God bless Barack Obama. He had the sense to know this war was a mistake. Hillary was a coward and didn't stand up to the right-wing (nor did she even read the frigin NIE). This is the type of president we need.

Thank you Greg for FINALLY posting something (ANYTHING) from the Obama campaign. It isn't just Clinton and Wolfson out there, you know.

Any what's up with taking Powers' comment out of context?

You post:

He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator."

And she said:

"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

Those sentences AFTER the sentence you referenced seem to provide a much fuller context. At least you linked to someone else's work that contained the full quote. So I guess I'll only give you one demerit.

With media bias like this, it's a wonder that Senator Clinton hasn't been drummed out of the race already.

Greg,

Please provide the full quote of what Power said.

"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

In full context, it's much closer to what Obama suggested than what you are suggesting.

Powers: "You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

Powers may have an awesome intellect, but her political instincts suck. Obama had to defensively explain her remarks because they lacked clarity. Unbelieveable.

Sam hung herself.

Imagine....a political adviser actually speaking like an adult and we get the spin that we do. An educated electorate? Good luck with that one...no wonder folks vote against their own self interest.

Even saying that...let's try something.

Let's put advisers statements side by side:

...he is convinced she would hold off on authorizing a large-scale immediate withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq. Jack Keane, co-architect of the surge and Clinton adviser
http://www.nysun.com/article/72209

So can we compare what these folks are saying please? One says conditions on the ground could affect their withdrawl plan, the other saying there is no withdrawl plan at all.

What the hell is happening to our journalism in this country? Stop focusing on the latest gotcha and tell us what these candidates are really doing!

These are serious issues facing us. Can we please get some serious coverage so we can make a serious choice????

The only positive to all the fake outrage over Samantha Power is that all the idiot talkshows are pondering whether Hillary is really a "monster" or not.

Well, she may not be a monster, but her tactics are certainly monstrous.

I don't want to ever hear her voice again.

First off, I want nothing more than to see Obama pound Clinton into the sand and downward to political oblivion. And I actually agree with Powers, Clinton is a monster.

But I also saw this interview on the BBC in question. She handled the question about withdrawl very poorly. Obviously she realizes how politicaly savage the Clinton machine is -- witness the monster comment. In light of this she should have had more sense not to speak that to a reporter, and she should have been more careful about direct questions to the candidates statements. It isn't her role to clarify statements for Obama. That's Obama's job. If she wants to elaborate on something she said, fine, but when a report asks for a clarifatication on what Obama said the correct response is to direct the reported to question the senator.

as it was told to Sonny
"never let anyone outside the family know what you are thinking."

This is pretty lame. How about some honest analysis? What she's clearly saying is that it's not incumbent upon the future to honor your commitments with favorable conditions. Circumstances change and the plan to reach the goal will not be based on the conditions a year prior. Any thinking person, anyone who has ever had to manage anything, knows that this is reality. This is the way problems are actually solved. This is the opposite of the Bush doctrine: relentlessly try to shove a square peg into round hole. It is, as she clearly says, the height of ideology. To wit, to stay the course even after having run aground.

You're reaching and methinks you're doing it on purpose.

Let me explain it to you, Berwynboris. Powers left the door open for Obama to renege on his campaign promise to withdraw troops from Iraq should "circumstances in January 2009" warrant the change. Obama never made that statement in any speech I'm aware of. Clinton and McCain can now ask, "Well, Barack, what circumstances do you envision for breaking campaign promise? And please be specific." It just leaves another hole that Barack must plug when he could be doing better things--like making Hillary the issue again.

Powers put the entire campaign on the defensive needlessly. I'm glad she's gone for now. Barack needs to tell his staff in no uncertain terms to BE CAREFUL around reporters. It's Politics 101.

Look forward to Wyoming and Mississippi and hope these self-inflicting wounds don't occur again.

From Andrew Sullivan

The Chicago Tribune does us all a service by examining what exactly is Senator Clinton's experience. Read the whole thing, but the Macedonia and Northern Ireland claims are the most revealing:

Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo.

Both claims are ludicrously untrue. All she did in Northern Ireland was have tea with some local peace activist women. Laura Bush could argue, by that token, that she has ended AIDS in Africa. But here's the beaut:

The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders.

Clinton has next to no foreign policy experience. And no executive experience. She has less legislative experience than Obama. And she has not just exaggerated, but flat-out lied, about her non-achievements. I'm glad the Tribune has done this. Can the rest of media follow up?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

So, wait, Hillary didn't bring peace to Northern Ireland? Well, I'll be.

Greg,

You're wrong on this. By removing the statment from it's context you deliberately allow the reader to draw incorrect conclusions.

Given the set up for how you used the statement, you are implying that once again Obama is being dishonest in his statements.

If you include the conext of the remark, it becomes clear that he is committed to what he says now, but, will make his decisions based on all the information available to him at the time.

You deliberately rely on the readers misunderstanding of the quote to imply something it clearly does not mean.

Just admit it and move on.

I like the way Obama handled this and think he should do more of it. One of John Edwards' best moments in the debates was when he said something to the effect that all this bickering among politicians isn't going to do one thing for the American people. Barack should say some version of that every time they sling mud. He should set the facts straight and stay on message.

"Obama can be effective if it actually gets reported. If, on the other hand, political reporters are tied to phones, listening to Howard Wolfson explain what a dope Obama is, then Obama might not be effective, because reporters will be posting transcripts of conversations with Howard Wolfson."

I just need to quote this.

I heard elsewhere that Obama's campaign in Mississippi was asking for HRC to explain her dissing of MS.

Strange how this doesn't appear on TPM. I guess, yeah, too busy with taking dictation from Wolfson and Ickes.

How can Greg claim with a straight face he is not biased?

"bama responded to the revelation that top foreign policy adviser Samantha Power had suggested that he might not rely on his campaign pledges when crafting a withdrawal plan as president."

Revelation?!? Really?

Now, I have no problem with bias on TPM. Obviously, it has a liberal bias, and Josh admits this.

But Greg needs to admit he is biased, and stop posting crap articles (that are mostly copy and paste jobs that would be better as a link anyway).

Or not. I guess it drives traffic, and provides ad revenue, as here I am responding in my usual futile manner.

Oh well. Maybe it's time for me give up on TPM actually reporting some news.

Or, as Greg would say:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Disclaimer: First time poster, big Obama supporter, increasingly disgusted by the Clinton campaign.

Please repeat this over and over:

"Hillary apparently crossed the commander in chief threshold in a plane with Chelsea, Sheryl Crow, and Sinbad."

Say "Sinbad" alot. This is the kind of dumb meme that the media will start to pick up on if it gets passed around enough, and since we're apparently dealing with the dumbest, most basic strategies possible, let's start using idiocy to our advantage. You can never go wrong with a Sinbad joke. Ever.

He needs more of this: In fact, I would go with a five day plan. Tomorrow, we should be talking about how HRC should not be talking about land deals or Rezko when she still has money in her coffers from the THREE of the other five indictees.

Sunday lets talk about foreign policy experience like having tea with some ladies in Ireland and somehow that brings peace.

Monday lets go with why does HRC want to hide her tax returns until AFTER you vote? What has she got to hide? Anyone who wants to see mine need mearly go to my website...

Tuesday lets talk about ad hominem attacks, like say calling someone Ken Starr...

Or something like that. Obama needs talking points every day that bring some of this back to HRC hard. Right now, his campaign looks rattled.

I agree. Power's comments were not faithfully quoted with the original snippet.

Obama is finished. He's had an amazing run. However, even the best packaged marketing creations come to an end, and the Obama campaign package is drawing to a close. All the Axelrod flim-flam can't save this guy now. Read the Brooks and Krauthammer Op-Ed’s -- Devastating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030603113.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"Hope is not a plan" -- To all the Obamaphiles, you been had.

Anyone know where we can get some real campaign journalism?

I'm serious.

This used to be the site I trusted. After the last few days, I'm entirely fed up and I'd like to move on.

Barack needs to do much, much more than this. Is this the first speech he's mades since Tuesday's primaries?

Morphitologist, you could be forgiven for thinking that he's been hiding in his bus from reading this site. It's been wall to wall HRC talking points for days, even though the man knocked their socks off on the trail today:

"Obama’s performance in Casper, before a 1,500-person crowd, covered most of the bases of his standard campaign speech, but still elicited half a dozen standing ovations from an appreciative audience.

"Alternating between humor and disdain to make his points, he said: "What do people think I'm going to do? I'm going to answer the phone."

As the crowd laughed and applauded, he continued: "I will find out what's going on, and I won't be browbeaten into launching a war that wasn't necessary."
What, you didn't catch that there was a speech? Maybe its because Greg characterized it as an EMAIL of a TRANSCRIPT of REMARKS that CAMPAIGN STAFF sent regarding a RESPONSE.

Seems like an auful lot of work when someone could just say speech.

pretty.damn.weak. And this is coming from one of Greg's biggest apologists.

Folks, you have no idea how much my mood changed when I sought out some commentary outside of Election Central this afternoon. I literally feel like someone just lifted a bag of concrete off of my shoulders. TRY IT, and let them know what you find out.

I know it's a blog, and I really know that its on me to find the right news. I'm just saying that
I had higher expectations.

the gregger's bad day (week?) that just. won't. end. IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
sorry greggers:( there's always tomorrow!!

Jaysin-Hussein 1414,
Looking for "salvation"? What? You've got a hole in your soul?

Politicians probably aren't your best option here.

Having come to TPM first and reading the article above with no info from any other source, I have to say the 'framing' of Power's comments was quite misleading. Shorn of their context they appear the opposite of what they actually are. She is commenting on how reality shapes eventual policies (at least outside the Bush admin) and not simply saying 'we're hoodwinking the electorate' as it appears when ripped from context.

Disappointing coverage to say the least.

If Greg's point is that an academic speaking on matters are bound to be distorted and macerated to the detriment of their candidate, then bloody well say so...

don't participate in the blood-letting yourself. After all, just because 'everyone is doing it' doesn't make it good journalism.

What if when the time comes those people Obama turns to say we can't leave, then what? If you read the graph carefully it's conceivable that Obama doesn't pull troops out at all.

I'm starting to think that if there is one more week like this for Mr. Obama we may be hearkening back to the days of the 2004 primary campaign.
Anyone remember this oldy but goody?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwODbl3muE

There is no doubt that Obama has had a rough two weeks. Hillary has managed to dominate the news cycles with Rasputin-like skill.

It is my firm belief that Obama must firmly take the reins of his campaign and start grandstanding like the master Clinton. Hold press conferences with the military brass backing him up. Release position papers with clear plans for this or that problem du jour, or even focus on one issue in a tenacious way. He needs to start owning the news cycles. Christ, he's the front-runner for gawd's sake. That should be worth something. Instead, he's the invisible man. What's that all about?

Lestatdlec,
He has a lock on nothing and the delegate math doesn't work for either. The nomination will be decided by the superdelegates, and the they'll nominate Hillary.

Most of the superdelegates are elected officials and state party old hands who know that winning caucuses in red states doesn't measure up to winning primaries in big blue states. They know that if they are going to alienate any voters, they better be voters in red states that no democrat will ever win. Obama has proven, with the exception of his home state of IL, he can't win big blue states. And after losing OH by 10 pts. (even outspending Hillary 2-1), he's proven he can't win the most important democratic pick-up state.

Unlike most Obamaphiles on this site, you seem like a resonable person; ask yourself the following questions:

Why does he dominate caucuses and lose primaries in big blue states (there ain't no caucuses in the general election)?

Why does he agree with Hillary on almost every issue?

In his speeches, why doesn't he explain how he's going to transcend the differences in american politics?

Why hasn't he demonstrated any significant bipartisan achievements during his three years in the senate?

Think about it.

I'm still trying to figure out why someone would quit the campaign for calling a monster a monster.
:-)

"No foreign experience" practically from Hillary. Obama has experience at living in a foreign country (and Hawaii) at least. McCain leads in experience.

Hillary doesn't deserve to be in this race; and I'm hoping she is so defeated in the near future that she will be forced to leave. However what I really believe is that she'll continue to fight to the last delegate even though she KNOWS Obama will eventually win just because she didn't get the "job SHE deserved." She is, indeed, a monster.

Hey mikey500, do you support John McCain?

You said the piece in the washington Post was devastating, did you read it?

here is the last paragraph:
The Obama campaign has sent journalists eight pages of examples of his reaching across the aisle in the Senate. I am not the only one to note, however, that these are small-bore items of almost no controversy -- more help for war veterans, reducing loose nukes in the former Soviet Union, fighting avian flu and the like. Bipartisan support for apple pie is hardly a profile in courage.

On the difficult compromises that required the political courage to challenge one's own political constituency, Obama flinched: the "Gang of 14" compromise on judicial appointments, the immigration compromise to which Obama tried to append union-backed killer amendments and, just last month, the compromise on warrantless eavesdropping that garnered 68 votes in the Senate. But not Obama's.

Who, in fact, supported all of these bipartisan deals, was a central player in two of them and brokered the even more notorious McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform? John McCain, of course.

Yes, John McCain -- intemperate and rough-edged, of sharp elbows and even sharper tongue. Turns out that uniting is not a matter of rhetoric or manner, but of character and courage.

So protecting veterans, trying to prevent loose nukes from getting in the wrong hands and how the US can be ready for avian flu is insignificant next to the 68 votes for FISA in the senate for telecom immunity and I would agree the McCain-Feingold is a good start but there are legitamate questions regarding whether this current supreme court will uphold it based on first amendment challenges. Maybe you were jesting by linking these two articles?

JoshQuasimoto,

You pose an interesting question that I've been pondering for awhile now. If the superdelegates nominate a pretty-boy empty suit who can't win democratic primaries CA, NY, NJ, MA, OH, TX, FL, MI, and PA, I'd seriously consider it, hopefully along with a few million Hillary voters in big blue states, especially women and latinos in CA and NY.

Any political party that would nominate this guy deserves to be punished at the ballot box -- punished bad.

Hillary Voters for John McCain -- Don't get shafted twice vote McCain -- catchy?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve,
Hey.. Samantha Power is an Ivy Leaguer too. Heck, she's so smart and accomplished they made her a Harvard professor, maybe even a full professor. Wow, consider that...

You're right The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve -- Ivy Leaguers RULE! And stick together so nicely...amazing.

Another example of Obama and his advisors disagreeing

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/07/obama-brennan/

Is he not in control of his team, or is he trying to have it both ways?

A reliable source told me Hillary is really an alien MONSTER.

Everyone wants to be a campaign strategist - in fact, that is what’s wrong with most of what passes for political reporting these days. But, as an Obama fan, here are my suggestions for Barack leading up to Pennsylvania:

1. Accept the idea that the press won’t do its job and begin attack Clinton as vigorously as it has done to you lately. The political press is driven by three things: imitation, fear and cowardice. When covering you fairly coincides with one of the above three things, they’ll do it. Accept that.

2. Don’t take the bait to start heavy-handedly bashing Hillary. Instead, just start subtly pointing out what most people observe , but have been afraid to say openly (except for Larry David in a brilliant Huffington Post article that’s become an Internet rage): While you have been unflappable, steady and emotionally consistent during the ups and downs of this campaign, Hillary has been acting like unhinged, emotional train wreck - her behavior erratically swinging back and forth, based on the latest poll results.

3. Take a 3-day campaign bus trip throughout Pennsylvania - from the cities to the farthest rural towns. Take some of your many celebrity supporters along. Get off the bus and make great speeches. Let the people you need to win over - working-class whites who still (unfairly, in my view) see you as a “slick-talkin’ black guy” - see you as the down-to-earth guy you really seem to be.

4. Win

And, btw, you lose that bet.

Billy Glad -

I missed it, how do youthink Hillary will win?

McCain supports torture, and........

Hillary has been running around endorsing John McCain. He has said that he is going to have the same foreign and domestic policies as George W. Bush. Yet Hillary has endorsed him, over Senator Obama. That makes Hillary just another traitor to the party. She is just the same as Joe Lieberman, and should be given the same treatment. She should be driven out of the party. She is not a loyal Democrat, any more than Joe Lieberman was.

Greg D. How interesting. I won't comment on your "ad" except to say I think black voters are too hip for that kind of bs -- but is your wife really not going to vote for Hillary? Does she say why? That puts her so far outside all the polls I've seen that show support for the Clintons running 70% or so among black voters, in spite of the fact that Hillary is running a tough campaign against a black man.

I hadn't thought of this before, but, in addition to a lot of "Latte Liberals," I suppose a lot of blacks missed out on the Civil Rights and anti-war movements, too. And, of course, there are black Latte Liberals, aren't there. They would be doubly sore about Obama losing the nomination.

How about we just agree to disagree and see what happens if Hillary is our candidate in the Fall?

Obama’s words: I was opposed to this war in 2002. If it had been up to me we would have never been in this war...

When Senator Clinton is not even willing to acknowledge that she voted for war. She says she voted for diplomacy despite the title that said authorization to use U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq.

But I don’t give Obama much credit for them in relation to Hillary due to the following. I thought at the time of the AUMF that people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were very much against invading Iraq. I think most everyone thought that way, and for a long time afterward. Certainly George Bush did, because in March 2004 he was still pointing out in his speeches that John Kerry did not support the forced removal of Saddam. However, shortly after March 2004, Bush began claiming that Kerry had “voted for war”. It was campaign phrasing that Barack Obama publically disagreed with.

Note that in Obama’s famous 2002 anti-war speech he did not even mention the AUMF. Why? It was not a done deal. And why did he later say point blank that he did not know how he would have voted on the AUMF. He knew that the Democrats (plus Chuck Hagel) were trying to reign in a rogue President. He knew that it was a judgment call on whether it was best to force Bush into a UN process that had worked, or risk Bush invading based on the previous UN Iraq resolution, as Bush said he could. Remember, at that time Bush was not only saying he could invade anyway, but he and his administration was also saying UN inspectors were not necessary and that Iraq’s offer to re-admit the inspectors was not serious.

Yes, things get complicated. Look at Obama now trying to make safe and responsible statements about Iraq, trying, as he says, to avoid confusion. I give Obama credit for being against the war. But I also give John Kerry and Hillary Clinton credit for being against the war. None of them would have driven the car into the ditch.

George W. Bush, at the time of the invasion, owned that war. Everybody knew it at the time, and everybody was saying it: If ever a President owned a war, George W. Bush owns Iraq.

The AUMF was not a declaration of war. It did include a built in requirement for diplomacy. Unfortunately, GWB could not be trusted. You can question the judgment of those who voted for the AUMF, but you cannot call it a declaration of war. And you cannot claim the Obama would have voted against it.

"The AUMF was not a declaration of war. It did include a built in requirement for diplomacy. Unfortunately, GWB could not be trusted. You can question the judgment of those who voted for the AUMF, but you cannot call it a declaration of war. And you cannot claim the Obama would have voted against it."

Thank you, jrockett2. Yes, the actual history of what was at stake during the AUMF debate was so much more complex than Obama's campaign rhetoric would have it.

But campaign rhetoric generally thrives on oversimplification. Just look at how well this particular narrative was working until recently, when the Clinton campaign was finally able to raise the issues of trust and competence in an effective way.