Open Obama/Power Thread
Posted by
tgirsch
Not much to say about this flap, other than to direct you to David Corn (H/T: Hilzoy):
The big news today–if you listen to the Hillary Clinton camp–is that Samantha Power, a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama (and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide), referred to Clinton as a “monster” in what she believed was an off-the-record remark with a reporter. She did apologize. But the Clintonites, ever on the lookout for an issue (or non-issue) to hype, quickly called on Obama to fire Power.
Non-News Flash: Aides to presidential candidates routinely refer to the competition in harsh terms, particularly when they talk to reporters off the record. More than once, a top Clinton person has told me that s/he believes Obama is a self-righteous fraud–or worse. It was, of course, always off the record. But if I had reported any of these remarks, I could have gotten the pop The Scotsman has received for disclosing Power’s comment.
The Clinton people do deserve chutzpah points for trying to turn this nothing-burger into a full-course feast. During a conference call with reporters yesterday, Clinton’s top spinner, Howard Wolfson, compared Obama and his aides to Kenneth Starr because they dared to question Clinton’s refusal to release her income taxes. (In The Washington Post, Dana Milbank credited me with asking the question that prompted the Ken Starr remark –a quip obviously locked and loaded before the call.) The comparison was ridiculous. But in Democratic circles, there’s not much of a bigger slur than, Hey, you’re Ken Starr! For Democrats, Starr is the functional equivalent of a monster.
So the Clinton crowd does not have the moral high ground in this round.
I figured I’d leave an open thread for discussion. How bad does this hurt, what’s the best response, etc.
Yet another non-issue aimed at distracting voters from meaningful differences.
You should check out Countdown one evening. Keith O is hard-core anti-Hillary (or perhaps just hard-core pro-Obama). It is too funny how he slants everything against her now. Of course if she wins the nomination, he will do a 180 and support her against McCain. The guy is shameless and MSNBC really should not allow him to anchor election night coverage, much less monitor a debate.
Comment 3/7/2008
I can’t bring myself to watch Olbermann. I’ve never liked him, dating back to his Sportscenter days. I know the “smug bastard” shtick works for a lot of people, but I’m not one of them.
Comment 3/7/2008
Clinton and Obama are a couple of crybabies. They both, and their supporters, need to grow up.
Comment 3/7/2008
Moron alert.
Comment 3/7/2008
Yeah, they should learn how to accept endorsements from religious bigots, like the grown-up Republicans do.
Comment 3/7/2008
“Yeah, they should learn how to accept endorsements from religious bigots”
You mean Obama should accept the endorsement of his racist church?
Comment 3/8/2008
Just a few observations:
(1) I can’t blame Hillary for making an issue of it. As Corn points out, that’s what campaigns do. I think it makes them look petty and, often, hypocritical, but obviously a lot of people do respond to these kinds of complaints, and when you need any advantage over your opponent that you can get, calling them out on small issues becomes a viable strategy.
(2) The problem was not just the “monster” remark. It was also that the same woman had made a similarly inflammatory remark just a few days previously. Power was the one who said, to a European reporter, that Obama was not going to be able to keep his stated timetable for withdrawal from Iraq - making headlines around the world and forcing the campaign to issue a denial. So she had embarrassed the campaign twice in a week, which is just not happening in a Presidential race. They tanked Power for their own good, because she was a loose cannon, but made it look like they were taking the high road in response to a personal complaint from Hillary. The downside is that it makes the Obama campaign look weak - taking orders from Hillary about their own staffing - but they had to get rid of Power anyway, before she created another incident, so they put the best spin on it they could.
(3) This all happened within days of reports that a different campaign staffer had privately told a Canadian official that Obama wasn’t serious about rolling back NAFTA. Taking it all together, it looked distinctly like the wheels were coming off the campaign wagon. They had to do something decisive, both to regain control and to show that these wild statements were unauthorized. It was no surprise they canned her - and no surprise that Hillary made hay out of it at the same time.
(4) I am surprised that Power was that clumsy. She’s smart and knows politics. Her book on genocide was a tremendous achievement. I saw another article yesterday (can’t remember where) that suggested she just wasn’t attuned to the dynamics of a campaign - that she was used to talking about hypotheticals in an academic, intellectual way, rather than staying “on-message” with scripted campaign slogans, and was just careless who she spoke to. That may make sense. As an international-level writer/scholar, she may not have wanted to see herself as “staff”, dedicated to getting someone else’s message out rather than spreading her wisdom to the eager throng. But it was still naive and clumsy.
(5) I don’t particularly like Olbermann’s style - his delivery, especially during his political rants, often strikes me as a parody of the overstrung news commentator - but I love his editorials. I don’t watch him on straight news or sports, and only saw snippets of his coverage of Super Tuesday; the rare brief moments I do see him doing straight news-anchor work, I don’t care for him. But the content of his editorial rants, I think, is one of the greatest things on television. He is one of the very few who pulls no punches and calls the administration out on exactly what it is guilty of. He says the things that desperately need to be said, and that even critics of the administration don’t often say as clearly or pointedly. (Say . . .I wish I could have heard Olbermann on the death of William F. Buckley!) He often sounds absurd reading his own content - he’s an utter crap actor, which is largely what news-reading is - but the content itself is absolutely perfectly pitched. I am so grateful to have him on the air, for those few minutes only.
(6) I have a cold and feel like shit, just when I needed to get some work done. It’s also raining too hard to go out for food and medicine. I am officially whining, and wish I had someone to blame this on.
Comment 3/8/2008
“Clinton’s top spinner, Howard Wolfson, compared Obama and his aides to Kenneth Starr because they dared to question Clinton’s refusal to release her income taxes.”
Most liberals can only dream of having the character and integrity of Ken Starr. To be compared to Ken Starr is a compliment.
Comment 3/8/2008
Morris wrote: “Most liberals can only dream of having the character and integrity of Ken Starr.”
Hmmmm…having taxpayer front a $6.2 million bill for investigating an act of consenual oral sex is not the stuff of which dreams are made. I think it ranks up there with paying several trillion dollars invading a country which posed absolutely no threat to us. You “fiscally responsible” conservatives are a very strange bunch.
Ted wrote: “Yet another non-issue aimed at distracting voters from meaningful differences.”
I tend to agree with you. And I think there are differences, particularly in domestic policy that should be flushed out further. Health care has been consistently addressed. NAFTA is being discussed now. Social security and rebooting the economy I think could be addressed further. But as Kevin pointed out, it’s not unexpected that the Clinton campaign would make an issue of it, it’s generally the way campaigns are run, and they want to generate more buzz if they think it will translate into more votes. The pundits can’t predict why Clinton took Texas and Ohio, whether it’s issues, demographics, her new “aggressive” approach. Her campaign is fighting to stay relevant, and those types of issues tend to generate more headlines and soundbites. I suspect if the shoe was on the other foot, the Obama campaign would do the same.
Comment 3/8/2008
Janusz, It may be the way campaigns are run, but that does not make it constructive. Nor do campaigns need to be run that way. In a sense, the shoe was on the other foot until recently in that Obama was behind in the polls. But he did not resort to negativity to close the gap. I’m not naive enough to think he is a saint, but I do believe he is a once in a generation candidate who can engender change. To the degree he is sucked down into typical campaign tactics, that ability will be somewhat compromised. And that’s a shame.
And for the record, KTK was incorrect when he regurgitated the Clinton spin on what Power actually said re withdrawal of troops from Iraq. (Correct in the restatement of the spin, incorrect re what was actually said.) KTK made the same mistake re the Canada/NAFTA situation. I understand that KTK is usually in the vicinity of the truth and not always precisely there, but in these two cases it’s the reshading of reality that allows the Clinton campaign to turn a non-event into a campaign issue.
Comment 3/8/2008
Since this is an open thread…
As I was reading the current debate about how much participation Hillary had in her husband’s presidency, the following thought occurred to me (and yes, I am an ardent supporter of Obama). If she had as much participation in Bill’s presidency as her campaign claims, then would it be safe to assume he would have an equal amount in Hillary’s? Or perhaps even more, given his previous experience.
OK, now think about term limits and the justifications for implementing them. I am not suggesting Hillary should be disqualified from running for office based on term limits. But does the possibility of a husband and wife team occupying the office for 12 to 16 years violate the spirit of term limits? Or is my judgement being clouded by my bias?
Comment 3/8/2008
Ted:
Your sudden concern for substantive content in blog posts is a welcome development, but I can’t see what you object to in mine.
I said: “Power was the one who said, to a European reporter, that Obama was not going to be able to keep his stated timetable for withdrawal from Iraq . . .”
The Chicago Sun-Times says:
[Power] 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. . . . Her comments about Iraq came in a BBC interview. 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.
Jake Tapper of ABC News quotes the interview:
All of which seems to contrast rather startlingly with Obama’s official campaign Web site, which still says, to this day:
On the other hand, when Obama explicitly declares, with absolute lack of ambiguity, that “all of our combat brigades [will be] out of Iraq within 16 months”, and one of his top advisors says that that is a “best-case scenario” of a kind that has never been seen to occur, and his actual plans will be made during meetings that have not yet occurred, on the basis of information he doesn’t yet have, from people he hasn’t yet met, and not on the plans and promises that have already been stated, it seems to me reasonable to imagine that what she was trying to say was “Obama was not going to be able to keep his stated timetable.” Maybe that’s not sufficiently “in the vicinity of truth” but I can’t see how.
Regarding NAFTA, I said: “[The Powers stories] happened within days of reports that a different campaign staffer had privately told a Canadian official that Obama wasn’t serious about rolling back NAFTA.”
The Powers BBC interview took place on March 6. Her “monster” comment came in a different interview that same day. The supposed renunciation of Obama’s stance on NAFTA was reported by the Canadian network CTV on Feb. 27 - 8 days earlier. I think that’s closely enough in the vicinity of truth to warrant the description “within days of”.
As to the actual remarks, CTV reported that “Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned”, which, oddly, sounds to my ear very much like there were “reports that a . . . campaign staffer had privately told a Canadian official that Obama wasn’t serious about rolling back NAFTA”. Again, I’m vague on your notions of “vicinity”, but those quotes seem at least arguably within walking distance of truthiness to me.
Still, I commend you on your zeal for revising accurate statements, and your apparent blossoming interest in what they actually mean. Tallyho!
Comment 3/8/2008
Ted wrote: ” It may be the way campaigns are run, but that does not make it constructive. Nor do campaigns need to be run that way.”
Ted: I couldn’t agree with you more. After eight years of the Rovian smear machine you’d think that everyone would want to rise to a more informed manner of campaigning. But I’m not sure I subscribe to the Maureen Dowd-type assertion that Clinton is all negative attack dog and Obama is above that sort of thing. Was the “monster” remark a non-issue? I tend to think it was. Was it negative and not issue related. Well, yeah. And I think the assertion that Obama is being “sucked down into typical campaign tactics”, that is, being forced into unsavory behavior by opponents doesn’t ring true to me. I’m cynical enough to believe Obama understands the power of the media, and is willing to use it if it plays to his advantage. One can only hope that kind of behavior is kept to a minimum, and doesn’t destroy the chances of the eventually-chosen candidate when November comes around.
Ted wrote: ” But does the possibility of a husband and wife team occupying the office for 12 to 16 years violate the spirit of term limits?”
The argument has been brought up before, and I’m of two minds about it. In some ways, it does seem sort of Peronist, and after the two Bushes, it makes one think twice. But then, there will have been an eight year period between the two Clinton presidencies, so I’m not sure the term limits would apply (in spirit, that is).
Comment 3/8/2008
Janusz, I take your point re 8 year break. As for Obama changing tactics, I understand he is making a conscious decision to go negative, my point was I doubt he would have gone negative if Clinton had not done it first. And Obama was playing from behind for quite a while - without running a negative campaign…
Comment 3/9/2008
KTK, Power did not say “that Obama was not going to be able to keep his stated timetable for withdrawal from Iraq”. She said it (his 16 month timetable) was the best case scenario. I see that as a meaningful difference.
As for “a staffer had privately told a Canadian official that Obama wasn’t serious about rolling back NAFTA.” That has been refuted by Austan Goolsbee, and in any event, the memo from which the story grew actually read this way:
“Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” And of course Obama has not been calling for rolling back NAFTA, he has said, among other things, “I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced”
While it is true these are all relatively fine distinctions, they are distinctions that are meaningful. Because once the initial blurring occurs the usual cascade effect kicks in resulting in an growing gap between the buzz and the truth.
Comment 3/9/2008
“Hmmmm…having taxpayer front a $6.2 million bill for investigating an act of consenual oral sex is not the stuff of which dreams are made.”
Hmmmmm, what does that comment have to do with Ken Starr’s character and integrity? (BTW, much more than $6.2 million was spent on prosecuting a president who lied under oath.)
Comment 3/9/2008
Power did not say “that Obama was not going to be able to keep his stated timetable for withdrawal from Iraq”. She said it (his 16 month timetable) was the best case scenario. I see that as a meaningful difference.
She also said that such best-case scenarios had never been observed to work out in Iraq, that “You can’t make a commitment in whatever month we’re in now” (although Obama’s campaign Web site then, as now, contained precisely such a commitment), and that the eventual policy would be decided on the basis of consultations that would not take place until after Obama takes office. It’s impossible not to read this as meaning that she believes the 16-month timetable will not pan out, and that the entire plan it is based on is actually non-operative.
Regarding NAFTA, my statement was that there were reports that Obama had been disingenuous about his position - and there were indeed such reports. I quoted them, and your quote from the Canadian memo supports their conclusion (”[protectionist] messaging . . . should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans”). Whether or not that conversation actually took place (and there’s no reason to imagine Goolsbee’s “refutation” of the reports that it did is in any way truthful), it was reported - with reasonable justification - that it had, and those reports had shaken up the campaign just before Powers stuck her foot in her mouth twice in one day. They obviously played a role in setting the context for the response, inside and outside the campaign, to her statements on the 6th.
Comment 3/9/2008
I think I’m going to award KTK the point on the withdrawal timetable, and Ted the point on NAFTA. Call it a push.
In any case, I’m surprised to see KTK so firmly entrenched in the Hillary camp. Maybe it’s a New York thing.
Comment 3/9/2008
KTK, you are right re NAFTA. Rereading what you wrote it is accurate.
And I am certainly not defending Power. She obviously is not the right person to be a senior advisor. I’d even add that she is not old enough (37 or 38) to be a senior foreign policy advisor. At least not for Obama. His senior advisers should be heavy on experience to offset his relative lack-thereof. Especially during the campaign.
Comment 3/9/2008
OK, so since Ted concedes the NAFTA point, I guess it’s 2-0 KTK.
Comment 3/9/2008
Ted,
I think the 12-16 year thing is a perfectly valid reason for anybody to not support Clinton, and something any current or would-be Clinton supporter to consider. I mean, if you consider the Bush Dynasty too, that would two families running this country for a long ass time.
I wouldn’t advocate her disqualification from the race or anything, but the question deserves more play than it has gotten.
Re: The Monster Comment
Seriously, I watch almost no news. I don’t follow any of these things nearly as closely as most of you. And, sometimes I think that actually leaves me better off.
Misinformation is worse than no information. LL readers are a smart breed, and these types of “issues” are discussed in responsible context, but there are way too many people who allow these molehills turned mountains to really influence their political decisions. In that respect, I’d rather they weren’t paying attention at all.
Comment 3/10/2008
Ted & tgirsch:
[I wrote this last night and was so dazed on cold medicine I left it open on my computer all day without posting it.]
Re: Comments 18-20: Thanks kindly to you both. And for a reasoned debate.
I wasn’t really coming out for Hillary. I did vote for her in the New York primary, but quickly began to feel I was leaning more towards Obama, then lately have started to swing back to Hillary . . . . I think they are each attractive in important ways, and each have really strong drawbacks.
It’s interesting to me that Hillary has been hinting openly about the “Dream Team” ticket. She says, of course, that she expects to be on top but Obama should take the VP slot. I wonder if she’s trying to bluff him into folding? I suspect she sees the handwriting on the wall, knows the race will be close but that she will come in just barely second or have to stage an ugly fight over superdelegates and the Florida primary, and is putting on a confident face to get Obama to agree to drop out early. If I were Obama I wouldn’t take it either, but it would be terrible to see them beat each other up to the point that neither of them can win, or they couldn’t stand to work together any further. I suspect they both know that as well - but they’re both too stubborn and ambitious to knuckle under. I think the Dream Team makes most sense with Hillary as Pres, but I suspect Obama’s best chance at becoming Pres himself is either to take it this time or, if he loses the nomination, refuse the VP slot and come back alone 8 years from now, which means the Dream Team isn’t happening unless Hillary agrees to become VP, which she won’t.
Yeah, Power is interesting. I don’t know that much about her, but I gather that she was given the directorship of this Harvard program she’s at entirely on the basis of her book on genocide. That was a great achievement, but she’s not apparently an academic by background - now she gets introduced everywhere as a “Harvard Professor, and the author of . . .” when in fact they’re basically the same accomplishment. And she left the institute within a year or so to start working for Obama, well before the campaign - so her background is actually a lot thinner than it sounds. A recent profile on her said she dreamed of being Secretary of State - seems to me she needs a whole lot more seasoning.
Comment 3/10/2008
[Thanks] for a reasoned debate.
Every once in a great while, I manage to pull that off. Although, to be fair, all of the substantive “debate” here was between you and Ted.
And apologies for inaccurately categorizing you as being “firmly” in the Hillary camp. My stance on the two of them is essentially that Clinton is substantially better on health care, but Obama is better on just about everything else (and, on foreign policy judgment, I think substantially so).
My dream ticket would be neither Clinton-Obama nor Obama-Clinton; it would be Obama-Feingold.
Comment 3/10/2008
Whether or not Clinton is a “monster” is wholly subjective. But, it is a fact that under international law, Clinton is a war criminal. That also is true for every official that worked to get us into that genocidal war of aggression and every politician that voted for it.
Comment 3/10/2008
I’m not all that concerned about health care specifics. My understanding is that whatever comes to pass will do so as legislation, so while the Admin will have input, Congress will be the ones to hash out the specifics.
I agree that there is no way Obama will take VP (nor should he from the front runner position). For one, Clinton would have to, out of necessity, bury him or else his star power would outshine her. (Speaking of VPs, is there an APB out on Chaney? I have not heard a peep from him in a very long time - which is nice.) Second, Obama would run the risk of being dragged down if Clinton tanks the job, and finally, eight more years in the Senate would certainly fix the inexperience rap. I suppose the downside is he might have to compete against a VP who ends up in a position of strength eight years from now, and eight years in DC will, no doubt, dial back his star power somewhat.
But none of this matters, because Obama will be the nominee!
Comment 3/10/2008
This is why I was discussing the NAFTA and Iraq issues mentioned in this thread. They are now mainstays in Clinton campaign speeches. Today, from the NYT:
A paraphrase of a paraphrase of an inaccurate summary, and that’s what voters end up being told by a candidate for president. It’s sad that the truth doesn’t matter.
Comment 3/11/2008
Will Obama ever repudiate the racist minister of his church or does Obama accept the teachings of the man who has been his spiritual leader for 20 years? He has chosen to be a member of a racist church and support with his money a pastor who is full of hate for the country Obama wants to lead.
Comment 3/14/2008