An adviser to Barack Obama who called Hillary Clinton a monster during an interview has resigned, apologizing for the remark amid pressure from the Clinton campaign.
Samantha Power, an unpaid foreign policy adviser to Obama and Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, made the offending comment during an interview with the Scottish newspaper The Scotsman.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/06/obama-aide-calls-clinton-a-monster-in-interview-with-scottish-paper/This is quite curious that she'd do that now and bow out, get clear of Obama. Why? Because she's sharper than that. Why did she do such a thing, now? Why, I would say, to prevent a far more damaging story about her from destroying Obama if it got legs.
What would people say if they knew that one of Obama's closest advisers had, at one point, suggested US military intervention on behalf of the Palestinians, against Israel?
What we dont need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificingor investing, I think, more than sacrificingbillions of dollars, not in servicing Israels military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if youre serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. Its a terrible thing to do, its fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we dont just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. Its essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called Sharafat [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Power/power-con5.htmlhttp://sandbox.blog-city.com/speaking_truth_to_power.htmThat story came out on the blogs a few days ago, and was in danger of getting legs. So, it's likely "suggested" that she throws the fight and ducks out, making it moot, I would expect. With the promise that she'll get back into things later, when nobody can do anything about it. Maybe even a cabinet post!
Obama is most assuredly a professional politician in Daley's mold.
