‘Monster’ comment costs top Obama aide her job

Given the harshness of her remark, I guess this was largely inevitable.

A Barack Obama adviser has resigned after calling rival Hillary Rodham Clinton “a monster.”

A campaign official told The Associated Press Friday that Samantha Power’s resignation is effective immediately.

Power told The Scotsman that Clinton is a “monster” who will stoop to anything to win. She tried to make the remark off the record, but the Scottish newspaper printed it anyway. She apologized in a statement and the campaign decried the remark.

Power is a foreign policy adviser to Obama and a Pulitzer Prize winner.

I admit, I have mixed feelings about this. Power clearly made an inappropriate and intemperate comment. She asked the reporter to consider her remark off the record, but the journalist wasn’t about to give her a break given how striking the quote was (with a lot of reporters, “off the record” is an agreement that both parties have to agree to — it’s not just something you can blurt out after saying something provocative). Her comment was inexcusable, so she had to go, which is a shame.

I’m reminded that Power isn’t a political professional, accustomed to the difficulties of dealing with political reporters. She has an accomplished academic background, but that doesn’t necessarily prepare someone for serving as a campaign surrogate with a reporter. Power is accustomed to speaking her mind — and that, regrettably, is rarely a quality rewarded during campaign work.

But I still have a nagging feeling that Power is facing a punishment that is too harsh.

It’s an imprecise comparison, but this morning I’ve been thinking about comments John McCain made in 1998. He told a nasty, tasteless joke about Chelsea Clinton at a Republican Senate fundraiser in front of a room full of people, describing the president’s daughter as “ugly,” and suggesting that Janet Reno is a man. McCain apologized, Clinton accepted, and everyone moved on.

In contrast, Power got a little too relaxed with a reporter, and made an intemperate insult in front of one person. She issued a formal apology, Clinton’s campaign didn’t accept it, and Power had to resign. It just seems like there’s a disconnect.

People who work in politics say nasty things about their rivals. It’s about as common as breathing. Emotions run high in the midst of a campaign, and human beings are going to say mean things about their opponents. Sometimes, it’s supposed to appear in a newspaper — top Clinton aides comparing Obama to Ken Starr, for example — and sometimes, it’s not. (Technically, Power was speaking to the reporter in the UK while promoting a book, not while representing the campaign. But no matter.)

Power let her guard down for a few seconds, quickly realized she shouldn’t have, but it was too late. The Clinton campaign pounced, which, given the environment, makes perfect sense. On the one hand, there’s clearly no place for Power’s personal attack in respectful discourse, and her resignation was the only appropriate call. On the other hand, I feel like Power deserves a little slack, given her accomplishments — she has, after all, dedicated her professional career to fighting genocide — and her immediate recognition of error.

I suppose this should be a lesson to everyone — when speaking to a reporter, don’t let your guard down, don’t get relaxed, and don’t share candid thoughts. Ever. Imagine that every word you say will end up on the front page of a newspaper — in Power’s case, literally — and speak accordingly.

Clinton sure wants a lot of people fired these days. I’m with NB Samantha is hot. She will be back in the Obama administration.

  • My sincere hope is that she’s merely resigning from “his campaign.” If he wins the nomination and Clinton is out, she should be invited to return. She’s an excellent foreign policy adviser.

  • All in all, this can be good for Obama, though. It makes him look like the responsible manager, gives him an opportunity to highlight any labels the Clinton campaign have slung at him, and makes Hillary look petty.

    Can’t handle being called a monster, Hillary? Then stop being one.

  • Two adjoining headlines on the LA Times:

    Obama advisor resigns over ‘monster’ remark
    McCain team stood firm in the face of disaster

  • Power should have only said a remark like that Tim Russert, for whom everything is off the record until the subject requests that is in in the record. For once what Timmeh does actually sounds noble.

  • Nope, nope, nope. First of all, if you don’t know the rules for talking to reporters, don’t talk to reporters.

    Surely this woman must have heard of at least one instance where someone did exactly what she did. She may not be an expert pol, but she’s intelligent and alert.

    Now, is it fair that the Clinton Camp is comparing Obama to Ken Starr and just got caught up in NAFTA-gate and no one is getting fired?

    No. But doing this sort of crap and then crying foul … well it sounds a lot like a Rethuglican campaign to me. And like the Rethugs, by seeking a momentary advantage they’ve given Camp Obama a damn big stick to beat them with the next time someone opens their yap.

  • You’re kidding me, right? I am kind of missing John Edwards about now. I would really like to see him standing up and saying “you are a monster – and you are trying to torpedo the Democratic party and get John McCain re-elected!” I kind of like the vision of seeing him choking Hillary.

    (Oh, and I know I am going to get slammed from the “innocent Hillary” folks.)

  • Ben Smith has an interesting, self-aware comment from Powers made this past fall:
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_coda.html

    Ms. Power and the other scholar-advisers of the 2008 season face challenges that Galbraith’s generation never knew. The public is much more skeptical of credentialed expertise than it was during the Kennedy administration. And new technologies make the candidate-adviser relationship more perilous than it once was. In theory a student in one of Ms. Power’s Harvard courses might post one of her classroom comments (perhaps wildly out of context) on a blog and create a news-media storm within hours.

    “That’s the one thing that terrifies me,” Ms. Power says. “That I’ll say something that will somehow hurt the candidate.” She says that in public lectures and interviews, she sometimes fights the urge to make unkind statements about other candidates. “That’s just not Obama’s style,” she says. “Left to my own devices, I’d articulate my frustrations in a much harsher way.”

  • Seems like the Clinton team has decided that the victim card is one of the few that they have anymore, so that’s what they’re playing. I’m sure there’s plenty of Clinton staffers who would have to resign if Obama played this game.

    And is Hillary a monster? She says she isn’t, so we’ll just have to take her at her word. There’s no evidence that she is a monster, as far as I know.

  • Sad… Samantha Powers is the reason behind elevating the issue of genocide into Obama’s standard stump speech line:

    “climate change and poverty; genocide and disease”.

    “She issued a formal apology, Clinton’s campaign didn’t accept it, and Power had to resign”

    Why not, did it strike a nerve or something?

  • she took a bullet for the cause — sometimes that’s necessary to awaken the body politic. it won’t be fatal.

  • with a lot of reporters, “off the record” is an agreement that both parties have to agree to — it’s not just something you can blurt out after saying something provocative

    Unless someone in the Bush Administration is talking to Tim Russert — he testified that he considers calls from them off the record by default.

  • Her full comments were:

    We f***** up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win. She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything. Here, it looks like desperation. I hope it looks like desperation there, too. You just look at her and think, ‘Ergh’. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive.

  • RacerX: “There’s no evidence that she is a monster, as far as I know.”

    Good one 🙂

  • I greatly admire and respect Samantha Power. (I want to be a ‘donor’ for her too, if you know what I mean, but that’s admittedly sexist on my part.) It’s a shame this happened and that she’ll be introduced to many people for the first time in this context. But Obama had to nip this situation in the bud or you know team Clinton would have cheese and whine for days, while indulging in their “Ken Starr” Rovian name calling all the while.

  • One big difference between the classless crap McCain said in 1998 and this intemperate remark on a book tour, this remark came at a crtical point of a blockbuster presidential campaign. Right when the media megaphone was predicting (and licking their chops) that the campaign was about to get ugly (see David Gregory’s coverage at 7 am on Today). It stil ain’t right, but no one should be surprised. Let it go and learn from it.

  • And yet the VRWC has been warning you people about this monster for years. What’s the big deal? And do I detect a bit of an adams apple there Sam? Humm, I wonder.

  • While a forced resignation isn’t unpredictable in a case like this, I do think it’s uncreative. I would prefer to see the assumed front runner and his team come up with a more imaginative way to smooth this thing over. We’ve had seven years [+] of forced resignations and firings and whatnot. I’d like to think there is a better way to handle this sort of situation, and that someone whose image is that of an agent of change, communication, transparency and togetherness might benefit greatly from a more creative solution for this incident. And make Hillary look like a whinybag in the process.

    Of course, I have no idea what that “creative solution” might be. But I’ve no doubt that some sort of opportunity to take the high road has been lost here.

  • When you demand someone be fired for calling you a monster, are you not stepping on your message?

  • After seeing Obama compared to Bush, Rove and Starr in the last week or so, I have to say that I am finding it hard to be sympathetic. Given the full context of her comments as reported by Dennis D, I have to say that I agree.

  • I love how Hillary Clinton keeps demanding people be fired for their incompetence or intemperence — David Shuster, Samantha Power, etc — but never does so with people on her own payroll.

    It’s OK If You’re a Clintonist!

  • I agree with #3, played correctly, this is a good way for Obama to demonstrate a difference in character. I think he should make the point that we’ve had enough of peronal loyalties and circling the wagons for one’s friends. He is making a committment to the nation about a new way of doing business and that means that even an incredibly talented and capable person like Power must be held to a higher standard than what we have seen for the last 7 years.

    In the general election we will be facing a candidate surrounded by lobbiests, who do their work right on SM’s bus. Americans are smart and will judge us by the company we keep, so even while the mud is starting to fly in this primary…

    I think that sort of thing can make him look strong, without having to go to the scorched earth policy that HRC seems to be using. I have to admit, now that she keeps ‘fluffing’ SM, I am starting to understand the sentiment of folks talking about sitting out. It would be a tragedy, we really can’t afford four more years of angry and stupid, but having gone from respecting her to loathing her over the couple weeks myself, I at least understand the emotion.

  • Powers also said the people of Ohio are obsessed. I imagine the Obama campaign didn’t want to explain that one and so they had no real problem firing her.

  • Compare and contrast this earlier CB post:
    We’ve come to expect right-wing activists to push offensive, bogus smears about Barack Obama being a secret Muslim (he’s not), having attended a Muslim madrassa (he didn’t), and being some kind of Islamic Manchurian candidate (please). But no one expects Democratic Party activists supporting rival campaigns to stoop this low.

    Regrettably, that’s exactly what’s happened in Iowa.

    A day after the Hillary campaign hit the Obama camp for bullying voters in nasty phone calls, the Hillary crew has just acknowledged that an Iowa county chair volunteering for the campaign passed along the now-notorious email that smears Obama as a Muslim by repeating the false claim that he attended a madrassa as a child.

    The Hillary campaign confirms that they are asking the county chair to step down from the campaign.

    A Kos diarist in Iowa, who supports the Dodd campaign, wrote, “Over the past week or so, I have received two of the most hateful hit pieces on Obama parroting right wing talking points. One was forwarded to me from a Clinton county chair.”

    To their credit, Clinton aides acted quickly to address the situation. Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle said today, “There is no place in our campaign, or any campaign, for this kind of politics. A volunteer county coordinator made the mistake of forwarding an outrageous and offensive chain e-mail. This was wholly unauthorized and we were totally unaware of it. Let me be clear: No one should be engaging in this. We are asking this volunteer county coordinator to step down and are making it clear to every person involved in our campaign that this will not be tolerated.”

    That said, the timing couldn’t be worse.

    Just over the last week, Clinton has been waging a scorched-earth campaign against Obama, throwing everything possible at him, including questioning his character and integrity (and his kindergarten essays). At the same time, the Clinton campaign has been aggressive in insisting that the Obama campaign is engaged in a series of “dirty tricks” in Iowa.

    And now this chain email issues comes to the fore.

    Earlier this year, an Obama aide, on his own time, created the infamous “Big Brother/1984″ ad criticizing Clinton. The campaign denied involvement, and when Obama’s advisors learned that one of their own was responsible, they fired the aide quickly, arguing they didn’t know. Without any evidence to the contrary, Obama’s team deserved the benefit of the doubt.

    Likewise, I find it very hard to believe the Clinton campaign was involved in this email smear. Top aides insist they weren’t involved, and they, too, deserve the benefit of the doubt.

    It’s hardly reasonable to hold Clinton responsible for an email sent by one of her county chairs in Iowa, but the incident nevertheless raises the ugliness factor of the race several degrees — and further undermines Clinton’s claim to the high ground on campaign decency.

  • The Obama camp was correct about at least one thing: Clinton is not a ‘monster’, she’s an intensely ambitious politician who will stop at nothing to become president. Maybe she’s right; maybe civility has no place in this big bad world. We certainly haven’t seen much of it in the last few years. Maybe being nasty is the way to get ahead. I personally find it ugly and distasteful. I used to admire and respect Clinton, but the more I see of her campain’s Rovain tactics, the less I like her. She is becoming just another asshole

  • Hillary Diane is no more of a monster than the lying, election-stealing, war-mongering, spying, constitution-destroying torturing sliming, smearing, smirking Bush..

  • Power was an unpaid foreign affairs advisor. She messed up, and removing her from the public eye is smart. Obama can continue to solicit advice from her in an unofficial capacity, and you can be sure she will find a spot at the State Department. That’ll be a fun confirmation hearing though…

  • Regarding Dale’s point out @ 4:

    Obama advisor resigns over ‘monster’ remark
    McCain team stood firm in the face of disaster

    The news cycle doesn’t favor Obama right now.
    Best, as someone wrote on another thread, to lance this potential boil early. And as Danp @ 20 notes, it really does prove the point. Having one professional woman ruin the career of another, rather than accept an apology, is like having a sharp, long nail of an iceberg scratching a gouge in the cheek of Good Ship Hillary…

    By the way, monster was not the correct word. Chimaera, medusa, or harpy are closer but still not quite right. Maybe “Billary”?

    See for yourself:
    http://uglydemocrats.com/democrats/United-States/Hillary-Clinton/hillary-bill-clinton.jpg

    AAAAAAHHHHHHHH!

  • Why does everyone say that Obama fired Power? Her resignation seemed to be based on principle rather than the phony spend-more-time-with-family resignations of Republicans.

  • Rule #1, Reporters are not your friends, they may well be your enemy.

    Rule #2, See Rule #1.

  • Boy, I’m not sure I can take anymore of this whining. Powers screwed up, Obama is being held to a higher standard, and so she had to resign. Life’s not fair! I’m beginning to think that the best thing Obama can do right now is COMPLETELY IGNORE Hillary’s attacks. Just treat the primary like it’s already over (which it is). If you lose Pennsylvania, so what? Every stump speech should be about McCain and the Republicans. Every comment from Hillary should be dismissed with a, “oh, is she still in the campaign?” Return to the soaring rhetoric and packed arenas. The only way to win against the Devil is to transcend sin. They only way to beat the Hillary attack machine is to transcend negative campaigning.

  • #34 – yes, transcendence is nice, but scapegoating works too…Hillary’s whining shows that she truly did learn alot in her years at the white house.

  • PLEASE CLARIFY: Is this the same Samantha Power that interviews people on Democracy Now!

    http://www.DemocracyNow.org

    I thought “Samantha Power” did a regular show there every day. Did she suspend that to work for Obama (or are there two “Samantha Powers”?).

  • She made a big mistake, and did the best thing she could for her candidate, resign. Personal attacks are not going to help Obama at a time when he needs to prove himself to be “presidential”, and no amount of pointing fingers at Clinton is going to keep him from being under the microscope, he wanted to be the frontrunner, now he will feel the pressure associated with this status.

  • Re: 28 “She is becoming just another asshole”

    If I was being flippant, I would suggest that this line should be the theme of Obama’s next speech.

    More seriously, Obama might do well to give a firm, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger-speech accusing Clinton of damaging the Democratic Party with her reprehensible conduct. Something like the speech Michael Douglas does at the end of ‘The American President’, only better.

    Much more seriously, it is a great shame indeed that Samantha Power has resigned from the campaign and hopefully this will only be temporary.

    I have some significant disagreements with her but she is one of the most principled and humane foreign policy advisors of any presidential candidate. If her career is damaged by this, we all be the poorer for it.

    That Clinton could not care less rather undermines the original, already embarrassingly hypocritical criticism of Samantha Power.

  • Will Obama defend a loyal and valuable staffer? No.
    Can Obama stand up to McCain and the Republicans? No
    Is Obama strong enough to be President? No.

  • Disrespect the Queen and you lose you job. How long before we start hearing. “you’re either with me, or your with the terrorists?” She is everything my then 67-year old father said she was in 1992 while I kept defending her and giving her the benefit of doubt. Looks like there’ll be some crow waiting for me next time I head north to PA.

  • Braden @ 34

    Your viewpoint is flawed, Obama does not have the nomination, no matter how much of a delegate lead he has currently.. and Pennsylvania does matter, it is one of the biggest swing states in America, along with Ohio, Florida, and Michigan.

    If Obama does not win any of the contested battleground states, he will likely lose the nomination to Hillary, especially after the delegates from Florida and Michigan are seated, whether they are seated “as is” or if new primaries are held.

  • Will Obama defend a loyal and valuable staffer? Not if the staffer violates his principles.
    Can Obama stand up to McCain and the Republicans? Yes
    Is Obama strong enough to be President? Yes.

    Now go cheney yourself….

  • If one of HRC’s staff called Obama, or his wife, a monster, what would you Obamamaniacs expect to happen?

  • Greg monster:

    Your viewpoint is flawed, Obama does not have the nomination, no matter how much of a delegate lead he has currently.. and Pennsylvania does matter, it is one of the biggest swing states in America, along with Ohio, Florida, and Michigan.

    Ah true believer. Cultist. Grasshopper….
    He will win Wyoming tomorrow and Mississippi on Tuesday.
    Hillary is a fucked. She is a lame duck candidate. Get used to it. And then once you are over it, come back under a new nick so as not to embarrass yourself. K?

  • I think Ms. Powers should have been liquidated in a vat of molten MAG-MA, or lowered into a pool with ill-tempered sea bass with lasers strapped to their heads.

    Instead she was fired. Badly burned, actually.

  • I think what you’re finally seeing is a coordinated attack by the entrenched powers that be. McCain and Clinton are coordinating their attack against Obama and the media is happy to assist. The corporate media that is. Most bloggers, other than a few who will remain unamed, aren’t assisting.

    His campaign must be terrifying to them. He didn’t need them hardly at all. He built a ground game from scratch and has the ability to raise tons of money without really using the standard insiders. No way in hell they want to see their power slip away.

  • Will Obama defend a loyal and valuable staffer? No.
    Can Obama stand up to McCain and the Republicans? No
    Is Obama strong enough to be President? No.

    Wait. Are you saying that Senator Obama should dig in his heels and defend a loyal staffer no matter what? What she said was at the least wildly unwise. Should he have trashed his campaign to defend her, when even she felt it was indefensible? Isn’t that what got us Don Rumsfield and John Ashcroft and John Yoo and Alberto Gonzalez and….?

  • Well, no real loss. Given the circular-sfiring-squad nature of the party, we’ll clearly never have another Democratic president in my lifetime or Power’s. So it’s not as if she’s lost a chance to serve her country, because to do that she’d have to throw in her lot with the (It’s OK If You’re) Republicans.

  • Clinton’s tendency to call for people to be fired for saying things which displease her makes me fearful of how she will respond to criticism should she be elected president.

    This incident highlights just one more reason why I will be reluctant to vote for that monster should she win the nomination.

    (Disclaimer: I do not work for the Obama campaign, and therefore I can say what I think about Clinton, including calling her a monster. At present Samantha Power no longer works for Obama, so I imagine the same now applies to her when she makes the talk show rounds.)

  • “Will Obama defend a loyal and valuable staffer? No.
    Can Obama stand up to McCain and the Republicans? No
    Is Obama strong enough to be President? No.”

    Anyone else getting tired of the Clinton defence that they can be as ruthless as they like in the primary campaign because the Republicans will be worse?

    Is there anything too low, too beyond the pale?

    Did Hillary supporters think what Bush and Rove did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was just a toughening-up process everyone should get over?

    What a campaign slogan – “Your candidate can’t withstand our monumental bad faith.”

    How inspiring. That will get new voters out. That will change American politics.

  • Wait a minute. Clinton gets called a “monster” by an Obama staffer who is subsequently fired by Obama and Clinton is somehow the person in the wrong?

  • Mr. Higgins,

    The powers that be don’t want American politics to change, nor do Clinton’s supporters. That is becoming more and more apparent each day.

    It’s almost like Republicans and Democrats have divvied up the country and are just playing a game to stay in power and make money off of our backs.

  • January 27,1998:
    Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.

    Now I understand why Hillary was mum on the subject for her own blind ambition.

  • Not being an Obama supporter I think the punishment does not fit the crime in this case. She make a slip of the tongue to a reporter. However, given that she did the right thing because with 24 hour news this flap will be over by the end of the day and the candidates can get back to their message.

    Both Sen Obama and Sen Clinton have run pretty soft campaigns against each other. I see where they have both said some pretty stupid things on the campaign trail but nothing to bring out the venom of some Obama supporters. If I had to guess when all is said and done whoever is the nominee will have total support from most true/blue democrats.

  • “Wait a minute. Clinton gets called a “monster” by an Obama staffer who is subsequently fired by Obama and Clinton is somehow the person in the wrong?”

    1. Staffers of both campaigns have been making angry comments off the record – as noted journalist David Corn writes from expereince. Power was unfortunate that her intemperate remarks (made in Britain) were recorded (in a Scottish newspaper – do you think she was trying to influence Scottish voters?).

    Few of these staffers however, have spent years writing about atrocities in the Balkans and Africa, and have something significant to offer American foreign policy. I think Rwanda matters more than an abusive comment never intended to be made public, made to a journalist in Scotland.

    2. Clinton has accepted apologies from people who have said worse things in the past – including McCain for his horrible comment about Chelsea Clinton. Clinton accepted that apology – but rejected it from Samantha Power because of the advantage it offered in embarrassing Obama.

  • “nothing to bring out the venom of some Obama supporters”

    depends on if you’re black or not, I guess. I am, and many of my more activist brothers and sisters are done with her.

    It also depends on if you like GOP style campaigns or if you’re a loyal Democrat.
    if you are not a loyal Democrat, then you will not mind her propping up the GOP candidate, while smearing the Democratic front runner.

  • “The powers that be don’t want American politics to change…”

    Yep.

    “…nor do Clinton’s supporters. That is becoming more and more apparent each day.”

    I doubt it actually. Most Clinton voters have voted for the candidate, and in a way the Democratic Party establishment, because they still think she and they will are in the best position to promote their interests. She has picked up a lot of working-class votes for that reason, though Obama was making big gains up until the last two weeks.

    And it still bears saying that a Clinton win in November is significantly better than a McCain win.

    But that doesn’t make her conduct recently much less disgraceful, and it is disappointing to see people rush to defend it.

  • I doubt it actually. Most Clinton voters have voted for the candidate, and in a way the Democratic Party establishment, because they still think she and they will are in the best position to promote their interests. She has picked up a lot of working-class votes for that reason, though Obama was making big gains up until the last two weeks.

    And it still bears saying that a Clinton win in November is significantly better than a McCain win.

    But that doesn’t make her conduct recently much less disgraceful, and it is disappointing to see people rush to defend it.

    well that’s certainly possible. I suppose that some people think that the establishment Democrats actually will help them. I see very little evidence of that. It seems that they like to tinker around the edges but not do anything that dramatically improves the life of Americans. Seems to be the same for the GOP and their supporters They just tinker around the edges of their platforms and never do anything dramatic for their supporters when they have the opportunity.

  • Alex Higgins, so you think the “his/her heart is in the right place” defense is OK? Doesn’t that defense excuse everything bad Bush has done because (according to his supporters) his heart is in the right place?

    Power’s statement fed right into the right-wing stereotype of Hillary as a cruel monster who will do anything to gain power. To accept the apology would make the comment acceptable to be made. McCain’s comment about Chelsea was awful, but did nothing other than show McCain is a cad.

    As far as I can tell, Obama never fired Power. Obama released a statement to Drudge last night decrying the comment, but that was it. Once the controversy got too hot, Power fell on her sword. It’s not clear if Obama ever felt the comment was worth firing Power.

  • Just a note, and I don’t know if it adds anything or not, but I’m in the middle of Power’s book, A Problem from Hell, America in the Age of Genocide. I commented to my husband just a couple of days ago that Power is harder on Bill Clinton than on any other administration in the book, which encompasses events starting with the Armenian Genocide in 1918 all the way through to the Balkans in the 1990s. She’s harder on Clinton for not stepping in to the Balkans sooner than she is on Reagan for not stepping into Iraq to save the Kurds – in fact, she rarely mentions Reagan. But Clinton and Allbright get smacked around regularly, even though, under Clinton’s watch, the U.S. did finally act! Note that Reagan never did, and Bush I only went in to save oil supplies.

    I’m just sayin’. There’s a history there.

  • Thanks for that Cmac.
    Very enlightening. Just when I thought I couldn’t dislike the Clintons’s any more than I do…
    Sheeesh.

  • Every stump speech should be about McCain and the Republicans. Every comment from Hillary should be dismissed with a, “oh, is she still in the campaign?”

    Better yet, every comment from Clinton should be dismissed with a “Senator Clinton is an outstanding Senator for the people of New York. She will be an oustanding ally in Congress when we present legislation to roll back the abuses of the Bush administration. As President I will be honored to work with Senator Clinton on issues that are important to every day Americans.”

    .

  • Power’s statement The Clinton campaign has fed right into the right-wing stereotype demonstrable observation of Hillary as a cruel monster who will do anything to gain power.

    Fixed that typo for you Dennis_D.

    Denigrating Obama and praising McCain in the same sentence is more than enough to prove Powers right.

  • I read her book about genocide. She seems to think that the US should intervene militarily in almost every instance. For that she won a Pulitzer and teaches at Harvard. I love it when academics are so willing to send in the troops. Hopefully, she will stay out the Obama inner
    circle until he reads her book.

  • Personally, I would like to know how a candidate who bases his speeches upon illogical conclusions, fallacies and irrelevant conclusions and misconceptions can be trusted to lead our country. But to is it ok to allow the press not to report what is happening (for instance, that Obama has been speaking against Hillary Clinton) during this campaign.

  • Just when I thought I couldn’t dislike the Clintons’s any more than I do…

    ROTF, my comment doesn’t reflect on either the Clintons or Obama; it’s a reflection on Power’s prior relationship with the Clintons. She doesn’t seem to like them much. This may be because she was on the ground in the Balkans, so that’s the genocide that she has the most personal connection to. If I’d written the book, I’d have been dragging the loathsome Reagan admin (precursor to the present trainwreck) through the dirt.

    She seems to think that the US should intervene militarily in almost every instance.

    And I tend to agree with her, Hornblower. The difficulty is in finding a way to intervene without making the situation worse. But I do not believe governments should be allowed to slaughter their citizens.

  • Dennis D,

    no, I’m not supporting the heart-is-in-the-right-place defence, although this is not in the category of Bush’s crimes and bloopers.

    Power apologised for her comments, which were never intended to feed into the American news cycle at all, and whose publication she tried to prevent. That apology should have been enough.

    That Power thought she would have to resign to get it out of the headlines as quickly as possible speaks badly of the press. But then we knew what they were like already.

    The Clinton team is in no position whatever to complain about unpleasant remarks made to reporters about other candidates. Their acts of fake outrage about things they would happily do themselves should be an embarrassment to liberals who have critiqued that kind of one-sided outrage on the Right.

  • “I read her book about genocide. She seems to think that the US should intervene militarily in almost every instance.”

    I agree her book is problematic. For instance, while analysing a series of 20th century genocides, there are a few she leaves out.

    You can argue about what exactly counts as a genocide according to the UN Convention, as opposed to other kinds of mass murder. But I don’t see any reason for leaving out Biafra, Bangladesh, Guatemala and East Timor.

    What is significant about these four cases is that, in each case, the US government was supporting the perpetrators of genocide, sometimes with extensive commitments of weapons and military training to mass murderers, sometimes with diplomatic cover for their crimes.

    It’s a pretty serious ommission for someone looking at US policy and genocide.

    That said, what she does write in the book is often pretty good and unflattering to US foreign policy and the pretensions it is cloaked in.

    She wrote about the only ever thougtful review of something by Chomsky for the New York Times, and her views about Iraq and US policy during the Reagan and Clinton years, as expressed in a recent Salon interview, also reflected some real understanding of how US foreign policy can be harmful.

    She isn’t very explicit in her book about the kind of intervention she is suggesting and I think she should have been clearer. But she is not a thoughtless advocate of sending the troops to war, and she opposed the invasion of Iraq.

    Overall, I thought her presence on a major presidential campaign, and the fact that Obama contacted her because he was interested in what she had to say, was quite encouraging.

  • Being opposed to the Iraq War is not the same as sending troops to Africa, Bosnia et al.
    It is not difficult to point out mistakes in US foreign policy in the past. Advise for the future is
    what should concern us now.

  • Comments are closed.