this is ridiculous. I posted an entry about this topic on my blog:
http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com/swimming_freestyle/2008/03/suck-it-up-hill.html
An excerpt:
Jeez, Senator Clinton, this is starting to look like pro wrestling here. Lots of drama, hammy acting and over exaggerated responses to what all observing can plainly see are pulled punches and minor blows.

Suck it up Senator. Is this what you think is "tough enough" to be President of the United States? What are you going to do if you're elected, call for the firing of anyone who calls you a bad name?

Good move. Obama needs to stay out of the muck.

I hope he makes a tv spot using Hil's laudatory McCain remarks. He should use all death, injury and money stats from the Iraq War and hang it around her neck right under the image of Hil sitting with all those generals.

Voice over: Do you want more Bush-McCain-Clinton wars? Or do you want a new direction?

Another casualty of old politics. Congratulations Senator Clinton.

If senator Hillary Clinton fired everyone on her campaign staff who insulted Obama (never mind the insults to his followers or the states he won) she'd be driving herself to/from rallies in an empty bus. No Bill, either.

Compare and contrast.

The main difference between HRC's campaign and the Bush/Rove campaigns is just a matter of degree.

Samantha Power would have been a good addition to anyone's team. Too bad.

I used to like the Clintons. Supported Bill both times, 1992 and 1996. I was an early supporter, gave money pre-New Hampshire. But, the fact is, he wrecked the Democratic party, had tremendous potential to deliver some significant change, but, ultimately in my mind, under performed. And, if he'd have avoided the whole impeachment mess by avoid the Lewinsky mess, Al Gore would have won in 2000. (And, by that, I mean a theft proof majority). But, as of now, I've had it with them. If Hilary is so damned tough, why is ok for her to say that Obama is not ready to be Commander and Chief, something she knows is not true, but somebody's off the cuff remark can't be forgiven. Vetting Barack over Rezko is fine, even though there is not much there, but asking Hilary to release her tax return and Bill to account for all the big money donations to his Foundation and Library is acting like Ken Starr. I might vote for Hilary, but that is just becasue McCain is so bad. However, in the long run, it is time for a break from this circus.

And a woman in Canada had to resign for saying Bush is a moron.

Candor is costly.

And a woman in Canada had to resign for saying Bush is a moron. Candor is costly. Posted by: chance

It is, isn't? Slander, on the other hand, seems to be okay. Most anything discussed on FOX or MSNBC vis-a-vis either of the Democratic candidates comes to mind.

I so sick of Hillary and her slime ball machine even her backers are a turn off. No wonder this country is so screwed up. She is just like Bush, Rove and the rest of them. I'd rather role the dice with Obama then a political hack like Clinton who voted for the Iraq war because of political pressure. What would she do before a re-election to Iran under similar political pressure?

Besides being baseless, that was really screwed up because it's anti-Democrat, really- it hurts the party.

On Kevin's post from last night about Clinton and Obama staffers committing gaffes, I commented that perhaps part of the reason previous general election campaigns haven't taken advantage of gaffes made in the primary campaigns too much is because there has never been such a conspicuous and odd amount of gaffes before- it's as if Rice was doing John McCain and the Republicans a favor. This is more of the same.

So far I see Obama way out in front on the personal integrity issues. Didn't one of Clinton's advisors call Barack Obama "another Ken Starr". Now that is a LOW BLOW.

The comment was inexcusable and the resignation is both timely and welcome. We've got to remain civil in this primary and in the general election.

However, Clinton has completely forfeited my respect with her kitchen sink strategy. She cares less about helping people and improving America than wielding power, it is now clear. The viciousness of her campaign will end up polarizing the party and the nation and disillusioning potential supporters and voters.

If civility and decency are the standard, Clinton falls woefully short.

Besides being baseless, that was really screwed up because it's anti-Democrat, really- it hurts the party.

I was talking about Power's remark, no Kevin K's comment at 12:40, by the way.

Hillary seems more and more like Hubert Humphrey -- not the fine DFL senator from Minnesota, mind you, but the 1968 presidential candidate who was perceived as a rep of the "old politics" after McCarthy was beaten in the primary campaign and RFK assassinated. Many progressive people, feeling disgusted and alienated, stayed away from the polls on election day...and 40 years later, it could happen again.

But Humphrey was a victim of circumstance; Hillary is bringing this upon herself.

She had no choice. A staffer can't become the story. Ever. She had to resign. I am glad Obama moved fast.

Anyway, her resume looks pretty good. She didn't say anything that disqualifies her from being part of a foreign policy team. I suspect Obama will find a spot for her this fall. Clinton would be wise to do the same if she wins.

In the meantime she should brush up on talking to the press.

Has Howard Wolfson resigned for comparing Obama to that monster Ken Starr?

Someone resigning over calling someone else a "monster" is extraordinarily stupid, but it's to be expected given that very few people concentrate on the candidates' actual policies rather than waiting for them to say something stupid. The DNC has even encouraged people to videotape GOP candidates to catch them in Macaca moments, rather than encouraging people to challenge them on policy. And, I'm sure Kevin Drum has linked approvingly to MMFA/ThinkProgress/etc. GOTCHA! moments many times in the past. I don't expect that to change since, for instance, a critical look at Obama is something that hacks are going to want to avoid.

I blame Gerri Peev (whoever that is) at The Scotsman (whatever that is). What's so hard to understand about "this is off the record"?

Seems like it was eons ago when this primary was about policy and substance. But apparently that wasn't a winning strategy for the Clinton campaign, so we're back to square one, right where our stupid press likes it. Who's up? Who's down? That's all this is about now. This fucking sucks.

What's so hard to understand about "this is off the record"?

exactly. good luck getting more high-profile interviews, Gerri!

The entire interview was unwise, and it certainly highlights Power's lack of campaign savvy, but let's get a little perspective. Of all the impolitic things to say about your opponent in a contest that's as heated as this one, "monster" clocks in at a 3 on the Likert scale of offensiveness. Maybe a 4.

Of course, it's off the chart on the silliness scale.

The comment crossed the line and she had to resign. She might have been a great advisor, but there have to be some boundaries in this campaign.

Time for everybody in the Obama campaign to take a breath and then move forward.

Off topic, but great minds do think alike.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/06/election-2008-crossing-the-archie-bunker-divide/

Election 2008: Crossing The Archie Bunker Divide?
By: Christy Hardin Smith Thursday March 6, 2008 12:00 pm

Bloomberg has an intriguing theory regarding the split in votes between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the OH and TX primaries -- let's call it "the Archie Bunker divide."

The white, blue-collar voters personified by the 1970s fictional television character cost Obama yesterday. His Democratic presidential rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, beat him 54 percent to 44 percent in industrial Ohio, and 58 percent to 40 percent in heavily Catholic Rhode Island.

In Ohio's 10th district of Cuyahoga County, a suburban enclave on Cleveland's west side that includes a large population of Polish-Americans, Clinton trounced Obama 61 percent to 37 percent, according to exit polls. In the state's Belmont County, an economically depressed Appalachian border area that is predominantly white, she had a 50-point lead over Obama, the first black candidate to have a shot at the White House.

"Race played a significant factor in Ohio,'' said Cuyahoga County Commissioner Timothy Hagan, who supported Obama. "These people are not necessarily bigots, but the image they see every day of black America is drugs, crime, guns and violence.''....

What's so hard to understand about "this is off the record"? - Lucy

Lucy, things are never "off the record". If you are talking to the press, to your friends, or even to your enemies, you are always putting something on the record.

Remember, things can always come back to haunt a person. I'm just waiting for someone to remind me that when I was around 7 years old I chased some kids around the neighborhood with a piece of dog poop on the end of a stick. Good thing I'm not into running for office.

Now, if only Clinton would fire herself...

It should be noted that Powers is merely giving voice to a feeling that's already out there. She didn't exactly set anything in motion here. Most of us already felt this way.

Amazing, though, that Democrats are never allowed to go 'off the record' while Republicans are always assumed to be.

Oh, and all of you wanting to know what the Clintons have done post Presidency must really be Ken Starr posting under multiple screen names.

I'll take a dozen stupid remarks over one stupid war vote that still hasn't been refuted, repudiated, rejected, or apologized for.

National security experience, my ass. Experience counts for nothing if you don't learn from it.

Experience counts for nothing if you don't learn from it.

oh she's learned from it. she's learned people don't really pay attention to details.

The comment crossed the line and she had to resign.

I agree, not so much because she said something mean, but because she sounded so childish. I just think it's really sad that this is where we are. Clinton wants us to believe that she was held to some standard that Obama wasn't. It looks like they were both being treated with kid gloves, because neither camp was giving the press the ammunition to turn this campaign into a sound-bite war.

If I was to trace it back, I'd say it was the picture that Drudge put up that set the wheels turning. Whoever sent that to Drudge owes the entire party an apology. One thing is for sure, the Clinton campaign seems to be enjoying the mud more than one would like.

This is not a big deal, she can be hired back later after the false outrage is over.

I'm voting for Hillary next month (I live in Pennsylvania), but it is beyond idiotic to argue that it's "inexcusable" or even wrong to call someone a "monster."

Freedom of speech is supposed to mean something. It doesn't if people don't have the right to say anything offensive, controversial, or eyebrow-raising.

Should the King of Spain "resign" for saying "Por que no te callas?" ("Why don't you shut up?") to Hugo Chavez?

This country is so politically correct and phony in some ways that it's insane. If Powers regretted making the remark, she could have apologized, but she definitely should not have resigned.

Sorry, her last name is "Power" not "Powers." My mistake.

"I blame Gerri Peev (whoever that is) at The Scotsman (whatever that is). What's so hard to understand about "this is off the record"?"

Because you say (and get agreement that) it's off the record before you say something, not afterwards.

Thats such a basic rule of media interviews that it's ridiculous to think this aide (whoever she is) wasn't aware of it.

As for "whatever that is" about the The Scotsman, it's a highly regarded edinburgh-based paper thats been going strong for nearly 2 centuries.

Agreed, dr2chase.

When Senator Clinton gave her speech before she voted to authorize the Iraq War, she cited her "experience" in the White House as part of the reason she was voting to give Congressional approval before it was certain that war was necessary.

Now, what McCain is saying regarding that vote is .. "That's history."

Well yeah, but I thought the point of studying history is learning from history. My problem with Senator Clinton's vote is not so much what she did, but what she's learned from what she did.

The wheels are starting to come off on the Obama train.....

Power seemed to be channeling Chris Matthews... "I'll see your 'witch' and I'll raise you a 'monster'!"

Is it so much to ask that supposedly "bright" women refrain from characterizing strong women in this way? It's bad enough when right-wing professional misogynists like Charlotte A. do it. Now we have this from a progressive Democrat?

As for Obama remaining "above the muck" until now, go back and look at the debates. He ripped into Hillary repeatedly, and occasionally quite personally, often with right-wing talking points (she's divisive, she's not electable, she has her head in the sand about Social Security "crisis" [you know -- the one that doesn't exist except in the minds of people looking for an excuse to either partially privatize it or tax people so heavily for it that the program becomes less popular]).

Or look at the Harry and Louise mailing, a direct rip-off of the Repuglican attack machine ad of the 90s.

He's even gone so far as to imply, ever so subtly, that she's too old (paging Rush Limbaugh...), that it's time for a "new generation" of leaders.

So please, spare us the "above the fray" nonsense.

From the looks of the comments mentioned here, it looks increasingly like that regardless who wins the Democratic nomination, he or she will lose to McCain in the general election because of the loser's supporters either sitting home in significant numbers or voting for McCain.

It's sad that such a campaign that was exciting and enervating, is now showing signs that it has gone on for too long, and now suddenly there is lot of blood in the water. The proportional system developed by the Democrats so many years ago, has risen and bitten them very hard.

Pox on both candidates and especially the mainstream news media.

Say good bye to the current make-up (status quo at best) of the Supreme Court and say hello for a hard right solid majority when Stevens and Ginsburg undoubtly will have to step down because of age and health issues.

Time to put on the Impeach McCain bumper sticker?

just askin"

Obama: 2 tips for winning

1. Get rid of Goolsbee, your University of Chicago Economics prof adviser--he of the notorious right wing free trade, anti Social security , pro Nafta, Milton Friedman school of so-called thought and Go Populist!!!!

--sure-fire thing to attract the white working class votes and also a smart idea.

2. Get out of Iraq now by noting that the 3 trillion war has ruined the economy and caused the housing mortgage crisis. End Military Keynesism and start regular Keynesism-deficit borrowing to get the housing market back and an infrastructure program ala FDR's WPA.

Obama's getting bitch-slapped right now by the Clinton campaign and Obama looks weak. This is kids stuff compared to what Obama will face in a general election and he doesn't seem to understand this fact. Notwithstanding his lead in delegates, Obama needs to step up or he's history because weakness is the worst quality anyone can have especially if they're running for President of the United States.

Clinton is not a 'monster', as far as I know, but she sounds like a hypocrite:

Almost since the day Mr. Lazio entered the Senate race in May, the Lazio campaign has pledged to make the information public. And with each passing week, his assistants say they need more time, explaining that they want to ensure that the returns are thoroughly researched so that when they are released, the campaign will not be blind-sided by anything in them. By the end of summer, the assistants promise. By Labor Day? The autumnal equinox on Sept. 22? They won’t say.

The Democrats have been sowing conspiracy theories of the what-is-Lazio-hiding variety, not to mention dispatching Uncle Sam to keep the issue in reporters’ faces. On Wednesday, Howard Wolfson, the chief spokesman for Mr. Lazio’s opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, even showed up at a Lazio event in Harlem to fan the flames.

I don't care as much about Clinton's tax returns - she wouldn't hide anything, as far as I know - but Clinton's actions between then and now look like a case of 'do as I say, and not as I do' by any reasonable standard.

I've posted a version of this same comment elsewhere, in case someone notices.

enozinho: "Another casualty of old politics. Congratulations Senator Clinton."

And what exactly did Sen. Clinton do?

Samantha Power did this all by herself, with her own big mouth. At least she was adult enough to take responsibility for her actions and resign today. Bur Sen. Obama should have fired her sorry ass ysterday.

Don't blame Hillary. Obama had to do this. His brand image is built on being above personal politics, of "change" in the tone of politics, and of bringing people together. It is a very good brand and he should defend it vigorously. If he loses this, then he is just a junior senator from Illinois with a nice suit.

And what exactly did Sen. Clinton do?

She changed the tone of the campaign from mostly positive, to almost entirely negative. Maybe that's her best chance for winning the nomination, but it ain't pretty.

*sigh* I miss John Edwards....

Samantha Power's writing in favor of intervention to stop ongoing genocides? Good. Rwanda and Burundi coulda used some intervention. Darfur too. Bosnia, probably.

Samantha Power's writing being used by neo-cons to justify invading Arab/Muslim countries that aren't in the middle of an ongoing genocide? Bad.

Hillary's campaign, BTW, has most of the neo-cons, I mean "liberal hawks". I only hope that if she gets elected, she was only sucking up the right people in the "serious foreign policy community" (and the press) and isn't really, actually an anti-Arab hawk.

"The wheels are starting to come off on the Obama train....." - Noel

Obama already won the nomination, though.

only hope that if she gets elected, she was only sucking up the right people in the "serious foreign policy community" (and the press) and isn't really, actually an anti-Arab hawk.

I'm sure there are plenty of Clinton supporters that would love to warn you of the dangers of hope.

I was wondering what Obama would be like if the going gets rough. Now we can see, he is offended because the press showed a little critic and all the whining because some stuffer had to resign because of some very ugly personal remark about Hillary. One thing I know, Hillary can stand the heat. It confirms my opinion, so far Obama had it easy, now he will be tested.

Boooring, Obama hasn't won anything yet especially the democratic nomination. Both candidates will need superdelegates to win the nomination. Obama's "math" shtick is getting old and like I said earlier he looks weak. The pressure is now on Obama and he needs show strength instead of whining about tactics by the Clinton campaign. Like I said, if Obama is branded as weak he's done...

"math" shtik (sp)" - Noel

To quote what is running around the web: "Math. It's relentless."

You're worried about weakness, but do not see it as easily weak when Hillary cries, or whines about media bias? Republicans will pick up whatever pieces are thrown, so your advice works just as well for the other candidate. In fact, women can be more easily regarded as weak in this world, and a few of her actions (the crying) can easily reinforce this.

Thats such a basic rule of media interviews that it's ridiculous to think this aide (whoever she is) wasn't aware of it.

Oh, please. Samantha Power is a highly regarded, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and intellectual, and whatshisname could have shown her some courtesy. Did the world really have to know that Samantha Power thinks Hillary is a monster? What a loss to the Obama campaign, but I'm guessing she'll be back on board eventually.

For the last two weeks Team Obama has made a serious of small but significant blunders, demonstrating their inexperience when they venture out into the political waters. They're the kind of mistakes a contained politician like Hillary can't make hey of, but if this were the general election, the noise machine would have a field day.

But this "monster" stuff is so lame and insignificant, it's almost laughable. Obama needed to man up, stand behind his staff and put loyalty and experience before appearances.

Boorring, the media was biased against Hillary and she called them on it and won that battle. Further, Hillary's win this week established her as a survivor and someone who'll fight back even when she's down. I don't know about you, but that shows strength and a willingness to fight, not weakness.

For goodness sakes. We're all adults here. This trend towards silencing direct, outspoken, big-people's language is nothing more than a way to silence the catalyst for discussions of more depth than what MSM offers us. Frankly I found it refreshing. And if any candidate can't take it then...let 'em quit. They'll face a lot worse when they're president.

Caveat: It helps that I agree with her comments.

Boorring,
I stayed home yesterday because of an expensive and painful trip to the dentist, and ended up listening to CNN all day - something that I have never done before in my life.
Any way my take on what Wolfie and his boyz were relentlessly pressing was that they were seeing Obama as "weakened" (their words) and that he needed to get out and start throwing some punches. Problem with that, as they also pointed out, was that goes against his philosophy of changing the current discourse of politics. So, the "gurus" came to the conclusion that he had kind of painted himself into his own box. And then they said that he would have to come up with a solution, cause none of them could think of what he should do.

Course these gurus were also relentlessly and breathlessly stating that the dem party was ripping itself asunder, cause we have this primary that is going on and on and on.

I had so many laughs yesterday - I should get a crown more often. The $900 was cheap!

March 7, 2008
POWER-LESS....The Obama campaign takes a casualty:

Samantha Power, a senior foreign policy adviser to Sen. Barack Obama, resigned Friday morning after calling Sen. Hillary Clinton a "monster" in an interview with a European newspaper.

"With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an adviser the Obama campaign effective today," said Power in a statement issued by the Obama campaign. "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."

Dan Drezner blames it on Noam Scheiber.

—Kevin Drum 12:21 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

Comments
this is ridiculous. I posted an entry about this topic on my blog:
http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com/swimming_freestyle/2008/03/suck-it-up-hill.html
An excerpt:
Jeez, Senator Clinton, this is starting to look like pro wrestling here. Lots of drama, hammy acting and over exaggerated responses to what all observing can plainly see are pulled punches and minor blows.

Suck it up Senator. Is this what you think is "tough enough" to be President of the United States? What are you going to do if you're elected, call for the firing of anyone who calls you a bad name?

Posted by: jmcdonough120 on March 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK
Good move. Obama needs to stay out of the muck.

I hope he makes a tv spot using Hil's laudatory McCain remarks. He should use all death, injury and money stats from the Iraq War and hang it around her neck right under the image of Hil sitting with all those generals.

Voice over: Do you want more Bush-McCain-Clinton wars? Or do you want a new direction?

Posted by: lina on March 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK
Another casualty of old politics. Congratulations Senator Clinton.

Posted by: enozinho on March 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK
If senator Hillary Clinton fired everyone on her campaign staff who insulted Obama (never mind the insults to his followers or the states he won) she'd be driving herself to/from rallies in an empty bus. No Bill, either.

Compare and contrast.

The main difference between HRC's campaign and the Bush/Rove campaigns is just a matter of degree.

Posted by: Augustus on March 7, 2008 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK
Samantha Power would have been a good addition to anyone's team. Too bad.

Posted by: nemo on March 7, 2008 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK
I used to like the Clintons. Supported Bill both times, 1992 and 1996. I was an early supporter, gave money pre-New Hampshire. But, the fact is, he wrecked the Democratic party, had tremendous potential to deliver some significant change, but, ultimately in my mind, under performed. And, if he'd have avoided the whole impeachment mess by avoid the Lewinsky mess, Al Gore would have won in 2000. (And, by that, I mean a theft proof majority). But, as of now, I've had it with them. If Hilary is so damned tough, why is ok for her to say that Obama is not ready to be Commander and Chief, something she knows is not true, but somebody's off the cuff remark can't be forgiven. Vetting Barack over Rezko is fine, even though there is not much there, but asking Hilary to release her tax return and Bill to account for all the big money donations to his Foundation and Library is acting like Ken Starr. I might vote for Hilary, but that is just becasue McCain is so bad. However, in the long run, it is time for a break from this circus.

Posted by: RP on March 7, 2008 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK
And a woman in Canada had to resign for saying Bush is a moron.

Candor is costly.

Posted by: chance on March 7, 2008 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK
And a woman in Canada had to resign for saying Bush is a moron. Candor is costly. Posted by: chance

It is, isn't? Slander, on the other hand, seems to be okay. Most anything discussed on FOX or MSNBC vis-a-vis either of the Democratic candidates comes to mind.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK
I so sick of Hillary and her slime ball machine even her backers are a turn off. No wonder this country is so screwed up. She is just like Bush, Rove and the rest of them. I'd rather role the dice with Obama then a political hack like Clinton who voted for the Iraq war because of political pressure. What would she do before a re-election to Iran under similar political pressure?

Posted by: kevin K on March 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK
Besides being baseless, that was really screwed up because it's anti-Democrat, really- it hurts the party.

On Kevin's post from last night about Clinton and Obama staffers committing gaffes, I commented that perhaps part of the reason previous general election campaigns haven't taken advantage of gaffes made in the primary campaigns too much is because there has never been such a conspicuous and odd amount of gaffes before- it's as if Rice was doing John McCain and the Republicans a favor. This is more of the same.

Posted by: Swan on March 7, 2008 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK
So far I see Obama way out in front on the personal integrity issues. Didn't one of Clinton's advisors call Barack Obama "another Ken Starr". Now that is a LOW BLOW.

Posted by: lamonte on March 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK
The comment was inexcusable and the resignation is both timely and welcome. We've got to remain civil in this primary and in the general election.

However, Clinton has completely forfeited my respect with her kitchen sink strategy. She cares less about helping people and improving America than wielding power, it is now clear. The viciousness of her campaign will end up polarizing the party and the nation and disillusioning potential supporters and voters.

If civility and decency are the standard, Clinton falls woefully short.

Posted by: Dave on March 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK
Besides being baseless, that was really screwed up because it's anti-Democrat, really- it hurts the party.

I was talking about Power's remark, no Kevin K's comment at 12:40, by the way.

Posted by: Swan on March 7, 2008 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK
Hillary seems more and more like Hubert Humphrey -- not the fine DFL senator from Minnesota, mind you, but the 1968 presidential candidate who was perceived as a rep of the "old politics" after McCarthy was beaten in the primary campaign and RFK assassinated. Many progressive people, feeling disgusted and alienated, stayed away from the polls on election day...and 40 years later, it could happen again.

But Humphrey was a victim of circumstance; Hillary is bringing this upon herself.

Posted by: Vincent on March 7, 2008 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK
She had no choice. A staffer can't become the story. Ever. She had to resign. I am glad Obama moved fast.

Anyway, her resume looks pretty good. She didn't say anything that disqualifies her from being part of a foreign policy team. I suspect Obama will find a spot for her this fall. Clinton would be wise to do the same if she wins.

In the meantime she should brush up on talking to the press.

Has Howard Wolfson resigned for comparing Obama to that monster Ken Starr?

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 7, 2008 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK
Someone resigning over calling someone else a "monster" is extraordinarily stupid, but it's to be expected given that very few people concentrate on the candidates' actual policies rather than waiting for them to say something stupid. The DNC has even encouraged people to videotape GOP candidates to catch them in Macaca moments, rather than encouraging people to challenge them on policy. And, I'm sure Kevin Drum has linked approvingly to MMFA/ThinkProgress/etc. GOTCHA! moments many times in the past. I don't expect that to change since, for instance, a critical look at Obama is something that hacks are going to want to avoid.

Posted by: The annoying LonewackoDotCom on March 7, 2008 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK
I blame Gerri Peev (whoever that is) at The Scotsman (whatever that is). What's so hard to understand about "this is off the record"?

Posted by: Lucy on March 7, 2008 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK
Seems like it was eons ago when this primary was about policy and substance. But apparently that wasn't a winning strategy for the Clinton campaign, so we're back to square one, right where our stupid press likes it. Who's up? Who's down? That's all this is about now. This fucking sucks.

Posted by: enozinho on March 7, 2008 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK
What's so hard to understand about "this is off the record"?

exactly. good luck getting more high-profile interviews, Gerri!

Posted by: cleek on March 7, 2008 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK
The entire interview was unwise, and it certainly highlights Power's lack of campaign savvy, but let's get a little perspective. Of all the impolitic things to say about your opponent in a contest that's as heated as this one, "monster" clocks in at a 3 on the Likert scale of offensiveness. Maybe a 4.

Of course, it's off the chart on the silliness scale.

Posted by: junebug on March 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK
The comment crossed the line and she had to resign. She might have been a great advisor, but there have to be some boundaries in this campaign.

Time for everybody in the Obama campaign to take a breath and then move forward.

Posted by: PE on March 7, 2008 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK
Off topic, but great minds do think alike.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/06/election-2008-crossing-the-archie-bunker-divide/

Election 2008: Crossing The Archie Bunker Divide?
By: Christy Hardin Smith Thursday March 6, 2008 12:00 pm

Bloomberg has an intriguing theory regarding the split in votes between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the OH and TX primaries -- let's call it "the Archie Bunker divide."

The white, blue-collar voters personified by the 1970s fictional television character cost Obama yesterday. His Democratic presidential rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, beat him 54 percent to 44 percent in industrial Ohio, and 58 percent to 40 percent in heavily Catholic Rhode Island.

In Ohio's 10th district of Cuyahoga County, a suburban enclave on Cleveland's west side that includes a large population of Polish-Americans, Clinton trounced Obama 61 percent to 37 percent, according to exit polls. In the state's Belmont County, an economically depressed Appalachian border area that is predominantly white, she had a 50-point lead over Obama, the first black candidate to have a shot at the White House.

"Race played a significant factor in Ohio,'' said Cuyahoga County Commissioner Timothy Hagan, who supported Obama. "These people are not necessarily bigots, but the image they see every day of black America is drugs, crime, guns and violence.''....

Posted by: on March 7, 2008 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK
What's so hard to understand about "this is off the record"? - Lucy

Lucy, things are never "off the record". If you are talking to the press, to your friends, or even to your enemies, you are always putting something on the record.

Remember, things can always come back to haunt a person. I'm just waiting for someone to remind me that when I was around 7 years old I chased some kids around the neighborhood with a piece of dog poop on the end of a stick. Good thing I'm not into running for office.

Posted by: optical weenie on March 7, 2008 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK
Now, if only Clinton would fire herself...

It should be noted that Powers is merely giving voice to a feeling that's already out there. She didn't exactly set anything in motion here. Most of us already felt this way.

Amazing, though, that Democrats are never allowed to go 'off the record' while Republicans are always assumed to be.

Posted by: soullite on March 7, 2008 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK
Oh, and all of you wanting to know what the Clintons have done post Presidency must really be Ken Starr posting under multiple screen names.

Posted by: PE on March 7, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK
I'll take a dozen stupid remarks over one stupid war vote that still hasn't been refuted, repudiated, rejected, or apologized for.

National security experience, my ass. Experience counts for nothing if you don't learn from it.

Posted by: dr2chase on March 7, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK
Experience counts for nothing if you don't learn from it.

oh she's learned from it. she's learned people don't really pay attention to details.

Posted by: cleek on March 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK
The comment crossed the line and she had to resign.

I agree, not so much because she said something mean, but because she sounded so childish. I just think it's really sad that this is where we are. Clinton wants us to believe that she was held to some standard that Obama wasn't. It looks like they were both being treated with kid gloves, because neither camp was giving the press the ammunition to turn this campaign into a sound-bite war.

If I was to trace it back, I'd say it was the picture that Drudge put up that set the wheels turning. Whoever sent that to Drudge owes the entire party an apology. One thing is for sure, the Clinton campaign seems to be enjoying the mud more than one would like.

Posted by: enozinho on March 7, 2008 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK
This is not a big deal, she can be hired back later after the false outrage is over.

Posted by: Boorring on March 7, 2008 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK
I'm voting for Hillary next month (I live in Pennsylvania), but it is beyond idiotic to argue that it's "inexcusable" or even wrong to call someone a "monster."

Freedom of speech is supposed to mean something. It doesn't if people don't have the right to say anything offensive, controversial, or eyebrow-raising.

Should the King of Spain "resign" for saying "Por que no te callas?" ("Why don't you shut up?") to Hugo Chavez?

This country is so politically correct and phony in some ways that it's insane. If Powers regretted making the remark, she could have apologized, but she definitely should not have resigned.

Posted by: Lee on March 7, 2008 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK
Sorry, her last name is "Power" not "Powers." My mistake.

Posted by: Lee on March 7, 2008 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK
"I blame Gerri Peev (whoever that is) at The Scotsman (whatever that is). What's so hard to understand about "this is off the record"?"

Because you say (and get agreement that) it's off the record before you say something, not afterwards.

Thats such a basic rule of media interviews that it's ridiculous to think this aide (whoever she is) wasn't aware of it.

As for "whatever that is" about the The Scotsman, it's a highly regarded edinburgh-based paper thats been going strong for nearly 2 centuries.

Posted by: kb on March 7, 2008 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK
Agreed, dr2chase.

When Senator Clinton gave her speech before she voted to authorize the Iraq War, she cited her "experience" in the White House as part of the reason she was voting to give Congressional approval before it was certain that war was necessary.

Now, what McCain is saying regarding that vote is .. "That's history."

Well yeah, but I thought the point of studying history is learning from history. My problem with Senator Clinton's vote is not so much what she did, but what she's learned from what she did.

Posted by: PE on March 7, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK
The wheels are starting to come off on the Obama train.....

Posted by: Noel on March 7, 2008 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK
Power seemed to be channeling Chris Matthews... "I'll see your 'witch' and I'll raise you a 'monster'!"

Is it so much to ask that supposedly "bright" women refrain from characterizing strong women in this way? It's bad enough when right-wing professional misogynists like Charlotte A. do it. Now we have this from a progressive Democrat?

As for Obama remaining "above the muck" until now, go back and look at the debates. He ripped into Hillary repeatedly, and occasionally quite personally, often with right-wing talking points (she's divisive, she's not electable, she has her head in the sand about Social Security "crisis" [you know -- the one that doesn't exist except in the minds of people looking for an excuse to either partially privatize it or tax people so heavily for it that the program becomes less popular]).

Or look at the Harry and Louise mailing, a direct rip-off of the Repuglican attack machine ad of the 90s.

He's even gone so far as to imply, ever so subtly, that she's too old (paging Rush Limbaugh...), that it's time for a "new generation" of leaders.

So please, spare us the "above the fray" nonsense.

Posted by: sullijan on March 7, 2008 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK
From the looks of the comments mentioned here, it looks increasingly like that regardless who wins the Democratic nomination, he or she will lose to McCain in the general election because of the loser's supporters either sitting home in significant numbers or voting for McCain.

It's sad that such a campaign that was exciting and enervating, is now showing signs that it has gone on for too long, and now suddenly there is lot of blood in the water. The proportional system developed by the Democrats so many years ago, has risen and bitten them very hard.

Pox on both candidates and especially the mainstream news media.

Say good bye to the current make-up (status quo at best) of the Supreme Court and say hello for a hard right solid majority when Stevens and Ginsburg undoubtly will have to step down because of age and health issues.

Posted by: John on March 7, 2008 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK
Time to put on the Impeach McCain bumper sticker?

just askin"

Obama: 2 tips for winning

1. Get rid of Goolsbee, your University of Chicago Economics prof adviser--he of the notorious right wing free trade, anti Social security , pro Nafta, Milton Friedman school of so-called thought and Go Populist!!!!

--sure-fire thing to attract the white working class votes and also a smart idea.

2. Get out of Iraq now by noting that the 3 trillion war has ruined the economy and caused the housing mortgage crisis. End Military Keynesism and start regular Keynesism-deficit borrowing to get the housing market back and an infrastructure program ala FDR's WPA.

Posted by: Dr Wu, the last of the big time thinkers on March 7, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK
Obama's getting bitch-slapped right now by the Clinton campaign and Obama looks weak. This is kids stuff compared to what Obama will face in a general election and he doesn't seem to understand this fact. Notwithstanding his lead in delegates, Obama needs to step up or he's history because weakness is the worst quality anyone can have especially if they're running for President of the United States.

Posted by: Noel on March 7, 2008 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK
Clinton is not a 'monster', as far as I know, but she sounds like a hypocrite:

Almost since the day Mr. Lazio entered the Senate race in May, the Lazio campaign has pledged to make the information public. And with each passing week, his assistants say they need more time, explaining that they want to ensure that the returns are thoroughly researched so that when they are released, the campaign will not be blind-sided by anything in them. By the end of summer, the assistants promise. By Labor Day? The autumnal equinox on Sept. 22? They won’t say.
The Democrats have been sowing conspiracy theories of the what-is-Lazio-hiding variety, not to mention dispatching Uncle Sam to keep the issue in reporters’ faces. On Wednesday, Howard Wolfson, the chief spokesman for Mr. Lazio’s opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, even showed up at a Lazio event in Harlem to fan the flames.
I don't care as much about Clinton's tax returns - she wouldn't hide anything, as far as I know - but Clinton's actions between then and now look like a case of 'do as I say, and not as I do' by any reasonable standard.

I've posted a version of this same comment elsewhere, in case someone notices.

Posted by: grape_crush on March 7, 2008 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK
enozinho: "Another casualty of old politics. Congratulations Senator Clinton."

And what exactly did Sen. Clinton do?

Samantha Power did this all by herself, with her own big mouth. At least she was adult enough to take responsibility for her actions and resign today. Bur Sen. Obama should have fired her sorry ass ysterday.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on March 7, 2008 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK
Don't blame Hillary. Obama had to do this. His brand image is built on being above personal politics, of "change" in the tone of politics, and of bringing people together. It is a very good brand and he should defend it vigorously. If he loses this, then he is just a junior senator from Illinois with a nice suit.

Posted by: Bush Lover on March 7, 2008 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK
And what exactly did Sen. Clinton do?

She changed the tone of the campaign from mostly positive, to almost entirely negative. Maybe that's her best chance for winning the nomination, but it ain't pretty.

Posted by: enozinho on March 7, 2008 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK
*sigh* I miss John Edwards....

Posted by: Stefan on March 7, 2008 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK
Samantha Power's writing in favor of intervention to stop ongoing genocides? Good. Rwanda and Burundi coulda used some intervention. Darfur too. Bosnia, probably.

Samantha Power's writing being used by neo-cons to justify invading Arab/Muslim countries that aren't in the middle of an ongoing genocide? Bad.

Hillary's campaign, BTW, has most of the neo-cons, I mean "liberal hawks". I only hope that if she gets elected, she was only sucking up the right people in the "serious foreign policy community" (and the press) and isn't really, actually an anti-Arab hawk.

Posted by: luci on March 7, 2008 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK
"The wheels are starting to come off on the Obama train....." - Noel
Obama already won the nomination, though.

Posted by: Boorring on March 7, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK
only hope that if she gets elected, she was only sucking up the right people in the "serious foreign policy community" (and the press) and isn't really, actually an anti-Arab hawk.

I'm sure there are plenty of Clinton supporters that would love to warn you of the dangers of hope.

Posted by: enozinho on March 7, 2008 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK
I was wondering what Obama would be like if the going gets rough. Now we can see, he is offended because the press showed a little critic and all the whining because some stuffer had to resign because of some very ugly personal remark about Hillary. One thing I know, Hillary can stand the heat. It confirms my opinion, so far Obama had it easy, now he will be tested.

Posted by: renate on March 7, 2008 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK
Boooring, Obama hasn't won anything yet especially the democratic nomination. Both candidates will need superdelegates to win the nomination. Obama's "math" shtick is getting old and like I said earlier he looks weak. The pressure is now on Obama and he needs show strength instead of whining about tactics by the Clinton campaign. Like I said, if Obama is branded as weak he's done...

Posted by: Noel on March 7, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK
"math" shtik (sp)" - Noel
To quote what is running around the web: "Math. It's relentless."

You're worried about weakness, but do not see it as easily weak when Hillary cries, or whines about media bias? Republicans will pick up whatever pieces are thrown, so your advice works just as well for the other candidate. In fact, women can be more easily regarded as weak in this world, and a few of her actions (the crying) can easily reinforce this.

Posted by: Boorring on March 7, 2008 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK
Thats such a basic rule of media interviews that it's ridiculous to think this aide (whoever she is) wasn't aware of it.

Oh, please. Samantha Power is a highly regarded, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and intellectual, and whatshisname could have shown her some courtesy. Did the world really have to know that Samantha Power thinks Hillary is a monster? What a loss to the Obama campaign, but I'm guessing she'll be back on board eventually.

Posted by: Lucy on March 7, 2008 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK
For the last two weeks Team Obama has made a serious of small but significant blunders, demonstrating their inexperience when they venture out into the political waters. They're the kind of mistakes a contained politician like Hillary can't make hey of, but if this were the general election, the noise machine would have a field day.

Are you series?

Sen. Clinton could of showed some Good Will and Magnanimousness of spirit by accepting Ms. Powers' apology and moving on, knowing that some pretty heated things get said in the thick of the battle. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton and her cronies had to show how Petty they are and call on Ms. Powers' resignation and now she is out of a job when the economy is so bad, I hope Sen Clinton is happy. A true person of goodwill would have accepted her apologies and moved on instead of trying to get some kind of political gain. There is no goodness in that woman and Sen. Clinton shows how she really feels about a woman's plight -- she could care less. Sen. Clinton is not a pleasant spirit, and she is very ruthless and cunning. Sen Clinton, what goes around comes around and what you put out will come back. She has a blackened heart of stone and she made much more out of this than it was worth. When Obama wins contests, she comes out and does her stump speech and never congratulates Sen. Obama at all. And now we see that she did not even have compassion towards another women -- just cut her head off! Put her out in the cold, let her suffer. What a mean-spirited women. I like the way Ms. Powers had the class to resign so as not to derail Sen Obama's campaign efforts. She quickly defused the bomb Sen Clinton hoped to throw. People will begin to see through these monstrous tactics of Sen Clinton and her Team.

We are now finding out, through the new information channel, the internet that Naftagate was the work of an initial call from the Clinton camp and Bush’s Canadian allie, Stephen Harper in an attemp to sabotage Obama and the democrats, which they did! Where's the Press on this? Click on the word "round-up"
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-truth-about.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home

Those of us who care for our Democracy for the vetting of truth and for fair and accurate reporting must call the main stream media to task. We can exercise our rights and our united power by calling CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. and ask them to begin to Vet Hillary Clinton and ask the important questions they should be asking her, like why she has not returned the money back to IPA, a company accused of sexually harrasing women? Why have they not further discussed Camp Clinton's initial call to Canada in the Naftagate controversy? Why do they continually bring up negative stories on Obama and soft question of her -- like the press is bought and paid for, yet again! It is an illusion that the press has been hard on her and soft on Obama. That is a traditional Camp Clinton spin and we all know they are the Masters of Spin (that means in essence they do not speak the truth).

As for Hillary’s superior foreign experience, Hillary did not think it important enough to read the National Intelligence Report and so she voted Yes on a War/Mistake that should have never been waged instead of having the intelligence and Judgment to say No, as other Senators did, and stated at the time, that we must not invade Iraq who did not bomb us on 911, but instead finish the job in Afghanistan. This makes her qualifyingly ineligible for the top job as commander-in-chief. Just because she surrounds herself with a bunch of generals does not make her qualified. A Photo-op does not eras her Iraq vote or exonerate it. Camp Clinton loves to stage phony events for the perception to make us think something that is not, is -- Masters of Spin & Hype and Delusion, often busing people in to their events to make the crowd look bigger than it is!

Then there is the current Camp Clinton Mantra, that may be the American public are having second thoughts about Barack Obama, beginning to doubt him because he did not win in Ohio. That is such spin. They won Ohio because they slandered him and made people doubt that he is a true Christian and some secret closet Muslim instead. They duped him on Naftagate, when they were the initial culprits, somehow Rezko's trial was pushed up to conincide with the primaries and the insinuation that Obama was a criminal too, just waitin to go down with Rezko. That is why people doubted him unfairly, because of old-time party politics, instituted by a "do anything and say anything mentality", no matter the cost to the person and the party.

Brotherhood (1937) - 552: Do you wish to be courageous? Then prove your courage in battling for Brotherhood. Assurances alone will not create courage, nor will praises affirm achievement. No preparations can be a guarantee of success. Courage is tested by unexpected obstacles. I have already spoken about courage; if I repeat it, it means that this quality is especially needed on the path to Brotherhood

Let the Vetting Begin!

Re vetting - one's been vetted for 15 years. The other had about a week of semi-bad press and lost a lot of his mo. If he can't stand up to this, he's mulch in the general.

Obama needs to step it up. Period.

I was angered by Power's comments for three reasons:

1) I strongly believe that all humans should not be referred to as anything other than humans, no dogs, vermin, monsters, etc. (Some humans are just bodyparts. O'Reilly is an a**hole, for instance.)

2) Power said [paraphasing]: "just look at [Hillary] and ugh!"

There's not a damn thing wrong with how Hillary looks. She's not vying to be America's Next Top Model. Take a look at the pusses who have been our best presidents, Abe for instance, whom Obama strains to be compared to. Does Power believe Hillary should be held to a higher fashion standard because of her sex? Does "Professor" Powers think any less of other acedemics who are less than stunning?

3) You can discern an underlying theme to Power's comments, one that hints that poor or working class people are less intelligent than the real people she regularly has contact with. This attitude in particular has no place in the Democratic party. NONE.

All Power's comments at issue here prove that Marie Claire was wrong: she isn't the smartest woman in America.

"Oh, please. Samantha Power is a highly regarded, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and intellectual, and whatshisname could have shown her some courtesy."

Well in the UK she's a complete unknown. In fact i would suspect that the only reason she was interviewed is that she in involved in Obama's campaign.

And what courtesy ? She said something in an interview. An interview that she agreed was on the record before she gave it. The reporter then reported what she said.

I just don't see where the reporter has done anything wrong. It was power who screwed up.

Man, you folks really, really don`t "get it".

In America, and most of the rest of the world, black men never, never can attack a white woman in any form or fashion.

Comprende ?

This is all about Camp Hillary trying to play that card in everything they do. They want Camp Obama to attack the white woman so as to bring into play that buried racism.

Camp Obama understands that very deeply and will play a different set of cards going forward (they have been, of course, doing this all along) so as to not play to the racial stereotypes Camp Clinton is desperately trying to use as a final knockout blow.

I suspect that Camp Obama is simply letting the world see who Hillary actually is underneath all that glitter and gloss. Let the monster be revealed in all her glory.

We shall see how this strategy works out as time passes.

Too bad my favorite candidate, None of the Above, isn`t on the ballot. Given that, I`m hoping for a locked convention w/floor fights etc.

"The wind blows over the surface of the lake. In this way, the effects of the invisible are made visible." - I Ching

Is it so much to ask that supposedly "bright" women refrain from characterizing strong women in this way? It's bad enough when right-wing professional misogynists like Charlotte A. do it. Now we have this from a progressive Democrat?

What a very odd comment. Power did a really stupid thing and she and the Obama campaign have dealt with it exactly as they should (and get extra points for doing it quickly), but what in the world does either Clinton's or Power's gender have to do with it?

There's nothing remotely gendered about the epithet "monster." If you're suggesting that a bright woman can't criticize another bright woman without it being about gender, I'd submit that you've got a seriously flawed understanding of what constitutes sexism.

Well in the UK she's a complete unknown.

I doubt that.

"I doubt that."

Really ? I'm glad you're more aware of her status in the UK than i am.After living here and reading the press and i'm clearly not in a good as a position to know these things as you are.

But let's check the press.

Search on the guardian site for 'Samantha Power'
reveals 2 mentions this year, both about her current book tour/obama connection.

Previous entry was in 2004 with a single quote about the Milosevic trial.
3 entries in 2003. 2 were reviews of her books (one for the guardian and one for the observer), and the last was a mention of her by a columnist.

So aside from the obama link this year , she's been mentioned 4 times in 5 years.

In the telegraph it's 4 mentions in 5 years. Again connected with her books.

As far as the scotsman is concerned , before this nonsense they had never mentioned her....

For someone who is a "highly regarded intellectual' her fame in the UK seems rather thin, after all no mentions in the broadsheets in
4 years until this week seems a rather dubious platform to claim she's well known in the UK.

Hey, optical weenie, I remember seeing that coverage too. However, you might want to check the Anderson 360 transcripts on that night, to listen to an excellent comment by David Gergen regarding how Obama can retaliate. It was excellent advice, and I had to smile.

"Boorring, the media was biased against Hillary and she called them on it and won that battle. Further, Hillary's win this week established her as a survivor and someone who'll fight back even when she's down. I don't know about you, but that shows strength and a willingness to fight, not weakness." - Noel

Yeah, you're right, and I have a begrudging respect for her in that regard. However, she was the "anointed" one for months, and when the media coverage flipped for her in one Ohioan minute, she nearly went crazy during her debate with Edwards, Obama, and Richardson.

Remember her victories that brought about upsets, in New Hampshire, and just recently. There was a common thread in both of those elements: whining. She fought when others told her to stay on, and called the media on their "bias" regarding her. But that excuse is over, come this November, and you are naive if you think she is "vetted". Then, when all of those charges come to light, the Clinton fatigue is brought back, and suddenly "the Maverick®" takes on new light.

And then it's all about McCains' VP...

OK, kb, so nobody in the UK's ever heard of Samantha Power (though her books get reviewed...hmm). And sure she was indiscreet, but sorry, I don't care how venerable The Scotsman is, it was tabloid, not to mention idiotic, of that journalist (and editor) to report Power's remarks. No more chats with Mr. Peevish (or was it Peed?) on the campaign trail!

Although I suppose I should be grateful to Power and whatshisname (he must be so pleased with his 15 minutes of fame), for emblazoning in my mind forevermore the image of Hillkenstein.

These are the kinds of mistakes which arise from the culture the candidate himself creates. Obama has made a lot of small mistakes and then patched them over really well.

Hillary, OTOH, is just down and dirty and isn't making mistakes so much as she's just out to win and some people find that offensive. Personally, I like that someone wants it and will go after it. Too bad she didn't last summer and fall when she might've done real damage to Obama. Now it's probably too late.

OTOH, I too miss John Edwards the presidential candidate.

Booring, let's be honest had Obama had any balls he would have stuck up for Powers and said the comments were stupid but she's not resigning because she's a valuable member of my staff. Had he said this and moved on this wouldn't be an issue. Instead he caved and this does not bode well for him as a candidate and as someone who can take shots during the general election and fight back.

Power's comments were dumb but that's it, why should she have to resign? If anything, these comments and other gaffes by Obama's staff show me how amateurish his campaign can be at times and this is one of the arguments against him being president. How many mistakes will we have to suffer through during this first term? Again, Obama needs to step up.

"OK, kb, so nobody in the UK's ever heard of Samantha Power (though her books get reviewed...hmm)."

A book got reviewed. 5 years ago.
The papers review thousands of books a year. (basically if a reputable publisher sends
them a review copy, they'll review it).
She might be well known in the academic Foreign Policy community in the UK ,
but outside of that.....

" And sure she was indiscreet, but sorry, I don't care how venerable The Scotsman is,
it was tabloid, not to mention idiotic, of that journalist (and editor) to report Power's
remarks."

Oh please , she's a supposed top aide giving an on the record taped interview.

The reporters job isn't to make her look good , or not report anything that might reflect badly on the campaign.

At least that's how the UK press works. Might be different in the seemingly rather cosier
world of american political journalism.

"No more chats with Mr. Peevish (or was it Peed?) on the campaign trail!"

Given it was Powers (or her publishers) who organised the interview in london in
an attempt to hawk a book, i suspect the Scotsman & Ms Peev will somehow cope.

They certainly wouldn't have bothered to send someone across the atlantic to speak to power.

Booring, let's be honest had Obama had any balls he would have stuck up for Powers and said the comments were stupid but she's not resigning because she's a valuable member of my staff. Had he said this and moved on this wouldn't be an issue. - Noel

This is entirely debatable. I could also see him, by sticking to his guns and keeping her, be continually attacked by the Clinton campaign for fostering such views in his camp, and to keep bringing it up. She would continue to whine publicly about it, and so I believe he had to let her go, for the sake of sticking to his campaign message.

Instead he caved and this does not bode well for him as a candidate and as someone who can take shots during the general election and fight back.

On the contrary, I say it stays with the message of his campaign. Likewise, John McCain repudiated (Renounced? Objected? Denounced? Whatever you prefer) the words of that inbred knuckle-dragger Cunningham, yet is getting a free pass from the "liberal" media on Hagee (sp)?. I don't think Obama had a choice.

Power's comments were dumb but that's it, why should she have to resign?

She had to resign because it's silly season, and Hillary Clinton is the master of silliness. If she was kept, Hillary would have shed fake tears that someone in the Obama camp was a meanie, and politically Powers had to go.

If anything, these comments and other gaffes by Obama's staff show me how amateurish his campaign can be at times and this is one of the arguments against him being president. How many mistakes will we have to suffer through during this first term? Again, Obama needs to step up.

The next time you, as an upstart, run an insurgent campaign against a well-entrenched and formidable brand name in a political party, and keep them on their toes, and win the nomination against them, and increase voter turnout, and create long lines of volunteers the likes of which we haven't seen since Soviet supermarket days, redraw the electoral map, and win the endorsements of key figures in that party, among other things, then you'll be in a better place to judge.

Is Samantha Power the democratic version of Condi Rice?
Both are academics and zero political experience!