« Unclear on the Concept | Main | Crossing The Threshold »

March 07, 2008

Comments

i don't think she had to go. McCain's keeping Hagee's endorsement, proudly; Clinton has likened Obama to Ken Starr. nothing happened to either of them.

on the other hand, once again, Obama looks like he's been bitch-slapped (to quote Josh Marshall). it makes him seem weak, dominated and defensive.

add Clinton's now-repeated suggestions that she'd be open to allowing Obama to play 2nd fiddle to her as VP, and she keeps looking stronger and stronger, he keeps looking weaker and weaker.

i get that he wants to keep things clean and respectable. but he's getting his ass kicked this week. it's time to step it up. past time, even.

I think it's unfortunate that she "had" to resign, especially since is not a political operative, but rather, an advisor. It kind of reaks of the whole Edwards/Marcotte thing.

She clearly was speaking for herself, and doing so off the record. Impugning her statements to Obama is low politics. Resigning because others would impugn her statements to Obama strikes me as giving in to low politics.

That said, I take comfort in the fact that she's probably not really gone from the campaign. I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that she will continue to advise, perhaps more informally or through surrogates. She was, as I understand it, unpaid anyway -- and what is to stop her from jotting a quick thought memo now and then to her contacts within the campaign?

I'm with cleek and Marshall on this one... why did she have to resign?

What's the affirmative case for resigning if you say that this is just human?

As you say, the comment has nothing to do with her expertise. I see no reason why she can't sit in the penalty box until Obama wins the nomination, and then rejoin the team.

First, I disagree with Josh (or was it one of his readers?) about the bitch-slap theory. I think that what matters, in a case like this, is to react decisively, and not do something that looks like backing down. In this case, I don't think it is backing down: it's not as though Obama previously had some policy about it's OK to call Clinton a monster, which he is now retracting.

I think she had to resign because this way it's a one-day story, whereas otherwise it would be one big distraction. I also think she did the honorable thing by resigning herself. I hope that when it's all over, she gets a job in the Obama administration.

Um.

Gerri Peev was a political writer being interviewed by the political editor for the Scotsman.

Not while she was on the campaign trail, but while she was in London promoting her book.

I do think that the Scotsman showed their quality by printing the quote - it was the kind of "gotcha" tabloid journalism that the Scotsman has been well-known for over the past couple of decades (it used to be a better newspaper... yes, well). It's not a political story, it's not respectable journalism, it's just "ooh, we can get a newsy headline out of this" crap.

But I also think Gerri Peev was foolish. If you are working for a political campaign and are interviewed by a political editor, you need to speak slow and think twice before you say anything. You cannot afford to assume the interview is over until the journalist has left the room (put down the phone): and you absolutely cannot afford to take friendliness and apparent informality as a signal that the interview is over. This is something that anyone who makes a habit of talking to the media to present a public message - and Samantha Power seems to be just such a person - ought to know by heart, to have known for years.

This is not anything like a bereaved person speaking to the press about the person who's dead.

This is a professional making a very stupid mistake.

She had to resign because one of Obama's reasons for being a candidate for President is that he wants a bring in a "new kind of politics".

Demonizing opponents is not new.

He either makes his advisers adhere to that vision or he is a sham. I wish she didn't have to resign, but there was clearly no other option. Sometimes it sucks to hold yourself to higher standards when other people play dirty... but... that's why integrity is admirable.

My understanding is that Power resigned of her own accord, and that some people in the Obama campaign were even a little taken aback by it -- I hardly think that demonstrates that Obama got "bitch-slapped" (also not sure about that word choice), since it doesn't seem that he's really had anything to do with the whole affair.

What Hammer said. People are drawn to Obama in no small part on the theory that he's a better class of politician.

Of course, "monster" is verboten, whereas "beat the bitch" and "that guy's a major league asshole" are totally cool.

Maybe it's OK if the candidates are the ones being jerks? Or maybe it's that McCain and Bush aren't, you know, Democrats.

hilzoy: "I think she had to resign because this way it's a one-day story, whereas otherwise it would be one big distraction."

She had to resign because your generation has opted for political correctness over freedom of expression; this is what happens when you promulgate censorship in the name of scrupulous politeness.

In this instance you can also blame the resignation on sexist political correctness - you think she (or a man who uttered the same 'monster' quote) would have been asked to resign if the remark had been made about Bill Clinton when he was a candidate?

If she called McCain a monster, do you think she'd be asked to hit the road?

The whole “on the record” “off the record” thing is sleazy. If somebody doesn’t want a reporter to know something, they should keep their mouth shut.

The mindset that the reporter-interviewee can handle one level discourse but the message has to be dumbed down for us Proles is offensive. Must be a Harvard thing.

Yeah: she was demonized for calling Clinton a "monster" because she was a woman talking about a woman.

And finding Bill agrees with me is enough to make me think maybe I'm wrong. How disturbing.

It's a bad situation, but I think it will work out for Obama in the end. The story isn't going to have long legs, and it would be amazing for it to have an impact on the WY or MS votes coming up. The big picture is that the Hillary campaign threw a fit over being called a bad name, while the Obama campaign took the high road while winning two more states and the war of superdelegate attrition.

And I think Hillary's suggesting that she would allow Obama on her ticket as VP makes her look ridiculous, not strong.

Or maybe this is why they made her resign:

WASHINGTON - A former adviser to Barack Obama, who resigned Friday after calling rival Hillary Rodham Clinton "a monster," said Obama may not be able to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within a year as he has promised on the campaign trail.... She said Obama's position is that withdrawing all U.S. troops within 16 months is a "best-case scenario" that he will revisit if he becomes president.

"Yeah: she was demonized for calling Clinton a "monster" because she was a woman talking about a woman."

You got the talking about a woman part right...

If she said the same thing about a man, she'd still be in the fold.

Another illustration of the fact that in politics a gaffe is when you say something that you secretly believe.

"She had to resign because your generation has opted for political correctness over freedom of expression"

We did? As a body? Where?

"The mindset that the reporter-interviewee can handle one level discourse but the message has to be dumbed down for us Proles is offensive."

That's not at all what I meant. I think that sometimes, reporters can display basic humanity. This wouldn't be appropriate if someone made a damaging factual admission that they were in a position to know about -- e.g., if Powers had revealed that Obama was in fact the Zodiac murderer -- but when you have a basic slip-up that you immediately try to take back, and it's not some massive revelation, I think reporters should cut people some slack. Especially if they ever want anyone to talk to them ever again.

She had to resign because your generation has opted for political correctness over freedom of expression; this is what happens when you promulgate censorship in the name of scrupulous politeness.

I can't tell if you're a Boomer crapping on GenXers or a GenXer crapping on Boomers. Or if GenY is mixed up in here someplace. Is "your" directed at hilzoy?

Folks are holding Obama to a higher standard because everyone accepts that he is a better person, of whom more is expected.

By this time eight years ago, everyone had already decided to give George Bush a permanent pass, discounting every statement that began with: "I fully understand.."

Even this week, folks are willing to shrug off HRC's statement that only she and John McCain have the foreign policy chops to handle the Presidency. Oh well, we already know the Clinton's will 'do what they have to.' No surprises.

But, Obama must remain above. John Kerry tried to do that. IT's a tough world we occupy.

Obama looks like he's been bitch-slapped (to quote Josh Marshall). it makes him seem weak, dominated and defensive

To me, it makes him look like he's at least trying to stay on the high road. Even if it's just lip service, I appreciate the effort. Just another data point.

She said Obama's position is that withdrawing all U.S. troops within 16 months is a "best-case scenario" that he will revisit if he becomes president.

I'm not sure what to make of the sort of below-the-radar way this was introduced into the discussion -- "a former aide said..." -- but I think the substance of the point is basically a realistic assessment of the truth on the ground. I'm sorry it's true, but I'm glad that somebody is putting it on the table.

Thanks -

Especially if they ever want anyone to talk to them ever again.
This is really the crux of the issue. In a live interview, the interviewee has fair warning that they're being taped in realtime and it's their responsibility to tailor their behavior accordingly (cf. Obama's Reagan comment -- he got taken out of context, but he was also on notice and should have chosen his words better).

But in the case of a recorded interview, that expectation is not at all there. Power didn't even finish her sentence before she asked for a redaction. She wasn't asking them to rewrite history -- in fact, she was arguably trying to keep the level of discourse civil, and it's very clear now that her instinct was right. This was really a cheap shot. Not good interviewing form at all.

And no, this doesn't have a damn thing to do with political correctness or "dumbing down" a narrative. That's asinine.

e.g., if Powers had revealed that Obama was in fact the Zodiac murderer

Don't give the wingers any ideas! Sheesh.

She had to resign because your generation has opted for political correctness over freedom of expression

Somehow, that strikes me as amusing.

'Stop a bullet cold, make the access code'

Wonder Woman had an episode where the aliens came down to earth and he was going to stop all the wars. He got in trouble and the council decided he would succeed or die with the humans(like blow up the earth cause their bad). So, Wonder Woman used her power of sight, seeing the past and used to get entrance into the space ship. She got the aliens on TV and told em we're good and shouldn't die. Wonder Woman saved the alien and liked him a lot for some reason and saved the earth for another fifty years, then it gets blown up unless we stop wars. So, Wonder Woman, who has special luciferian powers to save the earth, meets luciferian aliens who want to destroy the earth and she gets along real good with one and saves the humans. Wonder Woman was pretty smart, but she knew the goal is not to save humans so she spied on em.

Clinton is a monster. Ever notice all these guys are Irish and that's where the FSB sends their spies to train. Ever notice they skip Scotland, where the King is and there's all that money and Bond?

as an aside - I heard your interview on NPR. It sounded very guarded. I loved it - it was two worlds colliding (NPR/blogosphere). Now where to hear Publius wax poetic...

Um.... what?

That was in response to the comment above jim's, of course.

Power's use of the word ‘Monster’ is newsworthy. Since the two Candidate’s policy platforms are fairly similar, the word speaks to the personal animus that has developed between the two campaigns. It would make a Clinton-Obama ticket much more interesting. The relationship between those two would affect the performance of the Executive branch, so the reporter was ethical in her work.

It is ironic that a liberal professor who has made a career out of human consciousness and healing is running around dropping the f-bomb and calling people names. Maybe this resignation will give her the time necessary to go over and get Maliki to share the oil. Her most recent book is on Iraq, after all. She could put the lessons she has learned to work for the greater good.

running around dropping the f-bomb

Again, what?

I think Power does think HRC is a monster, but also realizes, of course, that she shouldn't be caught saying that publicly. Clinton voted for the war and now she's willing to endanger Obama's chances of winning in November (if he's the nominee) by lining up with McCain against him on national security issues. Plus, if Power knows her Timorese history, she knows Clinton's most likely pick for Secretary of State is Richard Holbrooke, who has an appalling record on East Timor, being the one in charge of policy for that region under President Carter. The Clintons are ruthless politicians--no worse than most, but Power probably really does think Obama is different.

Not that I'm a real big fan of Power myself--Amy Goodman recently pressed her on Democracy Now to admit that US policy wrt Timor was a sin of commission, not a simple matter of looking away. Power agreed and then hastily changed the subject to 1999, when President Clinton finally switched sides on that issue. I think that as someone who tries to be influential in mainstream politics, Power pulls her punches. Except when she slips up.

Democracy Now interview

Again, what?

Scratch that -- thought it was referring to a remark she'd made about Clinton.

I stand by my "what?" in regard to the above post, however.

I think the comment itself reflects a dangerous loss of perspective that affects both the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Here we have a careful, balanced scholar-journalist whose area of expertise is genocide who puts the "monster" Hillary Clinton in the same class as genocidal tyrants. No doubt loyal Clintonites see Obama in the same apocalyptic terms. This combativeness is echoed to some extent in the rest of the blogosphere. I wonder if Power realizes that she will likely be voting for this monster in November.

It is ironic that a liberal professor who has made a career out of human consciousness and healing is running around dropping the f-bomb and calling people names.

You haven't known many faculty, have you?

I am relieved that Bill has stopped agreeing with me.

(I am also, re-reading the thread, horrified to find I typed "Gerri Peev" - the political editor who grabbed "monster" and painted and headline out of it) instead of "Samantha Power" (the journalist who made the stupid mistake of assuming the interview was over because everyone had got friendly.)

What was she thinking in this interview ? That what you say in Europe stays in Europe? I'm pretty flabbergasted by the naivete. She knows she's seen as Obama's surrogate. They'd be explaining what she really meant for the next two weeks if she'd stayed.

I think it was a really smart move, because being called a monster would have provided juicy material for HRC's victim narrative. I can see it before me: Hillary, with fake tears in her eyes and a slightly trembling but resolved voice: "I have been called a monster ...".

Also, nothing prevents Obama from bringing her back into the fold should he win the nomination. Even if Clinton were so daft as to complain about that, nobody would care.

Finally, I do find the Scotsman's behaviour a bit surprising. I know that the biggest magazine in Europe, "Der Spiegel", submits a transcript to every interviewee before publication and thus gives them the chance to make corrections - I thought that was pretty standard procedure.

tbock: When did she put HRC "in the same class as genocidal tyrants"?

In the realm of imaginitive speculation (redundant, I know) is http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/power_off.php#comment-1484454>this fun comment over at Marc Ambinder's blog. It suggests that Powers' comment was an intended hit.

Summary: "Hillary attacks ... like a suicide bomber who ends up missing her intended target ... Obama attacks ... like a ninja assassin."

What was she thinking in this interview ? That what you say in Europe stays in Europe? I'm pretty flabbergasted by the naivete. She knows she's seen as Obama's surrogate. They'd be explaining what she really meant for the next two weeks if she'd stayed.

That interview actually makes me even more sad that she left. I can see why the conventional wisdom might call this problematic, but it also throws into sharp relief just how few people in politics are ever that straightforward.

Obama manages to speak what's on his mind only through a prodigal talent for oratory, and even then he's forced to be "on" pretty much all the time. Hillary's been able to do the same at some rare moments, but she doesn't have the same ability to turn it on and off at will, and it clearly frustrates her. (And she seems to take it out on Obama, unfortunately, which is to an extent understandable, though I don't think it's really his fault.)

The media overparsing and hyperfocus on the candidates' words (and their supporters) didn't start with Rove, obviously, but it seems to me that it's gotten significantly worse over the last 8 years. The entire Democratic primary would've been a lot less miserable for all concerned if the candidates weren't so muzzled all the time.

Clinton, in particular, has been boxed into a corner where she has no options to nullify Obama's straight-talk advantage except via collateral attack. I don't know that she would have taken a lighter tack otherwise -- and I wish she hadn't regardless -- but I have to admit that she hasn't been given many good options, through no fault of her own.

This seems distinct from the Kennedy/Nixon situation where there was a plain old gulf of charisma -- under the current standard, any potential gaffe is just too risky to even approach, and the result is pure banality most of the time. Obama's really rare rhetorical talents should be a plus, I suppose, but not an absolute prerequisite for candidates to just be able to speak their mind from time to time. :-/

NB: I was referring the interview elmey linked, not the Scotsman interview. In it, Power is a bit rough around the edges, but perfectly articulate and interesting to read.

The media overparsing and hyperfocus on the candidates' words (and their supporters) didn't start with Rove, obviously, but it seems to me that it's gotten significantly worse over the last 8 years. The entire Democratic primary would've been a lot less miserable for all concerned if the candidates weren't so muzzled all the time.

without that joy of parsing, though, there'd not be really too much for political bloggers to do.

OT, this VC thread is crying out for a Kantian ethicist:

Alton Logan doesn't understand why two lawyers with proof he didn't commit murder were legally prevented from helping him. They had their reasons: To save Logan, they would have had to break the cardinal rule of attorney-client privilege to reveal their own client had committed the crime. But Logan had 26 years in prison to try to understand why he was convicted for a crime he didn't commit....

Meh. I think the "monster" reference can be taken in numerous ways, and unless there's a video or audio tape somewhere that convinces me that Power meant "monster" in, say, the way Saddam was a "monster", I'm more inclined to believe she meant it in a more benign way. E.g., "monster" as a proxy for "tenacious" or "unyielding" or something similar.

I mean, if I say that Dwight Howard is just a monster on the boards, that's a compliment. Now, I have no doubt that Power was not using the word in that manner, but really, this is just stupid.

If she said Hillary was "monstrous", then I'd be more in favor of condemning her.

Oh, f--- me ... did that work?

Ugh has hidden HTML powers!

Luckily, I use those powers only for truth, justice, and properly formatted comment threads.

No wonder everyone calls your name, Ugh!

No wonder everyone calls your name, Ugh!

Exactly, maybe I should run for Preznit, now that I've turned 35. Can you imagine the cheers at the convention?

"UGH! UGH! UGH! UGH! UGH! UGH! UGH!"

It would be like everyone was having the wind knocked out of them.

.What I get out of this is that top Obama advisers should never, ever talk to the press during the campaign. Certainly they should never speak their mind.
If the press ever complains that they don't get access to the candidate or his staff, except at scripted press conferences, well, what do they expect, really?

It would be like everyone was having the wind knocked out of them.

Or how the actual cheers at this year's republican convention are going to go.

I really hope she is able to come back to the staff if Obama becomes President.

Playing by the rules, Powers had to go.

But we are aren't playing by the rules. HRC has compared the McCain favorably to Obama. She compares Obama to Ken Starr (speaking of monsters).

When you are in a fight and the other side kicks you in the balls you better fight back dirty or or you will get creamed. This is the law of the streets. Some will say it doesn't apply to politics, but au contraire, it especially applies to politics. In politics there is no referee.

I favor Obama, but I have long been unsure how he will take on a swift-boating, especially with his calls to a higher politics which potentially ties his hands. HRC's tactics are reprehensible, but his response is information we need to know for November, because Hillary's won't be the last swift-boating.

Personally, I think letting Powers go was a big mistake. Obama not only needed to say no, he needed to say hell no. Something along the lines of

"Hillary Clinton is running for President but won't show us her tax returns. She compares me to Ken Starr for asking about them. She claims her years as First Lady as foreign policy experience yet will not discuss what she actually did while in the White House. I could go on but I won't right now. The main point is that I do not believe that Hillary Clinton is actually offended when an aide of mine slips up and calls her a monster. Hillary Clinton is a politician who plays hardball all day every day, and today she is playing hardball because Samantha Power, who is a superb foreign policy analyst, threw a softball. Hillary Clinton will do just fine as I keep Samantha Power on my staff. She will do just fine pretending that she is so hurt and offended.

Hillary Clinton says she is tough, and she is. I can vouch for that. She is certainly tough enough so that she can handle the presence on my staff of a very intelligent woman who in the heat of the moment called Hillary a monster."

That wasn't so hard, was it?

One of the high points of Hillary's recent campaign was when Tina Fey called her a "bitch" on Saturday Night Live. That's OK?

Hillary appeared on the show herself either the next week or a week later. Maybe Ms. Power just used the wrong word.

Especially if they ever want anyone to talk to them ever again.

Seems to me the campaigns need to talk to athletes and coaches. They all know that anything derisive ends up on the locker room wall and is used as fuel for the fire. Interviews are boring because of it, but there it is.

When you are in a fight and the other side kicks you in the balls you better fight back dirty or or you will get creamed.

No, you pray that they'll do the same thing again, because now that you know what they'll do you can move to one side, catch their leg and hyper extend their knee with your elbow.

IMHO, the mistake that Senator Obama made in this was not in allowing the woman to resign but in not using this to his advantage. He should have fired her with a HUGE amount of fanfare. By allowing her to resign, he lost someone he wanted on his staff, but didn't earn points for trying to keep things clean or show that he could be decisive.

Apparently today's the day for crudballs to kick Power around. Since her resignation, the Wikipedia article on her's been updated to state that she propagates blood libel against the Jews and supports the extermination of the Jews of Judea. Who knew?

Jay Jerome:

"She had to resign because your generation has opted for political correctness over freedom of expression."

What a load of horseshit.

You and the servers can't handle freedom of expression.

Ara: The author of A Problem From Hell: has made a study of real human monsters. For her to use the word presumably means more than for some other person to use it. To characterize an ordinary centrist politician like Clinton as a "monster" is overkill anyway; if you want to accuse her of sharp practice or undercutting the Democrats, I can see your point. Clinton has not done anything monstrous, or murdered anyone that I know of (except Vince Foster, of course).

More generally, I think the campaigns on both sides have lost perspective. I just came back from the Texas caucuses which were split down the middle in my precinct. There was no outrage or hard feeling between Obama and Clinton supporters. Most democrats that I talked to believe both candidates are adequate. There seemed to be a lot of last minute decision-making. I just want to warn my fellow left-liberals not to box themselves in by tying themselves emotionally to one candidate or the other. As it is, half the democrats are going to be disappointed in the next few weeks. Any delay in coming together for the winner can only help McCain.

Powers took the high road and I admire her for it. She really does merit a spot in the Obama administration despite this off the record gaffe.

I think Samantha Power fell on her sword to insure her gaffe could not be used to harm the Obama campaign at a critical moment. Hopefullly, once Barack Obama is nominated, she will again be able to serve him as an advisor.

dropping the f-bomb

Do you actually talk to people under 40? It's not much of a bomb anymore, especially in the phrase "f***ed up", which is what she used.

The book title is wierd. Harvard professor and all the Kennedy harvard stuff, she's just like Chayes. They are strange people and it would be better to wonder about sanity than anything else. Like what would she do if we planned another war like Afghanistan? Chayes personally destroyed Afghanistan and NATO. She wanted more money. These Harvard ngs are dangerous and expensive. They really are nothing special and are not acting in US interest, NATOs, etc. or the country they deal with. They do get a lot of cash from USAID.

As far as problems from hell, we're in it. All's we had to do is choose Jesus and we're out of hell. So, she's an expert at genocide in hell, well, maybe genocide means all the humans or something and God doesn't think that's a bad idea. The problems in understanding God might be the concept of ceasing all existence, which is easily done, but involves Satan and is bad, like, it makes sense. She studies genocidal persons and they're just confused about how to do God's will, like, don't have a thing for types of humans cause we're all in lucifer's hell and, you know, that might be the way to get things done.

I don't understand Timor and Holbrooke. I think he worked for a drug company or something and had something to do with genetics. Holbrooke seems to be the same as the Harvard Obama and wife and Power and the rest of em.

No one needs another Harvard idiot running foreign policy or anything else. Ya know, Clinton was a lawyer and we all got warned. So are all these dems. Harvard lawyers. Don't lawyers control all that lucifer stuff cause everyone is not guilty or something.

Admitting to an NPR interview? Who wants to destroy their own career?

It's like Condi and Bush? They're scrwing?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/06/wpower106.xml

In case anyone's interested in what the Scotsman are doing in response to Power's resignation, there's an article in the Scotsman today explaining their decision and the Editor says that "we are certain it was right to publish."

They've also got two other articles on the story, both by Gerri Peev. There's a shorter one here and a longer article here.

As always, I appreciate Hilzoy's heartfelt, well-stated, and nuanced remarks on this issue. But I do disagree with her take on whether the Scotsman should have published the remark, for the reasons Glenn Greenwald goes into:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

As GG notes, it's a question of line-drawing, and I feel that in this country we've gotten to the point that the press feels that access to the powerful is more important than their informational role of reporting what the powerful do and say. I think that's wrong and that we ought to know more about our rulers, actual or potential, and not less. I agree with many people, though, that Power is a great academic and writer (I have "A Problem from Hell" at home, and it's a great history of our checkered American approach to the genocide problem) whose departure is regrettable, whether or not it may been justified.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, she will hire Samantha Power to serve in her Adminstration.

A fresh datum or two praps; good video. From Alternet w/link to HuffPo.

and I feel that in this country we've gotten to the point that the press feels that access to the powerful is more important than their informational role of reporting what the powerful do and say.

And I agree: but I think the basic difference is:

This wasn't important.

By no stretch of the imagination could it have been considered important, except in that it provided a neat quote for a headline that would likely be used against either Obama or Clinton by their political opponents in the future, if Samantha Power hadn't resigned.

Samantha Power wasn't holding office in government. She was a campaign worker who made a stupid mistake. It was stupid, she resigned, I think the Scotsman were kind of short-sighted publishing it because of the reaction, but this was not the same kind of thing as a reporter calling a government official and then using everything they say as if it were news without admitting who they got it from.

This from HuffPo: She had never heard of the freshman Democrat who had taken office just months earlier. So Power researched him, downloading the famous address Obama gave to the Democratic convention the summer prior. The two met shortly after -- it was only supposed to last an hour but they ended up talking for four.

"Why don't I quit my job at Harvard and come and intern in your office and answer the phones or do whatever you want?' It was literally that spontaneous," she recalled saying. To which, the senator responded: "Great."

The following passage from the "Importance of Being Earnest" comes to mind:

ALGERNON: Didn't it go off all right, old boy? You don't mean to say Gwendolen refused you? I know it is a way she has. She is always refusing people. I think it is most ill-natured of her.

JACK: Oh, Gwendolen is as right as a trivet. As far as she is concerned, we are engaged. Her mother is perfectly unbearable. Never met such a Gorgon . . . I don't really know what a Gorgon is like, but I am quite sure that Lady Bracknell is one. In any case, she is a monster, without being a myth, which is rather unfair . . . I beg your pardon, Algy, I suppose I shouldn't talk about your own aunt in that way before you.

I wish that Powers resignation statement had included an affirmation that Hillary will say virtually anything to promote her campaign -- that the "just words" argument describes Hillary instead of Obama.

I don't see Josh Marshall's post on this dust-up linked in this thread.

His comment yesterday is at
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182191.php

Josh originally stated the "bitch slap" theory during the original Swift Boating. The gist as I read it is that whether a candidate responds to a personal attack carries a meta message: his/her ability to lead the nation in responding to an attack on all of us.

(I wish there was a safe-for-work name for this argument. Any suggestions?)

I do want Obama to fight back against the increased attacks by Hillary in the last 2 weeks. The claims of her foreign policy experience have been debunked in detail. I want Obama to use these to argue pointedly that "just words" fits the Clintons better than him. (The nasty surrogate component would be to suggest that Hillary is mistrustful of words because she has no reason to trust her husband's.)

According to the link below, Samantha Power is good pals with Richard Holbrooke (which seems confirmed by some googling). So much for my theory that she dissed HRC on human rights grounds.

Maybe this sheds a little bit of light on why Ms. Power has said so little about US policy regarding East Timor pre-1999.

LINK

.
Firing Powers was a mistake, Obama has shown himself to be subservient to the PIAPS.
Great post. Obama’s aide was right. Hillary is a monster. Of course not the same kind of monster as Hitler, Mao or Stalin, but a monster nonetheless.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don't call monsters monsters

never expose their evil
never upset a monster


.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
claim to care for people

call yourself progressive
your policies hurt poor folk


.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
elect women presidents

who cover for their husbands
who rape other women


.
if you’re MAD
punish your country
VOTE for Hillary

.
http://www.hillaryproject.com/

Go here and watch ‘The Hillary Show’ with Howard Dean. It’s Hillarious!

http://www.stophernow.com/

http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/

:)
. ..

The silver lining in this comment is that everyone is a monster from time to time, the weird thing is that Power provided the definition of monster: someone who would do anything to win.

If we could agree on what it means to win, it wouldn't really matter. Problem is that Clinton will do anything to become the Dem nominee. That is the problem. You can win the nomination and lose.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad