I was sitting in the studios at MSNBC on Friday, waiting to go on the air to discuss Rolling Stone’s endorsement of Barack Obama in the current issue, when Hillary Clinton appeared on the monitor next to me. She was very upset, it seems, that Samantha Power (above), an unpaid aide to Obama, had called her "a monster" in an off-the-record remark to a reporter. The incident, Clinton declared, "raises disturbing questions" about Obama’s campaign.
Disturbing questions? This, coming from a woman whose top campaign strategist, Mark Penn, is the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, the notorious Washington public relations firm that has represented some of the world's most brutal and repressive regimes, including Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and the Indonesian thugs responsible for the East Timor massacres.
So let's review. Which is more disturbing: Obama getting free foreign policy advice from a Harvard scholar who wrote a landmark, Pulitzer Prize-winning work on genocide, or Hillary turning over her entire campaign's strategy — and shelling out more than $10 million — to someone who profits by representing the planet's most genocidal maniacs?
Seems pretty clear who the real monster is here.
Share
Email
Stumble
AIM
Del.icio.us
DiggThis
Fark It!
- Portions of Album Content Provided by All Music Guide © 2009 All Media Guide, LLC.
Get RS Mobile
RSS
austin | March 11, 2008 5:20 PM
swampytad: obama is getting more of the _democratic_ white vote in the south, which does not mean he'll get the white vote in the general election. in the election the south will more than likely go republican like it has for the last 35 years.
swampytad | March 11, 2008 4:00 PM
RosieRed, I think you've been failing to actually look at the exit polling information. Obama's actually doing better among Southern white voters than northern white voters. He got a greater percentage of the white vote in Georgia, for instance, than in New Jersey, and a greater percentage of the white vote in Texas than in Ohio. These are just a couple of comparative examples that show that the real bias isn't among white Southern voters, but among those who stereotype white Southerners as nothing but a bunch of racist bigots. I'm not saying this to you, specifically, RosieRed, because I know nothing about you, but to many so-called "enlightened" northerners who share in this misguided view of Southerners I say, "Look in the mirror."
Stephen | March 11, 2008 3:14 PM
She's really pretty good-looking.
Sammy | March 11, 2008 2:43 PM
On the record, Clinton is a monster, a demon, a sucker of Satan's corporate cock. Man, I hope Barack gets the nomination. Forget about the "woman" and the "other man", vote for the "Brother Man"!
RosieRed | March 11, 2008 2:16 PM
Why are you endorsing a candidate that white Southerners will NEVER vote for? I'm worried he'll win the nomination, John McCain will win and the Refuckicans will run the country into the ground again. I'm not sure Hillary could win either. Maybe I'll move to Canada
j | March 10, 2008 2:46 PM
Interesting info. But I must remind you that this was not an off-the-record comment. Power called Hillary a monster (during an on-record interview) and followed it up with "this is off-the-record."
First, you cannot belatedly declare something off-the-record. Second, nor can you unilaterally declare a comment off-the-record. This is a contract that must be agreed upon by both parties prior to any statement.
Want further analysis? Glenn Greenwald takes it task over at Salon.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/08/carlson/
Whatabout... | March 10, 2008 1:55 PM
What about the journalistic ethics of the "off the record" smear tactic. What is Rolling Stone's editorial stance? What she said was followed by the now controversial after-the-fact "off the record." The whole shit show brings up an interesting debate on journalistic ethics. Would Rolling Stone have done the same as The Scotsman? Would you guys have printed the comment?