Power Off

Samantha Power, the influential Obama adviser who called Hillary Clinton a "monster" in an unguarded moment, has resigned from the campaign.

"With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an advisor the Obama campaign effective today. Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign. And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months."

Ms. Power, a brilliant, prodigal, Pulitzer-Prize winning author, was not asked to leave, campaign sources said.

Sparks like these show that tension between the campaign staffs is extreme.

I speak daily with aides, senior and junior, from both Clinton and Obama campaigns, and I can say, without revealing confidences, that the level of personal antipathy they express, the level of complete distrust, is extreme and in many ways alarming. One public example: when Obama's chief counsel, Bob Bauer, crashed a conference call held by Clinton advisers on Tuesday night.

The stress created by the interpersonal tension, and by the long hours, is taking a heavy toll. Many of the public faces you associate with your favorite campaign have worked 16 hours a day since January 3 with, maybe, three days off.

If Clinton wins the nomination, there will be many Obama staffers, particularly mid-to-high-ranking aides, who will refuse offers to help with the general election. The walk-away rate will be unprecedented.

Comments

Hopefully she can come back after he's won the nomination.

Posted by Michael S | March 7, 2008 11:55 AM

This doesn't bode well for the next two months. Not because campaign members and advisers are stressed and saying regrettable things, but because the coverage increasingly is focusing solely on the conference call tit-for-tat and other such skirmishes. Obama, in particular, needs to get out on the trail and start making some real news. Ditch the big rallies for now to go into small communities suffering from job losses and environmental degradation and listen to the concerns of real people. For those of us who saw a hint of RFK in Obama, now is the opportunity for him to remind us what Bobby's promise really was. When I lived in West Virginia ten years ago, you could still find pictures of him from '68 hung on walls. Leave the sniping behind and get back to creating a movement.

Posted by NHCt | March 7, 2008 12:02 PM

Huh. Color me shocked -- shocked -- that a post that purports to be facially neutral presents two examples of wrongdoing by Obama staffers, and nothing from the Clinton camp.

Come on, Marc. Work those "senior and junior" sources of yours. Dig up some dirt!

And while you're at it, would you please ask where those 2001-2006 tax returns are? Thanks!

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 7, 2008 12:03 PM

Marc,

There you go again with your pregnant "If".

But, for the sake of your argument--or, better, for the sake of your delusional fantasies that have come to pass for arguments in your posts of late--suppose that your hypothetical does come to pass.

Why do you suppose Obama staffers wouldn't want to work with Clinton?

I have no idea myself, and so perhaps you could enlighten us all with a post.

Posted by wj | March 7, 2008 12:07 PM

If Obama steals the nomination many of us long time liberals will walk away.

I am so pissed off at the attitude of entitlement coming from the Obama campaign, which starts right at the top with Barack and Michelle, that I have vowed to do everything I can to defeat him should somehow be on the ballot in November.

If Hillary wins the nomination I would like nothing better than to rid our party of the pricks working for Obama now and forever. Their arrogance, nastiness and contempt for the leading liberal candidate in America has no place in the Democratic Party.

Posted by ken | March 7, 2008 12:07 PM

And...we can fully expect Clinton staffers to step right up and cheerfully help Obama if he wins the nomination?? C'mon, let's be fair here, I am sure the rancor runs both ways -- if the venom coming from Hillary (all he has is a speech in 2002 vs my good friend John's lifetime of experience), Wolfson (Ken Starr? WTF?), and various surrogates give any indication.

I agree with NHCt, this back and forth crap is tiresome and gets us nowhere. Let's get back out on the campaign trail and talk to the voters.

That said, what's good for the goose--I do want to know what's in H's tax returns and who has contributed to Bill's library. That's entirely fair game.

Posted by Ruth | March 7, 2008 12:07 PM

So there are some people who like Obama, but are worried that he is unwilling or too noble to throw punches like the clintons.

Well, my friends, this is the Obama version of the Bob Johnson hit and it contrasts how Hillary is a carpet bomber, while Obama is smart precision bomber.

In SC, HIllary picked a black man to get out the message that Obama was once a drug user and that he was a "not black enough" Sidney Pottier type of black man. But the attack lacked any subtlely whatsoever and Hillary was dumb enough to be on stage with him when it happened. She bought into his initial denials and the whole thing was too cute by half and ended up helping Obama.

Here, Obama picked a white woman to get out the message that Hillary is a ruthless, dirty campaigner who will stoop to anything to get the presidency. But look at all the ways that Power's did this...it really shows the tactical brilliance of the Obama campaign.

1) Send out a white woman who is little known and is not viewed as a partisan. Why is this great?

a) She is is a woman so the clinton people can't charge sexism.

b) It sends a message to women voters, "look, this accomplished liberal woman not only supports Obama, but dislikes hillary too"

2) Make it look like a mistake - she thought it was off the record...yeah, right!

3) Increase the plausible deniability by saying bad stuff about the Obama campaign ...how they F'd up in Ohio. Why is this great?

a) But saying this, it really looks like she went off the reservation and that Obama did not ask her to do this....much more subtle than Hillary standing on the stage with Bob Johnson

b) It minimizes the loss in Ohio...basically calling it a screw up, not representative of anything other than what it was.

4) Making the comments to overseas media - this increases the plausible deniability aspect of this not being a pre-meditated hit on Hillary.

5) Using an insult that is laughable....monster. it's accurate, but its not offensive...it's just a bit childish...but calling someone a monster is much more venial sin than cardinal sin. Elmo is a monster. So is Cookie Monster. Obama should be apologizing to sesame street! As much as the clinton people try to feign outrage, nobody is going to be offended. But...a lot of people will be talking ariound the water cooler today, "you know, Hillary is kind of a monster...I don't know why that woman had to apologize)

Bravo, Obama campaign, Bravo.

To all of you who worry that Obama will not stoop to the level required to win, study the brillinace of this hit on Hillary.

When Hillary attacks, she is like a suicide bomber who ends up missing her intensed target and only blows up herself.

When Obama attacks, he is like a Ninja assassin, making a surgical cut that leaves little evidence of his involvement.

This is why Obama is better equipped to beat the Right wing attack machine than Hillary. He understands that it is more important to be smart about how you fight, than the amount of clumsy brute stregnth you bring to a fight.

Now, I know clinton partisans and apologists will say that Obama is being hypocritical with his politics, blah, blah, bah.

Deal with it. All politicians are a little hypocritical and sometimes need to bend the rules a little. God knows the clintons deserved this nice little surgical conversation-changing hit on Hillary. This is 1% as bad as the bile emanating from camp clinton, yet it ultimately maybe 100 times stronger than their clumsy attacks.

Now that she has resigned, the Clintons have nothing to complain about, but we are all going to be talking about Hillary as monster. Furthermore, people can make the comparison that people who do such things in Obama's campaign are gone right away, wheras Hillary's hit people only go if forced after a few days....and some like Wolfson and Penn get to stay.

Obama has changed the conversation from his loss to Hillary's Monstrosity and looks like someone who is running a clean campaign, accepting the resignation of someone who went off the reservation.

Bravo, Bravo again!!!

Samantha Powers should be thanked by Obama supporters evertwhere for falling on the sword for Obama to help perform this little hit on HIllary. I am sure she'll be back in the general and she can give him advice over the phone...it's not like she is really needed on the stump or anything.

Great Job, Samantha!

Posted by RKA | March 7, 2008 12:10 PM

"Sparks like these show that tension between the campaign staffs is extreme."

The obama camp has come apart not only at the seems but from axelrod on down.

"If Clinton wins the nomination, there will be many Obama staffers, particularly mid-to-high-ranking aides, who will refuse offers to help with the general election. The walk-away rate will be unprecedented."

Good. They can go back to Chicago and spend more time with their rezkos.

Posted by hadenough | March 7, 2008 12:11 PM

ken,

Oh my! Aren't you all worked up.

I see you've crossed the threshold of something!

Posted by wj | March 7, 2008 12:11 PM

"If Clinton wins the nomination, there will be many Obama staffers, particularly mid-to-high-ranking aides, who will refuse offers to help with the general election"

And vice versa.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | March 7, 2008 12:12 PM

Y'know thats what I dont like about Political Correctness.

HRC's not a monster, but to describe her accurately would offend even more people.

Posted by Kim | March 7, 2008 12:13 PM

ken,

Obama has 1) won more votes, 2) won more delegates and 3) won more states than Hillary. What are you talking about?

Posted by Brendan | March 7, 2008 12:14 PM

QUOTE: "If Obama steals the nomination many of us long time liberals will walk away.

I am so pissed off at the attitude of entitlement coming from the Obama campaign, which starts right at the top with Barack and Michelle, that I have vowed to do everything I can to defeat him should somehow be on the ballot in November." end quote

I don't generally participate in these things, but this is just too much!! "Steal" "Sense of Entitlement"??!??!??!

HRC, Look in the f---ing mirror if you want to see what a monstrous, yes, monstrous, sense of entitlement actually looks like.

Posted by syh | March 7, 2008 12:17 PM

There could be no better result from a Clinton nomination than to rid ourselves of the vile disgusting rabble manning the Obama campaign.

They can all crawl back into whatever holes they emerged from back in January.

Posted by ken | March 7, 2008 12:18 PM

ken,

You say you will walk away if Obama steals the nomination. What would constitute stealing for you? Am I right to think that, simply by getting the nomination according to the rules that have been laid out and that everyone agrees to by entering the primary process, he would be stealing it in your eyes? Is there any scenario, in your mind, in which he gets the nomination but does not steal it?

You do bring up a good point. I believe you're right that a lot of HRC supporters will be angry when Obama clinches the nomination (I know that sounds like a provocative "when," but the math makes it accurate). The same, of course, is true of Obama supporters. If we can all agree that we're democrats, the question becomes: what are we going to do about poisonous polarization in our own ranks. Obama will have to figure this out.

Posted by alex | March 7, 2008 12:18 PM

Ken's "disgusting rabble" of which we need to "rid ourselves" includes roughly 90% of black people. Make of that what you will.

Posted by Brendan | March 7, 2008 12:23 PM

ken is one of those democrats who enjoys losing elections.

Posted by wj | March 7, 2008 12:23 PM

Hey Ken, I feel ya buddy. Transpose the names of Hillary and Obama and I could have written your post. It is amazing that proud Americans continue to support this shiftless, shameless, divisive woman. Amazing and unbelievable!

Posted by linda | March 7, 2008 12:25 PM

I like how Ken talks about Obama and (Michelle's???) sense of entitlement and then proceeds to proclaim Clinton the liberal Dem leader...even though she is not leading anything. It can't run both ways buddy.

Anyways, I don't agree with Marc's insinuation in the post that only Obama people are pissed at Hillary's camp. I'm sure both sides are caught up in in the same way that any two hard-battling campaign camps would be. Both sides are loosing sight of the big picture. In Hillary's case, that's probably intended, as she wants to frame Obama as another typical pol. But Obama needs to right this ship. He needs to make news, not react. He's been reacting since NAFTAgate.

Posted by bdevil02 | March 7, 2008 12:26 PM

QUOTE "disgusting rabble" of which we need to "rid ourselves" includes roughly 90% of black people. END QUOTE

Not mention a substantial percentage of the nation's young.

Oh, and Ken - for the record - She IS a monster. They both are...

Posted by syh | March 7, 2008 12:29 PM

I'm with Ken!

Posted by I'm with Ken! | March 7, 2008 12:32 PM

If Ken wrote that with a straight face, I salute him. Yeah, the Clintons feel no sense of entitlement whatsoever! haha

Posted by Jack | March 7, 2008 12:32 PM

this is ridiculous. I posted an entry on this topic on:http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com/swimming_freestyle/2008/03/suck-it-up-hill.html
An excerpt:
Jeez, Senator Clinton, this is starting to look like pro wrestling here. Lots of drama, hammy acting and over exaggerated responses to what all observing can plainly see are pulled punches and minor blows.

Suck it up Senator. Is this what you think is "tough enough" to be President of the United States? What are you going to do if you're elected, call for the firing of anyone who calls you a bad name?

Posted by Jay McDonough | March 7, 2008 12:33 PM

Marc, your write:

Sparks like these show that tension between the campaign staffs is extreme.

I speak daily with aides, senior and junior, from both Clinton and Obama campaigns, and I can say, without revealing confidences, that the level of personal antipathy they express, the level of complete distrust, is extreme and in many ways alarming. One public example: when Obama's chief counsel, Bob Bauer, crashed a conference call held by Clinton advisers on Tuesday night.

The stress created by the interpersonal tension, and by the long hours, is taking a heavy toll. Many of the public faces you associate with your favorite campaign have worked 16 hours a day since January 3 with, maybe, three days off.

If Clinton wins the nomination, there will be many Obama staffers, particularly mid-to-high-ranking aides, who will refuse offers to help with the general election. The walk-away rate will be unprecedented.

How is that not revealing confidences? Are you reporting that last paragraph as fact? As a journalist?

Engaging in speculation about your sources seems to me what you're doing here, effectively. And in a completely one-sided manner.

I think you should reconsider this piece and potentially write a retraction or clarification backing off this speculation. I think you've stepped over the line.

Posted by kid oakland | March 7, 2008 12:38 PM

RKA - Look for Samantha to show up on all the talk shows this weekend and Charlie Rose tonight. Then look for her to nail the Clintons on Rwana, Osama, Iraq.

She is now free to talk about them non-stop and suddenly people will want to listen- Why? Because viewers will be tuning in to see who this fuss was all about - hoping for a cat fight - getting a very sober education about the Clinton foreign policy legacy. Whoops!

Maybe they shouldn't have asked for her head - it looks like she's going to give them a piece of her mind.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 7, 2008 12:40 PM

Ken gives himself away as a Clinton troll by claiming he's a "long-time liberal." The Clintons may be many things, but liberal they ain't. From "don't ask, don't tell" to welfare reform to "fixing" affirmative action to NAFTA to triangulation and Third Wayism, the Clintons have constantly tracked a centrist position that pays lip service to liberals and progessives and throws them under the bus for political expediency.

Posted by Fred App | March 7, 2008 12:42 PM

CB Todd,

Great point...I didn' think of that.

What is great about this is that now Samantha Powers is the victim, not Hillary.

Me thinks the Clinton people got played by calling for her head....her resignation was probably part of the original plan.

It's like the Hillary campaign loses by winning the argument for her head.

Suddenly Samantha Powers goes from obscurity to really interesting accomplished female critic of HIllary on her commander-in-chief readiness spiel.

Oh, this whole episode is a thing of beauty.

I have been impressed with the Obama operation, but I had no idea they were this clever.

Very good sign going into the general election...

Posted by RKA | March 7, 2008 12:54 PM

I agree with Fred App. Ken has to be a troll. Of one sort or another.

Posted by Jon M. | March 7, 2008 12:57 PM

Let's give Ken some credit. He's either a troll, or a brilliantly droll Obama supporter who's simply slid "Barack" and "Michelle" in every slot where "Hillary" and "Bill" would normally sit.

If Ken's not brilliantly sarcastic:

Get a grip you sloppy troll and make a real argument.

Many things you can accuse Obama of, fairly or unfairly, a sense of entitlement though? Hillary Clinton, who, I'm sorry, DOES owe her political existence to her husband? The candidate whose husband has been on the stop getting red nosed and insulting people because, God forbid, someone eclipses him in his lifetime? It's not obvious to even the troglydytes that this is the psychological backstory?

Sheesh.

Posted by Denny Crane | March 7, 2008 1:23 PM

Brilliant???

What she said about HRC is far from brilliant. It was childish and simplistic.

Further, having such little self-control is not a sign of intellectual strength either.

Typical foul-mouthed, juvenile, liberal.

Brilliant.

Posted by slick | March 7, 2008 1:53 PM

RKA you are always amazing. Marc, puleaze just say, "I desperately want, no need, Hillary Clinton to win this."

Posted by jay | March 7, 2008 1:56 PM

She is monster.

Posted by heather | March 7, 2008 2:06 PM

Slick - but Hillary is monsterous on many levels and from now on people will be talking about her in those terms. Get used to it.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 7, 2008 2:07 PM

ken:

How can you follow this:

"I am so pissed off at the attitude of entitlement coming from the Obama campaign"

with this:

"If Hillary wins the nomination I would like nothing better than to rid our party of the pricks working for Obama now and forever. Their arrogance, nastiness and contempt for the leading liberal candidate in America has no place in the Democratic Party."

Who is the one acting entitled, here? No one OWES the Clintons anything: they had eight years of the presidency, and it's not enough: they want eight more. If they can't have it, they will destroy the next generation waiting to claim it.

The "pricks working for Obama" are the next generation of liberal democrats. How does a "longtime liberal" like yourself gin up this much contempt for your fellow progressives?

BTW, how is Hillary Clinton the "leading liberal candidate in America", if the candidate with the most liberal voting record in the Senate happens to be beating her in pledged delegates and popular vote? On both counts, that statement is simply flat out wrong.

Posted by Will | March 7, 2008 2:11 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 7, 2008 2:18 PM

Samantha Powers made her comments 'off the record', and they should have never been published.

Posted by cpro | March 7, 2008 2:19 PM

If Obama steals the nomination many of us long time liberals will walk away.

Ken:

So glad to see you back, you arrogant prick.

No doubt you've been hyperventilating somewhere for the past couple of weeks and ruminating with others of your ilk how Barack Obama has been "stealing" this nomination. You'd certainly do us all a favor if you went back there and took your obviously growing animus and pathetic anger with you. And on a personal note, an old fuck like yourself should watch getting too worked up as it may cause heart attack, stroke, or a potential host of other unpleasentries.

How did you get to be such a douchebag anyway?

Posted by Jay | March 7, 2008 2:22 PM

If Hillary wins the nomination I would like nothing better than to rid our party of the pricks working for Obama now and forever. Their arrogance, nastiness and contempt for the leading liberal candidate in America has no place in the Democratic Party.

Maybe you should join the Clinton campaign and help them make more of those Darkie Ads -- you know, those Clinton ads that feature Obama's complexion deliberately darkened to make him look more black, more like a n*gga. You can be there "Darkie Delegate," and after Hillary wins, you can congratulate yourself on the moral decency of her campaign.

Posted by Winston | March 7, 2008 2:28 PM

NCHt (12:02) - fantastic post. I think we've (media & viewing public) been far too obsessed with the in-fighting and back and forth battles and we're ignoring the more important issues. It's easier and more entertaining to talk about the name-calling than to talk about poverty or the erosion of our civil liberties.

Posted by KRM | March 7, 2008 2:29 PM

If Clinton steals the nomination many of us long time liberals will walk away.

I am so pissed off at the attitude of entitlement coming from the Clinton campaign, which starts right at the top with Hillary and Bill, that I have vowed to do everything I can to defeat her should she somehow be on the ballot in November.

If Obama wins the nomination I would like nothing better than to rid our party of the pricks working for Clinton now and forever. Their arrogance, nastiness and contempt for the leading liberal candidate in America has no place in the Democratic Party.

Posted by Greggie | March 7, 2008 2:29 PM

I think it's fair to assume that there will be greater defections if Obama loses rather than Hillary. This is because many of his supporters are young and idealistic, and have joined politics to change things. If hillary is nominated, it will be apparent to them (and to me) that very little is going to change.

Hillary supporters, on the other hand are mostly working class reflexive Democrats and party-machine style hacks drawing a livelihood off of the system. They don't give a shit who wins, as long as they get to stay on as a functionary at some level, so they'd be less likely to bolt.

Oh, and Jay, the pro wrestling analogy was perfect.

Posted by brewmn | March 7, 2008 2:33 PM

Since when do American candidates "send someone out to plant a hit" -- in The (Edinburgh) Scottsmen?!?! That's just laughable.

Posted by Alan | March 7, 2008 2:37 PM

lol@ Greggie. My guess is that are a far sight more people who hold that opinion than the one that prick, ken, described. Honestly though, to me it's a shame things have degenerated to this point. I'd hoped for something more lofty and idea based. Evidently I'm just a naive fool who forgot that politics is politics and the Clintons are the Clintons. Too bad.

Posted by Jay | March 7, 2008 2:38 PM

This is really sad. Do neither of these candidates recognize that they cannot win in November without the bulk of the other's base?

Posted by Steve | March 7, 2008 2:43 PM

Walk away from Clinton, indeed. Run, more like it.

I'm politically independent, and have voted for both Republicans and Democrats (hell, I lied about my age in '84 to vote for Reagan!). Obama's reasoned approach to liberalism has won me over, made me realize we have common cause, and I'm convinced he can unify the country. Not just unify, but also lead. I think he's like Reagan in this respect. My parents, who are quite conservative, have been donating to his campaign. And my brother, as lefty as you can get, is campaigning for him.

Clinton, no way. We'll all walk away if she steals this in some greasy deal. As Chait says in his TNR piece, she's a fratricidal maniac. I was particularly repulsed by her performance on 60 minutes when asked about Obama's religion. She first gave her soft "as far as I know" answer, and then tried to make it about her: "you know, I'VE been the victim of outrageous smears..."

Recall, the president doesn't make legislation. How, I wonder, will her knife-fight skills get things passed in a narrowly divided chamber?

Posted by Tungsten | March 7, 2008 2:50 PM

Look- Obama will GET most of the Democrat-partisan Clinton base. Clinton will not get Obama's entire base. The Independants will go to McCain. The young and new voters will stay home. Many of the Lefty/Latte Lib types will vote for Nader (I actually think that's why he got in- in case Clinton came back to win the nomination).

More importantly, Obama will be ahead under the rules after all primaries/caucuses. So the Clinton folks may find him/us distasteful, but they'll throw up in their mouths a little bit and vote Obama in November. Just as I will IF she wins the nomination fair and square (has the most pledged delegates either not counting Mi/Fl or counting a re-vote).

But for Clinton to win the nomination requires what us Obama folks will ALL see as thievery. It will be some combo of the Mi/Fl fiasco and the Supers overturning the will of the people. Theft. And we will NOT "just deal with it."

I'll vote for Nader. Or McCain, but probably Nader.

Then the Clinton morons will blame Nader for being a "spoiler" as if she hadn't had an opportunity to win our votes and just driven us away.

Posted by Greggie | March 7, 2008 3:05 PM

The truth is that Hillary is a monster. The Clinton's are monsters. Their appetite for power is insatiable. The selfishness knows no bounds. It's clear that everything the Republican’s said about them for eight years is true. No doubt if there a joint ticket, they would do to Obama what they did to Vince Foster.

Posted by Jeff | March 7, 2008 3:08 PM

It seems many in both parties would be very unhappy with a McCain - Clinton Presidential race.

It seems many would rather sabotage their own party candidates and hope for a do-over in 2012.

And I am not saying thats wrong.

Posted by Carl | March 7, 2008 3:10 PM

Fred App: ken is NOT a troll (at least the type you're referring to). Nah, he's some old, pissed off asshole who hates all things Obama and what his campaign stands for. Too "newfangled" for 'ol ken. Fortunately for us he took a little hiatus for a couple of weeks there but he seems to have returned. He's almost like a much angrier, but far less verbose version of that asshat, Tim K. Outside of the racist redneck and fading fast feminist, he's one of the archetypes of the Clinton supporters: the self-entitled, Machiavellian, delusional, backwards thinking, fool.

Posted by ken mehlman clone | March 7, 2008 3:19 PM

Hillary's theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkHM8xG6i8o

Posted by Margo | March 7, 2008 3:26 PM

If Obama steals the nomination many of us long time liberals will walk away.

I am so pissed off at the attitude of entitlement coming from the Obama campaign, which starts right at the top with Barack and Michelle, that I have vowed to do everything I can to defeat him should somehow be on the ballot in November.

If Hillary wins the nomination I would like nothing better than to rid our party of the pricks working for Obama now and forever. Their arrogance, nastiness and contempt for the leading liberal candidate in America has no place in the Democratic Party.

Posted by ken | March 7, 2008 12:07 PM

-------------

Right back at you Ken. Entitlement? Ha! Hello pot, meet kettle. Steal? You must not be good at math. You should have gone to college like us Obama supporters. I vow to do all within my power to scuttle your noblesse oblige snake of a candidate. Starting with giving $2300 to McPain's candidacy. The 'f*** you' goes both ways.

Posted by Victor Shaw | March 7, 2008 3:28 PM

The Clinton Coalition:

1) Hard-Core feminists who would vote for anyone with the right set of gonads.

2) Racist Latinos

3) People with little education who pay no attention to politics and are voting almost entirely on the value of her last name.

4) White folks who are old enough to have grown up using the N-word.

Posted by Greggie | March 7, 2008 3:40 PM

RKA:
Bravo to you, too! It's the Coulter method. You know, like saying Edwards is a faggot. Sure, right-thinking people denounce the remark. But they're reminded that the guy has an absurd preoccupation with his hair, and they remind others of that fact just by doing the denouncing. Very cost-effective.

Posted by Jim O'Sullivan | March 7, 2008 3:41 PM

Obama is so over.

Posted by Jackie | March 7, 2008 3:43 PM

Hey I just heard that one of Hillary's people explained how since Obama's part black he's probably a cannibal, and therefore the real monster in their race?

Posted by Carol | March 7, 2008 3:47 PM

MA - and I can say, without revealing confidences, that the level of personal antipathy they express, the level of complete distrust, is extreme and in many ways alarming

And while alarming, it is completely rational.

Not only is Obama the most unqualified person threatening to be a major Party nominee in living memory, he would be the most inexperienced ever should he be elected. Couple that with Team Obama's "monstrously" large sense of entitlement and self-esteem, emenating from the top with Obama, wife Michelle, and Axelrod...and you have the Clintons being furious. Also that Team Obama has thrown the race card at them directly or through proxies and you get rage.

And the Obamites are convinced that they are the New Order, they need to shove out the Old Guard who did little or nothing while operating an amoral, Machiavellian politics of triangulation and poisoning the well. And the Bitch and team of squalid, corrupt old cronies of 20 years ago who don't know they must move over for the new vision, the new way. And convinced that the Clintons will do every under-handed thing imaginable starting with "Negro-izing" Barack - and that they won't roll over in the face of it.

Looks like Ambinder is right. Things are ugly now true cut-throat and openly seeking to destroy the Other, deranged followers throwing gasoline on it and savaging one another on the Net as they realize Bush is about done and they need someone else to hate. And look for things to get uglier..
********************
bdevil02 - I like how Ken talks about Obama and (Michelle's???) sense of entitlement and then proceeds to proclaim Clinton the liberal Dem leader...even though she is not leading anything. It can't run both ways buddy.

I'm not picking sides in this, as I was a Romney supporter who really dislikes McCain and his treachery, but Hillary IS entitled. Entitled in a classic sense of what Parties traditionally do with someone who works hard and ceaselessly toils for the advancement of others in her Party. For almost 20 years, Hillary has crossed the country helping Democratic candidates for office. She has come in and done great fundraisers and worked to slowly rebuild the Party at the State level and recapture the House and Senate after the 1994 debacle (that she was partially at fault for, to be sure).

This is the same process other leaders have done. Teddy Kennedy, Reagan, John Lewis, Humphrey, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, John McCain, Richard Nixon, Howard Dean, Arnold, etc.. Paying their dues, working the circuit on behalf of others tirelessly. As opposed to "It's all about Me!!!" candidates like Kerry, Edwards, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Rockefeller, Obama. And it was a resentment of Romney - that he only really started on working for other Party members in the last few years.

But is Hillary entitled by her hard work and success in getting other Dems in office? By her 6 years of hard work in the Senate that won respect from both sides even for those of us who do not buy the Co-Governor, Co-President case for a minute? Yes she is. To paraphrase Reagan, she (worked for) and paid for that microphone (in years out of her life spent advancing Party regulars, legislation, and key constituent groups interests.)

Posted by chris ford | March 7, 2008 3:58 PM

chris ford:

Too bad they can't just thank her for her service and give her a watch or something.

Posted by Wilson | March 7, 2008 4:07 PM

The last President who was elected with less foreign policy experience than Obama? Try GW Bush. Or Clinton. Or Reagan. Or Carter. Or FDR. Or any other governor.

The last President elected with less OVERALL political experience than Obama? Abe Lincoln. Goes to show. Judgement and the courage of your convictions trumps experience every time.

Of course, several have been elected with just a TAD bit more experience than Obama, such as JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, etc.

Posted by Greggie | March 7, 2008 4:13 PM

Sorry Greggie, all your comparisons break down. When people talk experience, they are talking executive experience for the highest job in the Federal Executive Branch - not some guy trading clout for a zoning variance so a NOI bakery can go in for NOI money and political support. Or speech-making.

Governors make suitable Presidents because they frequently combine private exec, military exec, and government exec experience. All the govs you mentioned, even Carter, exceed Obama on those measures.

The last President elected with less OVERALL political experience than Obama? Abe Lincoln

Lincoln had command military experience with the militia in the BlackHawk War. Contrary to the "poor country lawyer" myth, Lincoln was one of the most powerful lawyers in the West who served in an executive corporate spot with the most powerful businesses - the railroads -negotiating deals with shipping, river traffic, land cartage companies to complete the Grid necessary for the next level of economic development of half of America's landmass. For 15 years he travelled around, 3 of those years with his own private traincar and telegraph operator, making deals between firms and with Governors and legislatures for laws and regs needed to put it all in place. He was a supremely competent private sector exec - the major NY rail line tried recruiting him with a 50,000 offer just to join their firm - a staggering amount for an executive in those days.
Politically, Lincoln was one of those important animals of the 19th Century - the Kingmaker. Think Mark Hannah. Politics then was less about elections in States than to who was chosen to go in the backrooms to hammer out who the candidate would be. Lincoln, with the railroads and merchantile businesses at his back, held entree to those rooms in the Upper Midwest. He was one of the co-founders of the Republican Party and a national leader. The one chosen to go to New York and address the East Coast abolitionists at Coopers Union to seal the deal and complete Republicans being a National Party.

Lincoln had military plus considerable private, and government executive experience. Obama has none of Lincoln's qualifications.

***************
chris ford:
Too bad they can't just thank her for her service and give her a watch or something.
Posted by Wilson

Wilson, perhaps the deepest wish the Democrats have, is that Obama had waited until he had more national experience than a 2-year Senator & some sort of executive success before he felt he was entitled to be President.

The 2nd greatest wish is likely that they ache that a competent, tested someone like Evan Bayh or Warner had risen instead, so they could confortably hand off gold watches to BOTH Clintons and end dynastic poliics and shed themselves of all the 90s baggage the Clintons carry.

Posted by chris ford | March 7, 2008 6:05 PM

they ache that a competent, tested someone like Evan Bayh

I hear you, but Evan Bayh is not a good example, chris. The only thing he's been tested in during his time in the Senate is how to best ingratiate himself and kiss ass to the powers that be all the while covering his backside. You could have done better.

Posted by Wilson | March 7, 2008 6:45 PM

"several have been elected with just a TAD bit more experience than Obama, such as JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, etc."

Wilson had been a governor. TR was only elected President after serving almost all of what would've been McKinley's second term. JFK had been in Congress significantly longer.

Posted by Knemon | March 7, 2008 10:40 PM

Hillary had her chance with me. I gave her more time than I probably should have - and now recent events have only confirmed why I flipped to Obama. I'm tired of Rovian politics and her sense of entitlement. I'm tired of her using her gender as an excuse for poor press. If she is president is going to cry, stop picking on me! She knew going in (as did Obama with his race) that her gender was going to be an issue. Buck up and get over it. By the way, I'm part of her so-called "base" - female and over 50 and a feminist. Mostly I'm sick that her audition for McCain's vice president is going to be providing a crucial soundbite for the RNC against either Obama or Clinton. She can't match McCain with experience on that one. I can't recall another top level Democratic presidential candidate using this ticket before. I want transparency, something we are not likely to get from her. I honestly can't say that I can in good conscience vote for her if she steals the nomination. I hope I don't have to make that choice.

Posted by Joy | March 8, 2008 11:28 AM

I'm sure there are republican lurkers here.

The democrats are just TOO SCREWED UP.
Actually calling Hillary Clinton a MONSTER IS TOO NICE. She's a TWO FACED, TWO TOUNGED, LIAR, HYPOCRITE MONSTER, moreover, She’s NOT A FIGHTER..SHE’S A BULLY!! She would SAY & DO ANYTHING TO GET WHAT SHE WANTS, how's that for the whole truth & nothing but the truth. She's soo full of herself, she stoop soo low as to make Obama less qualified than the Republican nominee , calling him a fairy tale, maybe a muslim, maybe a drug dealer, going around telling people to fear him, equate him to Ken Starr for crying out loud and after that she has THE ARROGANCE to imply she would consider him to be her running mate. Now, that's LOW even for republicans. The Clintons would rather see their party torn apart, than having somebody else be the nominee. She has made Obama's supporters so disgusted & appalled that the thought of voting for her on any ticket would make them hurl!!! The longer the Clintons talk, the more repulsive they become, they CAN’T HELP THEMSELVES.

My republican friends, WITH OUR CANDIDATE ALREADY SELECTED, LET'S MAKE SURE WE VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON! This is OUR GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY. She has screwed up her party so much, there's no way most of those new enthusiastic Obama’s supporters would vote for her come general election, those Obama republicans certainly won't, majority of independents may consider McCain but CAN’T STAND Clinton. But, there's NOTHING MORE ENERGIZING FOR US THAN TO VOTE AGAINST HER IN NOVEMBER. She's done a PERFECT job FOR The Republican Party, LET'S REPAY HER “KINDNESS” & GIVE HER WHAT SHE WANTS. Obama's movement will be GONE (Thanks to her), and WE'LL BE THE ONE REAPING THE BENEFIT. WHAT A GREAT FEELING THAT WOULD BE, VOTING AGAINST HILLARY IN GENERAL ELECTION. You gotta stomach it republicans, if you’re in PA you have until March 24 to register as democrat & vote for Hillary. The outcome will so worth the sacrifice.

We should NEVER let democrats win the White House & Hillary can help us do it, SHE ALREADY HAVE, WE JUST NEED TO FINISH IT! Even after George Bush screwing up, with Billary help we can still WIN in 2009. There's still HOPE for us afterall. Ooh the irony is just too much. One DEMOCRAT is A MONSTER and the OTHER is A LOOSER, Thanks to the Monster! Their HOPE candidate is crushed by his party MONSTER and giving US the HOPE instead. PERFECT!

THANK GOD FOR MCCAIN…, he looks BETTER & BETTER BY THE DAY! My fellow republicans let's MAKE SURE WE VOTE FOR HILLARY. This is WAY…TOO EASY to keep the White House. NO WONDER DEMOCRATS NEVER WIN. Hillary has given us OBAMA on a SILVER PLATER, & SHE WILL BE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK when SHE'S THE NOMINEE. EITHER WAY, REPUBLICAN WILL WIN! HOW BEAUTIFUL IS THAT!

Posted by Trish | March 9, 2008 4:41 AM