TNR BLOGS

May 16, 2008 | 7:53 PM
May 16, 2008 | 7:48 PM
May 16, 2008 | 6:31 PM

May 16, 2008 | 7:03 PM
May 16, 2008 | 1:57 PM
May 16, 2008 | 1:28 PM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM

May 16, 2008 | 8:14 PM
May 16, 2008 | 2:08 PM
May 16, 2008 | 11:22 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
07.03.2008
A Partial Defense of Samantha Power

Inevitably, the Clinton campaign is calling for Samantha Power's head. That's to be expected, I suppose. But I think it's something of a pity. People in both campaigns say awful stuff about the other side all the time (though calling Hillary a "monster" was bracingly harsh, to be sure). So the content wasn't totally shocking.

Power's real mistake was declaring herself off the record a half-sentence too late. Because convention holds that a source must specify that before speaking, I think the reporter was within his rights to publish the quote. However on balance I wish he hadn't. Power is certainly a key Obama advisor, but she's an academic, not a politico, and also not a full-time spokeswoman for the campaign. (I would apply a completely different standard to someone like Howard Wolfson.) Moreover at the time of the interview she was in the UK promoting a book, not Obama per se. And what have we really learned here? We already knew these candidates are in a death struggle and their campaigns insult each other nonstop.

More to the point, when the media gives public figures zero margin for error, they offer us zero trust in return. There's a place for letting people vent their true feelings off the record in ways they can't publicly--and if they slip up, for not hanging them on a technicality. But each episode like this gives people yet another reason to say nothing interesting to journalists, which makes our understanding of the world less informed, which--although occasionally there will be a juicy story like this one--ultimately means readers are the poorer for it.

Update: Power has resigned. And I'd missed my colleague Jon Cohn's take over at the Plank. 

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Friday, March 07, 2008 11:09 AM with 32 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

The Plank said:

The Clinton campaign is in high dudgeon, calling for Samantha Power to resign her post as an advisor

March 7, 2008 11:45 AM

marcellusw101 said:

Come on Mike. Obama has based his whole campaign on ushering in a new kind of politics, bringing people together, and (to borrow a phrase) "changing the tone" in Washington. If he doesn't sack this person immediately it will look wildly hypocritical.

"Monster?!?" That's just way beyond the pale, and beyond anything that a Clinton adviser has said about BO.

And I'm an Obama supporter!

March 7, 2008 11:59 AM

purcellneil said:

Well said, Mr Crowley.  It really would be nice if reporters and their employers weren't focused on this kind of tit-for-tat name-calling -- especially when it is clearly not intended for public consumption.  If Hillary calls Obama a Muslim, that's probably going to be news -- although implying that she isn't really sure of his religion ought not to be, and Samantha Power's off-hand and regrettable (and publicly apologized-for) use of the term "monster" definitely is not.

Neil  

March 7, 2008 12:04 PM

Eos said:

Michael,

Is calling your opponent a "monster" the kind of interesting thing that you want political people to feel freer to say to the media? It is informative about the real atmosphere in the Obama campaign, as oppossed to the rhetorical facade. After all, it was Obama who in his first campaign in Chicago drove his own political mentor off the ballot on lawyerly technicalities.

And what would Samantha Power's own position be on this issue if it were a Clinton staffer who had made the remark?

Power's gaffe is the third or fourth in a seires of amateurish actions by the Obama campaign as they move away form the security of a speech read from a teleprompter--Goolsbee, Susan Rice, the election lawyer who broke in to Howard Wolfson's conference call with reporters, and Obama's own denial of a meeting with the Canadians.

I hate to say this, but the two TNR posts on Power both have the quality of special pleading for a colleague. It is okay to do that privately, but not with a political attack on the person who was called a monster, as Jonathan Cohn does in his post. (I note that you do not take that tack.)

March 7, 2008 12:04 PM

boneill said:

"Fuck you!" shouted Penn.

"Fuck you!" shouted Ickes.

"Fuck you!" shouted Penn.

Yeah...Obama has the amatuer campaign.  

March 7, 2008 12:09 PM

boneill said:

For what it is worth, I like Samantha Powers, but am glad she resigned.  It had to be done.

March 7, 2008 12:10 PM

drdannyu said:

I have to disagree with this.  I'm just a lowly pediatrician who does occasional advocacy work, and has attented an occasional seminar on working with the press.  Even with the very few bits of training that I, a worker outside of the field, have had, I have been taught never to say anything stupid "off the record" and expect it to stay that way.  This was dumb.  Further, it makes the campaign look unprofessional.  The stakes are high, and if you're running on raising the tone, the underlings have to act accordingly.

Would the Clinton campaign act the same way?  Probably not.  Which is why I'm no longer supporting her candidacy.

March 7, 2008 12:12 PM

sdemuth said:

On the one hand, Powers' comment is dumb, disappointing and unprofessional.  On the other, it's the sort of slip people who aren't PR professionals make all the time.   She got caught.   It doesn't make feel better about the Obama campaign, but it doesn't make me feel better about the Clinton campaign either - I don't  think the fact that all of your advisers are PR trained says anything particularly positive about your qualities as a leader.

March 7, 2008 12:17 PM

Eos said:

To the growing list of the Obama campaign's amatuerish moments, I should add Obama giving a press meeting on Rezko, then refusing to answer more than a few questions, and then growing frustrated and walking out muttering on his own press briefing.

While we're on Rezko, and the theme of amateurishness--I note that Obama's description of the Rezko-Obama proerty deal in Chicago as "boneheaded" is a rhetorical attmept to paint a venal and highly calculated act of self-enrichment as merely a bit of silly amateurishness. The Rezko-Obama land deal was nothing if not carefully thought through and shrewdly constructed.

March 7, 2008 12:26 PM

tnmats said:

So calling HRC a monster is inexcusable, but calling BO Ken Starr is.  Didn't the Clintonistas call Ken Starr a monster for all intents and purposes in the 90s?  The Clinton campaign's double standard is impressive.  And the reason I lost any shred of respect I had for her in the last two weeks.

March 7, 2008 12:32 PM

Rhubarbs said:

pccostello, if you believe that Obama is shrewd, calculated, and venal, does that mean you're thinking of supporting him? Or is it only people named Clinton who get gold stars for being shrewd, calculated, venal, and financially corrupt?

Anyway, an Obama advisor called Hillary a "monster." Hillary herself called Obama unfit to be president. In a primary campaign, the latter is worse by any standard than the former. And doesn't the fact that Hillary would make the latter claim prove the accuracy of the former claim?

March 7, 2008 12:39 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Samantha Power was advising Obama on _diplomacy_. As is Susan Rice.

Really, folks, Obama's team just ain't ready for prime time. I'm probably going to vote for him anyway, given that McCain cheerfully admits to knowing zip about economics, but I'll hold my nose when doing so. And secretly pray that Obama will bring back to Washington Bob Rubin and Larry Summers

March 7, 2008 12:45 PM

AlanSP said:

"Is calling your opponent a "monster" the kind of interesting thing that you want political people to feel freer to say to the media?"

I think you're missing the point.  It's not that the "monster" comment is interesting; clearly the comment itself was a mistake.  The point is that in an effort to avoid getting hammered on slip-ups like saying a second too late that a comment is off the record, people will avoid saying anything that hasn't been carefully rehearsed, or worse, simply refuse to talk to journalists at all.  Gerri Peev is going to have a rough time getting people to talk to him after this.

March 7, 2008 12:51 PM

lymon1 said:

TNR commenters, forgive my repetition, but since I feel strongly about this I'm posting it or something like it for each TNR writer who has bloged about this.

More important than "monstergate" is Power and the issue of Darfur itself.  Power is a sell-out who stood by Obama as he windsocked his position on Darfur.  Her claim to fame is her case that the west and the United States should unilaterally intervene in cases of genocide and ethnic clensing.  Obama, since anouncing, has taken the opposite position, saying "genocide is not the criteria" for intervention and that "those of us who care about Darfur" don't want unilateral western internvention (many people here would agree with that, but the clear majority of the Save Darfur movement wanted some sort of unilateral action, such as the U.S. or NATO shooting down Sudan army helicopters in the region).  

Maybe now she'll get back to advocating on behalf of genocide victims rather than her "unpaying" boss.  

March 7, 2008 12:54 PM

drdannyu said:

tnmats, that's the transitive theorem of name-calling, right?

Tep, I have the same hopes about Obama.  A president is only as good as his/her advisors, and I hope Obama picks some really good, seasoned ones, because there is no way I'm voting for McCain.

March 7, 2008 12:56 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Let's be clear. US presidential candidates aren't supposed to be nice people. The "monster" rap is trivial, esp compared to what our man or woman in the White House can expect from such models of modern manners as Putin, Chavez, Ahmadinejad et al.

A diplomatic adviser to a US presidential candidate, on the other hand, is supposed to be, well-- you know-- _diplomatic_. Not given to off the cuff insults, or suggestions that the US militarily intervene against a crucial ally.

Also, Power was (is?) a journalist. What does it say about her judgment and intelligence that she thought her little stinkbomb would be kept off the record? More to the point, what does it say about the judgment of the candidate who thought this little girl was ever a serious adviser on foreign policy?

March 7, 2008 12:56 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Obama desperately needs to surround himself with some gray-haired old diplomatic hands who know their way around the world, know how to speak intelligently to journalists and to the public without having to beg the former to keep their foolish asides out of print or clarify their comments.

These are deep waters Obama's swimming in. Leave the kiddies to the kiddie pool.

March 7, 2008 1:08 PM

jm_rice said:

tep:  ...and James Lee Witt.

About McCain and econ, I disagree.  If he really did say he knows zip about economics, so what?  The only ones who know "anything about economics" are economists.  Anyway, McCain is the one who knew enough about economics to spearhead the fight against that $40 billion Air Force procurement boondoggle that wound up with high-level Boeing and Pentagon officials in jail.  Only someone with McCain's backgound could look at a procurement like that and smell a rat.  McCain can cut through the bullshit on his own.  Obama?  Not a chance.

This is a major deal for me, and McCain's credentials are unassailable.  Obama's are mainly rhetorical.

I think it's far more important to elect a bigger Democratic majority to Congress. National secuity president, domestic policy Congress.  Good fit.  (WIth all due respect to Rubin and Summers, it was the 103rd Congress's courageous Budget Act of 1993 that ushered in the Clinton boom.)  

March 7, 2008 1:32 PM

mariekreutz said:

I can't imagine a scenario (excluding influence by D&A) where I would be off guard with the press if I were a member of a presidential campaign.  Sure, she gets sympathy but she had to be fired.  

Who are all these advisers anyway for Clinton & Obama who seem to be getting in the news quite a bit lately.  Who forms their inner circles?

March 7, 2008 1:33 PM

jm_rice said:

Yep, that's what Obamaphiles are voting on -- hope.  It's not Obama who scares me as much as his followers.  They remind me of the drivers out here, otherwise bright, alert folks who, as soon as they hit the freeways, become what inspired Truman Capote to say that for every year you live in California you lose one point of IQ.

March 7, 2008 1:43 PM

teplukhin2you said:

jm_rice - I'm only repeating what McCain himself as said. I'm happy to change my mind if/when he announces he's brought on some heavyweight advisers, of Summers-Rubin heft, who

1) commit to a strong dollar policy

2) re. #1, announce they will replace Bernanke

3) lay out a decent and intelligent fiscal plan generally

March 7, 2008 2:24 PM

cleavet said:

pccostello writes:

"While we're on Rezko, and the theme of amateurishness--I note that Obama's description of the Rezko-Obama proerty deal in Chicago as "boneheaded" is a rhetorical attmept to paint a venal and highly calculated act of self-enrichment as merely a bit of silly amateurishness. The Rezko-Obama land deal was nothing if not carefully thought through and shrewdly constructed."

Prove it. You've been dealing in BS character assanssination since you first appeared in these forums. By the way, it was Hillary's campaign doing offering back-channel reassurance to the Canadian government about her NAFTA-bashing, not Obama's.

March 7, 2008 2:51 PM

Bulbman1066 said:

jim_rice is right about McCain and economics.  McCain has openly embraced Free Trade, as well as low taxes, fiscal restraint and light-handed regulation.   A recent president, W.J. Clinton, followed those policies with excellent results.

By contrast Obama and Hillary C. are attacking NAFTA and promising to protect American jobs with trade barriers.   Ask any economist, Democratic or Republican (I don't mean media pundits, I mean people who publish technical articles in peer-reviewed journals) and he will tell you that free trade as solidly established as any result in economics. Somewhere there may be an economist who claims otherwise, but he's likely to be as lonely as the professional biologist who believes in creationism.

See Paul Krugman's popular books written in the 90's for an explanation or why free trade is the best policy for all socioeconomic classes, and not only those at the top.

I like jm_rice's idea McCain and a Democratic Congress would be a good combination. G.W. Bush has been a better president since the Democrats took over Congress.

March 7, 2008 2:52 PM

lymon1 said:

tep: I'll settle for a medium-strength dollar at this point.  But it can't be said strongly enough: the most important thing the next president can do is set a strong energy independence policy.  Nothing is more vital to the longterm health of the nation AND strength of the dollar.  That means the left and the right compromise: nukes for the long term, ANWAR for the short, and something that forces us off of oil other than OPEC market prices (e.g., a $125/barrel price floor, with the market-floor difference going towards infrastructure improvements like roads, high tech traffic-reduction technologies, light rail, etc.).

March 7, 2008 3:04 PM

jm_rice said:

Jeez, tep, did Obama really say, "genocide is not the criteria"?  So much for an Ivy League education.

I think it's more important to go by what McCain has done than by what he says.  I gave an example, which I think is far more convincing than his self-deprecating talk.

A strong dollar is good for morale and for American tourists abroad and motorists at home.  But a weak dollar also helps finance the war and improves the trade balance.  Raising rates will strengthen the dollar but will also precipitate a recession.

I agree that Bernanke has to go, because by keeping rates low he's doing nothing but postponing the inevitable, making it worse when it does come.  A recession is a correction, and the sooner we face it the sooner we'll get through it.

A "decent and intelligent" fiscal plan is passed on by Congress.  That's why a big Democratic majority is so important.  More important, I believe, than a Democratic president, though both would be nice, so we can finally get universal healthcare passed.

March 7, 2008 4:36 PM

teplukhin2you said:

I'm OK with McCain + a Dem congress. Seems an increasingly likely outcome

March 7, 2008 4:47 PM

LaurentVytas said:

Mr Crowley, relevant to your defense that she was "promoting a book, not Obama per se" that's not completely true. She hosted a fundraising lunch for the Obama campaign at Hogan & Hartson's London offices on Wednesday March 5. Minimum $250 a head.

March 8, 2008 3:30 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

A friend of mine called me yesterday from Georgia (as in former Soviet Union, Georgia, where the political weirdness and instability factor has racheted lately) and said to me in her lovely lady-vampire accent (she too is a pediatrician drdannyu):

"So? Today Hillary ees a monster? This is perfect, so funny."

Monster is a semi-compliment in her world. She couldn't believe someone was fired for it or that Hillary would even care.  I told her I doubted Hillary did care.  

I'm not sure how I feel about it, it was a stupid move to say to a reporter. I do know it's part of the international zygiest out there forever.

March 8, 2008 11:10 AM

demaratus said:

I am surprised that anyone thinks that the "monster" call was a mistake. Power (interesting name) provided herself with the "beautiful deniability"by saying it was off the record immediately after the statement. It gave Obama an opportunity to show how he is different--fire the culprit--and at the same time it put out in a quite memorable way the notion that Senator Clinton is a person who will stop at nothing to gain the White House. I would warn Senator Obama that one factor in his favor is  the desire, even among Baby Boomers,  to remove the worst generation from politics. In the mind's of people in the middle these have been the Clinton-Bush boomer years. But he probably on second thought should not listen to me since I was born in 1947.

March 8, 2008 6:54 PM

jwsevert said:

What does it say about the body politic that Ms. Power resigned (hey, she could have been referring to a likable monster, like Cookie Monster) but all of us are still paying David Vitter's and Larry Craig's salaries?

March 9, 2008 5:55 AM

esdaniels said:

Mike should get a grip and also read this from Greenwald:

www.salon.com/.../index.html

I'm way more interested in learning who I'm to be ruled by, including his chief foreign policy advisor, than I am in making sure that Mile preserves the beautiful "trust" that allows him to hobnob and rub elbows with the great.  The way TNR has gone apeshit over this tells you all you need to about how it's been coopted by the Village Estblishment.  Short version: their allegiance is with the Village and not with informing the rest of us.

March 9, 2008 3:44 PM

Eos said:

esdaniels,

The Glenn Greenwald column you cite is terrific. What he describes explains so much. The media are the PR flaks for the establishment--they trade soft coverage for access.

March 10, 2008 12:38 AM

Double click this space to insert your ad.