An Ugly Moment for the Clinton Campaign
| Mon Mar. 10, 2008 6:45 AM PDT
On Friday afternoon, the Clinton campaign took the unusual step of convening a second conference call of the day for reporters. And it was a sorry spectacle.
The call was prompted by the report that Samantha Power, who that morning had resigned as a foreign policy aide to Barack Obama after a news story noted she had called Hillary Clinton a "monster," had told the BBC, during an interview, that Obama's withdrawal plan for Iraq was a "best-case scenario." In that interview, she said, Obama "will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator."
On the conference call, the Clintonites pounced on these comments. Retired General Wesley Clark said he found Power's remarks about Obama's Iraq policy "quite disturbing." Jamie Rubin, a Clinton foreign policy aide, derided Power as Obama's foreign policy "Svenagli or guru" and claimed her remarks about Iraq were proof that Obama cannot create an efficient and effective foreign policy team, calling the episode "amateur hour" for the Obama campaign. He claimed Power's comments showed that Obama's private position was different than his public posture on Iraq. Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications direction, insisted that Power's statements meant that Obama's vow to withdraw troops from Iraq was nothing but a political promise. Also on the call for the Clinton campaign was Lee Feinstein, another foreign policy adviser to Clinton, and Representative Jim McGovern, a Massachussetts liberal and leading member of of the Out of Iraq caucus in the House.
This was overkill. During the BBC interview, Power had said that Obama, in removing troops from Iraq, "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 other words, a campaign proposal is just that: a proposal. And only a fool would think that a military plan would be applied to reality unchanged a year after it was first devised.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
But the Clinton campaign saw an opportunity to go for the jugular. And they did—jumping up and down on Power's not-yet-cold dead (politically, that is) body. On the call, I wanted to ask, "Have you no decency?" I did inquire why the Clinton crowd was attacking Obama for a policy that in this regard mirrors Clinton's position. (Her plan for withdrawal: get into the White House, spend the next 60 days consulting with national security aides and Pentagon chiefs, then cook up a plan for a withdrawal that would aim to bring back one or two combat brigades a month.) Rubin and the others replied by emphasizing Power's statement that Obama's plan—and his call for a withdrawal within 16 months—was a "best-case scenario." They insisted this meant Obama was not committed to his deadline and was, consequently, misleading voters.
Their response was not persuasive—at least not to NBC News' Andrea Mitchell, who asked them to explain why this attack on Power and Obama was "fair."
It was an ugly moment. Power, a talented journalist, academic, and thinker who has done tremedous work regarding genocide, had been driven off the campaign, in part because the Clinton camp immediately called for her head after news hit of the "monster" remark. (A classier move for Clinton would have been to send a note to Power saying, "Let's have lunch. You'll see I'm no monster.") Now on what was probably the worst day of Power's professional life, the Clinton campaign was trying to use a comment of hers to undermine a key selling point of the Obama campaign. At the same time, Rubin kept saying how bad he felt for Power.
The Democratic foreign policy gang is not that big. Everyone knows one another. (Think chess team in high school.) And Rubin and the others were doing all they could to slam Power, an important member of this group, for political gain. I've known Rubin and Feinstein for decades and have appreciated their hard work in the field of foreign policy wonkery. (I met Rubin in the early 1980s when he was working on arms control matters for a public interest outfit.) I was sorry to see them take part in this.
After the conference call, the Obama campaign sent out an interesting
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29593-2004Aug24.html
" target="new">Washington Post clip from 2004. Headline: "Comments on Iraq War In Error, Says Kerry Aide." The article begins:
A top national security adviser to John F. Kerry said yesterday that he made a mistake when he said the Democratic nominee probably would have launched a military invasion to oust Saddam Hussein if he had been president during the past four years.
On Aug. 7, Jamie Rubin told The Washington Post that "in all probability" a Kerry administration would have waged war against Iraq by now if the Massachusetts Democrat were president.
The Bush campaign, eager to portray Kerry as holding the same position as the president after the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, seized on Rubin's comments as evidence that the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates share similar views on the war, in retrospect. On NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman said the two candidates agreed about "sending our troops to war."
"To the extent that my own comments have contributed to misunderstanding on this issue....I never should have said the phrase 'in all probability' because that's not Kerry's position and he's never said it," Rubin said in a statement. "That was my mistake."
On the conference call, Rubin had done to Power and Obama what the Bush campaign had done to him and Kerry. For many Democrats, that is the big problem of the Clinton campaign.
This was first posted in my blog at CQPolitics.com.
Comments
This the exact kind of behavior that soured me on a Clinton candidacy in the first place. They play power politics just like the Bushes and thus give me no reason that they'll use the power of the Presidency any differently. I just don't trust that they'll roll back the extra-constitutional executive privilege-claims that make the current administration so fundamentally unAmerican.
I'm so 'over' Hillary but sadly, she ain't over. I hope that all this starts to backfire and that Obama comes back with the fresh zeal and energy, playing a tone that perfectly captures the brightness that predates Hillary's last-ditch guerrilla tactics yet suggests a new caution, a heightened maturity, making people see that he doesn't have to change his ideals and become a shithead like the Clintons, but that he can evolve to have a tougher skin and a sturdier 'punch' as one would expect.
The fact that she keeps on using Washington double speak, not to mention out right lies and hypocrisy is pretty much making Obama point for him and now all he needs to do is to capitalize on it by calling her out on it as much as he can.
Unfortunately for the Democratic party, and fortunately for the Republicans, Hillary Clinton over the past two months has demonstrated that she is not morally fit to be president. That is why it is so important for journalists to do their jobs and point this out as much as they possibly can--we Obama supporters can only do so much to get things in the national spotlight. It is especially important because some journalists and entertainers are using their national heft to shill for Clinton. Notice how quiet and respectful Obama supporters Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney have been compared to Clinton's Tina Fey. And "journalist" Cokie Roberts has become a joke as she spins for her candidate. This morning I heard her say on NPR that the delegate count between the candidates was "essentially tied."
Sorry to post twice, but journalists also need to examine Clinton's claims of "experience." It is your JOB to vet the candidates. Many know the foreign policy claims are ridiculous, but many others are also. For example, Clinton claims that as first lady she helped get the Family and Medical Leave Act passed. This bill was authored by Chris Dodd and was vetoed three times over several years by Reagan and Bush senior. Bill Clinton agreed while he was running that he would okay the bill as one of his first acts as president. It passed SIXTEEN DAYS after he took office. So you can see that it is impossible that as first lady she had any effect on the bill's passage at all. Ever wonder why Chris Dodd supports Obama? Look no further.
Journalists--do your job!!
Thank you!!! This article is exactly what I have been saying for the past couple of days!!! Why is this not getting coverage from the mainstream media?
Despite the fact that it is dishonest to seize on Powers' comments, which are almost identical to Clinton's position, why does she even feel the need to go there? We know why. Because she can't erase the fact that she voted for the war, so now all she can do is try to cause distractions from her flawed positions with tactics like this.
Look, I am not a Clinton supporter. But what really angers me is that before this race, I thought she was an extremely intelligent, competent candidate. Now, I feel like I don't even know who she is. It is literally like Dr. Jekll/Mr. Hyde. Support her if you must, but it begs the question if she is willing to stoop to this level to undermine her opponent, do you really want her as your leader in the White house? Maybe you do. But after 7 years of tricks and dishonesty, I certainly do not.
And is YOUR ATTACK ON HILLARY FAIR?
No, you are yet another partisan writer. I will not call you a journalist because you have shown no ethics and fairness to be considered one. Instead you are a talking head for Obama and he has many of them. You should write the Obama campaign looking for a hand out for a job well done. When HRC wins all of you evil people will be the same as you are now. You care nothing for the country all you care about is perpetuating hatred for HRC.
I hope you have put it on your resume...it'll help you find a new job.
It's very strange how every time Mr. Corn detects a "slur" or an "ugly incident" against saintly Barack, he always finds a way to personalize his contrition and/or guilt, as when he writes himself into the "Monster-Gate" debacle by confessing Mr. Milbank's disclosure that he, Mr. Corn, asked the very question that prompted Mr. Wolfson's and Ms. Clinton's "slurs" (while at the same time crediting her with "chutzpah points.") He's turning into a Native Informant.
This time he personally vouches for the integrity of Lee Feinstein and Jamie Rubin (despite their naughty behavior) while suggesting that Ms. Clinton should have asked her accuser out to lunch. Mr. Corn, did Irving Howe ask Hanna Arendt out to tea when she deserved to be eviscerated?
Mr. Corn is so blinded by his need for an Obama that he seems to have bought into the Mickey Mouse mythology which holds that someone's opposition to any given war must be complete and from the beginning. That kind of dissembling goes completely unremarked upon, so blinded is Mr. Corn every time Barack, in his loud commanding voice and unsurpassed oratory, ticks off the positive integers: "I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed the war in 2003. I opposed it in 2004 and 2005 and 2006."
First of all, Obama's rhetoric regarding the Iraq war is not a proposal in the eyes of voters on the campaign trail. He touts it DAILY as a PROMISE. It is his judgment on this topic that he feels makes him a better candidate than Ms. Clinton. It is the cornerstone of his foreign policy platform. "I was against the war. She voted for it." (I wonder what he would have voted if he were a senator back then? I was against the war then too. Does that make me a qualified presidental candidate?)
I see this as a pattern on his part. Say something. NAFTA. Wink. Wink. Mean another. I do not for a minute blame Ms. Clinton for calling a press conference over this. Tell me, what would have been the press' response if it where her aids saying the very same things?
Mr. Obama is a good man, but he is not perfect. At best, he cannot keep his aids in line. I wish the press (especially Mother Jones) would remain neutral. I believe they are now in step with cable news with this partisan journalism.
The suggestion about "doing lunch" wasn't about rehabilitating Power, it is about rehabilitating Hillary.
The idea is that Hillary would have had a high profile gracious gesture, to counterbalance all her sleazy, schizoid, and MONSTEROUS behavior.
God damn it! I have been an avid admirer of Hillarywoman for years. Why, why, why [Harry Chapin quote] is her campaign doing a wobbly ethical death spiral . . . and then by God, admiring it? [Mckinley Kantor quote, from Old Jack.] Samantha is one helluva bright woman and has me near convinced that OBomba and company actually could and would do us proud. DO I haf'ta vote Nader again? I never imagined that I would live to have to watch my country die of corruption and mass ignorance. Despite my age I am in decent health and so am steeling myself for great sadness.
Have you noticed that Anglo Whites at this site can't see too well including David Corn. Barack Obama stands up and says he will have troops out in 16 months. Turns out that pledge is a lie. Turns out he's a liar. But David Corn decides it's time to slap around a woman because his Canadidate of Choice just got exposed as a liar. This is sick. Mother Jones is really getting sick.
...and Hillary has no other on board than a ship of fools. Hopefully, the electorate will conclude that Mrs. Clinton and her shipmates will fail in the attempts at character assination and fall by the wayside to Obama's superior candidacy. Unfortunately, for Democrats, if Obama does not prevail, I suspect that the Democrats will not prevail in the 2008 presidential election.
We have heard Ms. Clinton belittle "the use of words, only words". She insinuated that she and Mr. McCain were more qualified by having "a lifetime of experience" to bring to the office of President and Barack Obama only had a speech. Who doesn't have a lifetime of experience? Let's talk GOOD vs BAD experience, relevant vs irrelevant? Her words are hollow and worthless except to deceive and manipulate. As to "the monster"? What is the purpose of a monster? It's job is to scare...to deliver fear! Seen the 3am phone call ad? Bill Clinton made a great speech for John Kerry about when given the choice between hope and fear, inclusion vs special interest...it is easy to decide in favor of hope and inclusion. Ooops!
".....First of all, Obama's rhetoric regarding the Iraq war is not a proposal in the eyes of voters on the campaign trail. He touts it DAILY as a PROMISE........ This is true and once again his veneer cracked and he got caught up in another lie.
"Turns out that pledge is a lie. Turns out he's a liar. But David Corn decides it's time to slap around a woman because his Canadidate of Choice just got exposed as a liar....." There seem to be quite a few journalists who want to do this to her...now/now boys!!!
All I can say is Hillary has been battered over and over again by people who don't like her merely because she a woman and they are not apparetnly READY (in society) to accept that A WOMAN could actually be more qualified to be the candidate - - and she is quite a candidate to date to have been able to deal with all this (battering) while trying to remain a viable one at that > which she has shown - which is a credit to her strength, resolve and how she will remain on point and won't back down from the very tough decisions and steps that need to be taken on DAY ONE forward.....All positive preisdential qualities...Barack is a great man but is not seasoned enuf to take on this job - there will undoubtably be "Samantha Powers" in every aspect of his presidentcy advising/running it > for he is not capable YET to take the podium for himself. I for one would rather have the more qualified candidate on day one....rather than a lost one for a couple years (or more?)getting their bearings.
REMEMBER >>> A vote for NADER is a vote for McCain!!!!!!!
"Let's hear it for the ladies who lunch-Everybody rise! Rise! Rise!"
How very high minded Mr. Corn.
Campaign promises unravelling before we've even gotten to the convention. What will be left for the general election?
Twice in one week we see the two faces of Obama. Frankly, I prefer the single stalwart countenance of one tough woman.
'Audacity of Hope' let me introduce you to 'Reality of Politics'.
David Corn's an idiot. Obama promising to pull combat troops in 16 months is a promise. For why Davic acts the fool, check out this funny:
http://thedailyjot.blogspot.com/2008/03/this-just-in-talking-to-david-co...
Man, this country in general (and "progressives" in particular) are heading for the worst case of buyer's remorse in recorded history.
It's going to be scary funny after the 2008 election. I, for one, plan to sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
It's interesting, when I read your comments, you are doing the same thing to Obama as you say he is doing to Hillary. Check your facts about Hillary's experience...even though she has been involved in the political environment, most of her foreign affairs experience was on the coat tails of her husband...a speech...a visit after the borders were open (Kosovo), etc. etc. Neither candidate has that "red phone" experience, and both will (or at least I hope any President would and should)go to the people that do have that experience - our military leaders. I was a great admirer of Hillary's, but if you take that "oh, I am being discriminated because I am a women" off, you have to admit her campaign began this rheteric from the beginning, and after she fired her staff when she was losing badly, she put in a staff that was willing to throw in the "kitchen sink". Samantha Powers stepped down, but when Geraldine Ferraro's makes statements that actually "divide" the country, Hillary's camp says we just need to step back and take a deep breath. We as Americans say we don't want negative campaigning, but just look at how we all jump on it. I am a white woman, over 50 and believe that a woman could be President. However, I also believe that any woman willing to destroy anything in front of her to get what she wants, is not who I want as President. We have had this type of attitude the last 8 years.
