home

Power Joins NSC

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:00:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Samantha Power has a long and distinguished record as an advocate against genocide. In addition, Power is a very sharp foreign policy thinker. She has just been named to a position in the National Security Council. It is unfortunate that this is the title of the news story reporting her naming:

Professor who slammed Clinton will be Obama aide

I became familiar with Ms. Power when she was a supporter of (as was I) and an advisor to General Wes Clark during Clark's 2004 presidential run. Her thinking and instincts were excellent in my opinion. I hope that soon she can transcend the caricature as the "professor who slammed Clinton." It was obviously a terrible thing to have done but there is much more to Ms. Power than that. It is a disservice to Ms. Power that that unfortunate incident is what she is known for. Hopefully, her accomplishments in the Obama Administration will lead to treating that incident as the trivial event it was.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Helps Organized Labor | Health Care Progress >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Power Joins NSC | 96 comments (96 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    You're absolutely right (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ai002h on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    There's is soooooooo much more to Samantha Power, its a disgrace to our media that they still latch onto that "monster" quote almost a year after it happened. She's written amazing books about genocide, and unlike many of her colleagues, believes in a more balanced and nuanced view towards Israel/Palestinian issues, something I wholeheartedly believe in.

    Powers was wrong. Why shouldn't she pay... (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:20:54 PM EST
    some price for her stupid comment?

    Parent
    She did (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    She was the first casualty of the campaign teams.


    Parent
    Well, to be honest, (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by dk on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:46:07 PM EST
    I'm not sure how getting a high level NSC appointment is much evidence of being a causalty of anything.  Sure, on the books she was taken off the campaign, but no one seriously thinks she didn't stay on as a high level advisor off the books, right?  Right?

    If she's smart and has good policy views in this area, she should get to be where she has been appointed.  However, I think it's also true that to have said what she said is evidence that she has poor political instincts, poor instancts as a diplomat, and poor instincts in judging character.  Again, those skills may well be irrelevant to her new job, but frankly I don't feel sorry for her if that's how she's remembered.

    Parent

    She was (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:43:54 PM EST
    publicly humiliated and had to resign from a high-profile campaign post before the general election started.

    You may not think that punishment enough, but it's not "nothing" either.

    It's not about feeling sorry for her, I don't feel sorry for her at all.  I don't care how she is "remembered", I care that we have a capable foreign policy team.  And everyone deserves a second chance.  Forgive but don't forget, if you know what I mean.  If Hillary can, I don't see why the rest of us can't.

    Parent

    She was no victim, (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by dk on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 04:23:05 PM EST
    and thus was no casualty.  Whatever public humiliation she incurred was her own fault for her ridiculous statement.  And, we all know that the resignation from the campaign was a publicly staged farce unless you really think she was suddenly no longer an influential advisor to the campaign.  It's not like she needed the money..Harvard professors are quite well-paid.

    And the fact that Hillary isn't letting this stop her from having a working relationship with her doesn't seem to have much to do, in my mind, with pointing out Power's lack of good instincts and judge of character.  If you don't care about how she's remembered, then what's the problem?  She has the job.  

    Parent

    Of course it was her fault (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:10:47 PM EST
    I was responding to the poster that said she should have to "pay a price".

    I think she did pay a price.  I am not saying she didn't deserve it.  Maybe "casualty" was the wrong word, I didn't mean it in the victim sense...

    Farce or not, she was publicly rebuked, and she didn't have her job anymore.  That, to me, is A price.  That's all, I'm not trying to throw her a pity party.

    Parent

    She lost a volunteer position (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:17:09 PM EST
    with the campaign, although there was evidence that was only a faux release and that she really kept on as an adviser.

    She kept her job.  There is a difference.  If it meant that maybe she actually had to go back to campus and teach, apparently that was a punishment -- she's one of the Harvard types who hardly ever teaches -- but there is no evidence of that.  And she probably just sold more books because of the publicity.  It's how it's played.  She did fine.

    Parent

    she was playing bad cop (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by sancho on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:44:53 PM EST
    for Obama's good cop/bad cop campaign routine against Hillary. and now she gets to morph into a good cop. she took a hit for the team and is being rewarded. hopefully, as btd suggests, her skills will help the administration as they did, awkwardly but effectively, his campaign.

    Parent
    Hey--at least there was some reaction (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:23:27 AM EST
    to her statements by her boss.  Mr. Favreau:  not so much.

    Parent
    I don't know how the NSC people (none / 0) (#72)
    by hairspray on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:59:23 PM EST
    interact with the State Dept. but if she still thinks that Hillary is a "Monster" she might be a difficult fit in that arena.

    Parent
    No, the first casualty of the campaigns (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:17:51 AM EST
    was Bill Clinton, when Prima Donna Brazile and Eugene Robinson declared that the term "fairy tale" is a racist, and thus that Bill Clinton -- and therefore Hillary Rodham Clinton, in their guilt-by-association game -- is a racist.

    So the first casualty of the campaigns was the legacy of the integrity of the civil rights movement.

    Parent

    She did... (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Addison on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    ...I don't think any reasonable person would think the price would be, "never gets another job with Obama." That would be absurd, especially when Power and Clinton have already talked the incident over.

    Parent
    Sure, but her remark (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:51:06 PM EST
    was particularly bad precisely because she studies genocide. The word "monster", coming from her mouth,  had special impact.
    The incident shows that she is not experienced enough in politics to be a spokesman. It does not say anything about her qualifications otherwise.

    Parent
    Sounds good (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CST on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:07:25 PM EST
    If Hillary is ok with it (and I assume she is - I believe they had conciliatory words after the incident), I don't see where anyone else can object.

    I think politcians can't let the personal stuff get in the way too much, especially when that means leaving out a really intelligent and capable person.  And things always get heated in campaigns, this one more than others.

    I hope she does well in the knew administration.

    *new* (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:08:43 PM EST
    I am a terrible speller...

    Parent
    Despite her accomplishments, (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:07:38 PM EST
    I find it hard to believe that Professor Powers will work as effectively as she must with Hillary, when she believed Hillary was a "monster," and believed it strongly enough to say so to a reporter.

    She thought it was (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ai002h on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:10:21 PM EST
    "off the record." Yes, that was naive, but she isn't a politician. Furthermore, this happened in March, do you not remember what the two camps were saying to each other back then??

    Parent
    If she thought it was "off the record" (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:13:59 PM EST
    and screwed that up, it's not exactly making her look better.

    Yes, I remember what was being said in the primary.  And her comment was the only one from a campaign that sunk to the level of some left blogosphere sites.

    Parent

    Correction: I forgot Jesse Jackson Jr. (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:15:38 PM EST
    But I'm not sure he counts as campaign.

    Parent
    No it doesn't make her look bad (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by ai002h on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    unlees she was being appointed to a political position, which she isn't. By being part of the NSC, she'll be an asset when it comes to policy ideas without being a liability when it comes to politics. The same reason why Larry Summers is inside the White House and not the Treasury Secretary. Being a smart politician and a good policymaker do not go hand in hand.

    Parent
    On Meet the Press my wife and I said (none / 0) (#26)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:48:25 PM EST
    This guy is too smart to be on TV.  He lacks the ability to "dumb down" his ideas.  (and he is not good looking enough to get away with it :))

    Parent
    knee-jerk reactions (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:21:07 PM EST
    are not indictive of a reasoned,  well-thought out response to a situation -  which type of response will NSC advisor Samatha give Obama?

    Parent
    No she didn't. She agreed to (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:52:09 PM EST
    an interview, and tried to take back her remark after uttering it---something which violated the rules she had accepted for the interview. Very amateurish.

    Parent
    And she apologized (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:54:21 PM EST
    And Clinton accepted the apology.

    Enough is enough.

    Parent

    here's the reminder (none / 0) (#92)
    by suzieg on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:45:36 AM EST
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVzJtXab3p8

    Parent
    It troubles me as well, but (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by jes on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:13:46 PM EST
    Hillary is also just a politician after all. She has gotten over worse from McCain and numerous other Republican insults.

    I wanted Hillary for President but I also always liked Powers. I'm happy about both appointments.

    Parent

    Right, but I suppose implicit (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:18:39 PM EST
    in my comment about them being able to work together is that Prof. Powers seems to take things very personally, unlike the usual pro politician.

    Parent
    If you can't work with people... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    ... who have said mean things about you, you should be in another line of work than foreign policy. Obama was willing to get past the tensions between himself and Hillary, and I think he has a right to ask Hillary to do the same regarding Powers.

    Parent
    Hilary got past it (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:56:28 PM EST
    long ago.

    Parent
    Oh, I agree. (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:15:29 PM EST
    If she butts heads with Hillary, it will be over issues.

    Parent
    Most did (none / 0) (#80)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:16:04 PM EST
    Problem is that was Powers' first impression to so many people, and it's hard to forget first impressions.

    I don't hold it against her. It wasn't nearly as bad as what others said. But, still, it was the first impression, so I'll remember her for it.


    Parent

    And has he asked the same of Powers? (none / 0) (#74)
    by hairspray on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 07:06:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Skill and brainpower needs (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:10:17 PM EST
    should trump past mistakes....

    Sometimes the truth is unfortunate. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    Powers was wrong and never got her game back - and shouldn't, IMHO.

    My word (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:40:40 PM EST
    I really would have thought folks would have moved past that intemperate comment by now.  The majority of the competent individuals in the Democratic Party would be disqualified from political service if we ruled out everyone who said a rude thing once upon a time.

    Hillary and that husband of hers have had a great many terrible things said about them over the years, and yet they have managed to put aside countless grudges, in the name of public service and the greater good.  I think they set an instructive example.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    After McCain's nasty remark about Chelsea (the nasty put down implying an adolescent was not pretty enough...saying she was the child of Janet Reno and Hillary)I don't know how Bill and Hillary were able to forgive.  But he apologized (I think McCain says a lot of stupid stuff and always has because he is a prima donna spoiled macho jerk, imo) and they accepted.  The ARE the better people for that.  So having something said about themselves personally probably pales in comparison.

    Parent
    I am not willing to write Powers off (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by BernieO on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:01:16 PM EST
    but I am still troubled by her calling Hillary a monster. To me it sounds like she is another liberal who actually believes the garbage coming from the mainstream media. What else could she have been basing that on, unless she just believed anyone who opposed Obama was evil.

    The latter (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:02:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by dk on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:06:19 PM EST
    I'm not sure that view of her is all that much of a compliment either.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:09:21 PM EST
    Everyone has their flaws.

    Parent
    To think that someone is bad (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by BernieO on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:37:09 PM EST
    because they disagree with someone you support is not a great trait for someone that has to work in politics.

    Parent
    I'll give her a clean slate (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:06:35 PM EST
    Seems like her knowledge and passion warrant that.

    She did apologize (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:19:11 PM EST
    immediately and to all concerned, especially to Hillary.  

    Heated campaign and both sides were throwing some sharp elbows.  And even a few well-regarded and experienced pols, you'll recall, made some verbal gaffes in the primary season.

    Figger, she'll now get to work and kinda lie low, maybe later go out in front of the cameras a little more, then, after the usual obligatory decent interval, perhaps in the 2d term, she moves up the food chain for a top NS post.

    Or I hope it works out something like that.  Because, frankly, I have a weakness for youngish, attractive and smart foreign policy wonks of the female gender ...

    Ha. (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:36:21 PM EST
    If anyone thinks she "misspoke", they are not thinking clearly.  That whole bull about "she thought she was off the record" is bunk - that was pure political theater and it got the exact play they wanted.  It got the word "monster" associated with HRC and Powers never really paid - she just went underground.

    This is her reward for publicly falling on her sword.

    However, HRC can take the insults - if it came down to it, HRC would eat Powers up and spit her out without breaking a sweat.  

    They will work well together because Powers will have to be on her best behavior.

    Parent

    Two things (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:38:28 PM EST
    Brodie did not say she misspoke.

    In addition, I am pretty confident the Obama campaign was quite displeased with her words. they hurt his image.

    Parent

    They'll Work Well Together (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 04:43:18 PM EST
    because they are both intelligent, and accomplished and it serves each of them to work well together.

    As to Powers' comment serving some strategy by 'getting the word monster associated with HRC'...Oh, please. In the end, the incident muddied Power and the Obama campaign far more than it ever did Clinton.

    It served nothing and now for most people on both sides is part of the ancient history of a political campaign season that is behind us.

    Parent

    During the primaries, the presence (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    of Professor Powers' impressive credentials in policy were seriously outweighed by the regrettable absence of her public polish.  It was wise, at that point, for her to go away.   However, in a new professional association  she  can give her expertise while getting  lessons in sagacity from Secretary Clinton.  And, hopefully the newly acquired judgment skills will rub off on her spouse, Cass Sunstein, as he goes about his new work in regulation oversight.  

    Quite the pair. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:26:42 PM EST
    Will be interesting to watch...

    Parent
    I deleted a comment (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    about a person's personal life.

    I never like those and will not allow them n my threads.

    No problem (none / 0) (#44)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:32:40 PM EST
    Your the boss

    Parent
    I know a lot of people admire Power ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:43:31 PM EST
    I don't.

    And it his nothing to do with her comments about Clinton.

    Everything about her has seemed to be in service of fast-tracking her career which always strikes me as especially craven when you use an issue like genocide to do it.

    Her views on Israel are the usual faux-liberal nonsense.  I know they go over well in certain social circles, but not with me.

    And she always strikes me as a hawk in dove's clothing evidenced by her position on the withdrawal from Iraq.

    But I'm more comfortable with her getting a position in the Obama administration than her husband.

    frankly, (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by cpinva on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 11:05:54 PM EST
    i am underwhelmed by ms. power, as i was underwhelmed by condoleeza rice. neither strikes me as particularly brilliant, other than in terms of self-promotion. that puts them in the same catagory as madonna.

    her inability to control herself in public aside, i just don't see her upgrading the level of diplomatic discourse, based on her history.

    i guess we'll see.

    Parent

    "... the same category as Madonna ... " (none / 0) (#100)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:56:09 AM EST
    That's about the size of it.

    Parent
    So it's ok to call Power a monster? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by TChris on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:54:00 PM EST


    No it's not (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 07:30:05 PM EST
    I deleted the comment.

    Parent
    If only Power's comment (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 07:57:43 PM EST
    on Clinton could have been disappeared.

    She will have to live with it, and the result.  The rest of us do.

    Parent

    Btw, "it is a disservice to Ms. Power" (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:57:43 PM EST
    is memospeak, a way to avoid active voice and putting the responsibility on anyone.  That is, it's a clever word trick, and I was taught it, too.  Also commonly used in victim speak.

    So let's see through it and call it as it is:

    Power did herself a disservice, apparently, although her purpose in the interview was to sell books, and she has done well at that.  So she made money, personally, from the "monster" ploy.

    But Power also did her candidate a disservice, BTD points out, by hurting his image.  Not really; he tossed her under the bus, at least officially, and got glory for it -- while she unofficially continued as an advisor.

    But even more so, she did another candidate a disservice that added to the distortive campaign that disserved us all in a so-called democracy.

    That said, if she actually has learned a lesson -- although there is no evidence of that -- and is ready to really be a public servant, fine.  Let's hope so, for the sake of us all.

    Personally, I would hire her to handle my diplomatic efforts about as soon as I would hire Geithner to do my taxes -- or Larry Summers to do sensitivity training.  

    It's A Disservice To Anyone (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:08:14 PM EST
    when the media fixates on one episode in their life and ignores everything else that is exemplary or accomplished to continually frame their reputation in terms of that one shortcoming or misstep.

    That's what I thought BTD was saying here, and it seems apt to me.

    Parent

    Sure, but that's public life (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:24:26 PM EST
    which she sought, just as she agreed to the interview without constraints, no "off the record" rules.  The more such comments as yours, the more it makes one wonder whether Power can zip it.

    Parent
    You would think (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by ai002h on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:07:36 PM EST
    if anyone would be sympathetic about having caricatures drawn of them by the media, it would by HRC supporters.

    Parent
    That is twisted logic (1.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:17:17 PM EST
    but is that to be expected of non-HRC supporters?

    Parent
    How is it twisted?? (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by ai002h on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:25:54 PM EST
    People are taking one word - "monster" - and from that extrapolating how she can't work well with others, how it reflects poorly on her knowledge of diplomacy etc...She's being painted with a broad brush with a negative tinge, much the same way HRC would be painted on other websites.

    Btw, I was an Edwards supporter who came around to Obama last summer. Its just that the primary is ancient history, but for many, particularly on this site, its still alive and well.

    Parent

    Ahem, when a genocide scholar (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:45:33 PM EST
    calls someone a "monster", it has special meaning.

    Parent
    Dog Whistles (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:53:41 AM EST
    Even if this were so, how much does it matter in terms of what it meant then, now or ever?

    Mention the name Samantha Power to the general public and see who recognizes her either as a 'genocide scholar' or as the Obama campaign advisor who called HRC a monster.

    Heck, you could have mentioned her name to the general public AT THE TIME the incident occurred and it was in the cable news loop 24/7 and most people would have said: "Huh?"

    With the primaries and the general election behind us, the only people who care about this are the ones still fighting those fights. Most people are focused on issues like their jobs, their health care, their retirements...

    Parent

    You're not making sense to me. (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:07:56 AM EST
    I am all for letting bygones be bygones.
    I am not ok with people eliding and distorting the record. Powers' remarks will despicable. When people stop defending her, I will stop weighing in.

    Parent
    Defending Her? (none / 0) (#104)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:45:57 PM EST
    I haven't said I thought she was justified in making her comments about Clinton, or that it was okay with me or that she should not have been called out on it or had her official relationship with the campaign severed at the time. Nor has any other commenter I've read in this thread. I don't see anyone defending her.

    I agree with the premise of BTD's comment here that it's a shame when the media takes one wrong move from a person's life and defines them by it forever.

    As for bygones being bygones, I have no stake in that. But since the one with a stake in that, HRC, has signaled the name calling incident is behind her, that's good enough for me.

    Parent

    Not Twisted At All (2.66 / 3) (#94)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:46:05 AM EST
    Both Clintons are veterans of this kind of cheap media-framing tactic.

    Parent
    Said Daring Grace (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:02:39 AM EST
    in an apparently unintentional but fine example of a cheap media-framing tactic.  Ah, the fun of irony.

    Parent
    Ach, I See My Meaning Was Ambiguous (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:50:25 PM EST
    so let me, ahem, reframe.

    See, I often struggle with the wordiness of my comments here and try to be more glib and this is the result.

    I meant that both Clintons have themselves also suffered such cheap media framing of their lives and careers.

    Parent

    That It Is So (none / 0) (#93)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:43:16 AM EST
    (that there is often distorted media framing of a public figures' reputations) doesn't mean it's not a disservice to those it happens to.

    Commenting on it serves to keep the issue of the media's distorted lens in focus and keeps the public discourse a little more honest.

    Parent

    I think she was fired for her other comment in the (none / 0) (#91)
    by suzieg on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:19:52 AM EST
    same interview on the BBC where she blurted out that Obama would not pull the troops out in the time frame he was advocating.

    Parent
    Its unfortunate (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by ai002h on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:11:35 PM EST
    that for so many in this thread its still March 2008.

    Funny how people have (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:20:17 PM EST
    forgotten the thing Power said which was really unforgiveable, when she accused Hillary (among others) of considering nuclear first strikes on Pakistan. How twisted---to defend the candidate who spoke most strongly about the possibility of attacking Pakistan by acccusing his opponents of considering nuclear strikes on terrorist camps.
    I know little of her writings except for that idiotic op-ed from Aug. 2007 (IIRC), but that is enough for me.

    Parent
    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:34:30 PM EST
    Just because someone remembers history doesn't mean they're reliving it.  The comments in this thread are very enlightening and provide a good basis for assessing the future performance of a top official.  Thanks to all here for your perspectives on her previous mistakes as well as her accomplishments.

    Parent
    Short attention span (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:18:26 PM EST
    is the unfortunate bane of too many Americans, or we wouldn't be in such a mess.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by ai002h on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 08:28:12 PM EST
    But only when the situation requires it. Economic crisis = = long attention span. Calling someone "monster" in a heated campaign, not so much.

    Parent
    And remember, she blew it for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 10:09:14 PM EST
    with her disclosure that he had no intention of immediately pulling out of Iraq but, instead, was planning for it to take at least 16 months -- same as Clinton.  And there was some other Bidenesque blathering by Power, too.  

    But we can "hope" that she will "change" and get off center stage with such stuff.  Or we'll see how soon she heads back to Harvard.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#43)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:32:11 PM EST
    people are desperate for any hand to reach over and pull them up and off the cliff.

    Especially after 8 years of a second Bush Whacking.

    Much worse then first by a long shot.

    There is so much more to her (none / 0) (#47)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:42:36 PM EST
    Like the whole anti-Israel thing.

    Oh lord (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:49:35 PM EST
    Do you think she might be too even-handed?  Like George Mitchell or something?!

    Even Marty Peretz vouches for Samantha Power.  I'm sorry, but that is an immunity totem.

    Parent

    She (none / 0) (#50)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    can't afford to make any careless mistakes in this position.

    Parent
    A history of such a careless mistake (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:06:52 PM EST
    and an apology that seemed forced, insincere, and more to cover her posterior than actually apologize -- all ought to be worrisome.  Frankly, that episode and some others I've read about that suggest that she may well have "Little Professor Syndrome," as it's colloquially known.  Those who are brilliant but lacking in ability to understand how others will react -- an inability to put themselves in others' place.

    Okay for a desk job, but not for diplomacy -- in or out of the office, the country, etc.  A weird one.

    Parent

    NSC: Not Exactly Diplomacy (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:21:08 PM EST
    Sounds like it's more up Power's policy-wonk alley--and not so much 'in the field':

    "NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

    "The National Security Council (NSC) is the President's principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials. Since its inception under President Truman, the Council's function has been to advise and assist the President on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the President's principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies.

    Parent

    Right -- that's why it's probably okay (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:26:11 PM EST
    as long as she doesn't overreach . . . as those with the syndrome sadly too often do, not being even able to realize that there are boundaries -- to behaviors, in job descriptions, etc.  Powers' interviews (not just the one that blew up on her) that I've read just suggest that potential.

    The inability to see boundaries can make for great thinkers, risk-takers, and the like.  But who would she be risking?  Not herself; she's got tenure.

    Parent

    She is supposed to be in charge (none / 0) (#61)
    by BernieO on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:41:21 PM EST
    of multilateral affairs, isn't she? It seems like being able to play nice with others would be a necessary ability. I assume she would have to be communicating with officials from other countries, not just doing research. It will be interesting to watch.

    Parent
    I Wouldn't Make That Assumption (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:58:39 PM EST
    from the official description of the NSC:

    ...'the President's principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials.'

    And based on that description, she might also be dealing with enacting policy within U.S. gov't agencies etc.

    But even if she does end up working with other countries, she'll be in her element, presumably, operating from her strengths, in her area of expertise which front line electoral politics does not seem to be.

    Parent

    Let's hope no one disagrees with her (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by BernieO on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:38:32 PM EST
    She might cause an international incident. I really don't think this will happen, but I still think it shows are real immaturity to be that hateful about someone who isn't even that different in matters of substance but who just opposes your side. And saying that to anyone in the media, even if you think it is off the record, shows very poor judgement.

    Parent
    Btw, I gather that Power now (2.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:22:20 PM EST
    is a U.S. citizen?  I haven't found anything on that, but presumed it -- and it would seem requisite for representing this country to other countries.   I read that she used the ol' "citizen of the world" cliche about herself, anyway.

    Since you have a handle on her, did she become a citizen as soon as she reached 18 -- or ?  Just curious, as she has such out-of-the-commonplace views of this country, with but not always quite of it, with the outsider's perspective, at times.  That can be helpful in assessing others' views of us, of course (or it could be a sometimes-useful byproduct of the LPS).

    Parent

    Google Is My Friend (none / 0) (#96)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:59:40 AM EST
    I have no particular handle on her outside what I've looked up to comment in this thread.

    So I only just learned about her Pulitzer prize and her playing basketball in high school in Atlanta.

    Sounds like a great new RW campaign, though, doesn't it: Is Samantha Power REALLY an American? Right up there with the nonsense about Obama's birth certificate.

    Parent

    Nah, not at all -- Kissinger (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:11:24 AM EST
    and others have set that to rest in terms of this sort of position.  No laws like those that constrain candidacy for president.

    Again, I'm just curious because her work is another example, as I said above, of those who can benefit us by bringing to our foreign relations a sort of mixed insider/outsider perspective -- opposite of the provincialism that has marked many policies.  And others like her -- Kissinger, et al. -- have in past spoken about the impact on them and their thinking of "becoming American," citizenship, etc.  I haven't found her writing about it yet, so I am trying to piece together her story to explain her insights -- and her oddities.  There also is something different about Irish Americanism, as well I know.

    Parent

    By the way, since you apparently (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:34:46 AM EST
    only started learning about her today or yesterday, why are you so vehement in her defense? Is it just because she's with Obama?

    Parent
    Not About Her or Obama Per Se (none / 0) (#106)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    But rather about whether people deserve a chance to serve with their talents after one stupid misstep.

    Parent
    As a former academic I understand (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by hairspray on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 07:17:54 PM EST
    the "little professor synbdrome" very well.  Tenure allows some to spout off anytime without repercussions.  Academic freedom you know!  And by the way, Wm. Ayers was in California yesterday visiting a private Catholic College denying any culpbabilty in the Weather Underground's nefarious activities and telling the students they were not active enough in the anti-war movement. The reporter was very kind to him and failed to report anything unfavorable.

    Parent
    Right, she should be safely (none / 0) (#68)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:20:14 PM EST
    put in an undisclosed location, as VP, with that trait.

    Parent
    Monster was rude (none / 0) (#89)
    by ricosuave on Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:04:04 AM EST
    but the rest of the interview was bad, too.  Lots of "we're just saying that for the campaign" type stuff.  One comment, which I can't remember the exact details of, was along the lines of an outright admission that any Israel-related comments were just campaign pandering for Jewish votes.  Sadly, the transcript has slipped down the internet memory hole and I can't find it. (Can anyone find a link to a transcript?)  I think the campaign was happy to let the "monster" remark be the only think anyone heard about that interview.

    But she is not the National Security Advisor (Condi showed us what an academic egghead with no management skills could do to kill that position)...she is probably in a policy-related position where she can do some good.  I am not particularly excited about her, but if they keep her away from the press she'll probably do fine.

    Power Joins NSC | 96 comments (96 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment