for a President Obama.  Would this disqualify her?  I would hope with her apology and prompt resignation from the campaign, that bygones would be bygones next year if she is qualified to serve later on.

    the hate for HRC all over the net is sad (none / 0) (#20)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:33:25 AM EST
    Online people are just weird.McCain hires lobbyists for his campaign, says he's going to keep the country at war, and other distractions yet he's almost the media darling? Its insane.

    People slip when under stress (none / 0) (#22)
    by Joike on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:33:40 AM EST

    Should the Clinton adviser have to resign for comparing Obama to Ken Starr?

    Now there's a monster for you. :-}

    Of course, if she were in the media she might get a slap on the wrist followed by her own show for being "edgy".

    Wolfson said (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    the Obama CAMPAIGN was using Ken Starr tactics. A stupid statement to be sure. But in no way comparable. Obama supporters look foolish when they bring this up.

    Maybe I should type in "Joke" (none / 0) (#31)
    by Joike on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:37:02 AM EST
    when I'm making one.

    It wasn't a serious comment which I thought the ":-}" conveyed.

    Next time I'll have him winking.


    Actually I agree completely with (none / 0) (#35)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:37:28 AM EST
    Wolfson. He was spot on.

    Of course you do (none / 0) (#47)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:41:17 AM EST
    And I assume you also agree that Clinton used Ken Starr tactics against Rick Lazio.

    I'm not sure what the distinction is. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ramo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:39:53 AM EST
    Unless the politician is a half-wit, the wishes of him/her are reflected in the campaign.

    Funny (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:44:32 AM EST
    As you wish. I assume Obama will not run out there with the argument Starr = Monster. But perhaps they will. Who knows?

    most people have forgotten who Ken Starr (none / 0) (#28)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:35:25 AM EST

    Who cares actually, I don't.


    The hundreds of people who (none / 0) (#39)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:39:03 AM EST
     Starr ruined financially

    and Obama's campaign (none / 0) (#48)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:42:19 AM EST
    asking for Hillary to release her tax returns is like Ken Starr . . . how?

    tax returns? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:56:27 AM EST
    You are either dishonest or ignorant of the whole Kenn Starr type requests/comments. Which is it?

    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]

    Fishing. . . (none / 0) (#93)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    Ken Starr never prosecuted any matter which he was originally appointed to investigate.  Instead he fished throughout all kinds of stuff to find something to prosecute, finally stumbling (with help from Bill) on his affair with Monica.

    Even that had no taint of prosecutability until Starr (again with an assist from Bill) managed to get him under oath telling what some might consider to be a little fib.

    There's no wrongdoing whatsoever alleged against the Clintons on any tax matter.  The idea is to get as much of their personal information out there in the hope that there's something genuinely damaging or, more likely, something that can be twisted to appear damaging.


    I think (none / 0) (#36)
    by Lil on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    an apology would have been enough, in a fair world. I'd hate to lose my job over the really dumb things I've said. But I can't say I'm not a little bit happy that this diverts Obama once again.

    The OldBoysNetwork is alive and well in (none / 0) (#50)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM EST
    Obama's camp.  

    He kept Goolsbee (male) who lied to him and the media but fires Powers (female) who utters a childish insult.


    Trust you to make this about sexism. (none / 0) (#57)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:46:52 AM EST
    Powers quit, she wasn't fired.

    And the two situations are poles apart.


    Yeah, right ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by plf1953 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:00:39 PM EST
    Of course you're right ...

    Powers wasn't "fired," she was "resigned" by Obama.

    See, they're entirely different things.


    SNL (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lil on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:39:24 AM EST
    I wonder if they'll do anything with this flap. Could be funny.

    Having a "monster" (none / 0) (#53)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:45:13 AM EST
    throwing "the kitchen sink" at him but hitting Powers instead?

    I love it lol (none / 0) (#56)
    by Lil on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:46:51 AM EST
    Obama should have fired her before she was (none / 0) (#62)
    by DemBillC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    allowed to resign if he truly was about change. This had the language and tone of a Bush supporter. No wonder Obama's supporters are being compared to Ken Star. Power was his foreign policy advisor. What a poor choice. Now that the race is going to be about issues, and not simply about charisma, Obama campaign is going down the drain. Remember this is the man who voted for Dick Cheneys Energy Bill. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe Obama has held exactly Zero hearing? Afghanistan is where our enemies lie and Obama has held Zero hearings?
    He is not even qualified to chair a subcommittee much less to be Commander in Chief. He has no qualifications to have anything to do with foreign policy.

    "Fired" vs. "resigned" (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:03:03 PM EST
    is a distinction with no practical meaning in politics.

    IF she did this on her own, she's a good deal smarter than the folks trying to float the idea that she's not "paid staff", merely a "top adviser", and therefore, uh, it shouldn't reflect on the campaign, or something.

    But that's not realistic. She likely got a call from Axelrod today asking her to step aside, and they're using the "we didn't fire her" as a means to not look like they caved under pressure.


    Ken Starr (none / 0) (#66)
    by pavaoh on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    I have to keep reminding myself that what I hear said, may make more sense if I was able to hear everything everyone said.  I did watch a segment of Obama talking to reporters on the plane after Tuesday.  He said if Senator Clinton wanted to bring up real estate deals, they would be willing to discuss hers.  That is where I figured the Ken Starr comparison came from.  If I don't understand a statement I try to do a search.  Sometimes I am successful and sometimes not.

    Here'e a link for the Starr like references (none / 0) (#71)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:59:21 AM EST
    Check out what the Koolaid crowd at (none / 0) (#80)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:10:16 PM EST
    TPM is saying. Big majority defend Obama and Powers.
    poor guy deduces that the 1st amendment is in peril.

    Well, then, (none / 0) (#88)
    by plf1953 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    I guess Obama supporters need to denounce their fearless leader for disagreeing with them.

    I hereby defend, without question (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:26:27 PM EST
    the right of every American to say something stupid. And the right to be caught saying it. And the right to have to resign for it.

    Is that on the record, CC? (none / 0) (#91)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:27:40 PM EST
    JMM has a long and pretty good (none / 0) (#89)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:24:49 PM EST
    analysis  of the Powers business in the context of the race:
    Obama getting knocked around.

    I quibble with the last paragraph, where he complains that perhaps Powers got trapped by the foreign journalist.
    Um, no.  
    "Hillary is a monster----this is off the record"..
    ROFL. Sounds like other countries have more responsible reporters.