« Attack Ads Flying In Home Stretch Of Georgia Senate Runoff | Home | Election Central Saturday Roundup »
Samantha Power -- Who Called Hillary A "Monster" -- Working On State Department Transition
Samantha Power, the Obama foreign-policy adviser who had to resign from the campaign after she called Hillary Clinton a "monster" who was "stooping to anything" in the primaries, and who also got in a bit of trouble for saying Obama wouldn't necessarily be sticking to his plan for a 16-month withdrawal from Iraq, is making her post-election comeback.
Power is now on board with Obama's transition team, as one of the advisers reviewing the State Department and preparing it for the new administration.
The interesting thing about Power's new role is that her work on the transition will necessarily involve some collaboration with the incoming Secretary of State -- who at this point appears to be none other than Hillary Clinton.
Advertisement
Screening resumes at Monster.com?
November 28, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be a good picture to have them together. N'est pas?
November 28, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so happy to hear this. Sam Power is brilliant, passionate and one of the most respected thinkers/scholars re international human rights.
I heard that she and Obama stayed in touch after she left her voluntary advisory role in the campaign. Glad she's helping out with the transition and I hope she'll be in an Obama administration.
Considering how heated the rhetoric got between the Clinton and Obama camps, if those two can let it go, everyone else should, too!
November 28, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Besides, if Sam and Hill can't get along neither should be allowed within 100 yards of the State Dept
November 28, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the time Hillary was acting pretty monstrously with her kitchen sink strategy, and none the less it was inappropriate and inexperienced of Powers to say so to a reporter.
But really the media made a big drama out of it, as though it was a profound and irreconcilable feud. No, it was just the usual nastiness of politics and an accidental moment of blunt honesty. Moving on...
November 29, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Ms. Clinton and Ms. Powers can't deal with each other, how can they possibly deal with despots and dictators around the world? (only half-kidding)
November 28, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see her being let back in the fold, but I gotta say that my first thought when I came upon this was about Samantha Bee!
November 28, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Via Tapper:
November 28, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figured that as I read the post. Thanks.
November 28, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
She had to really, didn't she?
November 30, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to see her being included - ousting her for the 'monster' gaffe, while necessary for the stability of the campaign message and focus, should not have precluded her from offering her talent and knowledge to the Obama team.
-- Cris
My site: Obama Wallpaper Archive
November 28, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we'll get to see Clinton fire the bitch. That would be sweet.
November 28, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, Sam Power is on the transition team, so she reports to John Podesta, head of the transition.
Regarding other points in the post:
Second, Sam Power would be a good person to have in the State Dept because she is a solid voice from the outside -- she wrote a blistering expose of the Clinton White House's failure during Rwanda. And Obama appointing her would make her immune to Clinton.
Third, with regard to Eric K.'s statement that Sam said Obama wouldn't stick to his 16-month plan. That is not quite true. What she said was that based on the circumstances at the time Obama would take office, he would adjust the timetable to those conditions, but his overall plan of leaving Iraq would not change. Some wise people would interpret this as "conditions on the ground", unfortunately most journalists conflated it (because it was so convenient to do so) into Obama is backing out of troop withdrawal.
November 28, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice, Jade. Keep these people honest.
November 29, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Still? Really? Aren't you ever going to let it go?
November 29, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
by all means, hold your breath waiting for that. that would be sweet.
November 29, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary doesn't yet have the job and doesn't get to fire Sam as yet. We're in transition. But If Hill fires Sam, I don't think Sam will be the one who will be called the bitch.
For the record, I would like no one to call anyone the bitch.
November 29, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too late. Barack already did that to Michelle when he said he was a mutt. She's a ....
November 29, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has Assistant Secretary of DHL written just for her.
November 28, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until Barack Obama says otherwise, Hillary at State is not a done deal.
Nor should anyone assume that Monday is the day on which Obama will have anything to say about this or any other appointment. The fact that this or that reporter reported a week ago that this or that "source" or "adviser" "close to the transition" or "close to the process" said that Obama would be making this or that announcement "after Thanksgiving" or "after the holiday" -- none of this necessarily has anything to do with Monday.
Just enjoy your leftovers, already.
November 28, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO, ok dude, when you see Obama walk out with Clinton, Gates, and Jones I guess this "fight until the last breath" thing ends.
November 28, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You miss my point.
Given that the Clintons are not, alas, going to go away, I am willing to concede that putting Hillary at State might well be the least "evil" of Obama's options, where she is concerned.
But it was just two days ago that Obama, during his last press conference, pushed back against a reporter's insinuation that Clinton, Gates, and Daschle were done deals, saying "I haven't made those appointments yet."
Moreover: I haven't seen any direct quote from Obama, Emanuel, Axelrod, Gibbs, Podesta, or any transition official, confirming that the Clintons have provided 100% of the information requested and / or that the transition team has finished vetting the Clintons.
Absent that confirmation, there remains the possibility either that new disqualifying information will come to light.
It also remains possible that, for any number of intangible reasons, whatever favorable "SoS Clinton" sentiment exists on the transition team has begun, or will begin, to fade.
November 29, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have to disagree -- Obama and team are sufficiently in control of the "chatter" about all this that there would have been more doubt cast if the proposed selections -- Clinton, Jones, Gates -- weren't, in essence, a done deal. We saw the same thing during the VP selection process. There are never definite leaks from Obama headquarters but by the time the chatter settles down, you can take the apparent result to the bank. I interpreted Obama's statement about not having made the appointments yet to be literally true and a desire not to step on the story that there will be when he *does* make them. Agree there is no reason to suspect Monday specifically -- and if that was the day originally planned, it might be moved because of the horrific situation in India.
November 29, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the first time that in pubic life that Hillary can be fired without cause. She will serve at the plaeasure of the POTUS.
November 29, 2008 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny typo--can't tell you how many times that one has gotten me too.
November 29, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Firing her would be *very* difficult, nonetheless. She would best have to make it look like her own decision if she were going to agree to getting fired -- presumably to pursue some other major post, like governor or S.Ct. Justice. Otherwise, we'd have all the "gender feminists," misandrists, PUMA dead-enders, and other wackos all abuzz again.
November 30, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Monday would be the perfect day because of the India situation. Obama has to show he has a team that is fully ready and experienced to handle the world's problems.
November 29, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree!
November 29, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very likely, you're right.
I mean simply that Obama's silence has the effect, intended or not, of keeping all his options open.
November 29, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wondered what happened to her. Power to the people. Shuster-one of my favorite moderators on MSNBC-apologized for his ungraceful statement and lost a week of work. He is, of course back, and it appears he never sleeps.
Lieberman, a pig, did not lose a goddamn thing.
Joe Scarborough lost only 7 seconds of his career for being foul.
Others, much more inappropriate in language and intent, were never called on the carpet at all.
Powell is a brilliant new star. She was superb as a spokesperson appearing on cable.
Again. I wondered what happened to her. Good for her. Good for Obama. And good for Clinton.
November 28, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama can hire Hillary as Secretary of State after the kind of crap she said about him during the campaign, surely she can't be getting too shook up about a couple of sentences spoken by Ms. Power.
And, "stooping to anything" was an apt description. At long last, Eric, get over it. If Obama's not bitter, you sure as hell have no reason to be.
November 28, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree...
November 29, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign. The team is coalescing just fine.
November 29, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect comment.
November 29, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to see Obama has asked Ms.Power's rejoin the team. I was sad to see her go earlier this year for speaking the truth.
November 28, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great choice. She's a keeper!
November 29, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was while listening to Samantha Powers being interviewed on the radio that I really started getting excited about Obama. She's absolutely brilliant - also funny and well-spoken.
November 29, 2008 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I do not feel HRC is a done deal for State. After the Mumbai terrorist attack Wednesday, I am thinking about another choice, someone with a stronger, firmer presence who has a background in the military. Hagel perhaps? After the Russia - Georgia crisis over the summer, Obama went with Biden. So, I'm thinking the same pattern might apply in selecting the Secretary of State.
Madeleine Albright was at the UN before going to State. What about putting Hillary at the UN?
November 29, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha ha, oh yes, we need a Republican to keep us strong, we're such sickly little babies. Gates at Defense, Hagel at State, perhaps we can pull Rumsfeld back from retirement to run the CIA.
November 29, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Danzig and Clinton are both Dems so there is no need to worry about that.
November 29, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no comparison between Rumsfield and the other two, other than they are associated with those with Rs next to their names. Life would be so much simplier if we could say R equals bad, and D equals good.
November 29, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. Some of the folks who are so wound up about the possibility of Clinton as SOS and some of the other more centrist Democrats keep mentioning Chuck Hagel. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?
Hagel agrees with Obama on exactly one thing: Iraq. And that's a later conversion. Hagel voted for the war and supported it for a couple of years, although he turned against it sooner than even some Democrats.
But check Hagel's record: he is a rock-ribbed conservative. (His brother is a university professor and a liberal.) Hagel has a ZERO rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL. He has a very low score from the environmental agencies. He is a lifelong proponent of trickle down economics and deregulation.
Once you see a Republican oppose his own party or Bush, the left starts building a shrine to them. That's how John McCain got so much (undeserved) love from the left for so many years as a "maverick". Never mind the guy is horrible of many issues important to liberals. Never mind that McCain became a "maverick" just to stick his thumb in Bush's eye because he was still honked off about what happened in the primaries.
Gates is way more in line with Obama on national secruity than Hagel yet some of you are having a cow. I'm not crazy about Clinton as SoS but I admit it's a wise, shrewd choice.
November 29, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to laugh.
This happens so often. During the '04 campaign, there were liberals throwing fits cause they wanted John McLame on the ticket with Kerry.
I never understand this thing liberals have for Repugs who disagree in any way with Bush. That does not make them Democrats.
lol!
November 29, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen.Clinton has been a utter failure in two major ventures of her career- Healthcare reform and running for the presidency. Primarily because she surrounded herself with a lot of "yes mam" crowd.
She must learn to work with people who don't always agree with her and don't feel the need to keep her on the pedestal.
Samantha Powers in smart and well informed and Sen.Clinton will have someone at the table who will offer a different viewpoint.
I'd love to see both of them working together.
November 29, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way I understand right now Powers is a part of the transition team but I think she should have a notable role in the state department.
November 29, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you regarding Clinton's track record (health care and presidential candidacy) -- there's little supporting evidence to demonstrate her capability to run the State Department effectively.
Sure, it makes good political sense to put Clinton in a role where she can be fired, but I have to wonder whether Obama isn't looking for someone who WON'T need regular scrutiny or monitoring. Samantha Powers, although not a SoS option, is the kind of person Obama may want for SoS as we face a myriad of global challenges ahead -- someone who is extremely intelligent, analytical, respected, etc.
November 29, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liz Cheney move over, some REAL talent is coming to town.
November 29, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha ha, "utter failure" getting 18 million votes. Compared to John Edwards? Bill Richardson? Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani? John Kerry's 9.9 million in 2004's primaries?
Back under the bridge, troll.
November 29, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still have this nagging question about Sen. Hillary Clinton and her possible nomination as Secretary of State: "What are her qualifications for being Secretary of State?"
November 29, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine Hillary as SOS after the tragedy in Mumbai this week and the complexity of the issues between India and Pakistan, both of which are nuclear powers. So, There must be someone out there who has the intellect, stature, and diplomatic skills to manage this crisis. Any other suggestions?
November 29, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Among other things, she's a U.S. Senator married to the last Democratic President, and she almost won the party's nomination for President this past year.
She's traveled the world as a First Lady. One hears all the time that she's a bitch, but no one ever says that she's not as smart or driven as you would expect of a Yale Law School graduate. She lacks her husband's gifts as a speaker and conciliator, but she has always done her homework on any issue for which she has been an advocate - nationalization of health care being the best-known. I doubt it will be any different when she's the Secretary of State, working on Palestine or Kashmir.
No foreign minister or representative will ever look past her to someone more significant for the actual message. She will know her issue, and she will deliver whatever message President Obama prefers, and no one will wonder what the U.S. really wants. (I say all this as one who voted for Obama in the New Mexico primary.)
November 29, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
November 29, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that among those in the diplomatic circles there is any question whether she is qualified. The question is whether she would speak as a voice of the Obama administration or would she go rogue. As someone who blood boiled regarding her primary stunts, I think she will be a loyal SoS, and implement Obama's agenda globally.
November 29, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. What I find completely unfounded is that she is being judged before the P.E. is even sworn in. This relationship will be unlike any in recent political memory. Given the talents of those involved, can we not let them govern, for at least, say, 10 bloody minutes before the long knives come out?
yeesh
November 29, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least 5 bloody minutes. And if I remember correctly, there was quite a few who thought she would try to undermine him at the Democratic National Convention. Not only did they think it, they were uttterly convinced the Clintons, as a team, would begin their push for 2012 during the convention.
November 29, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And some still think it, obviously ;-)
November 29, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a monster.
November 29, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the pronoun refers to who?
November 29, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad...
Very sad...
Obama ran on change, as did the last crop of new democrats we elected in 2004.
Apparently the only change we are getting is a NEW crop of cronies willing to do and say anything to get their own little power over others, 'cause, after all, this entire voting thing and democracy thing is nothing more than a game to- them.
If Hillary is appointed as Secretary of State, it will put to rest ANY concern our new elected official has for the thousands of dead and wounded American soldiers caught up in the way of important people's ggoals these past years.
Doesn't ANYONE remember that Clinton, along with most other Senators, thought so little about sending innocent people to their deaths that not only didn't she even bother to take time to read the reports before voting.... she continued to vote to fund the war while condemning it.
Now, thanks to so many of my democrat colleagues, this same person will now be rewarded for those same actions.
This country no longer DESERVES to be free OR have a democracy because we are now bent on destroying the entire world with our arrogance and power... IMHO
November 29, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Overstatement we can believe in.
November 29, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign. If people like this ever wonder why they're not taken seriously, they should re-read their postings. This is so ridiculously hyperbolic it's more like a parody of liberal dissent than liberal dissent. Embarrassing.
November 29, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless the poster states otherwise, I have to believe this parody or a sad attempt at it. Or it is another 13 year old who believes they are politically astute and makes an attempt to dazzle everyone else with such "analysis."
November 29, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still seeking that Drama Queen of the Year Award, huh?
November 29, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What "reward?"
In the Senate, she would remain independent, and her husband's leash would remain long. In time, she would own that seat, and keep it as long as she wanted it.
The problem with the Senate is she doesn't get this power noooooooooow. She's wants it noooooow.
But to get there, she has to place herself in a subservient role, and mind not just her bidness, but Bill's as well.
We will enter an era where the Clintons will be bound by something they have never, ever had: an adult in the room.
With this structure, I foresee potential triumphs at State. On-message, they will both make powerful ambassadors for Obama's agenda.
And for the first time since Bill's impeachment, the Public has an out door for the both of them should they stray off-message. At that point, HRC's political career would have very few options indeed.
But what I disagree with most about your post is you do not seem to want them to succeed, to face these challenges head-on, and this I find small.
Pax,
M
November 29, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The problem with the Senate is she doesn't get this power noooooooooow. She's wants it noooooow."
And she said this when? It's amazing how many people seem to have the capability of knowing what Hillary thinks, or what her goals are, or what nefarious schemes she's plotting. She's the junior senator from New York. Are you suggesting that it somehow reflects negatively on her that she may not want to wait 16 or so years before she can have a leadership position? Assuming, of course, that that's even what she thinks. I'll have to leave it to the mind readers to tell me.
November 30, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quotation from johnnydoughey's post:
"If Hillary is appointed as Secretary of State, it will put to rest ANY concern our new elected official has for the thousands of dead and wounded American soldiers caught up in the way of important people's ggoals these past years."
Many people agree with the sentiment expressed in the above statement; and because many people held such feelings, Obama won the Democratic Party's primary race and was elected President. I hope President-elect Obama doesn't disappoint all these people.
November 29, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many people agree with the sentiment expressed in the above statement; and because many people held such feelings
The number of people with a "feeling" does not create a rational foundation for this argument.
It does, however, lend itself to being "disappointed" before the P.E. is even sworn in. These unfounded "feelings" of which you speak only fan these flames.
Because to to conclude that appointing HRC means Obama does not "care" about war dead because HRC did not read the documents has zero merit. Zero.
Or maybe you simply want P.E. Obama to fail. Such a theory matches the utter simplicity of the argument presented here.
Pax,
M.
November 29, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is that these people tend to be those who think all Obama has to do is say "withdraw" and within a week all our troops would be home and the Iraq issue would be done with.
November 29, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
My response to this commment is that I have probably forgotten more about the deployment of military forces than you will ever know.
November 29, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment implies that the nomination/appointment of HRC to be Secretary of State is crucial to the success of President-elect Obama. Is that your argument for the appointment of HRC to SOS?
November 29, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So explain how picking Joe Biden, who voted for the Iraq War, fits in with your bonky theory.
November 29, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Biden is a recognized expert in foreign policy. Can you say that about HRC?
November 29, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the expert votes the same way as the amateur on AUMF, which makes one right and the other wrong, one responsible for the carnage and the other excused?
Sorry, still doesn't compute.
November 30, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am pleased to hear Samantha Power is back. However, with her intelligence its not enough for her to just serve a foreign policy adviser for the transition team, i would like to see her as Undersecretary of State or Assistant National Security Adviser.
November 29, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am more than pleased to see that she is back. My guess is that this is her first role with the Obama administration and after the transition, Obama will find a new role for her.
November 29, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Samantha Power is not being out into the transition merely for Obama to say, "Hey, thanks for being someone I have always respected, admired and listened to. Welp, it's January 20, so I guess that's it for our working relationship. Laters!" She will be placed into a position of real leadership.
No one has a lower opinion of Hillary Clinton than I after the primaries. and I think she will be an excellent Secretary of State.
But how we Democrats do love our hand-wringing. Lordy lordy.
November 29, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as much as I respect Samantha Power, the fact is, she made some rookie mistakes and got herself kicked out -- by Obama. I'm glad to see her in the State Dept.
You know, if she hadn't had that undiplomatic fugue, she might be an undersecretary now.
And there's something that the people here have to know: if you hold a grudge for more than twenty minutes, get out of politics. Sure, Obama wanted her in, but it's pretty clear that if Hillary had stamped her feet, she might not have gotten this job.
And both Clintons have acknowledged that Rwanda was one of their biggest mistakes. So they probably agree with much of what Samantha said.
November 29, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus once you get into power you actually realize the limitations of your power. "Only" 800,000 died in Rwanda in 1994 (plus another 300,000 in Burundi in 1993, plus another 200,000 in Burundi in 1972 and a few tens of thousands at other times, such as in 1993 when the Tutsis were setting themselves up for their own demise by knocking of Hutus), which helped to launch the 2nd Congo War that's claimed about 6 million since 1998.
In 1992, we couldn't even catch 1 warlord in Somalia (not that we should have taken sides like that) - are we so sure we can waltz in and police a huge civil war? Taking Iraq is cake compared to that.
November 29, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink