Obama Foreign Policy Adviser Resigns

It's dumb, yes. But, I kind of like it when these little bits slip, because it's the most authentic thing we'll hear.

And, while "monster" may not be the correct word, I've gotta say -- Clinton's tactics of late definitely reek of desperation.

I'm not sure if I'm more disappointed in Clinton for that, or in the fact that it seems to work for her.

It's definitely something a lot of people are thinking, but when you're officially attached to a campaign, especially this year in either of these Democratic campaigns, you have to know that the media will latch onto every statement like this that is made.

I'm not sure if I'm more disappointed in Clinton for that, or in the fact that it seems to work for her.

I'm highly disappointed in both, but probably moreso in the latter. Especially being from Ohio.

And, while "monster" may not be the correct word, I've gotta say -- Clinton's tactics of late definitely reek of desperation.

Isn't it more that tactics like this, by the Obama campaign, that reek of desperation? This tactic of blurting an insult at an opponent but pretending you didn't really mean it because it was "off the record" is straight out of The West Wing...

I have noticed that the media has a tendency to pick 'darlings-of-the-moment' and Obama seems to have been one, prior to Super Tuesday II. I think it is important for us to see slip-ups like this because it makes the campaigns and the people behind them real. Hillary is an easy target for all sorts of negative adjectives and I do not know if that is because she genuinely deserves all of the flak or because she is a 'take-it-or-leave-it' proposition. I feel like everything I've heard about Obama I've had to digest without question and every time Hillary attempts anything it has insidious overtones.

that reek of desperation?

lol I know you don't like obama.. but even you should know that THOSE IN THE LEAD are not DESPERATE.

Isn't it more that tactics like this, by the Obama campaign, that reek of desperation?

Well, it was a response, certainly -- and maybe it's even an example of controlled chaos.

But, by desperation, I mean Clinton's attempts to seat delegates (without a re-vote) only after finding out the momentum had shifted away from her, and then attempting to claim it's because she cares about the voters.

Most of her actions over the past few weeks have felt very much like the actions of someone who has next-to-nothing to lose by employing said actions, based on her dwindling prospects. Sadly, I think those actions are only going to draw out the Dem. primaries and give McCain a head-start, while also weakening whichever of the two Dem. candidates get the nomination.

I certainly don't see any reason for Obama to be desperate, but I do see why they need to step up their defense, based on the Clinton campaign having geared up for a long, drawn-out battle.

I don't understand what the big deal is. So what if she called her a monster. I think that it is exactly the same as saying, "I don't want Hillary to win." My god! "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me!" Did Hillary even comment on it? Or, notice it? This reminds me of a Monty Python skit. The person does something that she thinks will be offensive and then she kills herself for punishment while no one even noticed she was in the room. Can this be an example of an inflated self image?

Well, I like that Obama surrounds himself with non political people.

Not a lot of people are aware of this. A topic that deserves an article. If I get the time I'll give it a stab, but I won't mind if someone else beats me to it.

See the following article:

Here

Thanks Pavilion.

BTW, did the title of this article just change? I don't remember it saying "resigns" when I first got here.

Yes...title changed. Originally they were just reporting on the incident, but no resignation was reported.

lol vas you're an oldschool viner.. you know it is dangerous to comment in the ever changing ap feed.

exactly, i dont understand why this is a big deal... at least shes honest!

I can only hope that Ms. Power is provided for as well as Mr. Sheheen(sp), the Clinton campaign co-chairman in New Hampshire after his tasteless comments concerning Obama's admitted past drug use.
I can just imagine that Howard Wolfson is gloating because the timing of events will make it appear as though he manipulated the personnel management decisions within the Obama campaign.
Now is when we learn if Mr. Axelrod can manage a news cycle.

That's a really good point, P. Walker. I kind of got that vibe too, like it was like Wolfson commanded her resignation and it happened.

Not that it isn't something Obama should have done anyway, because that's the only logical path to take, but it just comes off that way.

exactly, i dont understand why this is a big deal... at least shes honest!

Unfortunately, honesty doesn't enter into it. I recall one Canadian official being fired for calling President Bush a moron in similar circumstances.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was forced to say on Thursday that President Bush is "a friend of mine. He's not a moron at all."

But he IS am moron. How horrible for someone to have to say that he is not! AND even worse, they had to say that he is their friend. Did they have their thumbs in a clamp or something? Do we have a photo?

At the very least, that remark shows inexperience. And she's suppose to be Obama's foreign policy guru. LOL.....

Well, foreign policy and public relations are worlds apart.

Well yes, when you publicly call someone a name to disparage their character it's extremely childish and dirty. But she said "this is off the record" -- she didn't handle the concept of "off the record" correctly so it stayed on the record, but it seems as if this isn't something intended to get out. So I wouldn't say it's dirty politics really, just a personal opinion that was put out there in a stupid way.

# 6.1

"Off the record"? Is that like telling Canada that Mr. Obama doesn't really mean that tough talk about NAFTA? That it's just red meat for the "masses".

(Personally, I've always loved being called the "masses". It's so nameless and faceless and dehumanizing. Makes one feel warm all over.)

Isn't calling your opponent names a bit childish and a bit of dirty politics?

I'm sorry, and lying to another country and then blaming it on your opponent isn't dirty politics? Darkening the skin of your opponent in your campaign ads isn't dirty politics or childish? Please.

She is a monster. A fear-mongering, lying, manipulative monster.

indecent

The interesting thing is that this isn't just a campaign aide who blurted this out at an inopportune moment, it's his chief foreign policy adviser.

If this is the kind of expert that Mr. Obama is surrounding himself with, I view that as a negative when weighing his candidacy and possible future administration.

I could really care less about who called who what names. Names are names. Childish, yes. BFD, our current president treats Iraq like a sandbox.

People wanna be pissy over the political correctness over this, and yet, the threads that show Hillary's extreme tactics, go completely unnoticed. But, OMG, if Michelle says one thing, it has to be taken out of context and blown up all over Newsvine for a week. And now his adviser calls her a monster, and we have to have a discussion over the implications of that as well. But no one feels the need to discuss the fact Hillary lied to the Canadians, manipulated them, and then blamed it on Obama. You know, thats no big deal.

But she said "this is off the record" -- she didn't handle the concept of "off the record" correctly so it stayed on the record, but it seems as if this isn't something intended to get out. So I wouldn't say it's dirty politics really, just a personal opinion that was put out there in a stupid way.

You sure about that? Or was the a purposed and calculated move to go negative while hiding behind "off the record"?

If this is the kind of expert that Mr. Obama is surrounding himself with, I view that as a negative when weighing his candidacy and possible future administration.

The adviser after meeting with President Sarkozy, "We're totally pulling a fast one on him with this recent trade agreement! No, wait. That was off the record right...?"

indecent @ 6.5

And now his adviser calls her a monster, and we have to have a discussion over the implications of that as well.

Yep, the same way we have to have a discussion about whether Hillary's campaign darkened a photo of Obama. Or whether Hillary was trying to be racist (she wasn't) when she said that yes, MLK had stirred consciousness of a need for change, but, that LBJ had to listen to the demand and act on it for anything to happen.

It's all hand to hand combat, wrestling for advantage. It's best to try to keep a sense of proportion and a sense of humor throughout.

Especially when one refers to your democratic opponent as dubya & Starr.

You sure about that? Or was the a purposed and calculated move to go negative while hiding behind "off the record"?

Of course I'm not sure about it, Adam, that would require me to know inside her mind. That's why I said things like "seems."

The problem is, as a calculated move to go negative it doesn't make sense. There's a right and wrong way to go negative, and this is the wrong way. Hillary is quite adept at it and could do much better. If you're going to go negative, there has to be a little nugget of genuine criticism. Calling her a "monster" does as much political damage to the Clinton campaign as flinging the word "doody-head." It doesn't mean anything, and it doesn't criticize anything specific. The name-calling does more damage to Obama's campaign - especially given the image they've been working to project - than Clinton's.

So if it was calculated enough to have a "hiding" point, wouldn't it also be calculated enough to be a negative attack that might have some meat to it? If they're going to go negative on purpose, wouldn't they think it through enough to go effectively negative? It just makes more sense for it to be a stupid, offhand comment. People make mistakes.

@ #6.2
Oh, epiphany!! That's a hoot!

Who doesn't love being called "the huddled, unwashed masses"...why not just call us peasants? ;-D

Susan Powers was supposedly Obama's go to person on foreign affairs, wasn't she? If she thinks Clinton is a monster, then I do wonder what she thinks about or calls foreign leaders around the world. What a naive thing to say...especially about your boss' opponent.

But she said "this is off the record"

I've heard the Clinton and Bush administrations accused of this "off the record" talk with the press. Complaining about some doing it and not others is a bit hypocritical.

I've heard the Clinton and Bush administrations accused of this "off the record" talk with the press. Complaining about some doing it and not others is a bit hypocritical.

Well, there's two problems with that. One, I haven't been one of the people complaining about Clinton/Bush doing it, so the "hypocritical" comment doesn't make sense. For another, I'm not justifying that she said "off the record"; clearly she made a mistake by not understanding what on and off-record comments were, and it was a stupid thing to say.

I was simply pointing out that she seems to have been trying to make an offhand comment (and failed miserably). I don't see the dirty politics in it, but I do see the stupidity in it.

epi did you miss it it is clinton now denying hating nafta to the canadians???

and you are upset when a real expert leffts a word slip?? and that is a negative to you.. I guess it is better when a fake expert lets a whole state slip.. er heck of a job brownie huh?? hey lets get some of obamas friends and set them up in jobs they have absolutely zero experience for and lets pick the biggest losers that havent held a real jonb in their lives just to keep the 19% who still support bush feeling right at home.

joules @ 6.13

Are you now saying that Obama is no different from any other political candidate - saying one thing in public while privately reassuring special interests that he does not mean what he is saying in public?

Quelle dommage.

Unless, you know, Obama actually believes anything he's been saying for the last year.

Hey, I like Obama and I voted for him in the primary, I just pray that he realizes what he's up against and doesn't try to nice them to death like Kerry did.

@7.2: True. Also, I hope he acknowledges what we're up against in the war on terror and doesn't try to "nice them to death", either.

I can't believe how much contrast is used in this AP photo

Are you saying the world's largest news organization is in the tank for Clinton? The shame of it all.

That is a pretty goofy picture. It kinda makes his ear stick way out.
Don't underestimate the power of images.

Relatedly, I remember a NYT feature about meeting the candidates a while back. Everyone had one of those politician/bank president "looking statesmanly and importantly into the clouds" pictures, except Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. They had "grumpy old codger" pictures.

That is a pretty goofy picture. It kinda makes his ear stick way out.

I recall the exchange between Chris Farley and David Spade in the movie Tommy Boy:

Tommy: Hey, does this suit make me look fat?
Richard: No, your face does.

I guess Obama's fiscal stance on earmarks is definitely going to be off limits. ;)

Indeed. I voted for Kerry in the primary hoping that he would turn up the juice, but that never happened. Instead he sat there like a slug and took all the abuse, and people didn't want to vote for someone who would sit there and take all the abuse.

He still gets royalties, though, right?

On top of those from the Viet Cong for his valuable "testimony" ;)

You're right. He couldn't bring the country together because he has drunk the Kool Aid of the Ultra Liberal wing of the Democrat Party (I'm a liberal Democrat, but believe Bill and Hillary WERE able to work with the GOP until the GOP gained too great a preponderance of Congress). She is able to work with hard core Republicans and that is how one attempts to bring the country together. I don't say it will happen ... she is polarizing, but really, is it SHE or is it that she is a strong, intelligent, assertive and adept woman and MEN and anti-woman women are polarized because of what she represents. I figure it's the latter. The woman haters have gone to McCain or Obama. That's obvious.

The racists have gone for Clinton or McCain. That's just as obvious.

What, I can't pull hateful crap out too?

They're both leftists and they both understand the power of patience and slow incremental change, hence compromise is never out of the question, but does not negate their fundamental stances. Case and point, Hillary's abysmal failure on socialized medicine coming back around after some slow incremental "change" has occurred.

They are both tactfully slicing & dicing the American public based upon standard "group identity" politics and will "unite" the pieces later (a coalition of factions). They don't believe in true unity of individuals based on ideas and principles, just standard Dem politics to get elected and promote their leftist agenda.

@zennhead. You hit it on the head. My husband has been saying for weeks now that the men moving away from Hillary is because she is a strong, assertive woman who knows her own mind. Ditto on the women too!

My husband can't understand men who are afraid of women like Hillary. He says it has been his delight to be married to a strong woman for almost 19 years. And he would never change that not for anything in the world!

I did a trauma note book in group therapy , worked on it for several years....one page that always confronts me when I open it is the one about why women cannot seem to unite.... it is a very symbolic page yet questions still remain. Why can't women unite behind a cause? Why must we be so polarized?

Hey, the reason I don't like Hillary has nothing to do with whether she's a "strong" woman. It has everything to do with the fact that she's as much a weasel as any politician born. She's playing up her years as First Lady as "Experience" that should count in her favor for consideration as President. I find that laughable, at best. Her husband put her in charge of efforts to get people health care, back in the nineties, and her response was to try to allow insurance companies to write the plan for their own advantage. That doesn't bode well for those who think government is much too firmly in bed with big business.

Why can't women "unite" behind Hillary? I hope it's because women are smart enough to understand that Hillary's gender is far less important than her other qualifications (or lacks thereof).

Ms. Power is a strong woman and I'd have no complaint about uniting with her, despite our likely political differences.

I think she is very intelligent, informed, and applies a genuine deep analysis to these matters. Plus she exhibits an appropriate humanitarian concern that appears to be forgotten in recent campaign tactics and positioning.

nasugg

I may be misremembering - but isn't she an academic? Academics are so shielded and coddled from the consequences of their words and deeds that it is amusing to see one floating around clueless in the real world. Tenure ain't gonna help ya here, sister:)

Don't let Jack see this.

Epiphany that makes two for two, at making me laugh today. This time around, wiping tears of laughter from my cheeks.

caltha @ 13.2

Jack's and my friendship is based on total honesty and his ability to generate self-deprecatory humor and if he has a problem laughing at himself, you KNOW I will help him:)

yeah epi it is much better to be an idiot floating around clueless in the world, starting wars based on bs evidence.
coddled?? please provide linked evidence
shielded from consequences of their words in a free speech society.. please provide linked evidence.
Personally i'd rather my kids be academics than idiots.

Anybody know how things went when she did apply herself to the real world in the past?

Epiph, caltha:

Is that the real world world I'm floating around in? Damn, that's not the world I was aiming for.

There is mention of some other odd remarks in her wikipedia entry:

In a 2002 interview at Berkeley, that has been widely criticized, Power proposed that instead of encouraging negotiations between Israelis and Arabs, the United States should spend "billions of dollars" to send a " meaningful military" force to effect the "imposition of a solution" and create "the new state of Palestine" beside Israel. In March 2008, Power described her previous opinion as "weird."

Perhaps she was "dropping" more than f-bombs back then, and got "tripped" up on the issues a little. ;)

Sounds a little interventionist at heart, don't you think? Isn't embracing her interventionist attitudes a bit hypocritical when compared to the anti-war campaign pandering & propaganda? Guess the press doesn't consider such silly policy issues, just the "your so mean, no you are" stuff.

This is a good way to make a stealth purge on Obama's weak foreign policy.

@WAinGeorgia: Keep giving that advice to Obama it will totally "change" his message of "hope and change". He will look like just another politician. Not charming at all, no?

AWAinGeorgia: There is a reason why it is recommended to keep tax forms back 7 years. We got a tax bill for $16,000 one year because the IRS said my husband was filing single for several years when we were married the whole time. I had to not only send in our marriage license but had to resubmit tax forms for all the years imvolved.

About taxes....I received a lump sum payment that required me to recheck my taxes back five years. I discovered that I did not meet the requirements to spread this lump sum over.

Additionally, there are things like capitol gains that can be carried over for so many years as well as charitable contributions...etc. Earlier returns are often required to complete the later carry overs. I have had to do this myself on other occasions....have you considered this might be the case with the Clintons.

headingame

I can hardly wait to see the Clinton camp's response to this. I hope they deal with it with humor.

Naw,
The Clinton campaign came across with the; (paraphrasing) I cannot believe that someone within the democratic party would do such a thing to a fellow democrat. After all we need to project a positive image for our battles to come against McCain. Oh, by the way, Obama needs to fire her. Which the Obama campaign did within the hour as it dances to the Clinton tune for another news cycle and the Ken Starr slime recedes into oblivion.

Are the foreign policy philosophies that she represents also gone from team Obama?

Here she describes some details of what the US must do if the political threat of withdrawal does not succeed at pushing the pace of Iraqi reconciliation:

However, if this political pressure fails and U.S. forces remain unable to stave off an ever-widening civil war, the U.S. should go further and announce its willingness to assist in the voluntary transport and relocation of Iraqi civilians in peril. If Iraqis tell us that they would feel safer in religiously homogenous neighborhoods, and we lack the means to protect them where they are, we should support and protect them in their voluntary, peaceful evacuation — a means, one might say, to preempt genocide in advance of our departure.

The administration must help secure asylum for those Iraqis — and there are millions who fit this bill — who have a "well-founded fear of persecution."

.....

Finally, if we are serious about preventing further sectarian horrors, the U.S. must send a clear signal to the militias and political leaders who order or carry out atrocities that they will be brought to justice for their crimes. That means offering belated U.S. support to the International Criminal Court, the only credible, independent body with the jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against humanity and genocide.

She honestly addresses the genocide that withdrawal gives tacit approval to. When Obama speaks of being right about Iraq, of being right to have introduced legislation to have all troops out by March 2008, does he also emphasize the other aspects of that approach, as Power does?

Her assisted exit demonstrates that to be open and honest on important issues remains a violation of politics, as usual.

That's an interesting take. I like it.

Many thanks. Just an amateur musing on my part.

Scrutiny should be applied to those who he keeps within his foreign policy team as well, specifically the person who takes over her former "lead" role in his policy. And Obama should be pressed to answer to what Ms. Power revealed in her BBC interview on March 6th.

When the issue of followup after withdrawal came up in Ohio debate, he did not mention the fact that a huge humanitarian cleanup will be required (as Ms. Power acknowledges elsewhere). That would have been an appropriate time for him to present that fact to the American public. Or to have clarified that in fact his "real" policy is just the same as the current administration's.

Though at the same time, I do recognize that his position as "bad cop" does appropriately serve US interest in pressuring Iraqis, while Bush's continued support for Iraqi allies serves the "good cop" role. I am not claiming Obama is not a patriot in this sense, or thru this policy. Indeed, it sends a very loud message to internal Iraqi politicians to get things going "or else". The appearance of a candidate on the verge of winning based on an immediate withdrawal pledge may well be helping.

I think you are using some double standards here... How exactly is Hillary polarizing the Democratic party any more than Obama is?

I think you are using some double standards here... How exactly is Hillary polarizing the Democratic party any more than Obama is?

As I've mentioned elsewhere, it was reported that if Obama wins the nomination, that about 25% of her supporters would consider voting for McCain. If Clinton wins, about 10% (Obama supporters) considered it.

Maybe he's the polarizing one? I guess it's how you define polarizing; not always such a bad thing, maybe. Dunno.

I don't know which way we should take that, Chasing. Is it that he is more polarizing, or that she is? After all, Clinton supporters are the ones who say they'd vote for McCain, so maybe the polarizing effect has already happened. Or maybe you're right, and Obama just is that polarizing.

Weird stat to analyze.

Or you could interpret it that Hillary is more polarizing, but her polarizing effects have already taken place, and the gnash-and-claw campaign against Obama has had the accidental effect of making her seem to some Democrats like the only good Democratic choice. Good for a primary campaign, but potentially hurtful for the party as a whole in case he does clinch the nomination.

Statistics are funny like that.

Whoa, Steve... Look at us go.

I don't know which way we should take that, Chasing. Is it that he is more polarizing, or that she is?

Yeah, no, that's what I meant to imply - I can see it going either way.

Hillary's modus operandi is to push wedge issues designed to move people into two opposing groups. She is a master of this, as is Carl Rove. Obama takes the approach of the big tent and seeks to identify common ground between seemingly disparate groups.

Whoa, Steve... Look at us go.

That was some serious Steve-on-Steve action. Too bad SteveTheRobot isn't around.

Don't forget steveoutdoorrec... there's a few of us. :)

Weren't Ohioan voters referred to as the Archie Bunker voter too? Seems I heard that bashing of the Ohioan voter going on as well!

She shouldn't have, but because of the way the Obama campaign is run, I totally get it. Obama is trying to distance himself from the name-calling, mud-slinging, personal attacks, and Willie Hortons of the past. This fits into the "personal attacks" category, and without her leaving the campaign, Obama would have come under scrutiny for not actually breaking from the "old politics."

Grendel reference, hmm. Obama is indeed Beowulf, complete with mysterious birth, travel to the underworld, and all the other criteria for the hero in an epic poem. Is it truly a folk epic or could it be a literary epic instead?

A folk epic is such a story that evolves from the people of the civilization and their lives. It rises above the facts of those lives, although it is grounded in those facts, to the commonality of their human experiences, wisdom, and values.

...vs...

A literary epic, on the contrary, is a deliberate creation by the artist-writer about a civilization or a people. It, too, may be based on long-ago histories or on long-ago literature.

Obama's belying of his anthropological outlook on Americans (the "bitter" condescension) reveals the answer. At best, it would be a literary epic, not a folk epic that grows from the culture itself.

This question has now been answered.

Brother, what a bunch of assumptions. Could it be that the adviser is just honestly exasperated at all the crap that's been flying at them lately? We could assume that too.

@25: "Hillary used poor judgement on voting for the war." Power is pro-interventionist with military force.

@25.1: None of us have direct knowledge of most of this stuff. Without speculation, analysis & assumptions, we'd have little to chat about. Anyway, she is also a journalist herself and likely knows full well how that industry will respond. (someone please correct me if I've got the wrong Samantha!)

@25: Also, could you throw in some paragraphs or other formatting. It's tough to read something so long without some layout to assist it's breakdown.

the comment is a true statement

So you've actually been present when Clinton's fangs grow, her eyes turn red, she doubles her height, and sprouts wings, just before devouring an infant?

Man, how I wish you had images of that!

If you would have been watching the tirade she went on in Ohio about the misrepresentation literature, you would have witness the fangs grow, eyes turn red, she appeared taller, and something was flapping behind her and a lady in the audience was complaining about her child missing.

I thought pretty much everyone witnessed the event on CNN or MSNBC, they aired the phenomenon for about a week.

Can you see them now? The images...can you see them now?

I believe this occurred during an event to promote her book. Is this confirmed? Anybody know for sure?