March 11, 2008
Column: The real problem with Power
Some people are too open for their own good. That was certainly how I felt after interviewing Samantha Power last week.
I had expected her, as a senior adviser on foreign policy to Barack Obama, to be ultra-careful and to weigh every word. Not at all. She was open and amusing, willing to give long discursive answers on controversial subjects, happy to admit to doubts about her abilities to do a government job. I was charmed. But I left the lunch wondering whether she was really cut out for politics.
My doubts were swiftly and brutally borne out. Ms Power was on an exhausting book tour in Britain and giving scores of interviews. In one of them, with The Scotsman newspaper, she made an off-the-record comment suggesting Hillary Clinton, Mr Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, was a “monster”. Within hours she was forced to resign from the Obama campaign.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post your comments below.
Well, it was sad for her but nobody died and Obama’s campaign–after being terribly disheartened–recovered and is still on track. He could eventually tap her for a senior post, an Undersecretary or first-assistant type thing. Now that she’s been ‘blooded’, she’ll be more careful.
I only hope he doesn’t lose anymore foreign policy advisors! Zbig first and now Power. One is careless, two is stupid and if a third one goes it’s a pattern. (Of what I’m not sure.)
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 11th, 2008 at 10:02 am | Report this comment“The Clinton campaign is much more disciplined”.
That statement really needs qualification, Gideon. Both the Post and the Times recently ran long pieces on the Clinton campaign’s venemous internal chaos.
NYT link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/us/politics/10clinton.html?hp
A more accurate phrasing would be: Clinton’s people are much more likely to give you a purely political response.
Posted by: bert | March 11th, 2008 at 10:38 am | Report this commentThe Clintons might be disciplined by–my God!–they are so full of, well, political hot air. Peggy Noonan is one of my favourite commentators. Here she is on the Clintonites:
“As for the Clinton surrogates, they are unappealing when winning. My favorite is named Kiki. When Hillary is losing, Kiki is valiant and persevering on the talk shows, and in a way that appeals to one’s sympathies. “Go, Kiki!” I want to say as she parries with Tucker. But when Hillary is winning they’re all awful, including Kiki. By memory, from Tucker, this week:
Q: Why won’t Hillary release her tax returns?
A: It’s February. Taxes are due April 15, are your taxes done?
Q: No, no, we’re talking past years, returns that have already been prepared.
A: Are your taxes done? Mine aren’t.
Wicked Kiki! This is my great fear, in a second Clinton era: four, eight years of wicked Kiki.”
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 11th, 2008 at 11:02 am | Report this commentThis has nothing to do with politics per se, this has much to do with the dishonest types who are attracted to politics. Also, I don’t think your analysis qualifies everywhere — at least I would like to believe that in the Nordic countries, for example, things are different. And until politics is purged of Orwellian double-speak, democracy will never be complete.
Posted by: RCS | March 11th, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Report this commentI am so glad you wrote this piece! You hit the nail on the head as to exactly why so many highly intelligent creative passionate thinkers cannot cut it in government!
You will see… Obama will win, and she will be back in some capacity. She and her worldview, heart and intellect are one of the best parts of him.
And what about Hillary’s role in all this!…Why could she not be generous to another younger professional woman and say something like this is a very gifted woman who is an asset to government …this incident is just the result of the heat of the campaign …she was just blowing off steam etc…
So much for all this “sisterhood” garbage from her and Steinem and the rest of them! Yet according to her, women are supposed in droves to vote for her. No Thank You!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 11th, 2008 at 2:39 pm | Report this commentGideon, posting this today gives you the unfortunate appearance of “after the fact”, which exposes one of problems about the blog format as used by Big Media. The strength of blogging is its immediacy and ideally you should have posted your concerns about Ms Power’s loose lips upon getting back to the office after having lunched with her. Who knows, your post might have helped save her from the train wreck that was up around the bend. But print, understandably, has primacy at the FT, and we have to wait until today, long after the Power outage, to read about the lunch, her book inscription and your thoughts on the limits of free speech. It’s yesterday’s story.
Posted by: Eamonn Fitzgerald | March 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm | Report this commentI appreciated the insight of this post, as I do nearly all your columns and blog entries, even when I disagree with them.
You stated that the Clinton campaign is disciplined. Yesterday, Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to be nominated for national office (for VP in 84) and a Clinton advisor, said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.” Aside from being untrue, this comment is racist and plays right into a widespread feeling among many that “Blacks have it easy and get all the breaks.” This comment is very sinister, unlike Powers’ comment, which was pretty much a schoolyard epithet.
This, and many other comments made by those in the Clinton camp (including several by her husband) belie your assertion. Moreover, it is incredible that the media have not hopped on this and called for Ferraro’s resignation and repudiation. (Clinton advisor Wolfson, when asked today, said “We disagree.” Hardly strong stuff.
Posted by: Dan Jaffe | March 11th, 2008 at 3:10 pm | Report this commentMary C. “Well, it was sad for her but nobody died and Obama’s campaign–after being terribly disheartened–recovered and is still on track.”
Well, I was somewhat disappointed that he did not defend her and keep her, especially after that somewhat groveling personal apology she made to Clinton. It should have sufficed. All he had to say his unlike Clinton campaign which is filled with attack dogs, she and other advisers (Goolsby and Power) are not political animals, hence their recents mistakes. They are part of this campaign, and the drivers of the positive changes I want to bring to government. It would have been gallant , showed backbone and purpose, and this would have been a day old story at the most, such is the news cycle. Further, clearly, her Iraq remarks which Clinton jumped on were taken out of context and could have easily been explained…she gave an in depth interview with Charlie Rose (available on Youtube) sometime ago whereby she elaborated on exactly what she was obviously trying to convey to the press.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 11th, 2008 at 3:38 pm | Report this commentThe only regimes that eliminated the “gap between promise and practice” were totalitarian. Others may need to attempt to promise only what they can realistically practice.
Posted by: Haim | March 11th, 2008 at 3:51 pm | Report this commentWell, Lisa-H, Obama’s generally a pretty sure-footed politician. His team was disheartened by the affair,no doubt about that, but he’s trying to run a pretty clean campaign and not get distracted or down in the-dirt with the Clintonites–hey! nobody does mud wrestling better–so it was simpler to let her go rather than making a big drama about it. She’s smart and tough (right now a lot tougher than previously) and I’m sure she’ll be back in future.
The episode resonated with a lot of people unnerved by the Clintons as well as making Hill look rather mean and vindictive–one new blog epithet is Hillzilla–maybe he remembered the maxim is not to interrupt your enemy when she is making a mistake.
We shall see. For myself, I wish his nomination was in the bag and the thing was over. One sign summed it up: “Stop the drama! Vote Obama”
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 11th, 2008 at 4:25 pm | Report this commentRubbish..abandoning her did not end this! Look at what Clinton did today!
“In a midday speech here that was heavy on policy specifics, Clinton ended by attacking Obama directly over recent controversies in which top advisers appeared to disown his positions on potential NAFTA negotiations and troop withdrawal from Iraq. Her raucous crowd in Pennsylvania’s state capital — many of whom appeared to be unionized state workers taking an extended lunch hour — were ready with boos when Clinton recounted the scandals surrounding comments attributed to Austan Goolsbee and Samantha Power.
“I got to tell you there’s a big difference between talk and action, but if you’re going to talk you ought to mean what you say so people can count on you,” Clinton”
Obama needs to go toe to toe with her on this. He knows exactly what Samantha was trying to say about Iraq and leaving vulnerable populations unable to fend off atrocities ….and here is an opportunity to say it with his voice and eloquence…and again call attention to how Clinton is practicing deceit, trying to “hoodwink”, “bamboozle” voters again on his position on Iraq just like they tried to on the VP issue.
And some surrogate should come out pointing out she drudged up the Obama advisers today to direct everyone’s attention away from Geraldine F’s disgusting remarks!!!
And Gary Hart needs to show up and say as he has written:”By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party’s nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.”
Again, for people intrigued by Mr. Rachman’s piece on Power, I urge you to view the Charlie Rose interview (on You Tube) with her. Then make your assessment…if you had a choice as to whom you could have crafting US Foreign Policy …who would you really want making US foreign policy ?…The Hillary Clinton’s of this world or Samantha Power…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 11th, 2008 at 6:03 pm | Report this commentHe’s the front runner. Unless he makes a huge mistakes or gets hit by a meteorite he’s got the nomination. Let Clinton get aggressive and anger the superdelegates and the downstream Dems that don’t want to be associated with her.
Right now the best strategy is tit for tat: answer every Clinton charge and parry with one at the same level. Which looks like what he is playing. But he shouldn’t escalate. Let her escalate and then match and parry.
If he keeps his cool he should prevail. His chances are 70% to her 30% (Iowa futures)…have been since the first super tuesday.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm | Report this commentwell we will not agree on this. You are coming at this only as a campaign director…which is fine but holds no interest to me. I would like to see him win very much, in part because I am impressed with Susan Rice and Samantha Power’s resume’s and worldviews. Further, I think Gary Hart’s Clinton character assessment is very accurate and a major reason I could never vote for her.
However, Obama did Samantha Power a disservice by abandoning her. He should now begin to restore her voice and presence in his campaign EVEN though she has no formal affiliation. This restoration should begin by bringing CLARITY to what she was clearly trying to convey on Iraq to a press that was looking for a controversial headline more than a thoughtful exchange on policy. The fact that Clinton used her today to attack him gives him the opportunity to do just that. This is not that hard! GR did it in a couple of sentences in his column today. Anyone who reads her books, like I have, understands what a serious talented person Samantha Power is and Hillary Clinton should not get away by diminishing her or her views, particularly because she is so closely tied to him. This is just adding insult to injury!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 11th, 2008 at 8:14 pm | Report this commentWell, Lisa-Helene, Power did say if you approached politics as a game you won!
So far Obama has done fine. It should come as no surprise that Hillary Clinton is ruthless and, even worse, *appears* ruthless and fake too. All the JFK-Nixonian stuff is correct. It’s just that they’re both Dems.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | March 11th, 2008 at 8:48 pm | Report this commentI am not Dem …or a Republican ..but I am voting for Obama even though I find is behavior in the Power matter less than gallant and very shortsighted and wrongheaded. In any event I can’t worry about Samantha anymore…Adm. Fallon’s resignation is far more pressing…what a loss!…and Cheney taking off to West Bank and Saudi Arabia…this is all a bit jarring…
Thank You again Mr. Rachman for this fine column!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 11th, 2008 at 9:02 pm | Report this commentGreat column!
The general public are increasingly cynical about politics because they believe politicians are dishonest.
But if the politicians (or those closest to them) are honest, they are likely to be (or the politicians fear they will be) destroyed by the public who only want to hear what they want to hear (we’ll bring back jobs to this state, etc).
What does this say about the state of democracy?
We are bound to be disappointed if we take the currently not-totally-truthful messages at face value (or not even at face value), thus becoming more cynical about politics and politicians.
Isn’t it better to hear what the politicians really think, so that we the public can have realistic expectations of what could be achieved, etc?
This is probably naive but still, I’d rather the political leaders be honest so that we can have a discussion grounded in reality.
I know where I can get good quality fiction from - the (science) fiction section in my local bookshop.
Posted by: Aki | March 12th, 2008 at 1:25 am | Report this commentGood post Gideon - this issue gets to the heart of the distorted debates that go on in political circles, and to the lack of trust in politicians. These dynamics ought to be more explicitly considered in a great deal more media analysis of politics.
Lisa-Helene - thanks for the Charlie Rose link. I just watched the episode and became an even bigger fan of SP. She’s so very much better informed and more considered in her analyses of foreign policy issues than virtually all other commentators (and of course politicians) I’ve heard. Her points on a more holistic and joined-up approach to deploying US soft power (referencing the ICC and the UNSC) were brilliantly stated.
And coming back to GR’s point in this post, I appreciate her openness and honesty in discussing complex issues. The Clinton camp’s attack on her entirely reasonable and pragmatic BBC Hardtalk comments on withdrawal from Iraq just perpetuates the political climate where (prospective) political leaders feel compelled to trade in politically acceptable, dumbed down positions that won’t work in practice and are dishonest to the electorate.
Posted by: DKM | March 12th, 2008 at 9:44 am | Report this commentHere is another resignation following a newspaper / Magazine interview. This time that of Admiral William Fallon:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/63d510aa-efa2-11dc-8a17-0000779fd2ac.html
In terms of actual position held, he was a far more significant character than Samantha Power.
That he could be disposed of so easily, is indicative of the continuing power of the warmongers within the lame duck Bush presidency and a harbinger of a last desperate dash for another war in the Middle East by the pro-Israeli lobby that control the Bush White House.
Posted by: Pacifist | March 12th, 2008 at 10:08 am | Report this commentYes Fallon’s resignation is important. It is far more significant than Samantha and Spitzer. It is getting NO analysis due to Spitzer drama and now his resignation.
It’s unclear if Fallon’s resignation is due to bumping heads too many times with Bush or because there is a planned strike/operation being planned that he strongly objects to and wants no association with…the latter should be of great concern. Perhaps his resignation is a signal for congress to “listen up”! With the American public focused mainly on economy:jobs and gas prices, the press focused on scandals and presidential race, a door has opened for this Administration to continue their bull in a china shop Middle East military and foreign policy with little to no scrutiny. Not Good.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm | Report this commentDear Ms. lawson,
There are quite a few articles, though they may not get the popular attention. I thought these are a couple of the better ones:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2008/03/11/6-signs-the-us-may-be-headed-for-war-in-iran.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12503
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 12th, 2008 at 4:30 pm | Report this commentParaphrasing your long-passed Dear Leader…
“You’re inexperienced, Mr. Obama.”
“And you’re a grasping megalomaniac, Mrs. Clinton. But I shall be more experienced in the morning.”
—
Posted by: William Mitchell | March 12th, 2008 at 11:34 pm | Report this commentThank You P! That is very nice of you.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 13th, 2008 at 12:36 am | Report this commentI am doing my own analysis! Right now I am researching the “US Navy’s Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) Nassau (NASSG)” its activity may OR may not relate to Fallon’s resignation! …Mr. Rachman is right up to speed and has already offered up a new post on Fallon! See you Up there!
Going ‘off-the-record’ is a question of judgement for the source; printing off-the-record comments a question of morality for journalists. Power’s indiscretion reveals she was never cut out for politics, much less for a job as a presidential candidate’s mouthpiece. Presidential-aspirants need their closest aides to stay ‘on message’ for the entirety of a campaign, and not qualify their public positions in private. More seriously, Power’s loose lips raise questions about Barack Obama’s judgement: why had he employed someone with no media savvy?
http://www.oxan.com/worldnextweek/2008-03-13/Off-recordoff-limits.aspx
Posted by: Chris Noon | March 14th, 2008 at 11:19 am | Report this commentnonsense. I can’t stand the “typical campaign response” from campaign types on Power. When campaign consultants see everything thru a campaign lens “Good God, she went off message” then they risk seeing how everyday people (us voters!) digest these events…the “two letters to the editor” published yesterday at FT on Mr. Rachman’s column are far more typical of most people’s response to Power’s mistake…which by the way I am sure she would have learned from and not repeated. Her mistake was not in not having “media savvy”…it was wearing 2 hats at one time on this book tour (1) the author (2) the Obama FP adviser…she should have found a way to separate the two in responses
Obama and his campaign over reacted due to Texas/Ohio outcomes and the Goolsby affair …and insisting she go and/or accepting her resignation has set off a weird even ugly dynamic into the entire campaign cycle with everyone pointing fingers at everyone else around both candidates everytime someone says something controversial and/or offensive, hence today the news is full of news and commentary on Geraldine F and Obama’s “Pastor Problems”…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | March 14th, 2008 at 4:59 pm | Report this comment