BBC BLOGS - Justin Webb's America
« Previous | Main | Next »

The 'Monster' issue

Justin Webb | 19:50 UK time, Friday, 7 March 2008

On the Hillary/Monster issue I would only note that in English law libels are at their most egregious - and thus most serious and costly - when they are true but not provable to the high standards necessary for a complete defence.

Plainly the poster of this amusing re-working of the infamous Clinton 3am ad is in the Sam Power camp... as is this one.

paul_ap203b.jpgMeanwhile, I see Ron Paul is quitting the field - or at least re-tooling or re-whatever it is you do when you lose.

I met him and found him a little prickly but dead straight - and many Americans thought he was dead right too. I would be interested in hearing where his backers are going to place their votes in November...

Comments   Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 08:58 PM on 07 Mar 2008,
  • Jonathan Chatwin wrote:

It strikes me that in ramping up her rhetoric, and in particular questioning Obama's qualifications to become commander-in-chief, Hilary Clinton runs the risk of handing the Republicans pre-prepared anti-Obama slogans, should he win the nomination (as still, given the maths, seems likely) and go on to contest McCain in November. HRC needs to be careful, not only to avoid handicapping the Democrats in the race for the White House if the nominee happens not to be her, but also if ultimately Clinton and Obama are offered on a jojnt ticket. Both need to remember that they are not fighting the presidential election yet, and that whatever arguments they use against each other now may come back to haunt them come the Autumn.

  • 2.
  • At 09:32 PM on 07 Mar 2008,
  • Justin wrote:

I thought he was going to get as many delegates as he could to publcise his ideas at the Republican National Convention? How's he going to do that if he drops out? What a doughnut.

  • 3.
  • At 10:00 PM on 07 Mar 2008,
  • Alex van den Bergh wrote:

What monster have we here?
A great Deed at this hour of day?
A great just Deed — and not for pay?
Absurd, —or insincere.

- Elizabeth Browning, A Tale of Villafrance

I think quite a lot of people - and not just the Clinton bashers - will recognise something in what Power said. I also think quite a lot of them may take some note of it - it was, after all, an obviously heartfelt remark not meant for public consumption, made by someone in the know. Finally, it was a remark made by a woman. In the end, perhaps, there is some truth in the adage: it takes one to know one.

What Clinton have we here? Who knows?

  • 4.
  • At 10:19 PM on 07 Mar 2008,
  • Linda Yanney wrote:

In responding to Ms Power's remark, a Clinton surrogate cited the recent controversy about NAFTA. Too bad BBC's O.B. Jones didn't call Clinton's aid for propagating this story, which has since been disproven (and may at root have been Clinton skulduggery).

Linda Yanney
Iowa City, Iowa, USA

  • 5.
  • At 12:10 AM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • EZrider wrote:

Who's Ron Paul? Is that an internet site?

There is NO 3 a.m. phone call that scares me. When it happens, the telephone is not red. It's next to my bed.

As a father I know that call comes with "..dad,..I'm in jail" followed by"...can...can you get me out?"
The difference is it cost $300.00 to reclaim the car from impound (cash)and the 'free' lawyer is in the mail.

Mr Webb, I love your blog, but the arrogance supplied by those who think they matter amazes me. HillBillary or Obothermeagain is second tier to the REAL situation of the people that they supposedly fight for. It is money for needs as they surface and food for more than thought.

From real food or make believe healthcare, no problem is solved by wishing some beauracrat in Washington cared.

Let us put the White House in charge of what we intended it for. NATIONAL, not Irag, security, and the ECONOMY (its the economy stupid). That all.

The State is responsible to the resisdents of said state, whether it's abortion, gay marriage or the lawyer in the mail. NOT THE FED.

Aw, if they'd let Texas run the country us rednecks would have trained hands with guns (and ammo) in every law abiding citizens pocket.

The EZrider

  • 6.
  • At 12:17 AM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Jonathan Chatwin wrote:

It strikes me that in ramping up her rhetoric, and in particular questioning Obama's qualifications to become commander-in-chief, Hilary Clinton runs the risk of handing the Republicans pre-prepared anti-Obama slogans, should he win the nomination (as still, given the maths, seems likely) and go on to contest McCain in November. HRC needs to be careful, not only to avoid handicapping the Democrats in the race for the White House if the nominee happens not to be her, but also if ultimately Clinton and Obama are offered on a jojnt ticket. Both need to remember that they are not fighting the presidential election yet, and that whatever arguments they use against each other now may come back to haunt them come the Autumn.

  • 7.
  • At 12:40 AM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • John Kecsmar wrote:

Not very media savvy for a Professor, whom is surrounded by the media owing to her support for Obama...!

  • 8.
  • At 12:59 AM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Michael wrote:

What's the saying, "Sticks and stones...". Hilary needs to get thicker skin if she feels upset being called silly names.

  • 9.
  • At 01:21 AM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • LibertynJustice wrote:

Here's the real scoop on what Powers said that caused her removal from Camp Obama:
For all the chatter about Obama adviser Samantha Power's calling Clinton a "monster," another set of remarks made on her book tour in the United Kingdom may be equally threatening to the Obama campaign: Comments in a BBC interview express a lack of confidence that Obama will be able to carry through his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months.

"He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator," she said at one point in the interview.

Power downplayed Obama's commitment to quick withdrawal from Iraq on Hard Talk, a program that often exceeds any of the U.S. talk shows in the rigor of its grillings. She was challenged on Obama's Iraq plan, as it appears on his website, which "says" that Obama "will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

"What he’s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you – at best case scenario – will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That’s what they’re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president," Power says.

The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:"So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn't a commitment isn't it?"

"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator.

  • 10.
  • At 01:35 AM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Kevin Burns wrote:

Don't shoot the messenger.

  • 11.
  • At 01:43 AM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • tony wrote:

He never said he is technically dropping out....I still think he would like to be heard at the convention.

  • 12.
  • At 04:27 AM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Garrett Wollman wrote:

I would note that in U.S. law, unlike the law of England-and-Wales, it is nigh-impossible for a public figure such as a nationally-recognized politician to win a libel judgment, due to the requirement of proving "actual malice". See New York Times v. Sullivan.

  • 13.
  • At 08:38 AM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Scott Lawler wrote:

This is the funniest "3am" parody I've seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbek46GB-zU

  • 14.
  • At 08:38 AM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • ARBEN Camaj wrote:

The more Mrs. Clinton gets closer to her big nomination the more desperate Obamanatic followers become. It reminds me of the British comedy "The Life of Brian" Can you imagine what would have happened if Obama was really leading the country? This country doesn't need whining preachers, but it does need leaders with knowledge, experience and devotion. The Obamanatics forget that most of these advisers that are being so disrespectful towards Mrs. Clinton were unknown in the middle of nowhere, until Bill Clinton gave them the chance to be somebody during his reign of eight years. During those years the economy flourished and politically we were very much respected abroad. Everyone knows that Hillary was a very active part of Bill Clinton’s policies.
Do not forget, no other democrat nominee in thirty plus years, was able to defeat the republicans with the left wing rhetoric. I agree it is all about judgments. Obama is backed by a bunch of left wingers like Kerry etc that are trying to kidnap the leadership of the Democratic Party, despite the fact that they were directly responsible for the badly lost elections. On the other side, Hillary is backed by one of the most successful democrats in the history of the democrats, Bill Clinton. Trying to deform and distort the facts of that success is so shameful of these people that associate themselves with the Democratic Party. She is a blessing for our country. She represents a broad support base that includes women, Latinos, Asians, independents, even republicans, top brass from army & other services, recognized and highly respected around the world, etc.
So, do we really want to take a chance with Obama?!

  • 15.
  • At 10:52 AM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • elle wrote:

ARBEN Camaj:

"Kidnap the leadership of the Democratic Party"?
Last time I checked Howard Dean was head of the DNC. I worked on the Kerry campaign and I can tell you that John Kerry was certainly "not responsible" (directly or otherwise !) for the loss of the last election. His campaign was not just up against the Republicans and their "Swift Boat" tactics of lies, lies and more lies..... he also had to contend with those inside the Party whom you describe as "one of the most successful democrats" and his cronies. IN SPITE of this... if it had not been for the manipulation of voting machines supplied by one of George Bush's major contributors and the corruption of the Republican officials (several of whom are now languishing in jail for the role they played in tampering with the election !) in OHIO....the State which ultimately decided who "won" in 2004 ..... then John Kerry would have been the President as all exit polls indicated halfway through that fateful day. And this country & the world would have been spared four more years of madness. The "successful democrats" you are so proud of were not in the least concerned about anything except ensuring that Kerry did not win because that would have ruined THEIR chance to run this time. They assumed the nomination would be a formality. Luckily for those of us who truly DO want a change ... Obama has appeared and is brave enough to not only challenge but also, to win. No doubt he will suffer more than just "kitchen sink" tactics. After all he is facing people who successfully outlasted one scandal after another and dragged the Party into such disrepute that even a Bush/Cheney team seemed preferable to voters than any more Democrats in 2000. Gore lost BECAUSE of the absolutely disgraceful Clinton administration. NO OTHER REASON. What short memories people have. Whitewater, Vince Foster, Flowers, Jones, Wiley, Lewinsky, etc.etc.etc.
"Personal" behaviour IS a factor if you are sitting in the Oval Office. The Republicans over-reacted but that doesn't make the behavious any less reprehensible. John Kerry was a cultured and decent man who simply refused to play the politics of the gutter it has become necessary to engage in if the White House is the goal. Let's hope Obama is strong enough to stand up to these people because it will surely make him strong enough to win in November. As for Samantha Power. I am really sorry that a person of such integrity has been forced simply for expressing (unwisely but honestly) a feeling many people share. As for the journalist who revealed the comment ...to use Hillary Clinton's words "Shame on you"

  • 16.
  • At 11:16 AM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • jordan wrote:

its interesting that the media attention is now on these comments rather than the ones she made on hard talk the night before about his iraq policy. She said that he would not be tied to any campaign promise once he actually was the commander in chief and had access to better advisors and as a candidate was just making up the best case scenario. Surely this should warrant more coverage than the same old political tactics of namecalling when you don't have a decent argument of your own?

  • 17.
  • At 12:22 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Bedd Gelert wrote:

Shame on you Justin for suggesting that Ron Paul's supporters will vote for someone else in November !

As Yvonne Ellimann memorably sang in 'Saturday Night Fever', If I can't have you, I don't want nobody [baby]...

As for the Scotsman, my one question would be 'What part of 'off the record' are you having difficulty in understanding ?'

  • 18.
  • At 12:55 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Andrea wrote:

Twice now, someone on Obama's team has indicated that his position is negotiable and might change after his campaign ends. Not surprisingly, he does this when the future is not quite a blank, white page onto which he can project utopia. Rather, it's when there's a real-life thorny issue that must be addressed.

  • 19.
  • At 02:34 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Mary Clarke wrote:

Strange story re: Mrs. Powers. How does such an intelligent woman seemingly "lose track" in her interview with The Scotsman? I know she is of Irish extraction, and how easily they express their emotions (I am one of them!), but something rings a little odd in her statement to a newspaper. She must have known they would report her comments at the earliest moment. Dare I suspect that someone has infiltrated the Obama camp - from the lady's rival think-tank - with devastating effect?

We Paulians will probably not vote in November.

Read Lew Rockwell, and get some sense.

  • 21.
  • At 02:34 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Henry Engler wrote:

The "monster" comment may actually have the somewhat surprising and perverse effect of bolstering the Obama campaign. First, there are any number of Americans who view Mrs. Clinton in a similar vein. Having such a high-profile academic and author express her true feelings may actually prompt those voters on the fence politically within the Democratic Party to wonder whether Samathan Powers has actually voiced what they themselves hate to admit or at least share a similar suspicion.

  • 22.
  • At 02:40 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • michael wrote:

As far as the 'Monster' comments go well sorry but isn't that what everyone who isn't a Clinton supporter has been thinking for weeks? She has become a monster who will tear the Democratic party to pieces to get the nomination.
Oh and with regard to post #11 hate to have to inject facts into your fine rhetoric but Hillary may be 'getting closer to her big nomination' she's still however in SECOND place as far as states and delegates won goes...

  • 23.
  • At 02:47 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Cindy wrote:

Congressman Paul is NOT dropping out of the race. He will continue to have my support and that of many others until the end. I know how to write-in at the polls. A vote for any other candidate would be sheer lunacy and a slap in the face to America.

  • 24.
  • At 02:58 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Henry Engler wrote:

The "monster" comment might actually have the surprising and perverse effect of bolstering the Obama campaign. The view expressed by Samantha Powers is clearly one that is shared by any number of voters in America, and might also be festering under the skin of those Democrats who are still on the fence.

With such a high-profile author and academic expressing her frustration in such a public manner, one must consider that her sentiments are true and not politically calculated. In a campaign where truth is a rare commodity, the slip-of-the-tongue might actually help Mr. Obama.

  • 25.
  • At 03:11 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Pete wrote:

The last question posed by poster #11 illustrates the danger of what Clinton has done with the so-called "red phone ad." Charles Krauthammer wrote about this in a column yesterday, pointing out that the ad was not so much about experience as it was about trust. After all, Hillary isn't particularly experienced with national crises. She may have been deeply involved in the minutia of public policy (i.e. a wonk), but she didn't have a security clearance, didn't have an office in the West Wing, and didn't sit in on security council meetings.

No, the questions Hillary was asking in the ad were: Do we really KNOW who Obama is? Can we actually trust him with our children (who are safely asleep in the ad)? And, as #11 asks, Do we really want to take a chance with Obama?

This is dangerous because while Americans may have no doubt about who exactly is Hillary Clinton, they also know exactly who is John McCain. And, if Obama winds up with the nomination, Hillary has raised the kind of doubt that McCain will be able to exploit in November.

As the political battle intensifies, both candidates should take great care not to mortally wound their opponent, lest they wind up handing victory to the Republicans in November.

  • 26.
  • At 03:46 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • OldSouth wrote:

So many of us see Hillary and think 'Eva Peron'--the strains of 'Don't Cry For Me, Argentina' wafting in the background.

The 'monster' comment was perhaps unfortunate, but it was a visceral reaction by a highly educated liberal academic woman, who undoubtedly has been in the room with Mrs. Clinton on a number of occasions.

We might be well-served to pay attention to this comment. It is one of the few unguarded, honest observations made in this year of sophisticated image control.

  • 27.
  • At 03:47 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • OldSouth wrote:

So many of us see Hillary and think 'Eva Peron'--the strains of 'Don't Cry For Me, Argentina' wafting in the background.

The 'monster' comment was perhaps unfortunate, but it was a visceral reaction by a highly educated liberal academic woman, who undoubtedly has been in the room with Mrs. Clinton on a number of occasions.

We might be well-served to pay attention to this comment. It is one of the few unguarded, honest observations made in this year of sophisticated image control.

After a year of amazing record breaking support Ron Paul will always be remembered as the leader of a revolution that could have been, and one that may still rise from the ashes.

Anyone that dismisses him for being kooky, or flaky, or like any other baked good, really misses the mark when it comes to the importance of his campaign.

At one time in America we held a high value on state and individual rights. We have moved far from that. We also used to shun foreign entanglements, but we now meddle forcefully in the markets and governments of countries all over the world.

Ron Paul suggested with a surprisingly controversial campaign that we should return to the simpler America. One where we may not have all the same services from the central government, but we would also not be bound to a central planning nightmare.

Each state could practice education, healthcare, and the like on their own, and or Oregon figured out how to do math in a way that was ten times better than any other state then other states could mimic that process and learn from the experiment. Currently our education in America is a static nightmare of administrative and regulatory burdens. Try changing anything in the current system and you may take ten years to be heard. Our system here is Not dynamic and flexible and it is NOT because of 'no child left behind'. It is because George Bush has an easier time influencing the public schools than the parents who are bound to pay for and submit their children to its clutches.

Ron Paul suggests protection of our unalienable rights (the ones that all humans have) instead of the here today gone tomorrow attitude that most of our current elected officials have.

He suggests sound money and economic policies. balanced budgets.

He was the last boyscout in D.C. Everyone else seems to have graduated to something darker, something that involves man ruling over man. Man deciding what other men can do.

The media gave him about 2% coverage and he still was able to get second place and respectable third places all across the nation. Just on internet buzz and grassroots support alone.

He raised more money in day than anyone had ever done before.

He spoke bold faced truth in the debates.


Remarkable?

Apparently not.


How unremarkable is the media that let him stand there alone. Pointing only at his wallet.

Scott~

P.S. I have said before and will repeat, the BBC'c lack of real coverage of his campaign is regrettable.

  • 29.
  • At 04:05 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • DL Gibson wrote:

I still fail to understand Hillary's assertions that she's the more experienced candidate. She's been a senator for only four years longer than Obama, and her previous experience in government has been limited to simply being married to the president, where she played an active role in the early days of the administration, only to have her health care reform plans go down in smoke.

Prior to being First Lady of the US, she was First Lady of Arkansas, where she served on the board of the decidedly non-liberal Wal-Mart corporation. It should be noted that her work for Wal-Mart does not appear on her official biography.

So, the question becomes: Does mere proximity to government, in an unelected capacity, equate to experience?

If so, could I marry a surgeon, and learn to do surgery myself, just by watching closely?

  • 30.
  • At 04:09 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Ryan wrote:

Your blog is ridiculously Obama-biased. Rather than actually addressing candidate name-calling and the lowering of standards in the nomination process (something being done by both Clinton and Obama), you instead direct readers to a youtube.com parody--and a bad one of those to choose from. How about some real commentary? Perhaps address Clinton's supposed fear-mongering? Obama's lack of consistency and specificity? I've started reading your blog specifically to see how you support Obama on a particular day. Interesting? Perhaps. But I guess I expect more insight from the BBC's North American editor. I mean, I've redirected lots of people to youtube.com videos and I'm not even on the BBC payroll.

  • 31.
  • At 04:28 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • markrobbo1979 wrote:

found some intereseting info on how much money candidates really have - for all talk of obama raising more money he's also spending more too look like hilary has more left in the tank that obama does

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/dems.html

  • 32.
  • At 05:05 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Med Student NYC wrote:

A comment on a several false points in #11's post:

"This country doesn't need whining preachers": you must be referring to Hillary, only she complains about being asked quetions first, or comes to tears about her own desires (read: to have the presidency she obviously feels she deserves).

"but it does need leaders with knowledge, experience and devotion".
Knowledge from less years in the senate than Obama? Experience? would that include 'watching' her husband as president and not being included in ANY policy making under his admin? Devotion? Its clear she is devoted to herself, read the details regarding setting up Obama in the lies about who spoke to the Canadian gov about comments about NAFTA, or how her team initially agreed in writing that it was ok that MI and FL delegate/superdelegate were not weighed in because they knowingly violated the rules and scheduled their elections early... now she conveniently changes her tune, claims 'what about the 1.7 M people who voted' (HRC, what about the other 2.3M registered Democrats in FL who were told not to?), or her claim that she won in both states (when in MI Obama was not even listed). Lastly she states if a re-vote is conducted caucuses are not acceptable (Obama's strong suit).... Obama's stance is- I will do what the DNC decides. Who's being compliant with the system?


"During those years the economy flourished and politically we were very much respected abroad" yes,that was Bills work, not hers. Who are we voting for, anyway? If we are voting for him, we got the wrong person were focused on. Hes changed as you can see how dirty his politics have become.

"Everyone knows that Hillary was a very active part of Bill Clinton’s policies." read front page article in the NYTimes by white house staff (2 months back) who said her claims were not true. She did not have the clearance to do so, nor was she involved in any high level decision making.

Hows about HRC releases toes Tax statements, has she got something to hide? Hows about Billary release her record from the White House, will they show something that wont complement the image she portrays? It looks like the transparency Americans are looking for is not coming from her...

Although it would be great to have a woman in the white house, HRC is not it. She is more of the same old corrupt politics, sleeping in bed with corporations. Come on people, lets all wake up in the US! Theres a lot of money to be made and power to be had in the Presidency, I think thats all Billary wants. I cannot blame them, The Bushs just did it.

  • 33.
  • At 06:12 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Glen Bentley wrote:

Since Ron Paul has lost I think it could b a choice of the lesser of two evils. I am familiar with both Clinton and McCain and have little intention of voting for either of them. My opinion is still undecided on Obama. RP stood for among other things a bit of economic commonsense and therefore so did my vote. I wonder if Ralph Nader then might be an option? November is still a long time away.

  • 34.
  • At 06:30 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Ron wrote:

Has anyone criticized the Scotsman for publishing Powers' "off-the-record" comments, or asked why or how they became "on-the-record"?

  • 35.
  • At 07:22 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Michele wrote:

I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I'll likely vote for McCain in November. The Democrats have had the majority in legislative branch since January 2007, and has anything gotten better? It's a stalemate between them and Bush. Hillary is just as divisive a figure as Bush. It'll be the same scenario if Hillary takes the Presidency. The conservatives are already talking about doing in 2010 what they did in 1994.

  • 36.
  • At 07:34 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • binkis1 wrote:

Interesting that her comments hit so close to home...I have campaigned/raised $$ for her husband and met them both on more than one occasion. If one were to take the Websters defination of 'Monster' any of the first 4 would apply to hclinton without question.
What gives me pause is this comment could bring to the front the victim card which she has played repeatedly and to effect with the white, female older group.

It is true that there is nothing that the clintons would not do to get the nomination and many people are still afraid of the effects -should they go against her.

Many Ron Paul supporters will join the Obama campaign if he wins the nomination. They have in common a strong dislike for the current strategy in Iraq and an equally strong desire for a substantive change in course for the nation. Same is true for these votes of confidence in the Obama candidacy:
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/02/endorsements-of-barack-obama.html

  • 38.
  • At 08:34 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • Mark wrote:

Perhaps Obama needs a few people to say things he cannot, even if they have to resign for it.

On the issue of him dropping out post Pennsylvania, I really cannot see it. I think that idea is more Clinton campaign wishful thinking. Of all the states left, Pennsylvania is the only one she will possibly win, unless Florida is allowed a rerun. And on that latter issue, I think Obama ought to offer dollar for dollar matched financing with cash up front: he can afford it far more than Clinton can, and it would crucially drain her advertising budget before the Pennsylvania primary. If she refused, he could accuse of saying one thing and practicing another.

  • 39.
  • At 09:46 PM on 08 Mar 2008,
  • JOSE wrote:

Please Mr. Arbeen Camaj (#11) What is Ms. Clinton's experience? so far as know ( and I voted for her husband twice)it was her husband the one that was running the country. I think is about time we start hearing about the extend of her "experience" as a senator ( as an elected public official) not as a first lady because otherwise we wil have to start talking among other things her ill planned health care reform bill which incidentally is all that the die hard republicans bring up all the time. She is the one that needs to come clean and instead of belittle Mr.obamas rhetoric she can talk about her legislative accomplishments during her last six years in the senate.

  • 40.
  • At 12:44 AM on 09 Mar 2008,
  • jon wrote:

Re: Arbeen Camajs' comment #12

Hillary Clinton is the "same old same old". Atired politician that makes me wince when she says she has the experience to do "this or that".What?: her experience with the "old boys" network, her "experience" with Bill Clinton? She's the same as all the old boys that have come before her, other than her gender.

Americans and American politics need Obama to turn this old rotting ship around, before they sink. Bush junior has done a great job of keeping the ship going down, HRC will, at best, maintain the staus quo. Obama has the potential to actually raise the sinking ship and chart a new course for America. You need to trust him, a vote for HRC is a wasted vote for the "same old" crap that has gotten America where it is today.

  • 41.
  • At 02:12 AM on 09 Mar 2008,
  • Henry Lukenge wrote:

Now that she is off the the Campaign. She should know well enough not to use information she obtained as staffer to promote herslef. I believe that is abuse of the duty of trust placed in her by the Obama Campaign. It would be like an accoountant discussing some one's tax planning advise with the tax man.

She should not even comment on the the campaigin until the primaries end

  • 42.
  • At 05:02 AM on 09 Mar 2008,
  • james of Indiana wrote:

To commenter #1: I am convinced that Hilliary Clinton cares nothing about the damage her campaign actions have done and will do to the Democratic Party. She has no problem disparaging Obama and possibly providing campaign ammo for McCain because If she can't win, the to hell with the Democratic party and anyone else.

However, John Edwards and the Super delegates can quickly defang her. Edwards can throw his support and delegates to Obama. The Super delegates can do the same. The sooner they act the better for the party.

  • 43.
  • At 05:04 AM on 09 Mar 2008,
  • Evan wrote:

In regard to experience Obama has more as an elected official. Her 8 years sleeping in one half of the presedential bed could be counted i suppose if she was prompting him. Maybe his best decisions weren't made at night. Given his roving maybe he was MIA and she answered the phone...

Yes, Bill did do good work though as mentioned above health care reform was totally botched. That failure might have provided the knowledge for Hillary to suceedMaybe Hillary this time. The best quote during Monicagate was "I've done better with Clinton with his pants down than i ever did with Reagan with his pants up..." I like Bill, america's first "Black" president (so said Toni Morrison in New Yorker at the time..) but since he couldn't keep his pants up and know when to say yes to the press on that score we had millions of waste on investigation and total distraction from policy making moving forward...

I'm struck by the evident mocking and cynical tone of those who qualify Obama as utopitarian, lacking substance, etc...i think he just knows that you need to keep your cards close to your chest as long as you can and that politics is the art of compromise. Hillary may have plans up the wazoo but if she becomes president and keeps the same partisan pugillist approach i doubt it anything will get done. You have to divide not galvanize to conquer or at least legislate...The same cynics probably don't understand the great hold that Reagan has on the Republican psyche and many americans as god-like. In fact Obama is working in many ways from the same playbook to lure these same americans as Bill did so well...

Obama Clinton, Clinton Obama.....
All I have heard since this race started. Yet Ron Paul and a bunch of others were in there from the start, almost completely unrepresented in the media.
I searched the BBC in vain for any attempt to provide a nonbiased forum for the various candidates, and ultimately I feel let down by the BBC and it's coverage of this election.
I think Ron Paul is about the only person with the decency and integrity to run America, and if the media had given him a fair chance he might have.

  • 45.
  • At 07:22 AM on 09 Mar 2008,
  • Celia wrote:

Like Jose (#20) I would like some analysis done of Mrs. Clinton's so-called experience. Last time I checked she was never serving as President. She was not even given any security clearance for access to sensitive documents. What treaties has she negotiated? I thought it was the people of Northern Ireland who sorted out their own peace deal. How can she now claim to have helped with that? Chelsea accompanied her on many of her overseas trips where she claimed to be representing America. I suppose Chelsea can now claim to have foreign policy experience too.

I would love for the media to stop paying attention to the non-issues like 'who called who a name', and focus on holding the candidates - all of them - accountable for the statements they make on the issues.

  • 46.
  • At 04:00 PM on 09 Mar 2008,
  • Xie_Ming wrote:

It will not do to claim that something is "off the record" AFTER you have said it!

Old South (above)has it about right, I believe.

There was a popular French song about the misfortunes of an individual who, according to the refrain, "only said the truth".

Ms. Power does not seek a top position in Washington, but certainly could well contribute as an advisor.

Why does it take three tries and four days for a post to get on here? I was #2 when I hit post (and I do not have a slow computer)! Here is the response again- seems it did not get posted. . . again.

After a year of amazing record breaking support Ron Paul will always be remembered as the leader of a revolution that could have been, and one that may still rise from the ashes.

Anyone that dismisses him for being kooky, or flaky, or like any other baked good, really misses the mark when it comes to the importance of his campaign.

At one time in America we held a high value on state and individual rights. We have moved far from that. We also used to shun foreign entanglements, but we now meddle forcefully in the markets and governments of countries all over the world.

Ron Paul suggested with a surprisingly controversial campaign that we should return to the simpler America. One where we may not have all the same services from the central government, but we would also not be bound to a central planning nightmare.

Each state could practice education, healthcare, and the like on their own, and or Oregon figured out how to do math in a way that was ten times better than any other state then other states could mimic that process and learn from the experiment. Currently our education in America is a static nightmare of administrative and regulatory burdens. Try changing anything in the current system and you may take ten years to be heard. Our system here is Not dynamic and flexible and it is NOT because of 'no child left behind'. It is because George Bush has an easier time influencing the public schools than the parents who are bound to pay for and submit their children to its clutches.

Ron Paul suggests protection of our unalienable rights (the ones that all humans have) instead of the here today gone tomorrow attitude that most of our current elected officials have.

He suggests sound money and economic policies. balanced budgets.

He was the last boyscout in D.C. Everyone else seems to have graduated to something darker, something that involves man ruling over man. Man deciding what other men can do.

The media gave him about 2% coverage and he still was able to get second place and respectable third places all across the nation. Just on internet buzz and grassroots support alone.

He raised more money in day than anyone had ever done before.

He spoke bold faced truth in the debates.


Remarkable?

Apparently not.


How unremarkable is the media that let him stand there alone. Pointing only at his wallet.

Scott~

  • 48.
  • At 10:46 PM on 09 Mar 2008,
  • Kadayi wrote:

Ron Paul hasn't withdrawn. You need to perhaps get your news from his people, not from private newspapers.

  • 49.
  • At 10:46 PM on 09 Mar 2008,
  • John wrote:

Some clarifications. I would like to shed some light on certain accusations directed at Obama. I have lived in Canada for over 10 years. I know for certain that the Canadian government, who are conservative and are staunch pro-Republicans, secretly want Obama out of the race because it is certain that Hilary Clinton would not be able to beat the Republican nominee come the day of the general election for the simple reason that the disgruntled Obama supporters would stay home on that day. Just listen to the Urban Radio in the U.S and you will see my point. Believe me, Canadians are shaking in their boots at the prospect of America’s re-negotiation of the NAFTA agreement or even pulling out of the agreement. No more piggybacking the American economy. Also, There are two versions of the story as to who actually had told the Canadian diplomat in the Canadian embassy in the U.S that Canada need not worry and that this was all political posturing. the most plausible version is that It was the Clinton camp that approached the Canadian embassy about this issue. The point that I am trying to make is that please do not let the media or a foreign government sway your decision and prevent you doing what is good for you. the politics in Canada are farcical and the politicians are a bunch of clowns. Just have a listen to the live broadcasts of the Parliamentary debates in Canada and you will see what I am saying. It is scandal after scandal. Vote for Obama and make America great and prosperous again All the best.

  • 50.
  • At 07:18 AM on 10 Mar 2008,
  • Ralph wrote:

Justin,

Outstanding blog.... Best one I've seen on American politics.

It's interesting that you found Ron Paul prickly, since he was provoked many times during the debates and kept his cool. Or perhaps you succeeded where his Republican opponents failed?

I was a Ron Paul supporter but I am going over to Barack Obama. The war is the number-one issue for me, by far. Two of the remaining three candidates voted for it; the third (Obama) might or might not have, if given the chance. I'd rather take that chance than have a certainty of more aggressive and counterproductive foreign policy.

  • 51.
  • At 08:34 AM on 10 Mar 2008,
  • pom collins wrote:

That so much currency has been given to Ms. Power's off-hand comment is evidence of the bankruptcy of the political discourse. Where, in this campaign, for example, is there any realistic discussion about the big issues which drive the rest: global warming, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the globalization of the economy. The crumbs that the voting public is left with amount to the non-issues that are left over after all substance has been removed from the debate. This system, ostensibly open, is indeed quite the opposite. In order too understand its workings, perhaps the best we can do is scratch for such psychological insights as submitted by M. Oldsouth (#19).

  • 52.
  • At 09:46 AM on 10 Mar 2008,
  • Viking wrote:

THE KITCHEN SINK HAS LANDED.

I'm an alien Obamacan, but watching this ferocious Ma Clinton in imperious Form is simply awesome.
If she does become President, you wouldn't want to mess with America! She'd shove that red Phone straight through Mevedev's Head down Putin's Throat, any Time Est.

I thought they're p***ing Chelsea out to scrounge a few Votes. Yet suddenly I realised she's in training! Watch this Space, and watch Daddy and Mommy Clinton barge opposing Primary Candidates off the Stage with their Wheel-Chairs during the Primaries of 2036!

  • 53.
  • At 01:57 PM on 10 Mar 2008,
  • Neil wrote:

Ms. Powers is probably quite astute and accurate.

I welcome her candor in assessing people and the reality of complex issues.

  • 54.
  • At 02:29 PM on 10 Mar 2008,
  • David wrote:

Would not 'fair comment' be a solid defence in a defamation case such as this?
Calling Clinton a monster is surely just a point of view that cannot be proven one way or the other; hardly something that is going to tarnish her reputation among either supporters or detractors
.

  • 55.
  • At 03:01 PM on 10 Mar 2008,
  • Linda McLean wrote:

I have a chronology of events and actions that are negative for Hillary. However, people should think about the following:
1) As soon as Hillary was elected in New York, I worked for her, she started catering to the upstate electorate that could further her ambitions;
2) As someone said, "Just because you
live with a surgeon does not make one a doctor"
3) It is interesting that people more similar to Hillary (i.e. Ivy League, better educated, middle to upper middle class voters) are more against her because they know her better. Poorer people are more supportive, probably because the "halo effect" related to Bill's
presidency.
4) Today's New York Daily News captures things beautifully when it says "Hil's Chutzpah: Offering Obama the No.2 spot is like selling a house you don't own.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.