"trying to turn this nothing-burger into a full-course feast."

It smacks of desperation.

Not to mention HRC comes off as a meanie for calling for Powers to be fired.

Who is HRC the Queen of Mean?

I say - off with HER head.

Will you people let me know when you get back to objective reporting? If Hillary drops out, just WHAT will you write about? From your point of view, Barack Obama and his merry group of never-do-wrongers are squeaky clean and always will be. Let's give it some time, shall we?

Wolfson is asking for a double standard. The Clinton camp can not have it both ways. After all they started the name calling game.
David Corn's post should be plastered all across the Internet.
The Clintons' reach is frightening and hopefully the American people will see this as corporate dynasty "take-over" and reject it!

Stupid - Austan Goolsbee is the one who should be taking a bullet.
Monster? Not sure about that.
Now calling Obama a "self-righteous fraud", well they ought to know. Spending that much time with Hillary, you would know a thing or two about being a fraud and a phonie.
Apparently "off the record" in Scotland means something different from what it means here.

Another foreign newspaper helping out Clinton...what is going on here?

If David Corn would return the favor it would be poetic justice. I know that's not a possibility, though.

I really was impressed by Samantha Power. The country could really have used her voice and her ideas on foreign policy. More than anything else, America is in need of talented voices on foreign policy.

Samantha Power was and is an intelligient, compassionate, talented woman and i'm sorry to see her go. And for Hillary's camp to call for her to be fired is ridiculous. If that's the standard, Wolfson should be fired saying Obama is like Ken Starr - I'd say that's the worse insult. Now we lose the voice of someone who actually cared about genocide and tries to do something about it. In contrast to Bill Clinton & Rwanda...

HILLARY, WHAT A TANGLED WEB YOU WEAVE, WHEN YOU CONTINUE TO DECEIVE ...

Clinton Again Raises Running With Obama

Mar 7 01:27 PM US/Eastern
By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer

HATTIESBURG, Miss. (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday again raised the possibility that she might run with rival Sen. Barack Obama on the same Democratic presidential ticket.

Speaking to voters in Mississippi, where Sen. Barack Obama is expected to do well in next week's primary, Clinton said, "I've had people say, 'Well I wish I could vote for both of you. Well, that might be possible some day. But first I need your vote on Tuesday."

It is the second time this week that she has hinted at a joint ticket with the Illinois senator; he has not ruled it out but says it is premature to be having those discussions.

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

COMMENT:

First Hillary maintains that only her and Republican John McCain are ready for the heavy responsibilities of the presidency, including stewardship of national security.

Then she suggests that, in the unlikely chance she is the Democratic nominee, she would consider Barack Obama to be her vice presidential running mate.

The vice president is a heartbeat away from being president.

So either Hillary is making up the claim that Obama is not ready to lead, or she is putting the country at risk by suggesting she would pick him.

The first choice would make her a liar, the second, that she is very cavalier in her attitude about national security.

Or may both are true.

Either way … just another reason to support Barack Obama for president (and Sen. Jim Webb for vice).

Your piece is predicated on a false premise. The Power interview was "on the record," and only when Power realized the implications of her slip of the tongue, did she belatedly asked for the comment to be put "off the record". As a longtime journalist whose writing I've admired in The Nation, you should know better than anyone that the groundrules are established BEFORE the interview begins.

nice post by David Corn and Mick Andersen - I believe there will eventually be a subheading under the definition of hypocrisy which will read "Clinton campaign 2008". Webb is a really nice pick for VP as would be Bill Richardson

Looks like you are a Obama fan. Comparing Kenith Star with a monster is too mythichal. After all he was doing his job what he was asked to do. And Obama by asking for Hilary's tax returns was imittating Kenith's actions. So where does the monster word comparison come in. You look too desperate a Obama fan. Be real.

I've been commenting on this everywhere since last night when I thought the Power episode was a good thing--a chance for Obama to stand up to HRC for once. I'm an ardent Obama supporter and have maxed out for him in the primary, but this resignation was a big mistake. He has lost the news cycles and this resignation shows both weakness and an inability to pivot to the upside of this story, that is, to point to the Clinton's habitual smear tactics that happen to be ON THE RECORD. As someone who grew up in Ohio, the male vote there, and in Penn, Kentucky, Indiana, and so on, will see this as nothing but weakness. PC actions get you nowhere. Obama's campaign is trying to run out the clock and with this move today, I'm starting to believe they just might find a way to botch what it rightfully theirs.

"The Clinton camp can not have it both ways. After all they started the name calling game."

clearly, they can.

Slur by the Clintons, my a**.

She crossed the line. Any rational person knows, there's a line, you cross it, you are in trouble.

And if the Obama staffers don't know how to handle the media, they're subject to the criticism the Hillary staffers are, that handling the media is part of the job.

Those are the rules, and they don't change just because it's "your team" in trouble.

Mrs. Clinton is the grown-up in this tete a tete; Obama, the callow youth. It's that simple.

I'd rather a tough, seasoned, thick-skinned politician on my side than an unproven, unknown, untested black man with a pleasing voice who can read other people's words with conviction. She's been up against the ultimate viciousness of republicans against her, her daughter and her husband and has the experience. And it's showing in these brouhahas. Keep up the pressure, Hillary, not all of us are upset at your tactics.

obama said he's running a clean campaign. well this fool changed that. i dont think she quit. obama fired so fast she tripped on her "putlzer prize". she should be fired. He doesnt need this fool around

The Clinonistas may want to run with this story, but if they do they will only draw attention to the fact that she actually is a monster!

"It smacks of desperation."

No, rather it smacks of Karl Rove. This is straight out of his play book. And it works. I have no doubt that she can take on McCain.

"... In Democratic circles, there's not much of a bigger slur than, Hey, you're Ken Starr! For Democrats, Starr is the functional equivalent of a monster." I can't believe this argument is being made. If Ms. Power had said something like, "Hillary is just like Richard Nixon...," then the comparison might have been valid. But no, she said "monster." It's debatable whether the reference to Ken Starr qualifies as a slur. (I'm sure Mr. Starr would have a thing or two to say about that.) There is no way to take what Ms. Power said as anything other than a slur.

"... In Democratic circles, there's not much of a bigger slur than, Hey, you're Ken Starr! For Democrats, Starr is the functional equivalent of a monster." I can't believe this argument is being made. If Ms. Power had said something like, "Hillary is just like Richard Nixon...," then the comparison might have been valid. But no, she said "monster." It's debatable whether the reference to Ken Starr qualifies as a slur. (I'm sure Mr. Starr would have a thing or two to say about that.) There is no way to take what Ms. Power said as anything other than a slur.

Do you know anything about journalism? "Off the record" is arranged BEFORE making controversial remarks. The interview in question was to publicize a book and was therefore clearly understood to be ON THE RECORD. It is absolutely routine (see Bob Woodward using Dick Cheney's Iraq war comments during an interview about Gerald Ford) for a journalist to vary the topic, and also to reject an attempt to place something off the record after the fact.

Your supposed Clinton sources WERE off the record when they made their supposed negative Obama comments. That doesn't mean they're sinister -- they're savvy. There's no way for us to evaluate whether it even happened, because it was off the record; all we have is your word. Since you're obviously pro-Obama, your word, in this case, is not reliable.

Sorry, Obama's group loses on this one. Don't take my word for it, though, see how it plays in the next few days.

If you bother to read the whole article about the incident, it was clearly stated that it was an "on the record" interview about Samantha Power's new book. It was during this interview that she called Senator Clinton a "monster", and only after making this statement did she try to make it an "off the record" comment. Mistakes happen and only an idiot tries to blame someone else for the mistake. I can not see how Senator Clinton can be blamed for what Ms. Power said, but apparently, a large number of Obama supporters seem to think they know how to blame her.

Time to grow up folks and learn to think instead of parroting nonsense.

worse for Obama, in another interview, she flat out admitted that he probably wasn't going to be able to shut down the Iraq war as quickly as he's telling folks on the campaign trail. I'd say talking out both sides of ones mouth is a pretty good description of "fraudulent".

I am in despair this morning. Clinton will stop at nothing. To hell with how she alienates voters across the country. I might cynically say she actively wants the alienation. If we hope-mongers stay out of the political process, she and her cronies can continue to enjoy the spoils of power.

We get the leaders we deserve. And it's looking like we are undeserving in the extreme.

Power was an unpaid foreign affairs advisor. She messed up, and removing her from the public eye is smart.

Obama can continue to solicit advice from her in an unofficial capacity, and you can be sure she will find a spot at the State Department.

That’ll be a fun confirmation hearing though…

Keep this up, Dems, and John McCain will waltz into the White House come next November. This insane intra-party guerilla warfare has GOT to stop.

Seriously, everyone, stop and take a deep breath.

Had any Clinton staffer or advisor been caught saying this about Obama, the Obama press machine (including his many friendly bloggers) would have used it as evidence of how the Clintons will stop at nothing to get elected. They would also have demanded that the staffer or advisor be fired or resign. But since it's an Obama staffer making the comments and the Clintons playing the role that Obama would have played had the situation been reversed, suddenly it's a big deal and proves how terrible a person Hillary is.

Please. If Obama fans get worked up about THIS, it's going to be a long general election campaign if Obama gets the nomination.

Funny. I never saw any reports that the Clinton campaign suggested Powers be fired.
She was a fool to mouth off to a reporter without confirming the those comments would be off the record. The interview being conducted was for the record, and she knew that.

David, as Josh Marshall has noted at TPM, it's about political competence, not what she said. First, how do you, especially as an experienced former journalist herself, try to make the old ex post facto "off the record" comment? (I'm a newspaper editor/writer myself, and have been on the receiving end of that once; it's like a red flag in front of a journalistic bull.)

Second, isn't it a bit arrogant to be giving an in-depth interview to a foreign newspaper when your candidate hasn't even won the nomination yet?

Third, as Josh said, it shows how much Clinton is getting in the head of Obama staff. Well, Obama can realize both Clinton and McCain are "old politicans" and deal with it... or not, and get his hat handed to him more.

DAVID CORN: just another tacky, second rate journalist (questionable if he deserves that title) and Hillary hater. Hey Mr. Corn, get a life!

Just another pathetic spin article by an Obama cultists with a blog. How this got on RCP is beyond me.

You can love your candidate, but you can't LOOOVE your candidate. You people scare me. I fear a rash of suicide bombings after Clinton steals the nomination...which she will, and it will be stealing.

Even though the aide resigned, the fact still remains that the statement "Hillary is a Monster" is out in public.

This is itself old politics. Although I'm sure Power didn't mean to do this, the occasion does end up benefiting Obama. And certainly Hillary's shrill response to it doesn't help her as it just reinforces the stereotype.

So Hillary went on TV and used the issue to bring up NAFTA gate. How can the MSM let her do this? The facts have come out that Hillary was the one that phoned the Canadian Government and contradicted her stance in the debate, not Obama.

Please these lies and deceit coming out of Hillary needs to be reported on. The Fear of the Press of the Clintons is absurd.

A phony liberal is someone who believes Bush's motivations were good.

"So Democratic audiences are often surprised when I tell them that I don't consider George Bush a bad man and that I assume that he and members of this Administration are trying to do what they think is best for the country.
I say this not because I am seduced by the proximity to power, I see my invitations to the White House for what they are-- exercises in common political courtesy
snip
It is to say that after all the trappings of office -- the titles, the staff, the security details -- are stripped away, I find the President and those who surround him to be pretty much like everybody else, possessed of the same mix of virtues and vices, insecurities and long-buried injuries, as the rest of us. No matter how wrong-headed I might consider their policies to be -- and no matter how much I might insist that they be held accountable for the results of such policies -- I still find it possible , in talking to these men and women, to understand their motives, and to recognize in them values I share."
Obama, The Audacity of Hope 2006

This is what he makes of the motives of the Administration which has done the most to destroy our Constitutional system. I recall no cries for impeachment from Obama -- few moves to hold them 'accountable' in any way.
In the era when Mother Jones was first produced he would have been known simply as a bullsh$t artist.

I seem to recall that early in the race, even before the first primary Obama called Senator Clinton "Bush/Cheney lite." That would seem to me to be a greater slur against a fellow Democrat than Ken Starr.

It is about time some Democrat learned how to win an election in the Post-Rovian world. Look around...Karl Rove enabled our dim-bulb leader to win not once, but twice, while trouncing weak kneed Democratic candidates who scurried about on that mythical highroad to nowhere. If all the young new voters that Mr. Obama is said to be bringing into the contest cannot stand to see this contest get tough, then maybe they should get out their history books, or rather their Wikihistory, and learn how the job interview for leader of the free world is going to be conducted in the post-Rovian world. The high road is a proven dead-end, you can believe the Republicans already know as much.

Wow...I wonder whom you support for the nomination. I think you could use a refresher from Journalism 101...keep it objective. Clinton is constantly denigrated by the press/pundits why shouldn't Obama's camp be held to the same standard? This is the big league and there isn't room for dish it out but can't take it mentality. Should Obama win the nomination I hope he holds up better under pressure from the REAL opposition than he has from Clinton's so-called negative campaigning. Obama was visibly irritated when his followers, I mean the press, actually threw him some hard ball questions.

David,

I have long admired your work. I am however very disappointed in your characterization of Samantha Power as "a talented journalist and thinker who gives a damn about genocides..." This is in keeping with the standard narrative that she traffics in regarding Yugoslavia etc. Please check out this view http://www.monthlyreview.org/1007herman-peterson1.php
on that tragedy. It is argued that her's and many other left/progressives' support for US/NATO aggression is what laid the ideological groundwork for the neocon's savage wars. What is a real shame is how much the blinders are on left/progressive people such as yourself. Have a look at the piece above as well as several other authors cited in it and tell me what you think.

It would do humanity a world of good to have someone with your position taking another look at "humanitarian interventions".

Martin Donovan

In J-school they taught me that nothing is really ever "off the record."

It's not illegal or unethical to report the entirety of someone's comments, as far as I know.

That being said, why should Power be chastised for calling Clinton a monster? She's been called worse...and it's no secret that these two campaigns have some animosity for eachother...what's the big deal?!

It never ceases to amaze me how self-righteous the Obama camp is. Can you tell me what would constitute a slur when hurled at hillary.....

Let me guess nothing for we all know she deserves it..right. I mean she is evil personified isn't she.

It is amazing how people base their senseless comments on a perception that was cultivated in the 90s.

I mean how many of you have actually sat down and talked with her to have cultivated such derision and hatred. Its really amazing.

So let me tell you something about Barack...
HE IS NOT A MESSIAH or the CHOSEN ONE...HE IS HUMAN. Someone like us mere mortals with the ability to do both good and harm.

He is just another smart and talented politician fighting for the most powerful and coveted position in the world.

And please lets stop whining about how she threw the so called Kitchen sink at him.

If this has dented the prince's shining armor wait till what's in store for him in the fall.

I have never seen a civil policy debate on these forums. Wait that would require us to think, deliberate and come up with something original to say and who has time for it. Lets go with the flow and hurl crap left behind by others.

ANother thing that gets me is how people say "We don't want the Clinton years again". First of all how many of you even rememebr what they were all about. And how did it harm anyone of you. For all we know it has done more good than any of you have cared to look at.

Bill clinton was the Barack of the 1992 election. A man a promise but with his own sets of issues.

Its amazing how we revere JFK and revile Bill just because his adultery was palyed out by the persistent pursuit of Mr. Starr. JFK probably had more affairs than one can remember. But how can we bring that up and mess up the image of Camelot that we have created. Don;t tell me if he was hounded and cornered like Billwas his first reaction wouldn't be to deny everything. Thats basic human nature guys....Look within yourselves...

So I implore you to stop these petty senseless posts and foxus on a more substantive debate on where the country needs to be headed. And which one of the two is the best person to do so and also has the ability to win. For in the end thats all it comes down to winning...whether it is 50.1-49.9 or 70-30.

How can a person call someone a MONSTER and then when she is caught at it, say she "ADMIRES" the person she called that??? HYPOCRITE!!!

By the time she is finished, if somehow, someway, she steals the nomination, what good will it do any of us?

100 years in Iraq.

My 16 year old's great great grandson may get the chance to serve.

That's because she resigned before they hit full on . . .

From TPM . . .

Hillary Campaign Calls On Obama To Fire Adviser Who Called Hillary A "Monster"
By Greg Sargent - March 7, 2008, 10:25AM

On a conference call just now, Hillary advisers and surrogates called on Obama to fire senior foreign policy adviser Samantha Power for calling Hillary a "monster."

"Personal attacks are not the way to convince voters that you're capable of being president of the United States," New York Rep. Nita Lowey, a key Hillary surrogate, said. "We're calling on Senator Obama to make it very clear that Samantha Power should not be part of this campaign."

"It's really a very important test for Obama," Lowey said, adding that whether or not he fired Power was a "test of character."

Rep. Gregory Meeks, an African American Hillary supporter, reiterated the call for Power's firing, saying that the only appropriate way for Obama to proceed is "Senator Obama saying that this person can no longer be associated with his campaign."

Hillary spokesman Howard Wolfson added a few more twists of the knife, suggesting that Obama's handling of the Power affair would demonstrate the "kind of leadership" Obama was prepared to show. Power has already apologized for the comment.

This is some serious hardball -- it's obviously all about trying to tarnish Obama's high-mindedness. More in a bit.

Are you really stupid or are being deliberately obtuse? How does comparing someone to Ken Starr compare to calling the former first Lady and a sitting Senator a monster? Unless of course, you equate Ken Starr to a monster.

Mr. Shaheen was cashiered. The staffers who circulated the e-mail about Obama being a Muslim were asked to leave. Fair is fair. She can rejoin an Obama presidency, or his campaign if he gets the nomination. This kind of thing is symbolic, anyway.
Now, if they'll just put a muzzle on the Obama Post, or declare it as a campaign expense...

Oh, PUH-LEASE! Who hasn't half-jokingly referred to a rival in less than flattering terms? Hillary is the world's biggest Bitch.

I've voted Democrat all my life, as did my parents. If Hillary somehow is the nominee, not only will I not support her, but I will work to see that the man she thinks meets the "Commander-in-Chief threshhold" is elected. But not her.

There are some pieces conveniently left out of this story. For one, the advisor was not speaking OFF the record. Secondly, the Ken Starr remark was made after the Obama campaign claimed that Hillary is the most secretive politician in America, and brought back the talk of cattle and real estate purchases. It was not just because they asked for her tax returns.

Personally, as being someone who remembers the 90's very well, I really do not want to hear all that Ken Starr stuff re-hashed. If Obama wants to be a new style politician, with a positive tone, and be the future and not the past, I think he should stick to that theme and not be a hypocrite.

There are some pieces conveniently left out of this story. For one, the advisor was not speaking OFF the record. Secondly, the Ken Starr remark was made after the Obama campaign claimed that Hillary is the most secretive politician in America, and brought back the talk of cattle and real estate purchases. It was not just because they asked for her tax returns.

Personally, as being someone who remembers the 90's very well, I really do not want to hear all that Ken Starr stuff re-hashed. If Obama wants to be a new style politician, with a positive tone, and be the future and not the past, I think he should stick to that theme and not be a hypocrite.

The American people have proven once again that a politician will be rewarded when he or she tosses the last slime ball just prior to the vote being taken. Rove and the Republicans have proven this political contest certitude over the past eight years. Hillary, with her sleaze ball staff, has picked up where the Rovian's left off. And, in Ohio, the public bought her pitch.

Obama, if he is to be successful in this campaign, must do one of two things: 1) He must quickly find a way to neutralize Hillary's s**t ball tossing machine ...a task that would sap much of the energy of the campaign; or, 2) Obama must respond in kind and at a higher rate of fire for his slime-ball cannon. Else, Obama is doomed to failure ...either losing the campaign to Hillary and her ilk or in becoming a catastrophically wounded candidate who will be unable to recover for the fall election against McCain.

Clinton has lowered the bar into the mud. I don't see how Obama can flutter-about above the mud and be successful. Clinton has set the playing field, the public has demonstrated an appetite for the game to be played in the mud ...will Obama be able to refuse the terms of engagement? Only by dropping out and ceding defeat can he remain above the fray ...the hell with his desire to run an uplifting campaign. The customers have demonstrated what product they desire. It is time for Obama to meet these customer requests.

There are some pieces conveniently left out of this story. For one, the advisor was not speaking OFF the record. Secondly, the Ken Starr remark was made after the Obama campaign claimed that Hillary is the most secretive politician in America, and brought back the talk of cattle and real estate purchases. It was not just because they asked for her tax returns.

Personally, as being someone who remembers the 90's very well, I really do not want to hear all that Ken Starr stuff re-hashed. If Obama wants to be a new style politician, with a positive tone, and be the future and not the past, I think he should stick to that theme and not be a hypocrite.

["And which one of the two is the best person to ... win. For in the end thats all it comes down to winning...whether it is 50.1-49.9 or 70-30."]

Hitler won.

I suspect that in late 1945, the German people probably had an altogether DIFFERENT idea about whether that was all that mattered.

Is there a lesson we can learn from their experience?
Are we LIKELY to Absorb it?

I'd like to see a head count of those nodding in agreement with Samantha's quip. The numbers are growing by the day.

Another biased article; you must be kidding if you think the monster comment and the Ken Starr comment are the same, honestly, whole-heartedely a biased article beyond belief. I am an Obama supporter, and both comments are distasteful, but stop saying they are the same thing. Why does the media have this sense that they need to remind us voters how Hillary is playing the game. We don't care as much about these silly things because NEWS FLASH, they BOTH are doing it. If the media's goal is to say Obama is above politics than Hillary, there is something wrong here. Focus on other distinctions, please.

I suggest that before coming down on one side or another over Hillary being called a "monster",we actually open a dictionary to learn the various definitions of "monster." I did and found that the term seems completely appropriate for Hillary McCain.

Anyone who thinks asking a "seasoned" political veteran and presidential candidate to disclose standard protocol tax information is behaving like "Ken Starr" is undoubtedly a Clinton campaign staffer (probably Wolfson, because evidently he has nothing better to do) trolling these sites to get in their campaign talking points.

Let's see the tax returns, let's see the White House records, let's see the lists of "squeaky clean" donors, let's see the secret list of Presidential library donors.

The Clintons have so many ethical problems and skeletons that comparing a reasonable request to "Ken Starr" is just desperate b.s.

Put your money where your mouth is Howard - let's see the numbers and, more important, let's see those sources of income.

Obama must stay on message and attack with TV ads:
1. explain to everyone subtly she is so divisive and secretive that she could not get her Healthcare Plan when her husband was the President.
2. explain to everyone that her judgment is so political she started the Bush-McCain-Clinton war.
3. explain to everyone that she has attacked his faith on sixty minutes CBS. So can he attack her family values --whatever she can show with her husband.

I'm right there with you Sharon. Hillary is in fact a bitch, and an unethical one, at that, which is the worst kind, because she's knows what she's doing and she does it anyway.

As a lifelong Democrat, if she is the nominee, I will jump to McCain just to piss her off. And a LOT of people on the Democratic side feel the same way.

Apparently Samantha Powers was correct in her assessment of "whining" Hillary Clinton. "Whining" Hillary has proved herself to be a "monster" by requesting Samantha Powers be fired. I am of the opinion that "whining" Hillary is on a guilt trip from all the sins she has committed trying to gain control over the country; otherwise Hillary would never have called for anyone to be fired for such a minor indiscretion, as such type of indiscretion is common. It does show that Hillary Clinton will be a TYRANT should Hillary Clinton actually be elected as president.

Sharon: "If Hillary somehow is the nominee, not only will I not support her, but I will work to see that the man she thinks meets the "Commander-in-Chief threshhold" is elected. But not her."

Brilliant plan. Subject yourself, the country and the world to never ending war, economic ruin through "permanent tax cuts", nothing whatsoever done about global warming, dissolution of Social Security, just cause your guy didn't win.

It's OK to like Obama, hope and work for his nomination but threats to work to get McCain elected is just petulant crap.

Hillary and Obama have many of the same policy objectives, which you would see if you bothered to actually read her web site. But none of the policy matters to you, I guess. It's the person, not the policy. That is the definition of groupie.

I'm a Hillary supporter but I very much doubt she will win and I'll have absolutely no reservations about voting for Obama. You should take a deep breath and think about the consequences of your actions should you follow through with that threat and actually work to get McCain elected.

I was wondering how long it would take before y'all would jump all over HRC making her seem like the bad guy in this. Sure didn't take long before all the Obama people started saying how dare she stand up and fire back after being called a "monster" by someone who should have known that every word, every movement is going to be gone over with a fine toothed comb in this campaign. Sometimes, I think the Obama campaign feels entitled to call out names and then feels shocked, yes, I say "shocked" when there is a response. THAT"S POLITICS.
Again, we are waiting to hear why Obama's guy even met with the Canadians in the first place, why the lies that came out of the campaign regarding the memo and meeting, what exactly was Obama's relationship with Rezko (check out the Chicago Tribune's op ed piece entitled "Obama's Rugged Time Warp") ....let's talk about issues, shall we, instead of denigrating HRC's history or Obama's. Can't we just keep some of this childishness and amateur-hour behavior out of this?

Powers tried to rowback to get the statement off the record, so the notion that it was "what she believed was an off-the-record remark" doesn't pass the laugh test. Indeed, reading the remarks, it's pretty obvious that the interviewer must have indicated some surprise at the comment, alerting her to the gaffe.

The only BS here is the Powers and Obama campaign apologies. What this shows is that, media mythology aside, they are no better than anyone else. The whole new politics thing is a fraud. False mailers about NAFTA being a "boon" to the U.S., saying one thing to Ohio voters and another to the Canadian government, saying Sen. Clinton did nothing but serve tea when she was First Lady, calling for tax returns and Sen. Clinton's White House schedules (which, presumably, are not being sought to show she only served tea), refusing to outright reject Minister Farrahkan, etc., etc. What goes around comes around.

The fact that the "monster" doesn't want to be called a "monster" should be the topic of conversation.

Hillary "the monster", claims to be victimized by being named by Samantha Powers as a "monster". A "monster" by any other name is still a "monster".

Hillary IS a monster

The only people voting for clinton are the uneducated working class. Too bad their is not an IQ requirement in order to vote. That way both Bush and Hillary would have been finished long ago.

jreed
Why did you feel the need to inject his race into your comments?

I write this partly in response to PK who said that Bill Clinton was the JFK of 1992. I have no doubt some people felt this way but I for one did not. Clinton turned liberalism on its head by co opting GOP social policies and while he's considered the elder statement of the Democratic party he was/is neither liberal or progressive.

I voted for Hillary Clinton in the California primary but for me and many others, the problem now is that she initiated negative campaign tactics in a fight that has been largely clean and based on issues. When Clinton did this, she lost my support. I'm not interested in what Clinton thinks about Obama and I'm even less interested in having her feed me dirt on his background. I am concerned about issues and how Clinton would deal with them. If she can't focus on issues then as far as I'm concern she has no business running for president. For too long we've had elections and campaigns won or lost based on negatives and we've had several successive presidents essentially follow the same failed foreign and domestic policies. I and many others want a serious change in direction and Obama has garnered such an incredible level of grass roots support because he has promised to change the way government conducts its business. My entire adult life, I have been a left leaning progressive and I realize the Obama is neither progressive nor especially liberal and neither is Clinton but I'm willing to support either because the option is more of Bush's policies. I accept that neither candidate is going to change direction quickly but I have come to think Obama is more committed to trying whereas Clinton's main concern seems to be winning at any cost.

As far as Clinton's arguments in favor of her experience (who do you want answering the White House telephone and 3:00 AM?), I've looked at her background and the backgrounds of Obama and McCain and quite honestly none of the candidates has any relevant experience. Therefore, what I'm seek is someone capable of sound judgment. Clinton's most recent behavior with respect to negative campaigning suggests that she is willing to subvert her good judgment in favor of winning at any cost and an ends justifies the means type person isn't what I want in the White House.

If she wins the nomination, I would be happy to support her over McCain or Nader.

Rich: "The only people voting for clinton are the uneducated working class. Too bad their is not an IQ requirement in order to vote."

Riiiiight.

I'm college educated and my IQ scores consistently fall in the range between 128 and 136. Doesn't make me Einstein, by a long shot, but it is 30 to 35 points above average. So how come I voted for Hillary?

I genuinely like Obama's ideas about reform, but I think most of his "change the tone in Washington" stuff is just silly. Republican's aren't suddenly going to be cast in thrall and toss their entire ideology out the window just because Obama is some sort of "transcendent" President. They are going to pull out all the stops and use every legislative and public relations trick in the book to put the breaks on everything Obama's tries.

The reason I chose Hillary over Obama is precisely because I think she has realistic, targeted policy goals and for the most part doesn't bother with Obama's "changing the tone" stuff because she realizes there are too many people who are viscerally opposed to anything a Democrat will do.

I don't know that that fact has sunk in with Obama yet. Obama will be a good President if he focuses on the big stuff but it's highly doubtful that he will get anywhere with his transformational stuff.

I am SO voting for McCain if Clinton is our nominee. ABC - Anybody But Clinton.

It is so frustrating to see someone as passionate and talented as Susan Power being forced to resign over one unfortunate remark. Such nonsense does little to improve the world. The Clinton campaign ought to be ashamed of themselves - assuming they know the meaning of the word.

"I've voted Democrat all my life. . ."

I don't think so, Sharon, because if you were actually a Democrat, you would know that you had voted "Democratic" your whole life. Your use of the deliberate Republican misnomer for the party (not to mention the b-word) gives you away as a troll. In any event, how this incident came to be Clinton's fault and another excuse for bashing her is beyond me. Powers screwed up both in what she said and in saying it during what was clearly an on-the-record interview. The hypocrisy of the Obamamaniac-Hilary haters is just soooo tiresome.

"I'm NOT a monster" rings like Dick Nixon saying, "I'm NOT a crook". Guess what? He was. And Hillary Clinton IS a monster, the whining Hillary MONSTER.

Whining is not becoming for either a "monster" or a president,
and Hillary whines. If you haven't heard her whine, you should have listened to the debates. She's a whiner.

Can't you just see whiner Hillary answering the RED phone at 3am in the morning, she'll whine about the inconvenience of answering the phone and whine about always being called first, "Why are you always calling me first with the hard questions?" "Why don't you call someone else first, don't you know what time it is here, for God sake, I'm trying to sleep, and you keep calling and calling, darn, you are always calling me first with the hard questions, call someone else first, I need to get back to sleep, if someone else can't take care of the hard questions first, I will try to get somebody to get back with you sometime later." Of course this is Hillary answering the RED phone as president, and the projected result of all of her experience in dealing with hard questions as a 1st responder. CHECK THE DEBATES.

KT:

You want to know why you voted for Hillary Clinton, here's the answer:

KNOWLEDGE without UNDERSTANDING

You're a SAVANT.

Read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and perhaps you will become unhappy.

Sharon, Martha, Julie: Are you of child-bearing age? Do you have daughters, female friends (that goes for you, too, Bryan S)?

I'm not a fan of Clinton's foreign policy by any means, and if Obama's elected I hope he'll be good to his word. (Sadly, Power did some backpeddling on Obama's commitments re. Iraq withdrawl before her monster gaffe led to her departure.) But if your hatred for Clinton leads you to help elect a man who opposes abortion in all circumstances and will make the Supreme Court appointments necessary to kill Roe v. Wade, the blood of future American women who kill themselves trying to abort illegally will be on your hands, no less than Iraqi blood is on Clinton's hands.

Please, consider the consequences of your actions. How many Florida voters have wished they could take back the Nader ballots they cast in 2000?

Sen. Obama demanding her tax returns is completely consistent with his calls for transparency in government. As enamored with Bill Clinton as we liberals may have been, his mistakes and mistruths concerning the Lewinsky affair cannot be denied. We need to vet our candidates fully so that a successful liberal presidency isn’t again scarred by secrecy and lies. Sen. Clinton may claim unfair treatment by the press, but her substantive flaws (the Chicago Mercantile affair, Whitewater, the fact that she sent economic advisors to discuss NAFTA with the Canadian Government before Obama did) have mostly been ignored by the mainstream media. Also simply glossed over by the mainstream press has been Sen. Clinton’s lie about not injecting race or gender into the campaign. Those in Ohio know full well that Sen. Feinstein among other prominent female politicians were all over the TV last week stressing “the importance” of voting for Sen. Clinton in the primary (CNN exit polls showed 59% of voters in Ohio Tuesday were female in response to this ad campaign). Fair and balanced reporting would certainly be negative toward Sen. Clinton because of her lies and hypocrisies; it is no fault of the media or of Sen. Obama. We liberals need to stand up and put Sen. Obama in the White House, so down the road we can point to him (like conservatives do for Reagan) as the litmus test for our nominees.

ThomasG: "KNOWLEDGE without UNDERSTANDING

You're a SAVANT."

LOL :)

As to understanding ... Book burning, repression etc of Farenheit 451 have absolutely nothing to do with either campaign. It would have been exactly as relevant and profound if you had told me to read the label on a bottle of Bayer aspirin.

AZ Escapee:

I am for "constituent oriented" politics --- NOT "issue oriented" politics.

Neither Hillary or Barack represent my class and culture -- both represent the class and culture of the 20% Professional Middle Class. I am for "constituent oriented" politics that represent the 70% MAJORITY Common Population, and for dealing with the "issues" of the 70% MAJORITY Common Population within the class and culture of the 70% MAJORITY Common Population; rather than being represented by the Professional Middle Class on "issues", and not having a horse in the race that represents the political interests of the 70% MAJORITY Common Populations Class and Culture.

WE THE PEOPLE need to learn to deal with "CONSTITUENT ORIENTED" politics and keep our representation within our own class and culture, instead of trying to deal with "ISSUE ORIENTED" politics represented by other classes and cultures as being in our best interest that never accomplishes any benefit for the 70% MAJORITY Common Population.

KT:

That's the problem. You have explained the problem with savant understanding, I don't expect you to understand, unless you can obtain dynamic, abstract, figurative ability.

You might want to think about Montag's journey away from orthodox savant ability, if you are really interested in why you voted for Hillary.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!

If Obama was not pretending to be running such a clean campaign there would have been no reason for Power to resign. The actual quote had a bit more punch than just the monster bit- "She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything." Did she actually assume the Scotsman wouldn't print it? I doubt it.

The one I'm surprised is still there is Goolsbee. Without so much of a head's up to the campaign (if they are to be believed) he goes off to discuss what he decided will be Obama's economic policy with officials from a foreign country. If that's was actually the case, what type of private meetings would he have if Obama wins the presidency? Or is it okay for him just to establish these beginnings of a shadow government?

Face it, Obama has had two massive blow outs in a short period of time. The real test will be to see if he can re-tool his campaign and deal with them. I suspect however all we will see is more of Obama and his supporters donning their victim clothing, all the while screaming 'Unfair!'.

Of course they went after this! After all, for months, all we've been reading are glowing testaments to Obama's superior executive skill at running a campaign, and how clearly it indicates what a superior president he would be.

Like, duh! That could only last so long. Campaigns are meat grinders. Watch these recent successes turn the Clinton campaign into the well-oiled machine they were supposed to be.

Get out of the "wimp room" Barry. Samantha Power should be reinstated immediately. Obama should have stood his ground. He should have stood by this good,smart woman. Obama gained no support by letting Power go, and he possibly weakened support he already has. Why not use the answer Hillary used on 60 minuted, "I take Sen. Clinton at her word that she is not a monster". Most all responses to Hillary Clinton call for ridicule. It's the law.

I'm tired of Hillary Clinton and I'm tired of double standards. She is tearing the Democratic Party apart and I will never forgive her for that. As far as I am concerned she betrayed her own party because she is caught up in winning this nomination regardless of what the cost might be. Monster?
That's being nice.

Susie:

So, Hillary is wearing her sheeple suit and just thinks it awful that she is called a "monster". Wow, what an awful thing. Give me a break. What if Putin says Hillary's a "monster", will that be reason to bomb Russia? If the only thing wrong with the Obama campaign is that one of his aides thinks Hillary is a "monster", the Clinton campaign is grabbing at straws. Of course this is how Hillary would handle a situation that should be ignored, because she thought the debate questions were too hard and that she should not have been asked a hard question first. There was only two candidates in the debate, so should Obama have whined about Hillary whining that the question was hard and that she should not have been given the hard question first? Obama could have answered her hard question easily, so should Obama be 1st. Obama didn't whine.

To paraphrase Smith the Monster in the movie, Matrix, "Whine, whine, whine and whine again." Could she have been thinking of Smith the Monster's actual words, "Me, me , me and me again.?"

Do you think a whiner should be our president?

Get out of the "wimp room" Barry. Samantha Power should be reinstated immediately. Obama should have stood his ground. He should have stood by this good,smart woman. Obama gained no support by letting Power go, and he possibly weakened support he already has. Why not use the answer Hillary used on 60 minuted, "I take Sen. Clinton at her word that she is not a monster". Most all responses to Hillary Clinton call for ridicule. It's the law.

Monsters everywhere are outraged, and are bringing a class action lawsuit against the Obama campaign.

Hillary is certainly proving the truth of her reputation as a divisive person. Look what her slime-ball shenanigans have already done to the Democratic Party.

Hah. The first rule of every campaign: Stay On Message. Samantha Power went off message and broke discipline. The rules are, if you say something that seriously wounds the candidate, you're gone.

The point isn't what she said about Clinton; it's all about the chess game. It's that she was dumb enough to do it and make her candidate look bad. After all, he's the one claiming to follow "a different kind of politics." If he hadn't, he could just get away with letting her make a public apology. But no, he said he'd fire anyone on his campaign making personal attacks, so she had to go.

These are the rules of the game and Samantha's a big girl. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Ervin:

I totally agree with your post. Obama should reinstate Powers immediately, if she wants to be reinstated. Hillary should not be allowed by the DNC to call the shots for the Obama campaign. Obama is in a campaign for the presidency of the United States, not a social Hillary Clinton organization against monsters. Just because Hillary is a leader of the Republican's corporate Democracy Leadership Council, the DLC, doesn't mean Obama should knuckle under to her, because when he does he minimizes himself.

Samantha Power calls Hillary a "monster" and insults the poor in America and Hillary's the bad guy? Mother Jones is becoming so PATHETIC. This isn't journalism and David Corn should be embarrassed. Not since he launched his witch hunt on ANSWER in 2002 (at The Nation) has he come off like such a kook. Samantha Power was said to be in line to be the next Secretary of State. She went to a foreign country and trashed the other Democratic in the race and poor people in America. Her ass needed to be fired. The fact that Obama didn't have the guts to do so speaks poorly for him. The fact that Samantha Power has enough sense to realize it was huge and step down speaks well for her. It was a serious mistake and she needed to leave. Good for her for realizing it.

Erwin:

That's the Republican led Democratic Leadership Council, the DLC, instead of the Democracy Leadership Council.

Susie:

Bush said he would fire anyone in his administration involved in Plamegate, but he didn't, did he? Neither should Obama if he actually wants to win the presidency, he will have to be a man and not let an egregiously whining woman push him around just because she is a former presidents wife.

All is fair in love and war and winning the nomination for the president of the United States is war, especially when running against the Clinton Republican-Lite. There is NO LINE that Obama should fear to cross. What Obama's aide did was only trivial and should never have been blown out of proportion, but one can count on the whining Hillary monster to blow anything out of proportion, because Hillary is only holding on by a thread from her sucking up to corporate money. The better of the two is Obama, who must not be afraid of the whining Hillary monster.

Speaking of a non-story, remember when the Obama camp accused Clinton's campaign of smearing NObama by circulating his Turban playtime picture? After all the fuss - it made it all the way into the national debate, remember - do you recall seeing any proof? Or an apology or retraction from Obama, for that matter? Negative is as negative does!

MarthaA,

The 20% Professional Class will be able to get safe abortions abroad, just like the good old days. It's the 70%ers (which includes more women than men) who will die or grieve when abortion is illegal.

And it's 70%ers who will needlessly die or be maimed or driven mad fighting the 100 years of war in Iraq and the other wars ("there will be other wars") that McCain has promised us.

Do you honestly think that a Republican is better for the majority of American than a moderate Democrat? If so, why support Obama, who is (like Clinton) a moderate Democrat? Compare the policies of the three major-party contenders. If you like Obama's policies, how could you vote for McCain?

The one I'm surprised is still there is Goolsbee. Without so much of a head's up to the campaign (if they are to be believed) he goes off to discuss what he decided will be Obama's economic policy with officials from a foreign country. If that's was actually the case, what type of private meetings would he have if Obama wins the presidency? Or is it okay for him just to establish these beginnings of a shadow government?

Face it, Obama has had two massive blow outs in a short period of time-Goolsbee (a traitor) and now this. The real test will be to see if he can re-tool his campaign and deal with them. And I sincerely hope that is possible!

No worries, guys. Power will be around when the big O gets elected.

The senior party guys are taking notes on Hill's behavior. Look for more supers to jump to the love boat.

Onward, and to all my fellow Obama supporters, Make some noise with your wallet, and show HRC what Barack's TRUE strength is.

We are the change.

Dave, I agree with you that Obama's aid got fired for calling Hillary "a monster", while thus far Hillary gets away with her smears and innuendos of Obama (much less that of her proxies).
But your "liberal logic" that Bill (or Hillary) were guilty of the Rawanda genocide is just bunk. Do you forget, Americans TRIED a diaster relief campaign in Somalia... only to DEMAND withdrawl of US troops after bodies of Rangers were dragged through the streets (Black Hawk Down)? Quite simply, had Clinton tried to INSERT US TROOPS in to the middle of Africa (at least Somalia was on the coast, with US navy and carrier power at fingertips reach) to stop the Rawanda ethnic cleansing, there would have been a political uprising in Congress and all over America.
Heck, in 1998 after the double US embassy bombings, the Repubs shouted "Wag the Dog!" and all but prevented Clinton from... going after Osama bin Laden, except for one (effortless) cruise-missile salvo!
Heck #2: We Americans, our press-media, and especially our 'conservative' (Repub leaning) foreign policy establishment sat on our hands as Milosovic used Serbian militias to violently take over Yugoslavia, leading to the self-destruction of that nation. Not only did we Americans IGNORE sieges, starvation, and mass-murder ethnic cleansing, but we for a time even ignored DEATH CAMPS the Serbs had set up for captured Bosnians!
Fast forward to present, what are YOU doing for the victims of ethnic cleansing in Darfur/South Sudan, and the Congo? I understand that the later - Congo massacres and back-and-forth ethnic cleansing, is actually the longest, worst-bodycount war ongoing in the world today, though it is ignored by the MSM and American public.
There ARE constraints to what American foreign policy can do, so I hope you don't jump on that cheap "liberal" soap-box of painting one ex-president as bearer of sole responsibility for the Rawanda genocide, especially when there are two similar, on-going examples that we all ignore.

I fear this fight is going to get much uglier before it eventually ends.

from another website:
Hillary Campaign Calls On Obama To Fire Adviser Who Called Hillary A "Monster"
By Greg Sargent - March 7, 2008, 10:25AM
On a conference call just now, Hillary advisers and surrogates called on Obama to fire senior foreign policy adviser Samantha Power for calling Hillary a "monster."

"Personal attacks are not the way to convince voters that you're capable of being president of the United States," New York Rep. Nita Lowey, a key Hillary surrogate, said. "We're calling on Senator Obama to make it very clear that Samantha Power should not be part of this campaign."

"It's really a very important test for Obama," Lowey said, adding that whether or not he fired Power was a "test of character."

Rep. Gregory Meeks, an African American Hillary supporter, reiterated the call for Power's firing, saying that the only appropriate way for Obama to proceed is "Senator Obama saying that this person can no longer be associated with his campaign."

Hillary spokesman Howard Wolfson added a few more twists of the knife, suggesting that Obama's handling of the Power affair would demonstrate the "kind of leadership" Obama was prepared to show. Power has already apologized for the comment.

This is some serious hardball -- it's obviously all about trying to tarnish Obama's high-mindedness. More in a bit.

as Usual. Great comments, Mr. Corn.

It's sad what the Clintons are doing to the Democratic Party. Samantha Powers spoke the truth. The main problem with Obama is that he sounds too much like Bill did in 1992. All about 'responsibility'. And then we got a Presidency that was Republican-lite, Nafta, lower taxes for hedge fund managers (although a needed tax increase for others), don't ask, don't tell increased harrasment of gasy in the military, and the Rwandan genocide that Bill refused to do anything about while trianglating. And then Bill's lies about numerous extramarital affairs. Only the Republicans are worse...but not by much and McCain at least isn't going to tax the lower middle class for mandates for health insurance they can't afford as Hillary proposes.

Hillary needs Obama as V.P. to win...but she better get on it soon or the whole party is going down ...unless in a long shot Obama learns to fight back with authentic policies that will help the lower middle class that is the majority and in pain right now.

Folks...OB should not have fired Power, but instead offered a mea culpa and kept on going. His willingness to accept Power's resignation would trouble me if I supported him. I would infer that he is easily scared.I would wonder if he would fold as easily as President if confronted with an emergency as President as he did over the Power incident.

I admit that I am biased: Barack Obama gives me hope. Hillary will get into office and she'll get NOTHING done. Barack will have coattails. He'll accomplish something. He may even enact some meaningful reforms to health care. But, Hillary will not.

Now, having admitted this, I have to confess that I'm disappointed by Barack's inability to respond to an attack. I mean, Hillary has continuously voted with the neocons. She called Iran's army a terrorist organization. She denounced Lebanon, even as Israel was destroying Beirut largely because some Lebanese civilians kidnapped three Israeli soldiers (Israelis, themselves, acknowledged the over-the-top nature of that conflict).

The Iraq War wasn't an aberration for Hillary. Barack better start to hit back on these issues or we'll just have two neo-conservatives running against each another.

Hilary Clinton clearly endorsed John McCain's foreign policy experience. And then followed this brilliant move with the 3 am phone call ad.

Does the Democratic Party really want to nominate someone who has already written the Republican Party's best campaign ad?

Also their best email rumor: She takes Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim. That is to say, she takes the question seriously. So much for the vote of Americans who happen to be Muslim.

A year ago, this nomination seemed to be hers to lose. Now I guess she wants the election to be hers to lose even if she doesn't get the nomination.

Irving Howe would eat you for lunch, Mr. Corn. Ms. Power, who posed last summer for a glamourous pictorial in Vogue, not only embarrassed Obama by saying that his plan to withdraw from Iraq could become inoperative if he wins the White House, she added an ad hominem attack against his opponent. He rightly fired her and she apologized.

But you, Mr. Corn, imply that her "monster" comment is a criticism of the Clinton administration not giving "a damn about genocides," specifically "the Rwandan nightmare." Mr. Corn, not only have I not heard a single journalist take it that far, the Philip Gourevitch interpretation which she references in some of her writing, is, according to some experts, based on "deeply flawed analogies with Israel and with European Jewry and the Holocaust began to drive Washington's policies in Central Africa. Philip Gourevitch, whose compelling writing on the Rwandan genocide strongly influenced Clinton administration policy toward the region, wrote..." -- Howard W. French, A Continent for the Taking: The Tragedy and Hope of Africa (2004).

French is a senior writer for the NY Times and former Bureau Chief for the New York Times in West and Central Africa from 1994-1998

The following article, published in 2005, asks:

"Is Samantha Power--a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist--telling it straight?"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1096

It seems like Hillary Clinton enjoys destroying the career of other intelligent women. So much for female solidarity.

I don't even know why she so much of the women vote. It's so sad to see a great thinker like Professor Power go.

TYPO...I meant to say:

I don't even know why she gets so much of the women vote.

Mike:

After the past 7 years, you should know that anything the New York Times prints stands a chance of being ONLY PROPAGANDA, and now the Wall Street Journal has fallen into the same classification, as well as most of the television and radio media, that must be checked and double checked and never taken at face value by the 70% MAJORITY Common Population. Just because the RIGHT'S media network say something doesn't make it correct necessarily, whatever it is, there is a high probability that it is propaganda said to favor the RIGHT in whatever the RIGHT is doing with the assistance of the REPUBLICAN-Lite DLCers that are trying to keep the whole country pulled to the RIGHT against the best interest of the 70% MAJORITY Common Population.

If Obama is "Starr"-ing Clinton, then Clinton is "Rove"-ing Obama, and "Bush"-ing the Country:

Withholding tax filings? Bush and Rove playbook (Joshua Bolton, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales, refusing to answer congressional subpoenas?)

Withholding Clinton administration records and Library archives? Ditto.

If Clinton (through Wolfson, because all bullies are always cowards as well) wants to compare Obama to Ken Starr, it’s time to start comparing her and her husband (Bill’s pardon of Marc Rich vs. Bush’s pardon of Scooter Libby?) appropriately, to the people they work like.

Clinton 2 is actually Bush 3.

Somebody wake up Bill Burton over at Obama headquarters, and tell him to do his job!

Clinton and her cronies are the Democratic Bush-Rove-Cheney team.

Out them. Now.

Kelly:

RIGHT Wing propaganda through the media. All the talk shows seldom show the real LEFT, like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. All the supposed lefty's that are shown as representing the LEFT are NOT representatives of the LEFT at all, but are the RIGHT's corporate REPUBLICAN-Lite DLC stoolies planted in the LEFT for disinformation to DIVIDE, CONQUER and CONTROL the 70% MAJORITY Common Population of which the women are 1/2 of that population.

Hillary Clinton has never actually done anything for women of the Common Population and no one should vote for her; but people have been propagandized. Hillary Clinton represents the corporate DLC NEW Professional CLASS and is a DLC leader of their corporate Dream Initiative. Google Search RIGHT WING WEB DLC and do some reading if you want to find out who the Clintons really are.

Obama just won Wyoming. Does the media take notice? Very little. For example, have a gander at CNN.com.
Rather than give Obama a headline for this win--I might have come up with OBAMA TAKES WYOMING--they write: WYOMING DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS RESULTS. Only once you click on the link do you see a headline including his name. I've seen the term Clinton News Network circulating, and I think it needs more attention. Another indiscrepancy I've picked up on is at CNN's Election Center and Political Ticker. Under HOT TOPICS they list only Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Now, perhaps the two are hot because they look hot together, but it seems to me that Barack Obama remains the hottest candidate, therefore hottest political topic in the news. It's time to shed more light on the ridiculous bias of the media for Hillary Clinton.

She should not have resigned. By her actions,Senator Clinton has shown she is a real monster. We must fight back against her negative campagning. Among Senator's Clinton 35 years experience is her handling of the Rwanda Genocide which occured in 1994 while the Clintons were in the White House. Since Senator Clinton includes her experience as first lady in her resume, she should be held accountable for the Rwandan genocide. The phone rang at 3 am warning about the impending genocide in Rwanda. But Senator Clinton hang up the phone on the people of Rwanda. As a result, more than a million people, making this genocide as the important crisis of the 20th century. Senator Clinton made a very bad judgement to hang up the phone on the people of Rwanda.

Clinton has been shameless, but Obama's acquiescence shows a most unappealing cowardly streak and a "politically correct" under-valuation of free expression.

Issues to focus on:
1. Millions are/have lost their homes when greedy bankers raised adjustable rates so high, so fast! People could not go from paying $750 a month to $1,200 a month.
2. Millions lose jobs as businesses close.
3. Bush lied us into a war. End it and being our brave Soldiers home!
4. America has the highest deficit in history, thanks to Bush.
5. Restore Americans reputation so it's safe for us
to travel again.
6. Health care expensive, we have the highest rate of
heart attacks, cancer and
obesity.
7. America is a prison state, w/ over 2 million in prisons.
More than any other nation on earth. Most are there for non-violent crimes, like
selling weed!

Let's deal with real issues and demand that the candidates do the same !!

The interview was NOT "off the record." I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's obvious that the parties need to decide BEFORE an interview whether or not it is off the record, otherwise the term is meaningless. Glenn Greenwald at Salon has an