It's a sign of how nasty this campaign is getting that the Obama team apparently didn't think it could afford to insist that she stay aboard.

I disagree that this is an indicator of nastiness. It's an indicator of the fact that Obama has set himself up as above this sort of thing. He was hoist by his own petard, if you will. Maybe, however, it will get him to get a little more real about all the I'm-above-it-all crap, so when he wins (as I hope he does) he will be ready to take the fight to McCain full-bore.

A staff story shouldn't eclipse the candidate's story. Cough cough, Mark Penn. She did the right thing and can come back after the primary is over.

One thing that isn't clear to me is whether Power's resignation was voluntary (she truly resigned) or forced (she was fired). If it's the latter, then I agree it was a mistake for Obama to cave to Clinton in this manner.

However, if it's the former, it could simply be the case that Power got her first taste of how the rough and tumble of a campaign might affect her, and decided she didn't want to put up with it. In which case, I don't think it says anything about Obama's ability to take a punch one way or the other, although it certainly doesn't look good.

Everything I've read about this implies that Power was fired, rather than voluntarily resigning. Do we know for sure that's the case?

Kevin: I disagree with your "off the record" definition. Power's heat of the moment description was personal and not relevant news. She asked for discretion and received a huge dose of the press inserting themselves into the story.
I think Hillary has done some monstrous things lately. She needs to stop tilting at superdelegates and regain some measure of self respect.

A few commenters have been crying foul over this, but that's not how it's done: something is off the record only if the reporter agrees beforehand that it's off the record. There are certainly some reporters who would have cut Power a bit of slack here and some who wouldn't, but the Scotsman reporter who published Power's remarks wasn't doing anything wrong. Cozy beltway conventions often seem to dictate that remarks are off the record by default, but we bloggers has long complained about that, and rightly so, I think. Nobody broke any rules here.

That said, this isn't really a substantive point that she tried to take back. That might be one thing--had she said, "You know, really, we want to leave troops in Iraq. Wait, no, that's off the record." Was there any substantial reason to run this remark?

Kevin's last graf is the key; a person who was a reporter for U.S. News. should know better. Trying to do an ex post facto "that was off the record" retraction is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

As a newspaper editor, I've been in that situation once myself. I ran the comment.

Sparko, when you understand how permission is granted for a person to go off the record by an interviewer, you may comment further on this thread. Not until then.

I think Obama should have said he was standing by his adviser and thrown blame back on the media (although Power really blew it by not going off the record before she said a single word).

But if he thought he needed to fire her, Obama should have done so and then asked for the firing of the guy who compared him to Ken Starr, which is no less accurate than calling Clinton a monster. That would have at least given him the chance to look like he was taking the high road instead of looking like someone who can be pushed around.

Clinton is having it both ways: getting to complain about Obama while at the same time insinuating he might be Muslim and accepting the kind words of that biddy in Texas who said that the problem with Obama was that he was black. But the fact is, Obama is choosing to let her get away with it. I voted for Obama and will not support Clinton is she's the nominee, but he's looking kind of Dukakis-like right now.

A couple more points, which I have made at my blog.

One, isn't it kind of arrogant to be giving a staffer, and not you yourself the candidate, an in-depth sit-down to a foreign newspaper when you haven't won the nomination yet? Or, is Obama's staff not coordinating its media policy well, so that this interview wasn't known about in advance?

Either of those is dicey; both go to a larger issue of campaign competence.

I don't think she should have resigned. I think that the more Senator Clinton is out in the public red-faced and screechy, the better Senator Obama looks.

Whenever she starts screeching like this, it is going to get people thinking this in their head: "Do I really want to hear this kind of thing for the next 4 to 8 years?"

I think it's the same thing with the Ken Starr comment. I don't think it was an effective attack at all on the part of Clinton's surrogate. I think it did nothing but remind people about that whole Ken Starr mess and about how that stink will be back on the country if the Clintons get back in power.

For me, the more we hear from Clinton's outrage, the better it is for Obama. Keep Screeching, honey.

What I find bizarre is that Powers didn't have the self-discipline to not say something abjectly stupid when talking to the press. Anyone with such strong desires for self-immolation should not be around a political campaign.

I don't mind the followers of either candidate getting overly involved in the emotions of the campaign. But when people that are supposed to be senior advisers lose their moorings I get creeped out big time.

I don't know if she should have resigned, but it seems to me that everybody (the media, Hillary, Obama) is completely overreacting to last Tuesday's primary results, and I think Power's resignation is a symptom of Obama's team playing a bit scared.

Hillary only made up a total of about 8 delegates, which is nothing (Hell,Obama just picked up 4 more from California!!).

But suddenly everyone is treating Hillary like she is now the front-runner. She even had the gall to float the idea of Obama being her running-mate....what the hell was that? And now, with things like this resignation, Obama's team looks like it's scared.

I could see this kind of reaction if Hillary actually did what she needed to do on Tuesday, and win big. But we're talking a net gain of 8 delegates, Obama should pick up quite a bit more than that next Tuesday.

If he can't stand up to a monster, how can he stand up to Saddam Hussein? He should have said Power said something in the heat of the moment, she apologized for it, it was not mean-spirited, and that was the end of it. He could of course offer that if every adviser of Hillary who had ever said anything negative or mis-stated a fact about him would resign, he would consider asking Power if she wanted to resign.

I think Matt is right, it would have been better to keep Powers. But, it seems to me that Obama is looking like the future winner here, and playing his cards to keep the Clinton supporters happy. He is going to need them. Clinton, on the other hand, is looking desperate, and probably in future context, like a sore loser.

I think it just goes to show that if you want to privately convey your personal negative feelings towards an opponent to a reporter without first going off the record, make sure you use the type of words they can't print in the newspaper.

The whole Power episode is one reason why I now have contempt for people santimoniously preaching how politicians--including Hillary--are "dishonest" and "inauthentic." If people are going to be real, they're going to make comments like the one Power did.

When politicians do try to be themselves and say what they really think, they are usually condemned for being "reckless," "stupid," "strange," etc., and they end up having to retract what they've said and done. Look at Howard Dean and the "scream speech." I didn't see anything wrong with that speech. It's nice to see someone show such passion. Yet the media was all over Dean for it.

Journalists and the public need to decide: Do they want honesty or not? If they do, then they should learn to accept comments and behavior that will not always be to their liking. If they don't, then they shouldn't complain when politicians come across as cardboard cutouts.

It's quite possible that Hillary Clinton may be a monster. She's never denied it. McCain might be one, too. Maybe it's a requirement to be Commander in Chief.

It didn't take long for her campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe to try to capitalize on the whole affair, begging for money to "stop the Obama attacks."

Glenn,

No, no, not the petard discussion again!!!

I think Power did the right thing. Assuming she is as good as you say she is then it would be the right thing for Obama to accept her back if or when he becomes the nominee. It seems to me that is how politics is played. Everybody saves face, the person making a mistake takes responsibility, pays a penalty, and gets accepted back.

The last thing Obama needs is more bad stories. If he backed her, this would become the story of the weekend, overshadowing his expected victory in Wyoming and preventing him from breaking out of this negative cycle he's in. On an emotional level, I want to see him fight this crap. But campaigns can't be run by emotion. If Obama pushed her out, it shows he can remain clear-headed and see that the timing of her comment makes it impossible to keep her on. It tells me he knows when to pick his battles. He can bring her back after the primary.

Yes, Obama should have kept her on and used the oppertunity to say that "There is no basis for beliving Hillary is a monster, as far as I know."

The real reason that Powers got fired was that she also ran her mouth off to the BBC about the fact that Obama would not really pull troops out of Iraq and that he was just saying that to win an election. See Mark Halperin for the video:http://thepage.time.com/

That screw up isn't getting nearly the play on Drudge, but it is likely to sink Obama just like his Nafta double talk.

What "heat of the moment" is involved in a press interview? If Power is being touted as Obama's Condi Rice, shouldn't she be able to talk diplomatically without putting her foot in her mouth? What does this say about Obama's judgment that he would select such a person to represent him?

The remark was outrageous coming from someone with the stature being accorded her. She should have resigned whether Clinton asked her to or not. Clinton must ask for her to be fired because it is compromising to let that comment about her pass without complaint. She is not "red faced and screeching" but is asking for the respect a candidate for president deserves from an official foreign policy advisor to a competing candidate in an interview with the press. If she had not complained she wouldn't be fit to be president.

All of this is pro forma.

I'd like to see Senator Obama come out and made a very low key, calm statement on this. Perhaps he can do a one-on-one with a reporter. He can simply say that Power did not speak for him and that he does not think it is acceptable to make negative characterizations of his opponent. He can turn the focus to what should be done for the American people, to the need for transparency, and to the importance of judgment. If he says that he stands against divisive, polarized politics and so she had to go, that would help.

I don't see this as making him look weak. We've had GW Bush who wouldn't admit any error. That was not a good model. This can help Obama if he handles it well. Right now the Clinton folks want to get the last word. He needs to come out after their last conference call so his statement is on the evening news.

Not just Scotsman and BBC, she was really careless in this interview as well:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200803060030

She is bright, she does have good ideas, but she also seems to have an advanced case of foot in mouth syndrome.

I agree that this thing has been stretched out of perspective, but not in the way these comments have it. Anyone with an ear must notice that the premise of Senator Obama's campaign, as rigidly enforced by his supporters, is that an ambitious woman who does not gladly step aside when Prince Charming appears must be a monster. There's no other possibility. Once you get that part, all the rest of it makes sense, from foreign policy experts to bloggers to Drudge.

The worst thing about this sort of petty game is that of all people the Clintons should know better. What was Travelgate, and all that jazz but the petty politics of trying to win the newscycle? Was Janet Reno the best AG? She was the best AG who didnt have kids.

I hate it. Who cares if ANYONE mispeaks? The constitution has been broken, the economy is in the toliet, and we are still in Iraq. And is this what a Clinton Administration is going to be like? Attacking Republicans one faux pas at a time? Are we going to say that the Next Clinton administration is a sucess because she has a rapid response team? Because she makes her enemies apologize?

What on Earth can this kind of politics actually achieve?

I simply agree with Samantha, Clinton is really turning into a serious monstrous monster. I hope America is being able to see through into the kind of person she really is and conseuqently the leader she would be was she to become president. I love Samantha for her deep personal insight on the matter. And media, shame on you (to use the Clinton's monster becoming language). Samantha spoke on personal level, not as a public statement. Thank you.

Can we all admit now that the Democratic primary is turning into a huge mess? We can delude ourselves by thinking that once it's over, all will be forgiven and forgotten, but I've never encountered a primary as nasty, as divisive and as corrosive as this one, and I've been paying attention for thirty years or so. Sure, maybe in '68 the primary was really bad, and the Democrats almost won the general election, but both the media environment and the way politics is practiced now are thoroughly, fundamentally different.

Both Clinton and Obama will be irreparably damaged before the primary is over, by each other's attacks, as well as from self-inflicted wounds. The early enthusiasm Democrats felt is palpably gone. A few weeks ago I thought that the Democrats has two very good choices this election year, and I would have been happy with either of them winning the nomination. At a certain point I developed a preference, but no strong partisan inclinations. Well, right now I actually think one of the candidates is truly loathsome and the other is weak and floundering. I wish I could remain as sanguine as Kevin, but I'm getting damn tired of getting all excited with the prospect of electing competent Democrats who can pull this country out of the dark age of the last 7 years, only to watch them either commit suicide or succumb to the Republicans' will.

Is "fulsome" really the word you want?

Why assume that the Obama campaign forces Power out? In most cases, yes, but here you have a woman with a conscience of steel, strong sense of personal responsibility, all while being a rather nervous creature. I don't think she was really cut out to be a campaign rep, and I think she knew it; and I'm sure she was crushed with guilt when 'monster' got out, thinking she had screwed things up for Obama.

Long story short, I think in this case it's safe to guess that the initiative and the responsibility for her resignation was entirely hers, not the campaign's.

The only reason this has play is because JOURNALISTS LIKE YOU GIVE IT PLAY.

End of discussion.

: "She is bright, she does have good ideas, but she also seems to have an advanced case of foot in mouth syndrome."

At heart, Samantha Power is an academic, and not a politician. She just received a crash course in the ways of modern political journalism, much to the Obama campaign's chagrin. Ms. Power obviously spoke intemperately in the heat of a contested election campaign's moment, where passions have become frayed by the closest extended primary battle since Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976.

I really don't think there was anything truly personal here; as Sal Tessio (Abe Vigoda) said to Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) at the climax of The Godfather, "It was just business."

But she's still a good person, and I wish her all the best.

The quality of mercy is not strained, Gadfly. The statement was not relevant on or off the record and was quoted merely to hurt or offend. The media has become the story, and it is tiresome. We pretend that certain phrases must be performed in a certain order? Protocol or perish . . .

Another Clinton victim, when will it ever end?

Can anyone remember a case when a Republican operative made an intemperate remark and was fired on the spot? I can't. I do wish, once, a Democrat would show similar backbone. I would have respected Obama more if he simply said, "She made a mistake, she apologized, and now we should move on. We're all fallible, this is a particularly emotional time for everybody, and while the remark was intemperate, everybody deserves a second chance. I consider the case closed." Obama would have come across as strong, loyal, and compassionate. Instead, he blinked. Not good.
____________________________________________

Aris: "The early enthusiasm Democrats felt is palpably gone."

Are you groping your own pillow?

Democrats have enjoyed record turnouts this year, and more people are now identifying themselves as Democrats rather than as Republicans than at any time in the last thirty years.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton raised $90 million between them in the month of February alone, while John McCain came up with a paltry $12 million.

This primary election season has been a godsend for the party, and the nominee will come out of the process steeled by fire, and we'll all be chomping at the bit to get out there and kick some tired and flabby GOP asses from here to Baghdad and back.

Hillary lost a big chance to be gracious, to say that she understood things can be said by fellow Democrats in the heat of the moment, how she has admired Power's books, how she would like to sit down and talk to Powers, etc. She behaved a bit like a monster, to be frank.

The Obama people could have gone either way, and likely considered keeping the gifted Power on and framing the fight around loyalty, for example, and responding that "monster" was a bit strong, but let us reprise for you Clinton's vicious campaign so far. They appear to have decided, however, that this tack would have been a bridge too far--too many down sides--and they chose the less confrontational route of Power's fulsome apology and swift exit. They live to fight another day, with better tactical advantages and meanwhile wait for the Clintons to overreach and to make some more missteps of their own.

The first response (keep Power) would have taken a lot of courage and fortitude but was inherently risky. The second response, apologize and leave, deprives the Clintons of the oxygen they need to keep the outrage machine going.

One notion I see crystallizing now, to my dismay, is that, yes, Clinton is vicious (the euphemism her campaign uses is "a fighter") but isn't that, ya know, what you need in the White House?

The answer of course is no. The president needs to have courage, but viciousness is not a virtue (it is in fact a word rooted in the Latin term for vice). Still, Obama, in my view, would do well to show he can manage a say-anything, do-anything rival. The world is after all filled with vicious people. And he needs to do so with dispatch.

leo: "Another Clinton victim, when will it ever end?"

Not until she bloodily claws her way through hordes of innocent Obama supporters, finds the rock under which you're cowering, drags you out into the light of day by your genitalia, and jams a metal pipe into your right ear so she can displace the contents of your skull with Cuervo 1800 Especial tequila, before handing her new trophy to Bill so he can finish making margaritas for the invited guests at her campaign's late Friday afternoon Happy Hour.

Oh, I forgot -- Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha.

The second response, apologize and leave, deprives the Clintons of the oxygen they need to keep the outrage machine going.

Sure, if they manage to notice that they're gasping and turning blue while Mark and Howard are busily assuring them that they're really just imagining it, it's the just the altitude, etc...

I wish everyone would calm down, take a deep breath, and get on with life, instead of jumping to all kinds of conclusions and condemning this person or that. But I guess that's an impossible dream. I still don't see how anyone could look at either candidate without feeling a mixture of admiration, respect, annoyance, and doubt. That's the way *I* feel about both Obama and Clinton. It's not surprising that after all these years of MSM "coverage," anything HRC does or says in subjected to intense, critical scrutiny, but . . . it's tiresome. I certainly don't want the same thing to happen to Obama (god forbid!). But I very strongly oppose the "us" vs. "them" impulse.

Democrats have enjoyed record turnouts this year, and more people are now identifying themselves as Democrats rather than as Republicans than at any time in the last thirty years.

They have, and I was looking forward to the Ohio primary since I live here. Ohioans were as excited as Democrats in other states. Yet, one could literally feel things changing. All I have is anecdotal evidence, from my discussions with other Democrats, but the nasty turn in the campaign seemed to pull everybody down. And I think it may not be a coincidence that turnout in Ohio was not as large as anticipated.

The dispiriting nastiness of blog comments between Clinton and Obama supporters is another indication of enthusiasm turning into pettiness (including your own frequent and intemperate eruptions, Donald from Hawaii ).

Look, I hope I'm wrong. Very wrong. As I said, I thought both Democratic nominees were worthy of support just a few weeks ago. Not any longer. Especially with the Democrat I now despise. What if this Democrat becomes the nominee? I'll be experiencing one hellish case of cognitive dissonance. How do I put a sign in my yard for this person? How do I argue with my neighbors in favor of this person? Will I really change my mind once the general election starts? I don't know, but I think that a lot of people are in the same position I find myself in and the longer the primary lasts, more and more Democrats will become disillusioned.
____________________________________________

Power also said that Obama might be slower to pull out of Iraq than his official claims. If progressives want to shoot somebody, maybe they should note that.

I posted this in the previous Power thread but I think it is important enought that it bears repeating here. Maybe some of you folks will actually "wakie wakie".

---------------

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

In America, and most of the rest of the world, black men can never, never 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 its 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

Power also said that Obama might be slower to pull out of Iraq than his official claims. If progressives want to shoot somebody, maybe they should note that.

Then again, maybe they'd rather shoot the Democratic candidate who voted for AUMF in the first place.

Jennifer: "... make sure you use the type of words they can't print in the newspaper."

Ah, the thing of beauty and joy that is the asterisk!

From yesterday's Scotsman article in question (scroll down):

"'We f***** up in Ohio,' she admitted. '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,' Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark."

"Ms Power said of the Clinton campaign: "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.'

"Ms Power's comments reveal how the inexperienced Obama campaign is coming under increasing pressure from a battle-hardened Clinton camp that saw Ohio as its last chance to save its candidate."

(Emphasis added.)

While I tried to use the entire controversial quote to place her remarks in proper context, I do recommend that people read the entire article, because it further clarifies that Ms. Power probably thought that she was speaking to The Scotsman as a private individual, and not as a representative of the Obama campaign:

"Ms Power was in the UK to promote her book on Sergio Vieira de Mello, the extraordinary UN representative who died in a Baghdad bomb attack."

Donald wins the thread!

The fratricide among Democrats is heartening to Republicans. While Democrats are spending time fighting amongst themselves on trivial matters, Senator McCain is gaining stronger every day. I have no doubt Senator McCain will win the GE and become the next President if this continues.

daCascadian: "Man, you folks really, really don`t 'get it'. In America, and most of the rest of the world, black men can never, never 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."

Yikes! Methinks you doth project too much.

The fratricide among Democrats is heartening to Republicans. While Democrats are spending time fighting amongst themselves on trivial matters, Senator McCain is gaining stronger every day.

Ham-fisted syntax aside, I'd have to say that our retarded little mascot is on to something -- for once.

... almost forgot the rest of me.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course she should have resigned. I view some of the comments here to the contrary as more of the same tiresome stuff from some Obama people who seem to think that the rules that apply to every other politician on the freaking planet somehow do not apply to their guy.

This is the highest level of scrutiny possible. You're running for President ... get it? If you are not experienced/professional enough to not stay stupid shit or put yourself in dangerous political spots (Paging Austan Goolsby! Courtesy phone for Michelle "not proud" Obama!) you deserve all the crap you get.

The fact that so many of the Senator's advisors seem not to get this fact of life about Washington underscores for me the idea that he's just not ready for the Big Show.

I am one of those that had no idea a journalist could ethically print something once told it would be "off the record". As an academic I've had people tell me they want an interview that took place a day or month earlier now placed "off the record". I always honor that request. I didn't realize how different journalism is.

And we wonder why politicians are so fake and risk-averse. We know that such things are said all time behind the scenes in both camps. Emotions run high. Big deal.

Regarding the reporter, it's clear to me that it was ethical to print this. Why I don't understand is why any serious reporter would give up future access in order to get such a trivial matter into print.

I'm pretty sick and tired of all the nastiness thrown at Hillary and Bill from the beginning when it was LIMPBALLS making fun of their pre-teen daughter, to calling Hillary a lesbian, to accusing her of murdering Vince Foster (and on and on)...add to that the junk that comes out of the mouths of Chris Matthews and his ilk ...not to mention the obvious ratcheting up of rhetoric beyond any comments a candidate or surrogate might ACTUALLY say...and this latest comment from an Obama surrogate (who obviously holds this opinion and then wanted it "off record")...IF, indeed, Hillary IS a monster then quit beating about the bush and get the FACTS (verifiable) out there so we all know it and can make decisions accordingly...otherwise the sniping at both Clintons and the misrepresenting their words OR trying to "explain" what they really meant is CRAP! For instance the 3 o'clock phone call ad COULD be viewed as a very positive and strong sell on the fact that HILLARY would be the best one in that situation...the inference that it is NEGATIVE towards Obama is in the heart and mind of the beholder!!!

I agree with those that think this was a smart move and not a sign of any weakness what so ever. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, Power if back in. No big deal. Her resignation provides a pretty strong contrast between Obama's style and Hillary's. If you like dirty, race-baiting, constant-claims-of-being-the-victim politics, more power to you. If you like mature, taking responsibility politics, well, the choice is right there. When policy is similar, style matters. My only concern would be if the Obama folks did NOT draw attention to this difference in style. Then I'd worry that they were plain stupid.

Aris: "What if this Democrat becomes the nominee? I'll be experiencing one hellish case of cognitive dissonance. How do I put a sign in my yard for this person? How do I argue with my neighbors in favor of this person? Will I really change my mind once the general election starts?"

If I might make an "intemprate" suggestion -- you are taking things too personally. Therefore, you really should turn off your computer and TV, and take a complete break from politics for a day or two, or for however long you want. You seriously sound like you're on sensory overload.

Instead, why don't you go and do something for yourself that YOU want to do tonight and this weekend, like check out that movie you've been putting off seeing, or visit an elderly relative or favorite friend that you always mean to see, but somehow can't fibnd the time to do so.

You'll feel better for having done so, believe me. Politics can be a very seductive drug, because it is invigorating and causes the releaseof endorphins, but if you're not careful, it can suck the life out of you.

So take the day or weekend off, and recharge yourself. It's only March, and the general election is not until November, so please pace yourself accordingly.

And remember, it's not a crime to walk away from the fray for a while and give yourself a time-out and cool-down period, if things get too heated for you. I frequently do that if I find myself getting angered. It's good for the soul.

Don't worry that the Obama campaign will somehow fall apart in your absence. It's not going anywhere (no pun intended). And you'll be in a better frame of mind when you decide to return.

If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend Juno. That'll lighten your spirits.

Aloha. Have a great weekend.

I think this campaign is about catharsis. Regardless of the candidate you support or hate least, all of us have been angry for seven long awful years. And being human, we are taking it out on those closest to us, fellow Democrats.

Instead of getting angry or defensive - I don't care which of our two candidates are selected because both will be dramatically better than anyone the Republicans can offer - I've decided we are all so accustomed to vile and bile we just can't turn it off. It's nothing personal.

kevin,

you're totally wrong here. when a source says that a remark is off-the-record (even if it's immediately afterwards, rather than right before), then it is off-the-record. this is a VERY different thing than a source claiming AFTER the interview that this or that remark was "off-the-record." if you're saying it contemporaneously with the remark--whether befor or after--it's off the record. none of this is legally binding, of course. but the reporter for the scotsman has pulled some bush-league antics here, and we're all worse off for it.

I'm sorry, but there's a broader lesson here best exemplified by Donald from Hawaii's two incongruent posts on the same topic:

"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." - Donald from Hawaii

"At heart, Samantha Power is an academic, and not a politician. She just received a crash course in the ways of modern political journalism, much to the Obama campaign's chagrin. Ms. Power obviously spoke intemperately in the heat of a contested election campaign's moment, where passions have become frayed by the closest extended primary battle since Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976.

I really don't think there was anything truly personal here; as Sal Tessio (Abe Vigoda) said to Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) at the climax of The Godfather, "It was just business."
But she's still a good person, and I wish her all the best." - Donald from Hawaii

I, personally, think this is only a political hit that Clinton scored on Obama. I think she'll be back on the Obama team once the false outrage has passed on. But the two different tones regarding the same topic is a pretty interesting coincidence regarding the topic at hand today. However, never forget that this is false outrage, and I think we should remember that the next time. It's "silly season", and she recently gave Obama the media narrative to get the ball rolling (remember: he's got the delegate lead. He's in).

Also, except for Donald from Hawaii deserving a response, I've posted here enough to earn a paycheck, so I'm taking off. Have a nice weekend, everybody.

"The fact that so many of the Senator's advisors seem not to get this fact of life about Washington underscores for me the idea that he's just not ready for the Big Show." - Pat

No it just shows that despite all that furious publishing, Academics have absolutely no idea how politics really runs, and that hope is not going to get Washington and Big Gov'mint to change any time soon.

What I don't understand, regardless of whether Power thought her comments were on or off the record, is how in the world a tenured Harvard professor can rationalize using the word monster to describe a US Senator. I could see if maybe she called Hitler or Pinochet, etc, that. But Hillary?

I dunno, Luke. The "uproar" you hear is, in my view, the sound of a candidate polarizing the country. It's the sound of scorched earth.

...and what with Hillary wanting a "do-over" in Florida? Oh may, whatever does that mean? Sore loser are something?

Hillary is coming off as more than a bit of a bitch right now. I least, I certainly think so. I know that negative ads work but you know, negative behavior coming directly from the candidate herself, -- hey, shouldn't that be BIG a no-no?

I mean, haven't you ever notice how Bush let Cheney and Rove do all his dirty work?

Hillary isn't very smart as some declare, and she doesn't understand the mean of "distancing herself" and thus, her stupid is showing for all to see. Do you really want stupid anwsering the phone at 3:00 AM?

And remember, it's not a crime to walk away from the fray for a while and give yourself a time-out and cool-down period, if things get too heated for you. I frequently do that if I find myself getting angered. It's good for the soul.

Judging from how obsessively and vehemently you've been attacking anyone who expresses any qualms about your favorite candidate, I suggest that you, dear Donald from Hawaii, follow your own advice. Yes, I'm very disappointed with the way this primary is turning out, and it is right and proper to worry that our national nightmare won't be over any time soon because the Democratic candidates are going to destroy themselves before they give a chance to McCain to even attack them. On the other hand, I'm not doing anything to assist them in their suicide, whereas you seem hell-bent to insult and alienate any Democrat who disagrees with you. I remember quite clearly when I used to enjoy reading your comments, whereas now I cringe, as you seem to be either patronizing or outright hostile.

Primary elections should not be civil wars, and unfortunately I can't stir enough martinis to forget how dispiriting this campaign season is. Discovering that someone you admired, and would have gladly supported, is a nasty and amoral piece of work, is not something one can simply shake off. Not when the stakes are this high.

In any case, I'm off to stir me a dry one, and enjoy whatever floats your olive.

____________________________________________

To paraphrase Patrick Fitzgerald, the Clinton camp is throwing sand in the umpire's eyes. Clinton is going to lose Wyoming and Mississippi, and she's not going to have another shot at Obama until the last week of April. If she wants the nomination, she should focus on winning those states, not on the process of who's up and who's down.

Obama should give an interview saying that he neither called Clinton a monster nor demanded the resignation of the person who did. He should say that of course the remark was intemperate, but Powers' apology and resignation stands in marked contrast to the various Clinton operatives who have been savaging their opponent without consequences for the last few days.

He should note that not succumbing to the temptation to engage in fictional outrage is a critical component of making it over the "commander-in-chief threshold".

"Power really is an interesting foreign policy advisor who brings some fresh ideas to the table"
Sry, but as someone from "the rest of the world", I have to say that we don't want yet another "foreign policy advisor" who is totally unable to stick to basic rules of diplomacy. No, thx. Good riddance.
:-|

Slightly OT, but on the subject of Hillary's possible motives, possible mindset, as she sets out to scorch the landscape, I offer this (to me) fascinating blogginheads.tv video. It's well worth the 32 minutes running time.

I confess I have a weakness for psychological explanations, but appreciated the Ellen Ladowsky's circumspection about all the candidates. She ventured only very general observations.

At the end, Ladowsky conceded that, yes, of the three candidates still running, she would most like to see Hillary in treatment and allowed that McCain and Obama both had very "well formed" personalities and suggested that Hillary's array of personas (noted elsewhere this week) was typical of the "as if" personality, which I think is one of the borderline disorders. Rooted, Ladowsky guessed, based on HRC bios, in Hugh Rodham's lifelong humiliation of her mother. And then, in that inimitable way we humans have, in repeating that pattern of humiliation (not repairing it) with her choice of husband and her choice to stay married to him.

People have choices in their adult lives, Ladowsky said. They can repeat the hurt from their childhoods, or repair. The scary thing is, you can imagine Hillary working on so many different levels, indefatigably, not to to repair but to repeat the humiliation. Visit it on others (Obama). And in this way, she hopes, to exorcise it. The monster, you know. The one that Power named, inadvertently.

You may take something else away from the interview. But this trauma at the heart of Hillary's story helped me to feel I understood her a little better. But as I say, I have a weakness for this sort of analysis. It may be utter horse hockey.

The Clinton campaign got rid of Shaheen when he said things that crossed the line. Is this so different?

*

Aris: "Judging from how obsessively and vehemently you've been attacking anyone who expresses any qualms about your favorite candidate ..."

Well, so much for extending a hand in goodwill and solidarity.

You really need to chill out.

In another interview, Ms Powers also added a little clarity to the idea that President Obama would not guarantee to begin an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. From Politico.com:

Power downplayed Obama's commitment to quick withdrawal from Iraq on Hard Talk, a program that often exceeds any of the U.S. talk shows in the rigor of its grillings. She was challenged on Obama's Iraq plan, as it appears on his website, which says that Obama "will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

"What he�s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you � at best case scenario � will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That�s what they�re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president," Power says.

The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:"So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn't a commitment isn't it?"

"You can�t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he�s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan � an operational plan � that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn�t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think � it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I�m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

"It�s a best-case scenario," she said again.

Boorring: "I'm sorry, but there's a broader lesson here best exemplified by Donald from Hawaii's two incongruent posts on the same topic ..."

Those two posts complement each other, and are merely part of a larger discussion. You only used them as a flimsy excuse to engage in more Hillary-bashing. Nothing new here.

I listened to the interview that trashhauler referred to and was astonished to see how weak Power is intellectually. What trashhauler quoted was really the strongest part of her interview -- of course Obama or anyone elected president would need to review the situation before deciding what to do.

The interviewer pushed her around and made her look silly - the guy is a much better interviewer than anyone we see in this county.

Power made numerous lame remarks about how other countries would change just because Obama is present and, for bad guys, there will be a change because Obama will be in the room with them. She said Hammas refusal to recognize Israel was a deal breaker for talking to them, yet had no rational answer for whey it was not a deal breaker with Iran. She also said in subtance the following: the concept of winning and losing does not apply to 21st century wars. I suppose an ivory tower college professor like her might grow up if placed in the real world, but Obama and the country will be better off without her.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7281805.stm

Well, so much for extending a hand in goodwill and solidarity. You really need to chill out.

You haven't been nasty to me, just patronizing. But you've been unnecessarily nasty to others who do not hold Clinton in high regard. I'll chill, if you will.

What worries me is that we seem to have forgotten how high the stakes are. We still live in a country which tortures, keeps people in prison without due process, the Iraq war is still raging with no end in sight, etc. The goal is to get rid of the Republicans, not to gnaw at each other over who our standard bearer is going to be. Unfortunately, both Democratic candidates start with a lot of inadvertent baggage -- we seem to have forgotten how much misogyny and racism exists in this country; any woman and any black man, especially one with foreign-sounding names, are at a distinct disadvantage when the opponent is a white guy. So, we could have had a dignified primary arguing over health care. Instead one of our candidates has been shown to buckle under pressure, and the other to be as ruthless as a Republican. My prediction is that the election is already over and whether Clinton or Obama wins the nomination, it won't matter. Authoritarianism will win out, again.

____________________________________________

mhr, I'm sorry, but that was incoherent. I think you were blaming liberals for deploring Hillary's conduct this past week. You close by noting, with approval, that she's the "tougher" candidate.

Again, recall that Hillary being called "tough," "a fighter," and the other words now being associated with her vaunted strength are all euphemisms for the viciousness at the heart of her story. She is, as Peggy Noonan wrote, a "train on a track, an Iron Horse." Impressive to watch from afar, to be sure. But not the sort of person I want in the White House. Hillary Clinton became officially scary this week, pimping McCain.

"I am one of those that had no idea a journalist could ethically print something once told it would be "off the record". As an academic I've had people tell me they want an interview that took place a day or month earlier now placed "off the record". I always honor that request. I didn't realize how different journalism is."

Never, ever say anything to a journalist you don't want to see on the front page of tommorrow's newspaper. All of Obama's people should've known this. Obama's campaign is getting hit with dirty tricks left and right...I don't like it, but in the end I take comfort in knowing Clinton has already lost. They need to pick themselves up, wipe off the dust, and get down to work on kneecapping Clinton's final push for the nomination. Then take aim for McCain and his ilk.

(Law & Order sound effect)
1:44 PM

"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."
Donald from Hawaii

(Law & Order sound effect)
4:03 PM

"At heart, Samantha Power is an academic, and not a politician. She just received a crash course in the ways of modern political journalism, much to the Obama campaign's chagrin. Ms. Power obviously spoke intemperately in the heat of a contested election campaign's moment, where passions have become frayed by the closest extended primary battle since Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976.
I really don't think there was anything truly personal here; as Sal Tessio (Abe Vigoda) said to Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) at the climax of The Godfather, "It was just business."
But she's still a good person, and I wish her all the best."
Donald from Hawaii

(Law & Order sound effect)
7:16 PM

"Those two posts complement each other, and are merely part of a larger discussion. You only used them as a flimsy excuse to engage in more Hillary-bashing. Nothing new here." - Donald from Hawaii

More proof of Power's lack of smarts and/or judgment. How do people like her achieve such heights?

Power, fresh off of calling Hillary Clinton "a monster," tells the Telegraph "I am confused by what's happened to [UK Prime Minister] Gordon Brown. I thought he was impressive."

UPDATE: You also have to love Power's catty remark about Secretary of State Rice:

I'm nothing like her. I don't have any conventional political ambition.

Donald from Hawaii >"...Methinks you doth project too much."

As someone from Hawai`i you really, really should know better. And, as other posters have mentioned, you seem to have lost your usually reasonable perspective, at least when commenting on this primary (you might want to consider the UH motto).

Hide and watch the rest of the show now.

"...This is not a game." - Lorie Van Auken (2001.09.11 widow)

BombIranForChrist >"I think that the more Senator Clinton is out in the public red-faced and screechy, the better Senator Obama looks...the more we hear from Clinton's outrage, the better it is for Obama...."

I agree with you on that

paxr55 >"...on the subject of Hillary's possible motives, possible mindset, as she sets out to scorch the landscape, I offer this...It may be utter horse hockey."

Thanks for that. I`ll watch it later tonight but I suspect your are close to the mark with this item; knowing a bit about human behavior & motivation I doubt it is uttter horse hockey.

Still hoping for None of the Above to make the ballot...

"...you cannot save your face and your ass at the same time..." - vachon@shadrach.net

A few commenters have been crying foul over this, but that's not how it's done: something is off the record only if the reporter agrees beforehand that it's off the record.

I still cry foul. In fact, I'm furious about this. Samantha Power has built a distinguished career over a lifetime, and some reporter takes advantage of a boneheaded but insignificant remark and causes all this damage. And please, are you trying to tell me journalists don't cover for this kind of thing all the time? I thought the way "the game is played" is that you pick your battles, but regardless, it was just gratuitous to publish those remarks after Power requested that they be off the record.

I do think Power did the right thing by making her profuse apology and resigning. But it's killing me that a good person is taking a hit like this, even if she was impolitic.

Me too, Lucy. Nice to hear your voice.

Power was an idiot, and is lucky the bus doesn't get backed over her too.

(Thanks, paxr55.)

Reminds me of Janet Malcolm's famous quip:

Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.

Don't you think Power's view of Hillary as a "monster" is shared by others within Obama's inner circle?

Hi,

"but we bloggers has long complained about that..."

See, this is why we can never win...we don't understand the grammar of subject-verb agreement. It makes us look like maroons.

Have a nice day,
Antti

Democrats can only hope that John McCain continues to demonstrate how mentally unstable he is.

Good point about the reporter, KD. When it was revealed during the Scooter Libby trial that Tim Russert automatically left everything off the record unless he cleared it with his sources first, the blogosphere - rightly - exploded about the lapdog nature of the American press. Now that a UK reporter, simply being a reporter, printed a comment that burned the Obama camp, the Obamatards are crying it is somehow dirty journalism. What a bunch of whiners.

brian >"Don't you think Power's view of Hillary as a "monster" is shared by others within Obama's inner circle?"

Given the behavior of Camp Hillary over the last couple of weeks, I suspect it is widely shared & not just "...within Obama`s inner circle..."

Still holding out for None of the Above am I...

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

jbk: Striking out for righteous indignation over name-calling while using the pejorative "Obamatard?"
Really? I am thinking professional mediator is a career choice you should avoid. Fear mongering and bigotry doesn't pay as well, however.

While talking about our economic situation and military deployments are fearful topics, I would not necessarily call them Hobgoblins, not in the sense Mencken was inferring. I also don't think either candidate has been shy about the consequences of electing the other though.

Kevin,

A "fulsome" apology?? You should know better.

Hey Sparky, who said I was against name-calling? Apparently you Obamatards are not only righteous, holier than thou whiners, but also lack basic reading skills. 'Tard.

"I do think Power did the right thing by making her profuse apology and resigning. But it's killing me that a good person is taking a hit like this, even if she was impolitic." - Lucy

I hear you. Samantha Power is a smart woman, and it's a shame she had to go over false outrage. It's a wonder that Barack Obama had her help in his campaign, because she's a woman after all, and we are all misogynist towards them (sarcasm). But, that's politics. Like Al Gore, you're a great guy who we'd all like to see running, but once you're in, we want you to die for, uh, not really insinuating you created the Internet, but if we quote you that way. Uh, yeah.

If anything, Lucy, I am pretty sure Power will be in the Obama administration in the future, and her addition would be a great advantage to him. I want to see the shock from Clinton's supporters when she joins thou-Oh wait, there will be none.

ZOMG!!! HILLARY IZ MONSTER!!! Seriously, I'm for Hillary, but this whole incident seems overblown and certainly no reason for a resignation. Someone in the Obama campaign hates Hillary? No kidding, ya think? I'm mean if she said Hillary was a cunt or Chelsea was a whore, I would understand people getting upset, but I don't think that anybody seriously believes that Hillary is about to breath fire and attack Tokyo City or Cloverfield or anything.

oh, bull... people like Power ought to stop running and hiding when opposition gets annoyed... she should've told Hil if she doesn't like being called a monster she ought not act like one and then go into even further detail about Hil's monster behaviour.

Boorring: "(Law & Order sound effect)... (Law & Order sound effect) ... (Law & Order sound effect)"

Christ almighty. What's next -- "I know you are, but what am I?"

Talking politics with you is like trying to explain to my 15-year-old daughter why she and her friends can't hang out in Waikiki until after midnight. Neither of you display any innate ability to reason, or to rationally consider the possible validity of any perspective other than your own.

But then again, she's an adolescent child, and therefore not yet an adult.

and, in other news, igor resigns after calling frankenstein "hillary clinton"...

Hillary Clinton a "monster".

A statement was made.

Lots of useless chatter, BUT, is the statement accurate?

Starting position: Yes. Hillary Clinton's behavior makes her a "monster".

So what's the problem?

Puhhleez, Rove persued all kinds of smear campaigns.

This is such a non-story and not worth getting fired over.

I have never met a monster in real life, what do they act like?

Are they monstrous as in huge?

skippy: "and, in other news, igor resigns after calling frankenstein 'hillary clinton'"

That's "Eye-gore" and "Fronkensteen" to you, mein Herr.

paxr55: "[Hillary Clinton] is, as Peggy Noonan wrote, a 'train on a track, an Iron Horse.'"

If you, as a supporter of Sen. Obama, wish to dispel the notion that his partisans are using GOP talking points to attack Mrs. Clinton, then perhaps you might avoid quoting a former Reagan / Bush speechwriter to support your contentions.

What really finished the estimable Power was her disclosure to the BBC that the 16-month Iraq withdrawal plan was just for the election.

THIS IS ULTRA INTERESTING! http://www.spymac.com/details/?2350301

Regarding KD's usage with "fulsome," I hear you, JohnB. Still, fulsome sorta captures the excessiveness of the apology, given the circumstances.

Don, regarding Peggy Noonan, I hear you too. But when the woman's right, she's right. My practice generally is to quote powerful language when it works, regardless of the writer's party (or affiliation with Reagan.)

Peggy said, btw, that Clinton would win, citing in part, her "vicious" campaign. Here. I'll quote the sections:

What do I think is the biggest reason Mrs. Clinton came back? She kept her own spirits up to the point of denial and worked it, hard, every day. She is hardy, resilient, tough. She is a train on a track, an Iron Horse. But we must not become carried away with generosity. The very qualities that impress us are the qualities that will make her a painful president. She does not care what you think, she will have what she wants, she will not do the feints, pivots and backoffs that presidents must. She is neither nimble nor agile, and she knows best. She will wear a great nation down.

In any case the Clinton campaign, which has always been more vicious than clever, this week did a very clever thing. They pre-empted any criticism of past scandals by pushing a Democratic Party button called . . . the Monica story. Mr. Obama is "imitating Ken Starr" by speaking of Mrs. Clinton's record, said Howard Wolfson. But Ken Starr documented malfeasance. Mr. Obama can't even mention it.

Finally, it's my sense that emerging GOP talking points are pushing a Clinton candidacy ("she's tough!") because they see a possible McCain victory in November only if she (and not Obama) runs. Peggy is one of the few Republicans who is saying, be careful what you wish for.

I am suprised that Powers only resigned. My company got a letter from Monster Cable saying that "Monster" is their copyright name and I can't use it for my Monster movies or Monster Cars(?)

Sen. Clinton and her team have smeared Sen. Obama within the last few weeks, throwing more than the Kitchen Sink, a few Stink Bombs too, and they call themselves Good People - Agents of Change. It is politicians like them that make average Americans distrust and hate politics and politicians. What Ms. Powers meant is that Sen. Clinton's actions over this whole campaign process has been "monstrous", and that it has! It is and should be a part of the past and left behind