Why are there so many heartfellt posts on this at TNR defending Powers?

Is this blaming the messenger for "harming" a TNR colleague?

HRC's campaign did something I didn't think possible 2 weeks ago; she alienated a lifelong Democrat like me into refusing to vote for her in the fall if she's the nominee.  I don't think I could push myself to vote for McBush but no way I'd vote for her now.  Now I'm getting to understand all the right-wing hatred of Hillary and I don't like it.

Amazing that TNR, who periodically issues self-righteous editorials on Darfur, never addressed Power's sell-out on that very issue, but pretty much has the entire staff weighing in on "Monstergate."  Nice priorities guys (and gals).

(For the record)

Now if you can just get that SOULLESS AMORAL RACE BAITING MONSTER Hillary Rodham Clinton to drop out of the race, you will have really accomplished something worth crowing about, and saved America from certain doom.  :-)

You guys REALLY need to put away that kool-aid. Samantha Power was a top DIPLOMATIC  adviser to Obama. The essence of diplomacy is careful, judicious positioning in the service of strategic ends, a talent which this woman singularly lacks. She makes Andrew Young look like Metternich.

Speaking as one who wishes Obama well, I think you and Crowley are sacrificing your credibility as sharp, no-BS journalists on this matter. Not what I expect from TNR.

best regards,

t

Anyone other than the candidate him- or herself who hands their opponent (in this case, McCain) such a plum prize should get the ax.  George H.W. Bush's assessment of Reagan's supply-siding as "voodoo economics" still has legs, 28 years after Bush said it.  The word "monster" from someone in the same party representing a Senatorial colleague of Clinton will dog Clinton forever whether or not she becomes the nominee or President.

As to the little game of pattycake that newsmakers and the media play regarding idle chat being on or off the record, well, I assure you that those of us little people who rely on those who make and report the news to provide us with the truth, rather than their filtered version of same, don't have a hell of a lot of sympathy in this case that something fell through the cracks and thus somebody had to take the fall.

As for why all of TNR seems to rise to her defense: As journalists, they find this little guy in The Scotsman acting in the wrong: Power said something she quickly said was meant off the record, and this guy should have abided by it in their journalistic judgment.  I suppose it would be like the other nine coaches in the ACC rushing to the defense of Paul Hewitt if Roy Williams beat GA Tech by 70 while keeping the starters in the whole time.  He violated their professional code, and they're understandably outraged.

Tep - I totally agree with you.  Three points.

First, on the specific issue of Ms. Power's diplomatic skills, I have news for her and for Mr. Obama's supporters.  There are many leaders in the world who truly deserve to be called "monsters"; you should, however, forebear from doing so and, what is more, shake their hands and stretch your lips into something resembling a grin.  I leave aside the point of whether Ms. Power is justified calling Mrs. Clinton a "monster"; the question is, does this person have the judgement to be any sort of advisor to a President who will have to shake the hands of a Milozevic or an Arafat or a Putin for the sake of peace abroad and industry at home?

Second, this instance, along with the NAFTA debacle, suggests to me something somewhat unsettling about Mr. Obama's judgement in his choice of advisors.  I am not a politician, but I know this much: to succeed, you must stay on message; and the advisor's role is to ensure that the candidate stays on message, rather than herself or himself becoming the distracting news.  I have little respect for Ms. Condi Rice, less for Ms. Albright, almost none for Mr. Christopher, and some set aside for Mr. Powell (in his Dr. Jekyll moments).  Is it even conveivable that any of them would make the kind of faux pas we have seen in Mr. Obama's advisors?

Third, to those of you who decry Mrs. Clinton's "tactics", the only answer would be: "wake up".  This is nothing compared to what the Republicans are going to throw at Mr. Obama.  It does not justify Mrs. Clinton's conduct and, for my part, I am far less enamoured of her than I used to be.  But, it does mean that there is considerable method in the primary madness; that if you cannot survive the fuzzy wuzzy pseudo attacks of the Clinton campaign, how do you propose to win against another Rove or Atwater?  It's as if by NOT raising these questions or concerns, or by not making comments, the possibility of such comments or concerns goes away.

The real Power scandal wasn't her little playground taunt. It was her call to arms at the time of the Jenin "massacre", specifically her suggestion that we send in the marines against the IDF. That was 6 years ago. Why the hell was this little girl ever allowed anywhere near Obama's campaign?

"This is nothing compared to what the Republicans are going to throw at Mr. Obama."

And as our persian friend and those of us who've spent lots of time in places like Iran or Russia or China or Venezuela well know, what the GOP hurls at BHO is nothing compared to what he can expect from Ajad and Putin and Chavez and Pakistan's ISI and...

WY: To quote Jim Hacker (of "Yes, Prime Minister" fame): "Always treat a microphone as if it's live".  Upon second and third reading, the Power woman's lack of judgement is breathtaking.  Imagine Wolfson or Penn saying, "Oh that B. Hussein O. - this is off the record by the way - is some N***** boy, eh?"  Shocks, does it not?  "Monster" in relation to Mrs. Clinton uttered by the foreign policy advisor to Mr. Obama is not different in effect, on or "off" the record.

I'm not going to defend Powers.  Her remark was dumb, and certainly unprofessional.  She deserves to be excoriated for it, precisely because she was speaking,  as tep points out, as a diplomatic adviser to the Obama campaign, to a reporter

That said, a little perspective is worth while here.  Clinton's attacks on Obama are not more honorable than Power's stupid remark, just because they are subtle insinuations, meant to play on people's unarticulated emotions and thoughts. They are a lower form of political discourse than what Powers said, precisely because they are calculated to be effective, while not sufficiently blatant to get one hung for them.

And, I'm also human enough to allow that hyperbole happens, sometimes in ways that do and should embarrass us or those we represent.   I have sat innumerable times in airports and airplanes, listening to well off Americans describing flight boarding delays due to weather or mechanical issues, or delays in taking off once boarded due to congestion, as "torture," "incompetent," or "totally unacceptable."  

My point: is that we live in a culture of hyperbole.  Powers is rightly chastised for letting it slip out, since doing so impeaches her as an Obama advisor - but she's hardly inhuman for all that, and I'd bet dollars on donuts that she didn't mean it in any real sense, any more than the corporate lawyer setting next to me at O'hare the other week really thought she was being "tortured" by the airline coping with weather delays.

The remark was part of a pattern of bad judgment, amateurishness in her public remarks, and general unseriousness on complex f-p matters. A pattern that's been apparent since at least 2002.

We've been here before. Remember Andy Young's escapades at the UN during the late 1970s? I do. I assure you that the main line of attack by the GOP vs Obama in the fall will be to paint him as another Jimmy Carter newbie-amateur.

Tep - I'm trying my best to forget the late 70's, Carter as promoter of human rights, Carter as commander in chief, Carter "Island of Stability"'s strategic judgement ... I still need a bottle or two of the finest Infidel Fermented Grapejuice to put it all behind me.  

Mr. Obama is not there'.  Another Monster-NAFTAgate, and we might well be in the ballpark.

P.s. Didn't know about the Jenin thing.  Good grief.  And good riddance.

I don't know that anyone around here is an expert in complex f-p matters, but one thing we know is that they've been thin on the ground in the White House over the last eight years.  The argument that Obama's foreign policy ideas are weird or dangerous is not going to cut a lot of ice in November as the effects of the last eight years --  of what, mature strategic thinking? -- play out.  Obama's case that we need a foundational rethink of diplomacy, intelligence, fighting terrorism and connected issues is a good one and a lot of Americans are convinced of it already.

I personally think the Scotsman reporter should have shown a bit of judgment here, and taken that remark off the record.  But he didn't, and there's nothing to be done about it except the the Obama people could have made a hell of a lot more of the Ken Starr slur.

What Power said (which was in a very different context) about U.S. involvement in the Middle East six years ago is neither here nor there.  As I keep saying, we need new ideas, and not every idea is going to be a good one, but we should not create a culture where every idea is checked out to see does it offend some group before mentioning it.  An administration open to ideas would be a nice thing.

OK, we all agree that Samantha Power has no future in public relations. But is is worse to have supporter a who makes silly, tactless remarks or to sponsor innuendo and whispering campaigns? I heard from folks in the Rio Grande valley (south Texas) that there were Spanish-speaking Clinton workers goin around telling people that "They better not vote for that Muslim guy." At least Obama's people own up....

I continually hear that Obama is getting the kid glove treatment from Clinton, and that he needs to be toughened up if he has any chance to stand up the slime campaign that will be waged upon him by the Republicans.  So I ask:  what more could they throw at him?  Blatent racism?  I guess that is different then the 'Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim' emails that were being tossed out by Clinton staffers in Iowa, and are now a part of the primary landscape.  But not by much.  The truly blatent and egregious nonsense will show up and be hooted off the stage.  I think the slop thrown by Clinton (and yes, I do believe that the 'as far as I know' comment was intentional) is far more damaging because it is so insidious.  

Allegations of drug use and dealing?  Oh.  We have already seen that.

Rezco?  Yep, and by then it will be a very old story without a great deal of sex appeal.

Readiness?  Clinton is doing admirable work writing McCain's ads for him on that score.

NAFTA?  Please.

What else is there?  Outside of the NAFTA dustup, what is new on this list?  What hasn't Clinton used?  And now that she believes the negative advertising to be effective, Clinton will continue to throw whatever she can find.  My goodness, Wolfson equated Obama and Ken Starr.  What could the Republicans use to top that?

Nope, this whole argument doesn't carry a great deal of weight.

Oh, and by the way, I heard a group of Hillary! supporters (down here in the Rio Grande Valley) talking in all earnestness not simply about Obama as a Muslim, but as the Anti-Christ.  

Yep, the Republicans will be infinitely worse.

"I am not a politician, but I know this much: to succeed, you must stay on message; and the advisor's role is to ensure that the candidate stays on message"

Icarus, that is the role of the campaign manager and other campaign strategists, i.e. people like Plouffe and Axelrod.  The role of a policy advisor is to give the candidate advice about, well, policy; they aren't in the marketing/public relations business.  Power's job  was to advise Obama on how to handle diplomacy with other countries, not to be a diplomat herself, and certainly not to deliver his campaign's message.  If, as several people here have suggested, she was giving lousy foreign policy advice, then the campaign is better off without her.  I don't know enough about Power to have an informed opinion of her abilities, but I don't see her comment, unprofessional as it was, as signifying a lack of competence.

OK, Alan, do you think it shows diplomatic insight and wisdom to advocate sending in the US marines on behalf of Hamas and Fatah?

teplukhin2you,

Like I said, I don't really know much about her or her foreign policy qualifications.  As you describe her positions, she doesn't sound good, but I'd have to look into it a bit more.  My point was just that her competence or lack thereof is a separate issue from the "monster" comment, and that the former, not the latter, should be what decides whether she keeps her job.

OK, got ya, my mistake. Thanks for your insightful post

t

Look, Once it was out there, Obama's campaign couldn't let it stand. They had to act, and they did. But that doesn't mean it was right for the journalist to write it in the first place. What that smacks of is gotcha journalism. BIll O'Reilly type stuff.

In my opinion, the reporter slit his/her own neck by not letting the source retract. Who is going to want to give an interview to that person now?

kgrant,

Doesn't it occur to you that falsely accusing Clinton's campaign--without a shred of evidence--of sending emails about Obama being a Muslim is a form of race-baiting on your part?

Evidence? Done.

From Talking Points Memo:

tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../hillary_campaign_acknowledges_that_hillary_backer_passed_along_obama_madrassa_email.php

The most salient section:

"In the comments section to the post, Hillary Internet guru Peter Daou passes along a statement from a top official at the Hillary campaign acknowledging that the email had in fact been sent by the Clinton county chair:

Since seeing your post...we investigated this and below is a response from Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle:

"There is no place in our campaign, or any campaign, for this kind of politics. A volunteer county coordinator made the mistake of forwarding an outrageous and offensive chain e-mail. This was wholly unauthorized and we were totally unaware of it. Let me be clear: No one should be engaging in this. We are asking this volunteer county coordinator to step down and are making it clear to every person involved in our campaign that this will not be tolerated."

The Hillary campaign confirmed to me that the statement is genuine.

The identity of the "Clinton county chair" -- or, as the Hillary camp prefers it, "volunteer county coordinator" -- is not yet known."

In a follow-up, TPM revealed:

"So the Iowa county chair who was volunteering for Hillary and sent the Obama Muslim smear email has been identified: She's one Judy Rose.

Judy Rose -- or, at least, someone with the same name -- is, or was, one of the members of the 250 Iowa women who are leading Team Hillary in that state."

Likewise, you may want to reread my post to see a bit of anecdotal evidence regarding Hillary supporters and the continued spreading of the Obama-as-Muslim smears, and the new wrinkle that some, at least here in the Valley, are adding to the mix.

Delightful reading, no?  Now, a question for you - why do you feel the need to whitewash this story?

First of all, Samantha Power is 37 years old , a terrific writer and has very bright future in either policy-making circles or academia - probably both.

Tep writes:  "Samantha Power was a top DIPLOMATIC  adviser to Obama. The essence of diplomacy is careful, judicious positioning in the service of strategic ends, a talent which this woman singularly lacks."

Not exactly.  She was a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor.  There is a difference, albeit a subtle one.  The point is that Power was not likely to be confused with Secretary of State material.  She's an advisor.  Her insights, fact-finding and analysis have been her strong points.

Certainly she excercised poor judgment - not what you want in a top official, especially when the candidate is finding his own youth and relative lack of experience under the microscope.

It's a lamentable episode for sure, but I think the frustration that some are reacting to is this:

Ok, she called Hillary a "monster" - and that officially qualifies as a handful of mud.  

Yet Hillary herself has rendered far more intemperate and less judicious remarks.  The most blatant example is her statement that Obama is unqualified to Commander-in-Chief, whereas the Republican opponent, McCain, is.

Is that really worse?   Absolutely.

It's easy enough to apologize and  back-pedal from  the "monster" remark as an excessive personal swipe that was unfortunately uttered in an heated campaign.

But how does Hillary backpedal from saying that Obama is unfit for office?

What happens when he wins?  Does she say "Oops, I was wrong."  or "I didn't really mean it, I was just campaigning" or "Well, it's true that he's unfit, but I'm a good sport and I'll back him anyway"  Does she back McCain instead  - since her soundbites effectively would amount to a McCain endorsement?

This is slash-and-burn politics and only an monster would engage in it.  

Oh shit.....there goes my diplomatic career.    

Look, Power had been profiled and feted as Barack Obama's main foreign policy advisor, and she is supposed to know that given the circumstances she needs to be careful about what she says. She is not ready for prime time. Maybe there are different rules in Washington with journalists who may want to cultivate her as a long-term source, but she should be smart enough to know that some journalist in Scotland doesn't care about that. It is not just the "monster" comment -- the entire interview it sounded as if she had no idea that this was an interview and not a chat at the pub. Is it wise for a foreign policy advisor to make a comment like "We f***ed up in Ohio" as she did (without trying to take it off the record)? Would Tony Lake have said that? Give me a break and stop defending your pal and colleague. She had to go, she did, end of story.

Ever since Watergate, there is a generation and a half of reporters who think the purpose of their job is to get people fired, end careers, destroy administrations, and cause people to be sent to jail.

This Powers dust-up is another in a long line of weenie games played by the media.

Some day, I'd like to have a politician stand up to the reporters when something like this happens, tell them to f**k themselves, and refuse loudly and often to fire the "offending" appointee.

I bet America would stand up cheering and the media would have to eat it.

In a minor way, McCain did something like that on his plane today.  Did you see him basically lambasting the snide little woman from the NYT?  

teplukhin2you - calling Power a little girl only makes you look like a little boy - a small,  petty insecure little boy.  She's a 37 year old woman whose slip of the tongue, and the cynical exploitation thereof by some 2nd rate Scottish reporter, has been blown way, way out of proportion.  Sure, it was not a tactful thing to say, but to capitalize on an unfortunate moment and reduce her to some prepubescent dilettante serves only to cast you as a sexist, boorish heel.

Sdemuth, I second your thoughtful remarks. We live in a culture of hyperbole, and a reckless use of "monster," followed by the immediate recognition that it crossed a line, doesn't strike me as particularly extreme. If she was a good foreign-policy adviser -- something I can't personally verify -- I'm sorry that she felt obligated to resign. That said, I don't dispute that it was stupid to say anything like that in public, which is essentially what one is doing when speaking to a journalist.

Re Noam's initial post and icarusr's comparison to the use of the N word: I think icarusr has it exactly wrong. As a journalist myself, I abide by a similar standard to Noam's: I expect sources to make clear ahead of time when something is on background or "off the record," but I don't hold them rigidly to that rule when they utter an intemperate remark and then immediately say, "That was off the record."   Generally speaking, the only exception I'd make is if the intemperate remark was deeply revealing in some genuinely newsworthy way -- as it would be if one of Obama's or Clinton's (or McCain's) advisers spoke in an overtly racist or sexist way. So it might have seemed newsworthy to me had Power called Clinton a b---- or a shrew.  It's a judgment call. I'd have to weigh the context, and perhaps consult with my editors.

As an aside, it's a sad fact that this contest has demonstrated that sexist language remains deeply entrenched in our culture. Television journalists and pundits routinely use pejorative words such as "shrill," "strident," and "whining" to describe Clinton that are rarely used to describe men. It's not a reason to support Obama or Clinton, but it does say something significant about the the cultural context. I don't think "monster" falls into the same category. Power was careless, and she paid a large price.

csmiller, if you've got a beef, it's not with Tepluh, it's with the Obama campaign.  They're the ones who wussed out and made Power resign.

If what she did was a minor error, a slip of the tongue, and she was betrayed by the Scottish reporter, than the campaign ought to say that and let her stay.

Obama's dumping someone so easily is very reminiscent of the Clinton White House.  They pulled the rug out from under people all the time and threw them to the media wolves.

and csmiller, "sexist" is a phony, made-up and pretty much obsolete word.  If it was every truly operative.  Kindly drop it from your lexicon.  It makes you look like an 70s-80s throwback.

jgelles, has it occurred to you that Hillary Clinton sometimes (often) is "shrill," "strident," and "whining"?  Therefore, applying those adjectives to her is not "sexist" (dumb-ass word, means nothing, stop using it) it's simply an accurate observation and worthy of reproting.

It is Hillary's shrill, strident, whining tone that much accounts for her cakewalk turning into a desperate Long March.

Oh, and csmiller, men rarely are "shrill" because their voices don't hit that unpleasant register that certain harpies are capable of.  However, they certainly can be strident and whining.  

A whining man would last about a minute and half in a presidential race.  A whining woman, apparently, can keep going.  She's given a pass.  It's a reverse form of your "sexism".  A lot of people still expect women to whine.

csmiller - read Martin Kramer's analysis of Power's astonishing, mind-bogglingly stupid suggestion at the time of the bogus Jenin "massacre" that the US intervene militarily on behalf of the Palestinians. Apply whatever label you like, but this is not the kind of remark one associates with a mature, serious adult. Let alone a key presidential f-p adviser.

RENDERED SPEECHLESS?

Relating to the Samantha Powers episode, the "swear jar" and all these other matters, TULLIUS has come to wonder whether the New Republic commentators on these pages have been rendered speechless over the true concerns in this campaign as they exist today and now.

Having read elsewhere critiques of the current state of the campaigns post Ohio/Texas, analyses of the superdelegates viewpoints, dicussions of Latinos and working class voters (core elements of the Democratic Party) etc. and seen no new writing or analysis on these pages over the whole weekend, one begins to wonder whether you are on a weekend retreat in Aspen pondering your next moves.

Will you please come up out of the gutter (or hot tub) of your "Just Go" article and come back to discussing real voters and the real campaign? There's an election on.

TULLIUS

''To watch Hillary Clinton during the final two weeks of the Ohio and Texas primary campaigns, as she defiantly ignored the pronouncements of her political demise and pounded away at her opponent in one more interview, at one more rally, was to bring to mind Jason or Freddy Krueger or the sitting governor of California, those Hollywood cyborgs and zombies who, despite bullets and stakes and explosions, will not under any circumstances be vanquished.''

That's Ryan Lizza's opening sentence for his Clinton piece over at The New Yorker.  One wonders whether he penned that before or after the Sam Powers quote.

kgrant,

your own "evidence" says this was a loose nut in iowa, not the "clinton campaign," which immediately got rid of the person and denounced the email. so what.

and your "anecdotal evidence" of an overheard conversation is laughable.

you should have a little more understanding of and respect for what constitues "evidence."

Ryan Lizza has been nominated for the "I'm in In the Tank for Obama" Award.

Chanrobt - I have no beef with anyone except one who narrowly defines a grown woman as a "little girl" based on her argument that very few little girls could fully comprehend, let alone formulate.  It's a stupid characterization and insulting to thoughtful people of both sexes everywhere .  Obviously she touched a nerve with her comments on Israel/ Palestine issue. I haven't read her comments re Jenin, nor have I read any commentary on what she said.  But she has a reputation as a uncompromising proponent for human rights everywhere, without regard for who the population may be.  It comes as no surprise that her (apparent) advocacy for Palestinians would piss off a good chunk of the American public, since such advocacy is generally deemed, at best, ill-considered and, at worst, tantamount to treason.  

As for your comments re my "lexicon" - they truly make absolutely no sense.  I have no idea what variation of the English language you think you speak, but I can assure you that "sexism" is a perfectly valid word that describes a very real phenomenon.  Your doctrinaire rejection betrays a bitter hostility towards a cultural shift that started in the 70s and continues unabated today.  Get over it.  

Whining?  Who said anything about whining?

Pccostello,

You are the bees knees.  I love people like you.  You sound like the same kind of folks that I purposely drive slow in front of, knowing that their blood-pressure is skyrocketing.  Or the kiind of people at work who get themselves into a lather about pointless office politics and refuse to actually acknowledge that life exists outside of the office.

Lovely, truly lovely.  I mean, I knew that attempting to have a civil conversation, treating the issues that you raised, and providing a basis for argument, might be a futile effort.   But, honestly, your response is too priceless.

You asked for evidence.  I gave you evidence.  You don't like the evidence, and thus you seek to minimize said evidence.   That's fine, I guess.  Yes, you and the Clinton campaign will spin that poor fool like mad, saying that they weren't officially with the campaign.  Probably because they were a mere volunteer, right?  The only folks that count are the paid professionals, like Mr. Penn.  Not unlike the states that don't count.  Actuall voters are a bit of nuisance, arent' they?

I knew that you were likely to denigrate the evidence, that is the only way you function.  You have no ability to actually treat any of these subjects seriously.  It is all mere gamesmanship, no real world consequences, just standing by your candidate, believing that she is infallible, just like the folks around Bush.  Frankly, I was surprised that you didn't find a way to work Rezco into all of this.  No matter, you will find a way soon enough.  Oh, that's right, on the other thread, you went straight back to Rezco, invoking the name as some dread talisman against the horrifying possibility that your candidate might actually lose this thing.

Nonetheless, why is my anecdotal evidence laughable?  Because you disagree with what I heard?  Because you find the common masses laughable?  Because you believe that I don't know that an overheard conversation is merely 'anecdotal', and thus different than other kinds of evidence?

Oh, well.  Marinate in your own reality.  I find you fun to read, it brightens my day.  Work can be so stressful, your ravings help me to put it all into perspective.  You remind me that I actually have a life to live outside of needing to defend my candidate.  

I recommend drinking heavily.

Kgrant,

Why are you getting so personal and nasty? Insults aren't arguments.

The charges you are making are race-baiting. The "evidence" for your arguments is ridiculous: a lone campaign worker who was immediately denounced and fired is said by you to be the entire Clinton campaign? An overheard conversation by passersby that you don't know represents her strategy? C'mon, that is really silly.

No one takes that kind of stuff seriously.

Don't you teach history? At the college level?

I agree with Tullius.  It's obvious that the TNR writers either respect Power's work a lot (as do I, since I have her book at home) and/or know and like her personally.  But their frothing-at-the-mouth overreactions to this are embarrassingly over the top.  The chief foreign policy advisor to the current presidential frontrunner calls his rival a monster and they expect no tangible consequences?  After he made a very public vow not to retain anyone in his campaign who did something like that?  You guys seriously need to take a deep breath.  And, also, maybe, remember on the "off the record" issue that ostensibly one of your reasons for being is to inform US and not curry favor or maintain chummy relationships with powerful people you like.  If you don't, you run the risk of becoming just the kind of Russert/Matthews/Miller lapdogs who thought that protecting Scooter Libby was the only thing they needed to worry about.  So quit the wanking, suck it up, and do your jobs!

Well, pccostello, I had a delightfully reasoned post ready to go, pressed submit, and the TNR server stated that some kind of error occured.  Ah,well.  Perhaps it was for the better, it will force me to be brief.

First, you asked for evidence.  A right and proper step in the conversation.  I responded.  I believe that the material from Iowa is not something to be sloughed off quite so quickly.  Nor do I believe that the anecdotal evidence I reported is something to be disregarded.  Yes, they are individual accounts, but is it not curious to you that these kinds of accounts keep popping up over the course of this campaign.  Does this not raise some concerns?

Or is it that you believe these people to be attempting to say something positive about religious tolerance?  If that is the case, than I would be willing to hear an argument.

Second, a part of the problem in reading your posts is that you always bring up Rezco without actually stating what it is that Obama has done wrong.  What did he do that was illegal?  I would like to read something (and yes, I have worked through the Tribune and Sun-Times pieces) that spells exactly what is the issue.  What evidence do you have?  Not supposition.  Not inference.  Not assertion.  You argue that my evidence is not evidence.  (You may have argued that it was not strong evidence, but you did not, you simply dismissed it.)  What is your evidence regarding the Rezco mess.  Don't be opaque, spell it out.

I mean, honestly, Obama certainly should have handled this altogether more artfully.  Thus far, Obama has shown a decided weakness in dealing with bad or dodgy news.  He is altogether too much the bumbler when presented with troublesome news.  This is a concern, but not enough of one to submarine his whole candidacy.  He needs to always, and I mean always, get straight to the truth of any matter.  Don't dance.  Answer.

Lastly, let me say that treat this with a dose of humor and lightheartedness because it cannot, and should not be the raison d'etre of my existance.  When I read your posts, I tend to think that you find this to be a life and death matter.  I also find that you tend toward something that I find troubling, a single-minded belief that Senator Clinton can do no wrong.  That she has never made a mistake.  That Obama is a walking disaster area.  It is this Manichean world-view that is troubling.  I poke, because I find such certainty to be dangerous.

We have had seven such years of certainty.  Can you not guess as to why some might find this all a bit wearying?

You're wrong on all counts about me--this blogging is fun for me, and my life and welfare are not at stake. I have a great job that I love, I'm very comfortable financially, and I don't think Clinton is perfect. But you seem to like the ad hominem as a form of argument.

But there are other people who are not in my situation--or perhaps yours--for whom this election will matter a great deal. Clinton, as I have said before, bridges the gap between the powerful and those who are struggling. She has worked to do this all her life. Obama seems to me a fad, with swooners and gushers but no record of accomplishment apart from a speech he gave at a rally in 2002. Unlike Clinton, I think he went into community organizing in order to go into politics. He is a rock star (I don't mean that as a compliment), and I don't like getting all hot and bothered at rock concerts.

And BTW, your "evidence" is still no where near a warrant for your claims.

But we can probably both agree that this exchange has become exceedingly boring.

What TULLY said. Could we please have an analysis of the fastest-growing and most influential swing-vote demographic of all, US hispanics in the southwestern battleground states?

Thanks partly to his clout with such voters, the REpublican candidate will seriously contest California. This hasn't happened in a quarter-century. It's a huge development. Could we at least have one serious analysis of this deeper trend that will profoundly affect US national elections for the next generation at least?

csmiller, I am old enough to have observed personally and at a sentient age the cultural shift of the 60s and 70s to which you refer.

Some of it was needed.  Some of it was stupid.  But, I can tell you, the word "sexist" is overworn with indiscriminate usage.  It has pretty much been reduced to the status of an impotent cliché.  So much so that the mere use of the word "sexist" sounds like whiney and loserish.

I've rarely heard a truly strong and self-confident woman employ the word sexist.  Makes you look bad, csmiller.  I'd lose "sexist" if I were you.

Oh, and P.S., csmiller, cultural shifts shift in both directions.  There are revolutions and counter-revolutions.  And they can occur and even re-occur in one lifetime.

Charles I was beheaded.  Cromwell presided.  Cromwell passed.  Charles II was restored.  And England went on her merry way.

When there are 100 million new Hispanics in this country, 30 years hence, machismo will return with a vengeance that will make John Wayne look like Montgomery Clift.  And you'll have to invent a new word for "sexist".  A much bigger one.

Oh, and csmiller, while we're doing this Safirian noodle on the language, "get over it" is another piece of the language that for a short time had some power.

But, again, overuse has entirely drained the expression of any air with which to fill your tires.  Get over "get over it".

I guess this only confirms what the reporter from the Scotsman said about America having such a compliant press.

"I've rarely heard a truly strong and self-confident woman employ the word sexist.  Makes you look bad, csmiller."

Evidently you spend your time with a bunch of Phyllis Schlafly clones.  And if I look bad to such a crowd by using the word "sexist" or the phrase "get over it", all the better.