Obama Adviser Criticizes Hillary, Edwards
Check out this little tidbit in that Politicker item I linked to below about Barack Obama's big foreign policy speech planned for Tuesday. The item quotes Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power as follows:
Power also contrasted what she said was Obama's effort to look forward with the foreign policy attitudes of his Democratic rivals John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, who she suggested was stuck in a 1990s view of the world, when American influence was much greater."Edwards is less prone to this than Hillary," she said, adding "Let's be clear, those tools that we got away with by the skin of our teeth are not the tools that are going to work in the 21st century."
That's actually a pretty sharp criticism of Hillary, and a jab (though a softer one) at Edwards, too. There's nothing wrong with that, of course -- vigorous debate about foreign policy ideas should be part of the campaign, natch -- but it's worth noting that the last time an Obama adviser publicly criticized Hillary, her campaign went ballistic. Wonder if they'll respond to this one.
Update: Interestingly, Power is clarifying that her remarks about Hillary and Edwards don't represent the views of the Obama campaign. The Politicker has added the following update:
Samantha Power asked me to clarify that her comments about Clinton and Edwards are her personal opinion as a professor of US foreign policy, and that she was not speaking in her capacity as an advisor to the Obama campaign.
I think this makes it pretty clear the big news coming out of the speech will be Obama's contrasts with HRC.
April 13, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, quite possibly. it'll be interesting to see how obama draws contrasts with hillary while taking care not to criticize her.
April 13, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually after looking at the whole Politiker piece. I think the news is the extent they are making this about biography, which is an interesting and perhaps risky strategy, but pure Axelrod. I doubt the cable news channels will pick up on that though.
April 13, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the update to your post, isn't your headline misleading then, Greg?
Some correction is in order.
April 13, 2007 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That "clarification" was up before this post.
Powers made clear that those views have nothing o do with Barack Obama's campaign.
April 13, 2007 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's been running a "biography" campaign since at least '05 or '06. If this is news, you haven't been paying attention. He was able to do this for his '04 campaign because his real opponents both got "scandaled" out of the primary and general. We'll find out if it's a good strategy to win in the next 10 months.
April 13, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it interesting--if not convenient--that many Obama surrogates are criticizing Clinton, but allowing Obama to appear "above the fray" (Geffen, the "Big sister" ad, now this). We learned from Bush that the candidates don't have to attack if others are willing to do it in their place--whether officially sanctioned by the campaign or not. I consider this part of the process so it doesn't bother me. But when someone bases their campaign on that sort of thing being the biggest problem our country faces, well...
April 13, 2007 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the middle of speaking to a reporter about what Obama is gonna say ms power just happens to throw in her personal opinion about two other dem candidates. Weak.
Samantha Power:
"We're going to hear something very unusual on the left, which is a genuine pride in what America can be again"
Was that also her personal opinion? What does ms power usually here from the left?
Maybe ms power should be kept away from reporters.
April 13, 2007 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I realized that, of course, but it's interesting that they're going so far as to sell his big foreign policy that way.
April 13, 2007 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand that comment about "the left" either.
April 13, 2007 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Samantha Powers is not a foreign policy expert. She is a journalist.
BTW, she is running the risk of looking like Obama's "tutor", shades of Bush/Condi.
Not sure the public wants another president who needs a tutor.
The contrast would work to Hillary's advantage. After all she has experience "advising" the president.
April 13, 2007 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look forward to Prof Powers' and Prof Obama's new tools. I am skeptical though. It might just come down to hard work with specific doable ideas instead of theory.
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation intemper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." Tom Paine
April 13, 2007 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
First she says that Obama's foreign policy will be to look forward not like the
Then she talks about finding something new for the political left?
.
So America doesn't have much influence anymore, so a new foreign policy will be to make everybody like us again because we are really really good people who really really care even though we can't do sh*t for anybody and nobody will listen to us anyway?
Jeez, I hope it's not as confusing and/or nuanced as it sounds. The left has been losing because of two things; lack of standing up for a working society and nominating policy wonks with power point presentations.
We are going to have to elect a President who is fast on his feet and willing to move forward boldly to take what influence we have left and work hard for our country and the planet by educating the children of the world instead of having them stuck In Madrassas and Jesus Camps. Eradicating poverty and clean drinking water and cleaning up our air all will take a lot of hard work and not high minded phrases. I hope we get from Senator Obama more than the musings that have resulted from his tutorials with Power and other advisors. We need the instruction manual, not the mission statement.
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation intemper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice." Tom Paine
April 14, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given that Obama graguated Magna Cum Laude from Columbia in International Affairs, any attempt to equate Obama with Bush on foreign policy knowledge is nothing more than a cheap shot.
April 14, 2007 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't it be nice to listen to the speech before criticizing the policy it lays out?
As I noted in reply to Miri11 above, the fact that Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Columbia in International Affairs, and has been serving on the Foriegn Affairs Committee in the Senate, suggests that his knowledge base on foreign policy is far greater than you are acknowledging. The article says she is an "informal advisor,"
who has had some imput into the speech, that hardly suggests that she is telling Obama what to say.
As I read the piece it suggested the following broad outlines:
1) US influence is less dominant than it was in the immediate post Cold-War era.
2) In order for the US to have influence in the world, we need to have the respect, not just the fear, of other nations.
3) The US can be a positive force in the world if we live up to our own stated values.
4) Obama envisions a construtive, multi lateral word were the US engages with other nations to use collective action to solve problems.
It sounds pretty reasonable to me. I look forward to the speech.
April 14, 2007 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. America no longer has the luxury of being arrogant in our ignorance of other nations goals, hopes and desires nor can we any longer afford to be ignorant in our arrogance.
I hope that Susan Rice has a formal advisory role as opposed to Powers informal one.
April 15, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any news on the speech? Was it cancelled due to the massacre or what?
April 20, 2007 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink