So thinking a bit more reflectively about this Samantha Power business, I'm pretty pissed off. Sure, you can rail against the perfidy of the Clintons, but this sort of ritualized calls for resignations is all in the game. Having her resign, by contrast, is just playing the game poorly. Remember when fresh strategic thinking and common sense were going to break with the conventional wisdom? I do. The "monster" business was a dumb thing to say, and certainly the kind of thing you apologize for, but no kind of indication that she was a bad person to get foreign policy advice from.
« Military-Industrial Complex | Main | How Southern is the South? »
Power Outage
07 Mar 2008 12:52 pm
Comments (132)
It had to be done to make the issue go away and move on to the next news cycle. (And -- boy! -- does Obama need a good news cycle.) But, yeah, it sucks, especially since the press will use it as further evidence that the Clintons know how to play this game, while the Obamas do not.
Could not agree more. It is an indication of fear, something I had not tagged Obama's campaign with until now. You respond to critics but you do not let them dictate your actions. This was wrong, wrong, wrong.
It was dumb to say, but sad to see them give in so quickly and have her resign. Hope they know what they're doing.
Also, the guardian has her quoted as saying: "that is off the record":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/barackobama.hillaryclinton
yeah, it's stupid, particularly since the comments were supposed to be off the record. A bit sloppy on Dr. Power's part, but it seems improper to let her go since she got burned by a unscrupulous journo.
the resignation makes Obama look weak.
i get that he wants to play it clean, but a simple apology would've been enough.
My god, can't we talk about their differing policies on Iraq, or on health insurance, or anything else in the entire world that isn't this stupid, peripheral crap?
And I agree with Matt, moe99, pjs, et al. Unnecessary for her to resign.
yeah, it's stupid, particularly since the comments were supposed to be off the record. A bit sloppy on Dr. Power's part, but it seems improper to let her go since she got burned by a unscrupulous journo.
Elvis: right on, brother.
Class acts that they are, the Clinton campaign are sending out a so-sad e-mail, asking for money to combat this vicious attack, not mentioning that Power fell on her sword within 11 hours.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Monster_money.html
This is the only reason I think Clinton has a shot at the White House: Gender politics are on her side. When a McCain supporter called her a "bitch," it was a one-day negative McCain story. When Tina Fey crowded that "bitches get things done," Clinton called to thank her.
Not that I think Power could have recovered by saying she meant to call Clinton a bitch...
Obama should hold a press conference, and when he gets asked about this say:
Senator Clinton is not a monster, as far as I know.
More seriously, I think she did have to resign. It was the only way for Obama to stay consistent with his message. In fact, he probably should've fired her.
Having her resign, by contrast, is just playing the game poorly.
But we're in the 'regression to the mean' stage of the campaign, where the rules of the game kick in much harder. It's Hack-A-Barack in the last minutes of the fourth quarter.
I think it's smart, on a Friday, to make sure the story dies from the news cycle. Because I'm quite certain that Samantha Power's not been deleted from the campaign speed-dial. (The only place she seemed to speak regularly as a surrogate was Tucker Faye Carlson's show.)
She's a policy adviser not a campaign adviser, it doest hurt Obama in the least and it gets it out of the news cycle. She'll be back for the general.
1) The Presidential campaign process, while certainly not perfect, does weed out the weak.
2) Obama is either willing to fight for the American People -- or he is not. He either has courage -- or he does not.
3) Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows how this country has been fucked in the past 7 years. They also know how Hillary Clinton has gone out of her way to ENABLE George Bush's actions. Because Hillary is concerned about Hillary -- just as Bill was largely concerned about Bill. Bill had no problem destroying the chance to help millions of America's poor simply for an irresponsible affair with Monica. Hillary has no regrets that 4000 men died in an unnecessary war in Iraq just so she could play footsy with Haim Saban, S Daniel Abraham ,and the other billionaire backers of the Israel Lobby.
4) Anyone who knows (2) and (3) KNOWS that Hillary should NOT be President -- and should be willing to explain that to Democratic voters. NOT for the sake of personal ambition --but for the good of the country.
If Obama lacks the courage to stand up for his people -- then maybe he is not suited to be President. Because if he can't stand up to an overprivileged, smug, incompetent like Hillary then he can't stand up to our foreign enemies and to the Republicans.
It's that fucking simple.
It wasn't just the "monster" comment, though. Go read the interview. She's cursing and speaking incoherently. The whole thing came off sounding incredibly bad, and the Obama campaign is right to cast her off. She proved herself to be quite a liability.
And WTF, she's a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist! On the record or off, you watch your mouth really carefully around journalists. She should know that. It was amateur hour all around.
Did Samantha die for Goolsbee's sins?
My guess is that Power wasn't pushed, she made the decision to resign on her own. She's always seemed amibvalent about her political role.
I agree. Samantha Power is way too significant a figure to just jettison. She's not just another campaign functionary.
I'm still for Obama, but he's showing some disturbing signs that he can be intimidated--ironically, the one thing I disliked the most about the early days of the Clinton administration.
I agree with Matt and everyone above that it was a stupid move, and makes Obama look week.
The one bright spot I can see from the events of the last couple weeks: Politics is much more fun when you hate one of the contenders. I actually liked Hillary until a couple of weeks ago. Now, instead of feeling kind of bad for her falling short in her quest for the nomination, I'm really going to relish the moment when she finally gives up.
resign or don't resignis besides the point.
the point is that Obama does not have a prayer unless he takes control of the debate again.
the Canadian/Clinton NAFTA scandal is the opening, but Obama is not taking it, and that will be his demise. On NAFTA and Clinton's kitchen sink attacks he could take the high ground, and do so very publicly by going back to Ohio to give a speech about....that would be new politic, that would be the 50 state strategy, that would be focused on electability in November . . .
but Obama seems to be doing nothing to put him back in the center of the national debate in a directing role.
Reading the story again, I'm pretty sure Power was drunk for that interview.
Thankfully, MattY has completely distanced himself from things like this in the past.
I distinctly remember MattY condemning - in the strongest words possible in the august webpages of The Atlantic - the DCCC's search for other Macaca moments.
I distinctly remember - as clear as day - MattY refusing to entertain smears and the like.
I distinctly remember MattY concentrating on an even-handed discussion of policy matters, not spouting DNC talking points like others, but really looking in to issues from all sides and considering all viewpoints.
Thankfully, MattY has remained above the fray.
I heard the most depressing thing on MSNBC last night. Obama apparently isn't going to pick up NAFTAGate 2.0 because he thinks he can beat her on the NAFTA issue alone.
To which I ask, WHY NOT BEAT HER ON THE ISSUES AND HER HYPOCRISY? Pointing out what she did is not negative. It's a statement of fact. This narrative can be easily established:
1990's through a couple years ago: Clinton loves NAFTA
Her campaign: Clinton doesn't like NAFTA anymore
But secretly: She loves NAFTA, and, as she apparently told Canada, she's pretending not to like it to get votes.
EASY!
*Assuming NAFTAGate 2.0 is true, of course.
Think southpaw may be right, the stuff about Ohio is pretty incoherent and rambling.
Read the whole interview, along with the on-record Telegraph piece where Power comes off like a starstruck teenybopper. It just all fits too well into the amateurish Obama cult thing. She had to go, at least for now.
Obama just surrendered to the terrorists.
"So thinking a bit more reflectively about this Samantha Power business..."
Hold on, you're going to think about this reflectively now? Is this the beginning of a new pattern for your blog -- first a knee-jerk post followed by a "reflective" one?
Let me make a meta-point here. This Powers incident shows the folly of assuming that your candidate's policy experts are so much smarter than the current president's experts. It's easy to look smart when your audience is a bunch of fawning U. of Chicago students and your highest responsibility is grading papers. It's not so easy when your audience is the political press corps and you assume a measure of real responsibility.
Couldn't disagree more that firing her makes him look weak.
Having a top adviser shoot off at the mouth all crazy-like made him look weak.
The only option was to fire her. She was off message and undisciplined. Of course it's understandable for her to be pissed, but she should have made sure she was off the record before she started ranting. Incredibly unproffesional, and proof positive she needs a time out.
Matt and most of the commenters above are too much in the wonkosphere bubble. She needed to resign, and pronto. The reality is that Obama's whole brand identity is that you disagree without being disagreeable, and that you do not "demonize" your opponents. His entire candidacy would look like a sham if he temporized here. If it's between two hardball politicians, Hillary wins, because his speech-making abilities are offset by her perceived experience. Those two respective attributes of him and her make it a tie. What gives Obama the edge is that, contrary to the Hillary frame, he's not just a good speaker, but someone with a fundamentally different vision for how politics ought to be conducted. That is the tiebreaker. If his people are calling opponents "monsters," Hillary has the advantage.
My bet is that Power, who is brilliant, recognized this, and quit so that Obama did not have to call her and fire it. But to win any state, including esp. Pennsylvania, you need voters, not intellectuals like Matt Yglesias.
Just one expample: There were indications that Obama was going to use against Hillary her statements to people like Bill Bradley that she would "demonize" any Dem. who opposed her health care plan back in 1994. Now he can still say that.
Lastly, her resignation does not preclude her from giving advice if Obama is elected. I also think that Obama already has learned much and gained much from his discussions with Power.
Of course she had to be canned when the entire premise of your candidacy is "change" and "hope' and turning away from old smear-tactic politics.
Yglesias' coverage of Obama will, ironically, never be nominated for a "Yglesias Award". Matt, your Obama blind spot grows every day.
Fred, read the comment from the earlier thread. Being a bad politician doesn't make you dumb. I would rather have Power advising me than the neoclowns in the admin right now, 8 days a week.
But we're in the 'regression to the mean' stage of the campaign, where the rules of the game kick in much harder. It's Hack-A-Barack in the last minutes of the fourth quarter.
This is a pretty good analogy. I particularly like "Hack-a-Barack."
It is not surprising that Israel bashers like Mr. Don Williams are displeased by the resignation of Ms. Powers. Back in 2002, Ms. Powers suggested that an invasion of Israel by US troops was in order to facilitate the formation of a Palestinian State. I'm sure that these Israel bashers would have been far more amenable to a US invasion of Israel, then an invasion of Iraq.
I think RaymondA is right on. She had to resign. Obama does not need to feign toughness. He need to be tough. That means sticking to his pledge to stay focussed on the issues. What does it prove that you can sling mud at a political opponent? Does it mean you'll be a good commander in chief? Was that true of George W. Bush?
1) The point is, HIllary IS a MONSTER. As is John McCain. Don't believe me? Go to the Brook Medical Center in San Antonio and look at the multiple amputees, at those with their face burned off,etc.
2) Wounds suffered in defense of the USA are one thing. Wounds suffered because smirking , corrupt Senators in DC wanted to suck the dicks of wealthy patrons are something else.
This Powers incident shows the folly of assuming that your candidate's policy experts are so much smarter than the current president's experts. It's easy to look smart when your audience is a bunch of fawning U. of Chicago students and your highest responsibility is grading papers.
First point: I know plenty of brilliant people I would not trust to make on-the-record statements to the press as my spokesman. Next: you're a blasted ignorant curr if you think that being a professor is only about grading papers and teaching undergraduates. What kind of idiot are you? To be a respected academic, you have to publish a lot to an audience of academics and professionals who want nothing more than to enhance their own reputations by telling you you're full of crap on a regular basis. Where the hell do you get off shooting off your mouth about the responsibilities of a university professor? You're just reinforcing the stereotype of right-wingers as a bunch of uneducated, disrepectful doofuses more apt to listen to creationist hucksters than actual subject matter experts.
It's easy to look smart when your audience is a bunch of fawning U. of Chicago students and your highest responsibility is grading papers. It's not so easy when your audience is the political press corps and you assume a measure of real responsibility.
The woman won a friggin Pulitzer Prize for her work. She's done a whole lot more than grade papers.
Seriously, Fred, de-ignorant-ify yourself.
Power was an unpaid foreign affairs advisor. She messed up, and removing her from the public eye is smart. Obama can continue to solicit advice from her in an unofficial capacity, and you can be sure she will find a spot at the State Department. That’ll be a fun confirmation hearing though…
Being a bad politician doesn't make you dumb.
This does give some insight into the Republican mind: apparently being a good politician means you're brilliant. Thus, Karl Rove is considered by them to be the most brilliant policymaker of all time.
I'm supremely pissed he let her resign. The Clintons have been calling Obama Ken Starr and Karl Rove, for God's sake.
This election is no longer fun. The Clintons are killing any joy in the process. And now Obama caves. Every day my hope for change dies a little death.
Why a fun confirmation hearing? Clinton isn't on the Foreign Affairs committee, unless she takes Obama's seat. Are you suggesting Sen. Vitter might defend her honor?
I guess Boxer and Menendez will still be around, but nobody's going to remember this in a year.
The situation demanded a weak move. Had this happened three weeks ago, Obama could've stood by her and the media would've likely given them a pass. But after the past two weeks, he can't afford to give the Clinton campaign any ammunition. This comes a day after the Ken Starr comment that the media is still repeating and only two days after a devastating loss. To fight for Power now would've guaranteed that all the media would focus on through the Wyoming caucus is this. Judging from Hillary's response, she doesn't want to let this go just yet. But maybe her lack of charity will work against her. Obama's people need to quietly remind the press how he reacts when smeared. He's gracious, she's vindictive. The way he handled this may appear weak, but any good general needs to be able to read the field and respond with a cool head. I give Obama props on this one. Maybe, if he's lucky, he'll have a couple good days tomorrow and Tuesday, which will allow him to climb out of this hole.
It's a Friday, she resigned, and we're America. No one's going to remember this on Monday.
Re RaymondA's comment "The reality is that Obama's whole brand identity is that you disagree without being disagreeable, and that you do not "demonize" your opponents. His entire candidacy would look like a sham if he temporized here "
----------------
BULLSHIT!
Either Obama thinks it is in the NATIONAL INTEREST for him to be President --instead of Hillary -- or he shouldn't be running. If Hillary is an acceptable substitute, he shouldn't be running.
Obama should visit the wounded troops at Brooks Medical Center -- the amputees,severely burned,etc -- and say: THIS is what you get when you make Hillary a Senator. What will you get when you make her a President?
The only reason Israeli billionaire Haim Saban is backing Hillary is because he thinks she will be "good for Israel".
That Hillary Will take on Israel's enemy Iran so Israel won't have to. That Hillary will spend the lives of US soldiers in a Iran War so that Israel won't have to spend the lives of Israeli soldiers.
While, at the same time, Hillary WON'T ask Israel to give up the Nukes that are driving the Iranians to develop nukes of their own in self-defense.
She had to go to save Obama a bad media cycle. But it was also important to pull both campaigns back from open warfare before it got any worse.
Some of the male blogospherites could do to chill the anti-Hillary rhetoric. some folk are starting to sound like left wing versions of the wingnuts.
David Brooks wrote about the problem for Obama in today's Times:
"In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him."
Ummm... maybe Power had to resign because of stuff like this:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_on_Obamas_Iraq_plan_best_case_scenario.html
Apparently, Iraq policy is an issue where we shouldn't take Obama at his word. Key quote:
"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009. He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator."
Now, I believe it is smarter to let the facts on the ground - as well as the best interests of the country - dictate withdrawal schedules. So I agree with what Power is saying. BUT THIS ISN'T WHAT OBAMA HAS BEEN SAYING FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. He's said he wants to pull out combat troops in 16 months and many people are taking him at his word. Which, maybe, they shouldn't.
In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him.
There is a ring of truthiness to that, but as regards this debate, it imposes a false dichotomy: fire or accept. There are any number of ways to address this sort of thing.
Besides, isn't firing the offender the conventional response? Or have we live with GWB not firing his incompetent boobs (h/t generica) for so long that keeping people past any sane measure of worthiness (let alone fairly minor slips like this one) is now considered conventional?
And here is the real problem, which nobody seems the grasp. The Obama response to the last few days should have been (a) accept the Power resignation, but, (b) at the same time, go after Clinton viciously, but in a manner acceptable under the "rules of the game" (i.e, avoid name calling by the candidate or his campaign, but still hit her hard directly for the NAFTA flip flop, the hideous McCain loving comments, etc., etc., and use deniable surragates for the rough stuff).
The problem isn't that he accepted the Power resignation, the problem is that he isn't counterpunching.
But, that being said, a couple of points to keep in mind. One is that, despite some weaknesses from Obama in this regard there is a huge body of evidence that overall Obama would be far more electible in the general. Let's not let it obscure Clinton's many, many electoral vulnerabilities.
But the other is this. Even for people who don't loath Clinton to the extent thatI do, let's be honest. Even most Clinton supporters have to acknowledge that he would make a much better president than Clinton. So do you sell your souls for a (hypothetically, at best) a marginally greater chance in the general)? I don't think so.
This is much ado about nothing. Does anyone believe taht Barack is going to throw away Power's phone number and e-mail address. She was an unpaid volunteer. How do you fire someone who isn't getting paid? You beltway pundits are morons. Power resigns. Barack looks great to Jon Q. Donkey because her resignation is consistent with his message: We will not demonize our opponent. And then she continues to provide him assistance behind the scenes until he vanquishes the monster in June. Then Power is free to come back and help him beat McCain in the fall. This really is nothing.
Now can someone please ask Hillary about the Rezko co-defendants who donated to her campaign? And also please see if she could swing by the copy machine and pick up those 2001 through 2006 tax returns she said she was trying to get at the last debate.
This is much ado about nothing. Does anyone believe taht Barack is going to throw away Power's phone number and e-mail address. She was an unpaid volunteer. How do you fire someone who isn't getting paid? You beltway pundits are morons. Power resigns. Barack looks great to Jon Q. Donkey because her resignation is consistent with his message: We will not demonize our opponent. And then she continues to provide him assistance behind the scenes until he vanquishes the monster in June. Then Power is free to come back and help him beat McCain in the fall. This really is nothing.
Now can someone please ask Hillary about the Rezko co-defendants who donated to her campaign? And also please see if she could swing by the copy machine and pick up those 2001 through 2006 tax returns she said she was trying to get at the last debate.
Damir:
Who cares? No one cares that she swore. All that anyone cared about was that she called Hillary a monster. The problem for him, as has been stated in this thread, is that he needs to take control of the situation(meaning the primary). Right now, to any caual observer, it looks like a Clinton love fest. Where is the TradMed grilling her over her taxes and the Clinton library? He had to know that the TradMed would come after him now that he's the front runner. Axelrod better help Obama get back on his game, and quick.
Obama is never going to call her a "monster" in his campaign. But now the word's out there, being repeated on CNN and MSNBC as we speak. Yeah, the resignation makes him look a little weak, but ALSO there that word is now, bouncing around the echosphere, looking for someone to attach to. Who's run the more "monsterous" campaign? I'd say that's a net win for Obama.
She also said that both Barack and Clinton were equally unprepared for the 3am called, which is known as a Kinsley. I suspect she was fired as much for that.
And really. The woman writes about Rwanda and she calls Clinton a monster? She should have been more careful.
I don't care much one way or the other, but Obama would never have been able to complain about Hillary's negative campaigning again if he'd kept her.
New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him Lord help me, but Brooks is right.
Look, Don & MY, I too was initially pissed b/c I felt like Obama was caving to asinine demands. But he's getting ready to go on the attack, and he needs to launch his offensive from higher ground. Had he dithered and then had Powers resign after it got bounced around for 2 news cycles, it would have been bad. As it is, he acted immediately and pulled the rug right out from under the faux outrage. Clinton's going to look like a whiner if she keeps on about it. Now, Obama has all weekend to get his plan together, and let the news cycle reset. You see if Hillary doesn't wake up Monday with a bloody nose.
It's a close call. If she didn't resign, Clinton was going to use it for days on end. Though if dc is right about the ultimate goodness of having 'monster' in the vocabulary, maybe that wouldn't have been so bad.
But I incline to think that despite looking weak, he couldn't afford to have 'monster' sitting out there when he's trying to take the high road. Clinton is all about trying to take that away from him.
What we do need -- pronto -- is for Obama to find someway to reclaim the narrative here. Clinton's been calling the shot for a few weeks now and it's killing him.
By now, the Regnery Press must have commissioned an anti-HRC book with the working title "Monster" -- the only question is whether Kos gets his one into the bookstores first.
I'm OK with the resignation for these reasons-
- It helps put the story to bed sooner, rather than later
- It implies that there is accountability in the Obama camp. You don't get away with being a loose cannon
- Given that Obama is selling 'new politics' and a positive message based on optimism and hope, he doesn't want to be surrounded with people who fight down and dirty in the old political way
I'm OK with the resignation for these reasons-
- It helps put the story to bed sooner, rather than later
- It implies that there is accountability in the Obama camp. You don't get away with being a loose cannon
- Given that Obama is selling 'new politics' and a positive message based on optimism and hope, he doesn't want to be surrounded with people who fight down and dirty in the old political way
She also said that both Barack and Clinton were equally unprepared for the 3am called, which is known as a Kinsley. I suspect she was fired as much for that.
No, that was Susan Rice.
I think Matt has this wrong. She had to go. It's been too rough of a week for Obama and he has to get back on message. HRC and Co. would have beat Obama to death with the Monster.
The irony is, of course, that Hillary's surrogates have said far worse about Obama over the course of this campaign but nothing happened in terms of resignations or even public rebukes. I'm thinking of one surrogate who, literally, insinuated that Obama wasn't organizing on the streets but instead doing/selling drugs.
But God, does Obama need to get back on message.
** What's pissing me off, as an Obama supporter, is that he is not getting out in front of his new campaign strategy. If he wants to (finally!!) question her claims to experience, excellent. that is fair ground. But he's relying on his surrogates to throw mini-bombs about library records, tax returns, and such. ALL of which can be spun by Wolfson as "desperate."
** He needs to hold a press conference and grab this bull by the horns, otherwise, the media will bury him under his new "offensive."
** He needs to come out and explain, publicly for the world to hear, that questioning the experience of a candidate is not negative attacking. That he welcomes these questions of himself; and then he needs to explain 1) his vision for leadership, why it's different from Hillary's and 2) that this has been a rough couple of days, since those FALSE stories about Nafta came out, but like he always says, "Our message has been the same when we were up as when we were down...."
>> As long as he hides behind his surrogates for attacks -- without FIRST framing the attacks -- he is completely fucked. Because Wolfson will frame Obama's strategy, and we've seen no signs that Plouffe and Axelrod are better at controlling message/expectations than Penn/Wolfson.
Penn gets blasted, but all his (bogus) spin makes sense to people who don't follow the race closely. That is who he writes for, not the media types or political junkies.
Re Don Williams
Old Don Williams just can't get over his hard on for Hiam Saban. Based on his comments to the Haaretz newspaper which Mr. Williams kindly posted some time ago, Mr. Saban would appear to be closer to the Obama position on the Middle East, then he is to the Clinton position. Talk to Hamas, talk to Hizbollah, talk to Iran, Bush is too pro-Israel. Hopefully, if either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected, they will ignore Mr. Sabans' appeasement advice.
The Clinton campaign is pure, distilled hypocrisy. Which is why Obama supporters are getting mad. I don't blame Power for saying that kind of thing. I think it's a small matter whether she stays or goes.
If I were the Obama campaign, I'd just keep repeating the fact that they won Texas, because they did in fact win Texas. At this point it's hard to see how Clinton wins.
At this point the Clinton supporters are just trolling, because their candidate has lost.
Power's new book looks really good and I can't wait to read it.
Sen. Clinton could of showed some Good Will and Magnanimousness of spirit by accepting Ms. Powers' apology and moving on, knowing that some pretty heated things get said in the thick of the battle. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton and her cronies had to show how Petty they are and call on Ms. Powers' resignation and now she is out of a job when the economy is so bad, I hope Sen Clinton is happy. A true person of goodwill would have accepted her apologies and moved on instead of trying to get some kind of political gain. There is no goodness in that woman and Sen. Clinton shows how she really feels about a woman's plight -- she could care less. Sen. Clinton is not a pleasant spirit, and she is very ruthless and cunning. Sen Clinton, what goes around comes around and what you put out will come back. She has a blackened heart of stone and she made much more out of this than it was worth. When Obama wins contests, she comes out and does her stump speech and never congratulates Sen. Obama at all. And now we see that she did not even have compassion towards another women -- just cut her head off! Put her out in the cold, let her suffer. What a mean-spirited women. I like the way Ms. Powers had the class to resign so as not to derail Sen Obama's campaign efforts. She quickly defused the bomb Sen Clinton hoped to throw. People will begin to see through these monstrous tactics of Sen Clinton and her Team.
We are now finding out, through the new information channel, the internet that Naftagate was the work of an initial call from the Clinton camp and Bush’s Canadian allie, Stephen Harper in an attemp to sabotage Obama and the democrats, which they did! Where's the Press on this? Click on the word "round-up"
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-truth-about.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home
Those of us who care for our Democracy for the vetting of truth and for fair and accurate reporting must call the main stream media to task. We can exercise our rights and our united power by calling CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. and ask them to begin to Vet Hillary Clinton and ask the important questions they should be asking her, like why she has not returned the money back to IPA, a company accused of sexually harrasing women? Why have they not further discussed Camp Clinton's initial call to Canada in the Naftagate controversy? Why do they continually bring up negative stories on Obama and soft question of her -- like the press is bought and paid for, yet again! It is an illusion that the press has been hard on her and soft on Obama. That is a traditional Camp Clinton spin and we all know they are the Masters of Spin (that means in essence they do not speak the truth).
As for Hillary’s superior foreign experience, Hillary did not think it important enough to read the National Intelligence Report and so she voted Yes on a War/Mistake that should have never been waged instead of having the intelligence and Judgment to say No, as other Senators did, and stated at the time, that we must not invade Iraq who did not bomb us on 911, but instead finish the job in Afghanistan. This makes her qualifyingly ineligible for the top job as commander-in-chief. Just because she surrounds herself with a bunch of generals does not make her qualified. A Photo-op does not eras her Iraq vote or exonerate it. Camp Clinton loves to stage phony events for the perception to make us think something that is not, is -- Masters of Spin & Hype and Delusion, often busing people in to their events to make the crowd look bigger than it is!
Then there is the current Camp Clinton Mantra, that may be the American public are having second thoughts about Barack Obama, beginning to doubt him because he did not win in Ohio. That is such spin. They won Ohio because they slandered him and made people doubt that he is a true Christian and some secret closet Muslim instead. They duped him on Naftagate, when they were the initial culprits, somehow Rezko's trial was pushed up to conincide with the primaries and the insinuation that Obama was a criminal too, just waitin to go down with Rezko. That is why people doubted him unfairly, because of old-time party politics, instituted by a "do anything and say anything mentality", no matter the cost to the person and the party.
Brotherhood (1937) - 552: Do you wish to be courageous? Then prove your courage in battling for Brotherhood. Assurances alone will not create courage, nor will praises affirm achievement. No preparations can be a guarantee of success. Courage is tested by unexpected obstacles. I have already spoken about courage; if I repeat it, it means that this quality is especially needed on the path to Brotherhood
Let the Vetting Begin!
People here defending the firing/resignation are missing many points:
1) This story is far from "put to bed." The Clintons will only milk it more now that Obama caved.
2) Obama has said over and over that he's not perfect and the process is not perfect. He is trying to improve things, but Washington is not going to change overnight. By allowing her to "resign," he is saying perfection is expected, which no one, least of all himself, can adhere to.
3) Obama completely gives in to the hypocrisy of the situation -- they can say whatever they want about him, but his team must always be on the straight and narrow (which, of course, is defined by the Clintons themselves).
4) PTSD flashbacks to the first weeks of the Clinton presidency when he threw gays in the military under the bus at the fist sign of trouble, and then threw his nominees under the bus as soon as his opponents cried foul. Samantha Power is a stellar intellect with a stellar background. Nothing she said in the interview reflected on her foreign policy advise. He should have defended her right to make a mistake and move on.
We may still win in November because the situation with the Republicans is dire, but we'll be damn lucky at this point. The Clintons are determined to either win the nomination using gutter politics or else to take Obama down with them.
Sen. Clinton could of showed some Good Will and Magnanimousness of spirit by accepting Ms. Powers' apology and moving on, knowing that some pretty heated things get said in the thick of the battle. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton and her cronies had to show how Petty they are and call on Ms. Powers' resignation and now she is out of a job when the economy is so bad, I hope Sen Clinton is happy. A true person of goodwill would have accepted her apologies and moved on instead of trying to get some kind of political gain. There is no goodness in that woman and Sen. Clinton shows how she really feels about a woman's plight -- she could care less. Sen. Clinton is not a pleasant spirit, and she is very ruthless and cunning. Sen Clinton, what goes around comes around and what you put out will come back. She has a blackened heart of stone and she made much more out of this than it was worth. When Obama wins contests, she comes out and does her stump speech and never congratulates Sen. Obama at all. And now we see that she did not even have compassion towards another women -- just cut her head off! Put her out in the cold, let her suffer. What a mean-spirited women. I like the way Ms. Powers had the class to resign so as not to derail Sen Obama's campaign efforts. She quickly defused the bomb Sen Clinton hoped to throw. People will begin to see through these monstrous tactics of Sen Clinton and her Team.
We are now finding out, through the new information channel, the internet that Naftagate was the work of an initial call from the Clinton camp and Bush’s Canadian allie, Stephen Harper in an attemp to sabotage Obama and the democrats, which they did! Where's the Press on this? Click on the word "round-up"
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-truth-about.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home
Those of us who care for our Democracy for the vetting of truth and for fair and accurate reporting must call the main stream media to task. We can exercise our rights and our united power by calling CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. and ask them to begin to Vet Hillary Clinton and ask the important questions they should be asking her, like why she has not returned the money back to IPA, a company accused of sexually harrasing women? Why have they not further discussed Camp Clinton's initial call to Canada in the Naftagate controversy? Why do they continually bring up negative stories on Obama and soft question of her -- like the press is bought and paid for, yet again! It is an illusion that the press has been hard on her and soft on Obama. That is a traditional Camp Clinton spin and we all know they are the Masters of Spin (that means in essence they do not speak the truth).
As for Hillary’s superior foreign experience, Hillary did not think it important enough to read the National Intelligence Report and so she voted Yes on a War/Mistake that should have never been waged instead of having the intelligence and Judgment to say No, as other Senators did, and stated at the time, that we must not invade Iraq who did not bomb us on 911, but instead finish the job in Afghanistan. This makes her qualifyingly ineligible for the top job as commander-in-chief. Just because she surrounds herself with a bunch of generals does not make her qualified. A Photo-op does not eras her Iraq vote or exonerate it. Camp Clinton loves to stage phony events for the perception to make us think something that is not, is -- Masters of Spin & Hype and Delusion, often busing people in to their events to make the crowd look bigger than it is!
Then there is the current Camp Clinton Mantra, that may be the American public are having second thoughts about Barack Obama, beginning to doubt him because he did not win in Ohio. That is such spin. They won Ohio because they slandered him and made people doubt that he is a true Christian and some secret closet Muslim instead. They duped him on Naftagate, when they were the initial culprits, somehow Rezko's trial was pushed up to conincide with the primaries and the insinuation that Obama was a criminal too, just waitin to go down with Rezko. That is why people doubted him unfairly, because of old-time party politics, instituted by a "do anything and say anything mentality", no matter the cost to the person and the party.
Brotherhood (1937) - 552: Do you wish to be courageous? Then prove your courage in battling for Brotherhood. Assurances alone will not create courage, nor will praises affirm achievement. No preparations can be a guarantee of success. Courage is tested by unexpected obstacles. I have already spoken about courage; if I repeat it, it means that this quality is especially needed on the path to Brotherhood
Let the Vetting Begin!
Sen. Clinton could of showed some Good Will and Magnanimousness of spirit by accepting Ms. Powers' apology and moving on, knowing that some pretty heated things get said in the thick of the battle. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton and her cronies had to show how Petty they are and call on Ms. Powers' resignation and now she is out of a job when the economy is so bad, I hope Sen Clinton is happy. A true person of goodwill would have accepted her apologies and moved on instead of trying to get some kind of political gain. There is no goodness in that woman and Sen. Clinton shows how she really feels about a woman's plight -- she could care less. Sen. Clinton is not a pleasant spirit, and she is very ruthless and cunning. Sen Clinton, what goes around comes around and what you put out will come back. She has a blackened heart of stone and she made much more out of this than it was worth. When Obama wins contests, she comes out and does her stump speech and never congratulates Sen. Obama at all. And now we see that she did not even have compassion towards another women -- just cut her head off! Put her out in the cold, let her suffer. What a mean-spirited women. I like the way Ms. Powers had the class to resign so as not to derail Sen Obama's campaign efforts. She quickly defused the bomb Sen Clinton hoped to throw. People will begin to see through these monstrous tactics of Sen Clinton and her Team.
We are now finding out, through the new information channel, the internet that Naftagate was the work of an initial call from the Clinton camp and Bush’s Canadian allie, Stephen Harper in an attemp to sabotage Obama and the democrats, which they did! Where's the Press on this? Click on the word "round-up"
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-truth-about.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home
Those of us who care for our Democracy for the vetting of truth and for fair and accurate reporting must call the main stream media to task. We can exercise our rights and our united power by calling CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. and ask them to begin to Vet Hillary Clinton and ask the important questions they should be asking her, like why she has not returned the money back to IPA, a company accused of sexually harrasing women? Why have they not further discussed Camp Clinton's initial call to Canada in the Naftagate controversy? Why do they continually bring up negative stories on Obama and soft question of her -- like the press is bought and paid for, yet again! It is an illusion that the press has been hard on her and soft on Obama. That is a traditional Camp Clinton spin and we all know they are the Masters of Spin (that means in essence they do not speak the truth).
As for Hillary’s superior foreign experience, Hillary did not think it important enough to read the National Intelligence Report and so she voted Yes on a War/Mistake that should have never been waged instead of having the intelligence and Judgment to say No, as other Senators did, and stated at the time, that we must not invade Iraq who did not bomb us on 911, but instead finish the job in Afghanistan. This makes her qualifyingly ineligible for the top job as commander-in-chief. Just because she surrounds herself with a bunch of generals does not make her qualified. A Photo-op does not eras her Iraq vote or exonerate it. Camp Clinton loves to stage phony events for the perception to make us think something that is not, is -- Masters of Spin & Hype and Delusion, often busing people in to their events to make the crowd look bigger than it is!
Then there is the current Camp Clinton Mantra, that may be the American public are having second thoughts about Barack Obama, beginning to doubt him because he did not win in Ohio. That is such spin. They won Ohio because they slandered him and made people doubt that he is a true Christian and some secret closet Muslim instead. They duped him on Naftagate, when they were the initial culprits, somehow Rezko's trial was pushed up to conincide with the primaries and the insinuation that Obama was a criminal too, just waitin to go down with Rezko. That is why people doubted him unfairly, because of old-time party politics, instituted by a "do anything and say anything mentality", no matter the cost to the person and the party.
Brotherhood (1937) - 552: Do you wish to be courageous? Then prove your courage in battling for Brotherhood. Assurances alone will not create courage, nor will praises affirm achievement. No preparations can be a guarantee of success. Courage is tested by unexpected obstacles. I have already spoken about courage; if I repeat it, it means that this quality is especially needed on the path to Brotherhood
Let the Vetting Begin!
Boy, the Clintons really know how to play the game don't they?
Really?...Really?....
If the situation were reversed (Obama down in PDs, and all the rest), and Obama had just won Texas by four points, but lost the caucus and consequently in TOTAL LOST Texas by two delegates, people would be calling for Obama to quit now because his campaign doesn't know what hell they're doing...
What campaign would you rather have: one that at this point can't figure out how to win delegates (even though she's got 35 years of experience and has spent over 12 months now in campagin mode) or one that makes a few tactical mistakes for a few days, six weeks out from the next primary that he could (possibly) lose....
Obama wins Wyoming over the weekend then Mississippi on Tuesday --- his speech that night will get him back on track...What is the panic?...
Peter K.,
I couldn't disagree with you more. Obama ABSOLUTELY does not need to say he won Texas. Delegate math, as someone rightly said, is a "bloodless" argument.
Obama's supporters are frustrated yes, because Hillary is being hypocritical. But they (we) are also frustrated because Obama has not been able to respond to any of this crap effectively.
Trying to convince voters that he won (because of the caucus votes, which btw, Hillary has already convinced the MSM are bogus and "undemocratic") would be the dumbest thing he could do. the world understands that HRC won the popular vote, that is easy to understand: more people voted for Hillary than Obama. Even most of the press doesn't understand the complex prima-caucus in Texas, so for Obama to proclaim victory would look small and bitter.
He needs, as I said earlier, to get out in front of his decision to question Hillary's experience. He needs to say, rightly, that NO ONE has questioned her claims to experience thus far, and that when you combine that with the fact that she and Bill are willfully keeping voters in the dark about their finances, Bills' business transactions, and her functions in the White House, her claims to have been vetted are seriously challenged.
He needs to fight back, in a way that isn't "attacking" but rather, giving voters the more transparency than Hillary has been willing to do thus far.
He seems too aloof at times, now is the time to stand the fuck up and make voters believe he wants this as badly as she does.
Re SLC's comment "Hopefully, if either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected, they will ignore Mr. Sabans' appeasement advice."
---------------
Hopefully, when Obama is elected he will act as President of the USA , not of Israel. I'm not optimistic enough to even expect Hillary to do so.
Power really f'ed up, plain and simple. Unless you're a republican talking to Timmy Russert, everything you say to a reporter is on record, unless spelt out otherwise beforehand. You do not get to say something dumb and make it vanish by saying right after, "oh, that's off the record." Not how it works, and she should know that.
That said, I agree with others here that Obama firing her is kind an Edwards-sacking-Amanda-Marcotte thing all over again.
And while I've heard about this Clinton ad that supposedly portrays Obama as darker, I've not seen much detail about it. Where did that run?...
This is way, way worse than the Amanda Marcotte debacle. Power is a Pulitzer Prize winning author with a Doctorate who is advising Obama on his foreign policy and has a progressive way of approaching the world. If that's not a person to stand behind during a faux uproar, who is?
1) I think Obama needs to step outside of the campaign for a moment -- and talk with the American People as if he is President. There is no campaign. There is not Hillary.
2) Everyone's expecting him in Pennsylvania -- so he should catch the interest of Pennsylvania by going to Texas. To the Brook Medical Center -- to visit the crippled soldiers. Not as a political event -- but to gather information on their plight. A Day later, he can give a speech in Pennsylvania , point out their plight, point out Hillary's responsibility for it, and ask why Hillary accepts alls the privileges of power --but NONE of the responsibility.
3) He needs to visit all the people in this country who are being fucked over, talk with them , and point out that Senators McCain and Hillary have done nothing to help those Americans.
3) Pennsylvania has no shortage of poor. Of people losing their homes. of crooked bankers.
But Obama can visit elsewhere in the country -- and then talk about those problems here in Pennysylvania. To point out that we are all in the same boat --well, most of us.
Hillary and McCain spend most of their time on the upper deck sipping champagne.
4) Pennsylvania has a large number of the elderly. Obama needs to note that $3 Trillion has been stolen out of Social Security/Medicare in the past few years -- and ask SENATOR Hillary why she allowed that to happen.
Obama needs to note that the dollar has lost 40% of its values in the past few years, that that really hurts people on fixed income. Then he should ask Senator Hillary why she allowed that to happen.
5) Hillary has been make false claims to EXPERIENCE. Well, Obama should challenge her now to show where she has shown RESPONSIBILITY. Where she has shown ACHIEVEMENT.
6) Finally, Obama should not the problem with the common citizen suffering because of deep corruption in our politics. Because politicians are constantly tempted to whore for rich men. Then he should again ask Hillary to release her income tax returns.
7) Obama should set a STANDARD for what a US PResident SHOULD BE -- and show that Hillary has consistently FAILED to meet that standard in years past.
Interesting. When I heard about this resignation (and JMM's theory that it represents Obama getting "bitch-slapped"), my reaction was Matt Yglesias-inspired: Maybe, like Clinton thinking Mark Penn is a genius, Obama truly believes that an adviser who called Clinton a monster is not someone he wants in his campaign and fired her because of that. It's obviously tempting to go for the "her only crime was getting caught" interpretation but from where I sit it's not obvious that it's true.
Can someone fill me in on why Samantha Power's exit would be such a loss? As I understand it, her contribution to foreign policy thinking is something along these lines:
1) Genocide is bad.
2) It's also bad when the U.S. deposes a genocidal dictator as it did in Iraq.
3) It's better to work through the UN and focus on genocidal wars where no U.S. national interests are at stake.
The real reason Powers got fired was that she also shot her mouth off to the BBC regarding Obama and the troop pullout:
“He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator…. You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009…” http://thepage.time.com/
Stupid, stupid, stupid esp. coming on top of the NAFTA flap.
Ms. Power, a brilliant, prodigal, Pulitzer-Prize winning author, was not asked to leave, campaign sources said.
Maybe it's true.
neil,
I hope your wrong. Because if Obama really does not see Clinton as a monster, it would raise some pretty serious questions about his judgment.
Any of you see that bit where one of HC's people explained how since BO is part black he's probably a cannibal, and hence the real monster in the race?
People don't give a shit about "he said-she said" political bickering.
But let a politican come along who listens to THEIR grivances -- who speaks up on THEIR Behalf -- someone who is willing to kick the shit out of the power elite because of THEIR mistreatment -- and you'll get interest. THAT's a leader.
Hillary doesn't have a clue of the concept. Because she's NEVER been a Leader. At ,what? ,age 60 she's going to start?
Her "35 years of Experience is 35 years experience in FAILURE" Of prominance without results. Of position without accountability.
Re Don Williams
Is it not Mr. Williams position that the US should be talking to Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran? Or am I missing something here. That also appears to be Senator Obamas' position and Hiam Sabans' position, based on the Haaretz interview which Mr. Williams himself posted. I guess Mr. Williams wants to go further then that and take Ms. Powers' advice and invade Israel to force the Government of that State to acquiesce to every Palestinian demand, under the naive assumption that this will improve our standing in the Arab world. The only thing this would do is demonstrate to the Arab world that the US can be pushed around.
"Enough"
Even most of the press doesn't understand the complex prima-caucus in Texas, so for Obama to proclaim victory would look small and bitter.
I don't agree. He doesn't have to say it bitterly. He can say it calmly and cooly and matter of factly, because it's true.
Obama will keep doing what he's doing and widen the delegate lead state by state. Even better he can go on the attack, but not in a sleazy, Clintonesque way. In a straight-up manner. When speaking with superdelegates he can say, look, we won Texas as defined by the Texas Democratic party's nomination rules. He will win the most delegates definined by the rules and with the voting in the primary and caucuses combined. For the Clintons to say they won Texas is untrue, not that that's stopped them before.
I also think that after Ms. Power apologizes directly to Senator Clinton she should - as president - hire her as a foreign policy adviser (on the issue of genocide).
Ruthless in politics, generous in governance: that's how good politicians come to be regarded as greatness.
And if you see the potential of greatness in Mrs. Clinton - as the historians think of it - it's because you understand that to have yourself and your husband ritually flogged (often for the stupidest reasons - the ones you don't deserve to be criticized for) by the press and Republicans in Congress for eight years with no pause, and to enter the Senate - facing a number of the people who treated you that way - without ever losing your cool, behaving in the classiest, most civil way and earning the respect if not admiration from rivals and foes is no easy task; it takes a kind of maturity and constant vigilance that is very rare.
Don Williams,
Why are you so angry? Your populist ranting seems a hundred years out of date. Most Americans pay little-to-no net income taxes and are the beneficiaries of at least one of several kinds of largess from their more affluent countrymen. How, exactly, is the "power elite" exploiting you? By sending you "rebates" for taxes you probably didn't even pay?
No, that was Susan Rice.
Just read the details and was coming back to correct myself. Thanks. Those S names all look alike to me.
That means, though, that Obama has two flubs to deal with this week, and he could only fire one.
Peter K.,
I take your point and I do think Obama should push the delegate lead with superdels. But Jake Tapper won't be the only person who calls this line of argument strange.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/obama-website-c.html
What's more, I think pushing a bloodless argument about delegate math as your leading claim to the nomination opens the door to "Obama won their minds, Hillary won their hearts." People would respect a popular vote victory more than a delegate victory -- particularly if its owed to caucus results.
** my point is this: everyone knows this is a deleate race. but for Obama to claim he won Texas and Nevada on delegates is unnecessary.
What he needs to do is get in front of his decision to finally ask questions about HRC's record, and NOT fall back on the "the math is the math."
it makes him look like he doesn't want to fight for the nomination like Hillary does. It's mind boggling that Axelrod and Plouffe don't see that: the more Obama claims this is over, the stronger voters push back.
Fact is, THE MAJORITY OF DEM VOTERS DON'T SEE THIS AS OVER.
They don't look at a 100 delegate lead (out of 4000) as being over; they see it as close. And Obama has to stop acting like he doesn't care that Hillary is out there fighting for the nomination.
My friends:
Unless Obama can effectively counter this *new* line of attack from Hillary, the game is over.
Astonishing. She turns her campaign's behavior into an attack on Obama. Pre-emptive smear. Masterful politics. I eagerly await Obama's resonse. It had better be strong and hard.
** >> From HRC
Clinton: "He's attacked me continuously"
Clinton, in Mississippi, piled on the Samantha Power's comments:
"This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another,” she said. “You saw this with NAFTA, as well.
“He’s attacked me continuously for having no hard exit date, and now we learn he doesn’t have one. In fact, he doesn’t have a plan at all, according to his top foreign policy adviser. He keeps telling people one thing, while his campaign tells people abroad something else. I’m not sure what the American people should believe," she said.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Clinton_Hes_attacked_me_continuously.html#comments
He has to go nuclear on her, as I said before, at different levels. But one level has to be the hard core anti-Clinton dirt - the new stuff - that we all know is out there. Dump it all out, not at once, but in dribs and drabs over the next few weeks. Not directly, but through deniable surrogates. That is, assuming he has access to the dirt. If he hasn't done that basic oppo research - well, he can still limp to the nomination, most likely, but he will be fatally damaged for the general.
That on top of the more direct measures he can take that I won't bore people with repeating.
Interestingly that, as unsurprising as I find her latest disgusting swill, I find my capacity to hate the woman still grows. "Devil" and "monster" were, indeed, not strong enough to describe my loathing for that horrible creature. At this point, she is the most loathsome "human being" alive, worse than Cheney. Can't get any lower than that.
You've got a slim lead in the final minutes of the fourth quarter. The opposing team is playing Hack-a-Barack while simultaneously whining to the ref about every play. Amazingly, the refs (the media) seem to be favoring the opposing team to keep the game close, whistling you for every tap and touch while ignoring the other team's blatant fouls.
It happens. You just have to keep playing the game hard and not get flustered.
"Senator Clinton is not a monster, as far as I know."
and
"Vince Foster was not murdered, as far as I know"
Re Fred
"Most Americans pay little-to-no net income taxes and are the beneficiaries of at least one of several kinds of largess from their more affluent countrymen."
I am going to hold my nose and rise in support of Mr. Don Williams as the last comment by Mr. Fred is the dumbest I have ever heard, even surpassing Mr. Williams aimless diatribes against Hiam Saban. Where does Mr. Fred come up with the information that most Americans pay little or no income taxes? Let's see a link to a reliable source providing some supporting information to that preposterous claim. All I know is that I paid plenty in income taxes over the years and I am far from the top 5% in income. And I suspect that Mr. Williams has also paid plenty in income taxes also. Mr. Fred is full of shit.
It's clear that the media has turned on Obama with a vengeance. When that happens, it's awfully hard to control the message, no matter how talented the politician. For those getting mad at Obama for not turning it around - it's just not that easy. The new story line is the hypocrisy and emptiness of Obama and it will take a while for it to run its course.
All the arguments against Clinton just aren't getting any traction right now. The frustrating part, as far as Obama is concerned, is that if Clinton actually won the nomination all those questions about her tax returns, the sudden millions, the Cliton Library donors, selling pardons for votes or donations, cozy financial relations with the Emir of Dubai and the Saudi royal family, Bill's use of his "charitable foundation" as influence peddling operation - all of that stuff will hit Hillary like a ton of bricks in the general election.
Yikes (looks outside to see if the world is ending), SLC leaping to Don Williams defense. The next thing you know, the lamb will lie down with the lion, dogs and cats will be living together in sin, and Clinton and Obama will make peace.
Okay, I guess I went too far with that last one.
He has to go nuclear on her
Nah, I say let her punch herself out. There's something horrible and chilling about her conduct since Wisconsin, and she'll eventually leave herself wide open.
Plus, she can't catch him. The media's weird fascination with her aside; this thing is all over but the shouting.
southpaw,
Absent multiple serious REAL blunders by Obama, you are most likely right. The problem is, if he wins the nomination that way he will most likely be fatally damaged in the general. Yes, there are dangers in going negative, but by going on the counteroffensive he can change the narrative and take the air out of Clinton's attacks. He needs the next few news cycles to be about the Clintons' manifest corruption, not about his allegedly floundering campaign.
"Enough"
They don't look at a 100 delegate lead (out of 4000) as being over; they see it as close. And Obama has to stop acting like he doesn't care that Hillary is out there fighting for the nomination.
I don't think so... Superdelegates look at the lead. Superdelegates are what matter now. Only way Clinton can win is if some Superdelegates are persuaded by some bizarre argument to thwart the voters' will. And in that case the Democratic Party will implode. A 100 delegate lead is substantial and if the situation was reversed the Clinton campaign would be screaming bloody murder.
Read this
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802
and this
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010
Not only didn't Clinton campaign not win Texas, they're lying about it.
He needs the next few news cycles to be about the Clintons' manifest corruption, not about his allegedly floundering campaign.
I think this is almost right. He does need the news to swing back his way, but not immediately. Pennsylvania is 46 days away. Iowa only voted 63 days ago, by my count, and it feels like a geological age has passed.
So Obama has to play the clock a little. For one thing, I think he'd be wise to let her punch for a while to see if she screws up on her own. For another, he'd be a fool to drop the best stuff on her now. It gives her time to absorb the damage and recuperate. So I think you wait and see if the Clinton or the media will do the job for you. If they don't, then--to reassure the superdelegates--you step up in her face a couple weeks down the road.
"Enough"
They don't look at a 100 delegate lead (out of 4000) as being over; they see it as close. And Obama has to stop acting like he doesn't care that Hillary is out there fighting for the nomination.
I don't think so... Superdelegates look at the lead. Superdelegates are what matter now. Only way Clinton can win is if some Superdelegates are persuaded by some bizarre argument to thwart the voters' will. And in that case the Democratic Party will implode. A 100 delegate lead is substantial and if the situation was reversed the Clinton campaign would be screaming bloody murder.
Read this
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802
and this
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010
Not only didn't Clinton campaign not win Texas, they're lying about it. You seem strangely unsympathetic to Obama.
Power has seriously harmed Obama, just as Goolsbee but much worse. Powers interviews in Englnad are just nuts and undercut what Obama has been representing. What kind of idiot is she, no matter how many awards?
I disagree. Yes, I hate to see smart people and strong women forced to resign; that said, I think swift accountability and her departure from the primary campaign is exactly the right response -- and I think it highlights the difference between Obama and Clinton.
From a strategic standpoint, this is completely consistent with Obama's overall strategy, and is based on confidence, not fear. It reinforces the "reject and denounce" bar Obama set in the debate. It creates huge problems for the Clinton campaign (Woolfson's "Ken Starr" comment is just as bad; will he also resign?) and McCain (John Hagee et. al.)
As Mike pointed out in the very first comment, this is unlikely to impact her role in government if Obama wins -- and I wouldn't be surprised to see her back working with the campaign in some way for the general election. So there's no long-term cost for the resignation.
What would be served by continuing to focus on this issue rather than the substantive ones?
jon
southpaw,
Good points. I do think there are a few obvious things he can and should do now, though, including making the obvious responses on NAFTA and the Ken Starr remark.
Though he better hope that he still pulls out a win in Wyoming. A Hillary upset there would IMO create a very unhealthy dynamic, and an excruciating 6 1/2 weeks. OTOH, an Obama win, even if expected, should stem the bleeding a bit.
I thought RaymondA called this one way upthread. Obama can't afford to keep someone on his campaign who says confrontational and obnoxious stuff. If he isn't about being above that kind of politics, he isn't about anything at all.
The question is whether he can campaign effectively and maintain his brand identity. The jury is still out on this, but right now Obama's showing signs of a glass jaw.
When I said Obama's showing a glass jaw above, I didn't mean to criticize the resignation Resignation is the right move here; indeed, the only move. But how can two people get so far off-message in a couple of weeks?
What kind of idiot is she, no matter how many awards?
To the other Jennifer, it's not that she's an idiot. This is just a problematic side effect of having advisors on a campaign who are not politicos. Power, Goolsbee, and others on the Obama team are academics with little political experience. Although I think it will make for a fantastic team when he's president, it was only a matter of time before someone slipped up on the campaign trail.
Just read that, in a Clinton conference call, Wesley Clark and Jamie Rubin were piling onto the whole thing. Nothing like kicking a woman when she's down!
Nah, I say let her punch herself out. There's something horrible and chilling about her conduct since Wisconsin, and she'll eventually leave herself wide open.
I think Josh Marshall has the right take on this. The press doesn't like being told it's in the tank, either way, and there's a guard-dropping quality to some of the attacks the campaign is now throwing.
But I do think the Obama camp has to prove it doesn't have a glass jaw.
When I said Obama's showing a glass jaw above, I didn't mean to criticize the resignation Resignation is the right move here; indeed, the only move. But how can two people get so far off-message in a couple of weeks?
The problem for Obama is that you now have Clinton people like Wesley Clark saying that Obama is not qualified to be commander in chief. It's not simply an argument that Clinton is the better nominee, it's an argument that Obama is not fit to be President. That will damage him if he becomes the nominee.
Due respect to Josh Marshall, I think the "glass jaw" concern is overblown. No one with a glass jaw would be beating the Clintons after two months of harshly negative campaigning. South Carolina, for instance, was not tea party. Neither was Nevada or Wisconsin.
I just think the idea that Obama needs to drastically overhaul his approach to the race because he had a bad week is badly flawed. He should stay on message.
"Where does Mr. Fred come up with the information that most Americans pay little or no income taxes?"
I get that from the Congressional Budget Office (PDF), my Hebrew friend. In 2003, the lowest quintile of income earners had a negative effective federal income tax rate of -5.9%; the second-lowest quintile also had a negative effective federal income tax rate, this time of -1.1%; and the middle quintile had an effective federal tax rate of only 2.7%. That's most Americans right there, with an average effective federal income tax rate of about -1.4%. You'd need to throw in the second-highest quintile (which had an effective federal income tax rate of 5.9%) to get a positive average effective tax rate for 80% of American income tax payers of .4%.
This is really all over but the shouting; I'd highly recommend Jon Chait's piece today.
Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.
Southpaw- Right, my take on her strategy is basically political a murder suicide. She screwed up not contesting many of the caucuses strongly enough, now she's run out of room to recover. That may come back into focus with the media if Obama wins WY and MS this week
Re Fred's comment "Your populist ranting seems a hundred years out of date. Most Americans pay little-to-no net income taxes and are the beneficiaries of at least one of several kinds of largess from their more affluent countrymen. How, exactly, is the "power elite" exploiting you? By sending you "rebates" for taxes you probably didn't even pay? "
----------
My tax return is not in the lower 50 percentile.
Where my income falls is none of Fred's business.
But Fred shows the true mindset of Republicans. For people who wave the US flag, they don't really give a shit for this country -- or at least not for 100 million of their fellow countrymen .
They are genuinely baffled re why anyone else would. The concept of "Patriotism" escapes them. As does "enlightened self -interest" -- which says it's better to be middle class in real republic which respects all income groups -- than to be a rich man in a brutal , corrupt oligarchy.
Fred palms a few cards, of course. While the lower income quintiles don't pay the bulk of the income tax (because --duh -- they get a very small share of the national income ) they do pay the bulk of the payroll taxes.
Including the $3 Trillion in payroll taxes stolen by Bush and the Republican Congresses and spent.
They also tend to be the people who fight this country's wars. But Fred has the typical Republican mindset: that its fine for a Republican Congress to draft low income people and send them to their deaths "in the national interest" -- but its NOT okay to ask a rich man to pay taxes, much less to serve in the military.
Re Matthew's comment "Having her [Power] resign, by contrast, is just playing the game poorly "
---------------
Not necessarily. Sun Tzu spoke of the mysterious vs obvious force.
Samantha could be VERY useful if she kicked the shit out of Hillary for the next 6 weeks -- said all those things the Obama campaign couldn't say directly.
I would love to see her on Meet the Press this Sunday, with Fat Tim grinning and asking her "Just what KIND of Monster is Hillary"??
Having called for her firing, Hillary's in no position to protest if Samantha unloads.
This is really all over but the shouting
That may be, but there is going to be a lot of shouting for quite a while yet.
Re Fred & Don Williams
The chart that our right wing Rethuglican friend Fred refers to is an example of the old saw that liars figure and figures lie. The tipoff is the negative values in the chart which would lead a reasonable individual to conclude that there is a negative income tax. Of course, their is no such thing as a negative income tax so clearly something is not kosher here. Let's look at the fine print below Table #1
"Pretax cash income is the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents,
taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital gains, cash transfer payments,
and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the
employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll
taxes) and employee contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income
include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-paid health insurance premiums,
food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assistance).
Households with negative income are excluded from the lowest income category but are
included in the totals."
Now we see why the the chart is a crock of shit. It includes items classed as income that the poor slob wage earner never sees. For instance, it includes such items as the employer contribution to Social Security, the employer contribution to medical insurance, etc. Since the employee doesn't pay taxes on this fictitious income, this, of course, makes it appear that that the poor slob is getting a negative income tax.
The real way to look at it is to do a tax return for a typical taxpayer, using a program like Turbotax. One will not see income tax rates anywhere near the figures in the phony Table #1.
"Fred palms a few cards, of course. While the lower income quintiles don't pay the bulk of the income tax (because --duh -- they get a very small share of the national income )
The "national income"? The reason the bottom 80% pay so little in income taxes is because our federal income tax system is so steeply progressive.
"they do pay the bulk of the payroll taxes."
Not true. Payroll taxes include Medicare taxes, which are uncapped, so the affluent pay more in payroll taxes as well. As for the Social Security taxes, these are capped (though the cap is raised every year), but (duh) this is because the future benefits are based only on this capped income. The benefits are also extremely progressive. Again, from the CBO:
For people in the bottom fifth of the earnings distribution, the ratio of benefits to taxes is almost three times as high as it is for those in the top fifth.
[...]
The Social Security benefit formula is designed to provide beneficiaries who had lower lifetime earnings with monthly benefits that are higher, as a percentage of their lifetime average earnings, than those received by higher-earning beneficiaries.
"Of course, their is no such thing as a negative income tax"
Sure there is. It's when you get more in transfer payments from the federal government than you pay to it in income taxes.
"The real way to look at it is to do a tax return for a typical taxpayer, using a program like Turbotax."
Knock yourself out, SLC. Run the numbers for, say, a single mother with 3 kids who makes $20k per year. You'll find that, with the child tax credits and the EITC, she will be getting more money from the federal government (i.e., her more affluent countrymen) than she paid in federal income taxes. In fact, she'll probably get more in transfer payments than the per-capita amount Israel receives in U.S. aid.
Re Fred
One must almost burst out laughing at fucking asshole Fred who considers a single mother with 3 kids and an income of $20,000 to be a typical taxpayer. Fred, as Don Williams would put it, go fuck yourself.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
SLC,
"One must almost burst out laughing at fucking asshole Fred who considers a single mother with 3 kids and an income of $20,000 to be a typical taxpayer."
I didn't call her typical, I just gave you that example as a starting point for the Turbo Tax experimenting you brought up. I already proved, with data from the CBO, that my original statement that most Americans pay little-to-no federal income taxes.
"Fred, as Don Williams would put it, go fuck yourself."
Your resorting to an expletive here suggests you have been pwn3d (as the young folks say) in this comment thread.
Re Fred's comment "my original statement that most Americans pay little-to-no federal income taxes."
-----------
They have had almost $8 TRILLION in Debt dumped on them by the last 3 Republican Presidents.
They will be paying through the nose for that for decades to come.
I made about 12 grand last year and paid about $140 in pure income tax, not including social/medicare. I'm a single adult.
So there.
Don Williams,
"They have had almost $8 TRILLION in Debt dumped on them by the last 3 Republican Presidents.
They will be paying through the nose for that for decades to come."
No they won't. If you pay little-to-no income taxes, by definition, you aren't paying through the nose for anything the federal government pays for, including interest on the debt; in fact, you're not even paying your "fair share".
"I made about 12 grand last year and paid about $140 in pure income tax, not including social/medicare. I'm a single adult."
"So there."
That would make your effective federal income tax rate 1.16%, which is actually anomalously high for someone in your income bracket. It's possible you neglected to apply for some free government money that was slated to come your way (e.g., the EITC). Nevertheless, consider this: the federal budget last year was about $2.8 trillion. That works out to about $10k per American. Clearly, someone else is picking up your slack, no?
"Clearly, someone else is picking up your slack, no?"
By all means let him. It's beneath me to pay for your filthy fucking wars.
But you asserted (wrongly) that I don't pay taxes, which is a different thing than asserting that I don't pay 83 % (10,000/12,000). If you had, the conversation might have gone like so:
Fred: the poor don't pay 83%
Us: yes
But anyway I think your larger point was, where taxes are levied there is no class exploitation, which is, uh...........
"But you asserted (wrongly) that I don't pay taxes"
Where did I assert this? Nowhere, as far as I can tell.
"By all means let him. It's beneath me to pay for your filthy fucking wars."
The supplemental spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan equaled about 5% of the federal budget last year. But, of course, money is fungible. So if you aren't paying your "fair share" of the wars, you aren't paying your "fair share" of the rest of the federal budget, the largest part of which goes to stuff like transfer payments to and health care for the elderly.
As I said in the previous thread, Power should have stood by her "monster" remark, and Obama should merely have dismissed it with a line about "I don't agree with her terminology, but I understand what she meant - Hillary is a tough opponent!"
Five minutes later, despite the Clinton campaign noise making, it would have been forgotten.
Instead, Power and Obama rolled over - and handed Clinton a win.
Pathetic.
If you can't stand by your words, don't say them. It's that simple.
"Where did I assert this? Nowhere, as far as I can tell."
Basically up and down the thread as part of your larger claim that there is no such thing as exploitation, because according to you, where taxes are levied progressively there can be none. You haven't done much to advance that "argument" except to say (via a bit of goal post moving) that I don't pay my "fair share", which you've at least had the intellectual honesty to put in scare quotes. As for the "wars", which I broadly, but inadequately, consider to be all pentagon spending, I had a portion of 140 set aside. As for the elderly I paid my "fair share" via payroll taxes.
But enough of this inane conversation. Yes the tax code is progressive. Yes where taxes are levied progressively exploitation can indeed exist.
A UK paper reports that she is Irish. Irish?? What is a foreigner doing giving a U.S presidential candidate foreign policy advice??
RE "A UK paper reports that she is Irish. Irish?? What is a foreigner doing giving a U.S presidential candidate foreign policy advice??"
---------------
Samantha Power's family emigrated here to the USA when she was young. She has been a US citizen for decades. The UK paper was probably referring to her ethnical background --which the English consider an awful black spot that can't be rubbed out. Sins of the Fathers, unto seven generations AT LEAST.
Donald J. Neuland - Um, heard of Henry Kissinger? Zig Brzezinski? Colin Powell? Zal Khalilzad?
I would have gone with:
"I'll ask my foreign-policy advisor Samantha Power to resign over her poor choice of words just as soon as Hillary asks her foreign-policy advisor to resign over telling her it was a good idea to GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ"
Samantha Power is very, very good at her job, and I hope she rejoins the team sometime down the road.
What she said was a mistake, but I can certainly forgive her for a slip of the tongue - just as I can forgive some of the Hillary staffers who have stepped over the line recently. Unfortunately, if Sam had stayed on it would have allowed Hillary's camp to keep attacking her and Obama. Leaving now may be better for her own career, as well as the campaign.
Lets just hope that we don't loose any more talented people before the whirlwind passes.
Comments closed March 21, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I don't think anyone really believes Power won't be involved in the Obama adminstration when we win the election. That's when her advice will really matter, not now.
Posted by Mike | March 7, 2008 1:01 PM