Another advisor with intelligence and insight.
We're doomed!

I bet she tangles with Clinton again...and is gone again.

CHANGE we can believe in ...

Ohhh...they buried the hatchet. Too bad it wasn't buried in Hilary's heart.

Maybe they couldn't locate it.

If Fat Ass become Secr. of State someone has to keep an eye on her.

This is really funny.

Were here statements ever any more than just politically problematic to Obama? Apparently not.

CHANGE we can be... shit, Vern beat me to it. I'll just have to wait for the next Obama thread to be the first to type the stale, cliche right-wing post.

I'll just have to wait for the next Obama thread to be the first to type the stale, cliche right-wing post.
#7 | Posted by Scrumplet

how is it stale or cliche, scrumpy?

that phrase is going to get a lot of milage over the next four years, unless Obama keeps his word.

or at the very least lives up to his campaign rhetoric.

CHANGE we can believe in ...

#3 | Posted by vernon at 2008-11-29 10:07 AM

just hold your breath until sharah, the comedy opens in a couple years verny!

how is it stale or cliche, scrumpy?

that phrase is going to get a lot of milage over the next four years, unless Obama keeps his word.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine

It is stale and cliche because it has been grossly overused to the point of absurdity before the man even takes office and has a chance to succeed or fail at a single policy, position or promise.

sharah= sarah, or dipshit. whatever.

It is stale and cliche because it has been grossly overused to the point of absurdity before the man even takes office and has a chance to succeed or fail at a single policy, position or promise.
#11 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I don't know, I think they're just warming the phrase up for potential universl use. It'll be tough for Obama to make it irrelevant/cliche/stale unless he really does live up to his rhetoric.

It's his own fault he set the bar so high.

Were here statements ever any more than just politically problematic to Obama? Apparently not. -- #6 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

...which is pretty frightening, since Powers is one scary loose cannon. Her comments about Clinton were merely juvenile, imo, but in the same interview, she told the BBC that Obama knew he couldn't withdraw troops from Iraq on the timetable he was promising on the campaign trail.

Worse, she's prone to gadfly remarks like her advocacy of a U.S. occupation of Israel in response to concerns about human rights violations re: Palestinians. She's a neocon cut from the same cloth as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

If Obama is serious about changing U.S. foreign policy, she has no place in his administration.

If Obama is serious about changing U.S. foreign policy, she has no place in his administration.
#14 | Posted by Phoenix

As we learned earlier at the retort, what must necessarily obtain for his administration staff has nothing to do whatsoever with requirements for a position on the transition team.

As we learned earlier at the retort, what must necessarily obtain for his administration staff has nothing to do whatsoever with requirements for a position on the transition team. -- #15 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Damn... I keep forgetting things like this. Thanks, HC!

It is stale and cliche because it has been grossly overused to the point of absurdity before the man even takes office and has a chance to succeed or fail at a single policy, position or promise.

It is stale and cliche because Obama used it dozens of times in every speech he ever gave.

Samantha Power...warmonger.

What lefty is ready to strap on the combat boots and fight for freedom in Sudan? Cause that's what Sam Power is all about...

This is a neocon helping set the table for the war machine Hillary. Will we ever see the end of these wars that the majority of American people oppose? Will the left actually challenge Obama when he refuses to end these wars, or will they bend over and take it?

Stay tuned for the next episode of As the World Changes.

This is all very confusing. She calls Clinton a "monster" and is dismissed from the campaign. Then . . . is brought into the administration, working for Clinton.

I'm as cynical as they come, but it's hard to see how any of this works out well. Either Power is right and Clinton should be as far removed from the levers as power as possible, or she's wrong, and SHE shouldn't be around.

Maybe this is just more of the magic that be Barack Obama. Can't and dogs sleeping together.

Samantha Powers is coming back on board Team Obama?

Sweet!

Spud actually really likes her.

The skinny is that she's a "loose cannon" but to Spud that's just DC-speak fer "speaks truth to power".

She's an outspoken advocate against human rights abuses, America's past genocidal policies in places like East Timor, the Southern Cone and South East Asia. She thinks American tax dollars that have gone by the billions to support the Israeli MIC woulda been better spent creating a viable Palestine.

These all-too-true assertions are apostacy in modern DC, of course, and a large part of why Spud is admire the gal so.

Hillary, or more correctly her surrogates, did act shamefully in her over-heated showdown with BHO for the Dem Nom.

Is this even in question?

The "monster" comment?

Sammy P simply wasn't aware that "off the record" in London don't mean the same thing as it does in the US with it's all too complient lapdog press.

The "Barack might not pull out of Iraq within the timetable he was quoting on the campaign trail" thingy?

Ummm, no shiat Sherlock.

It was a "best case scenario" that will have to be looked at again after he takes office. The idea that realities on the ground aren't a factor in the timetable is pure ludicrousness but as the American public generally "doesn't do nuance" that reality wasn't particularily preached from the rooftops.

Face it, Hillary at State when it was the single largest bone of contention between her and Obama in the campaign makes more sense if you know that Obama is bringing true reformers like Powers into the mix at State.

This will not be HRC's own private feifdom by a long shot.

Obama calls the plays and Hillary executes 'em with the help of folk like Sammy P and her "mean jumpshot".

/Inside joke thingy.

Anyhoo, nobody is really confirming or denying this story at present so let's just wait and see wot happens here, eh?

Be Well.

The skinny is that she's a "loose cannon" but to Spud that's just DC-speak fer "speaks truth to power".

As her criticism of the NYT headline that corrected false reporting of an alleged Israeli massacre in Jenin demonstrates, Power has no interest in the truth. She's a zealot.

...She thinks American tax dollars that have gone by the billions to support the Israeli MIC woulda been better spent creating a viable Palestine.

When Americans voted for change, I don't think they meant that we should spend billions of dollars occupying a different set of countries than the Bush Administration chose to occupy.

Hillary, or more correctly her surrogates, did act shamefully in her over-heated showdown with BHO for the Dem Nom.

matriculate into

As her criticism of the NYT headline that corrected false reporting of an alleged Israeli massacre in Jenin demonstrates, Power has no interest in the truth. She's a zealot.

The masacre at Jenin was an Israeli massacre.

The NYT's the so-called "bastion of liberal thought" and "document of record" has a particularily abysmal record when it comes to reporting truth from that part of the world.

Unfailingly one sided in it's support of Israel to the point of not reporting the Palestinian side with anything resembling journalistic neutrality. Under-reporting American and Israeli vetoes of proposed peace plans in the region and all of the World vs Israel and America votes in the UN and so on and so forth.

America's so-called Document of Record is a tool of the American government policy in many instances.

When Americans voted for change, I don't think they meant that we should spend billions of dollars occupying a different set of countries than the Bush Administration chose to occupy.

Wot makes you think America supporting a two sided solution to tjhe Isarael/Palestine conflict would involve American occupation?

Uh, Spud, find me a quote from a Clinton advisor that stoops to the level of "She's a monster... You just look at her and think, Ergh'," michellemalkin.com

James Carville calling Richardson a "Judas" for supporting Obama over Hillary doesn't cut it fer you?

Not "off the record" in London but on CNN?

How about Hill herself taking a page from the GOP playbook (and in fact writing a few pages for them in the general election runoff) Citing Rezko, "present votes" calling his foreign policy "naive", the "as far as I know" comment vis a vis Obama's aleeged secret Muslimness?

Also, Malkin? Yer fucking kidding with that, right?

The concentration camp luffin', self loathing anchor baby herself? Was yer book of Ann Coulter quotes out on loan?

Sammy P simply doesn't have the maturity to matriculate from the 4th grade, much less the judgment to be a foreign policy advisor.

No, quite the reverse, the immature, self defeating, corporately corrupted asswipes of DC who don't have the maturity or the intellectual honesty to make them fit to polish Sammy P's boots with their tongues.

Always fun chatting with ya, Phoenix.

Be Well.

/On the bright side yer Christian the Lion story seems to check out.
//Always the self correcting liberal Spud is only too content to acknowledge an overstatement.

The NYT's the so-called "bastion of liberal thought" and "document of record" has a particularily abysmal record when it comes to reporting truth from that part of the world.

Judith Miller.

Judith Miller.

DING DING DING DING DING.

We haff a WINNER.

Alexandrite may chose one of the largest stuffed Pandas from the top shelf fer that effort.

Congrats, you've earned it.

Be Well.

"bastion of liberal thought"

#27 ~Reinheitsgebot

Billy my-Kristol-ball-is-broken?

Excellent point as well, Rein.

Be Well.

The masacre at Jenin was an Israeli massacre. The NYT's the so-called "bastion of liberal thought" and "document of record" ...Unfailingly one sided in it's support of Israel to the point of not reporting the Palestinian side with anything resembling journalistic neutrality...-- Spud

?? The NYT had originally reported that Israel was guilty of a massacre in Jenin. Power complained when they corrected themselves after Human Rights Watch reported otherwise:

Samantha Power: I have a question for David about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: "Human Rights Report Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin." The second paragraph said, "Oh, but lots of war crimes did." Why wouldn't they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?

Might be a reasonable question, except that

Wot makes you think America supporting a two sided solution to tjhe Isarael/Palestine conflict would involve American occupation? -- Spud

I don't. Samantha Power advocated an American occupation, and doesn't pretend to favor a two-sided solution:

What we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing or investing, I think, more than sacrificing billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line.

Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don't just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called "Sharafat." [Sharon-Arafat; this is actually an Amos Oz construction NP] I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention. http://
www.commentarymagazine.com/
blogs/index.php/pollak/2093

Uh, Spud, find me a quote from a Clinton advisor that stoops to the level of "She's a monster... You just look at her and think, Ergh'," michellemalkin.com

James Carville calling Richardson a "Judas" for supporting Obama over Hillary doesn't cut it fer you?

This is the worst of the examples you cite, and no, it does not reach the level of "just look at her... erghh." And I promise Carville will NEVER be considered for any position for which diplomacy is a requirement.

Also, Malkin? Yer fucking kidding with that, right?

It hurt me, too, but most of the "complient [sic] lapdog American press," as you called it, tends to airbrush anything unflattering about Obama out of its coverage.

Oh, I almost forgot...

No, quite the reverse, the immature, self defeating, corporately corrupted asswipes of DC who don't have the maturity or the intellectual honesty to make them fit to polish Sammy P's boots with their tongues. -- Spud

Sweetie, that's not a sentence. And it would appear that polishing "Sammy P's" boots with one's tongue requires neither maturity nor intellectual honesty.

The headline was, I believe: "Human Rights Report Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin." The second paragraph said, "Oh, but lots of war crimes did." Why wouldn't they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?

Might be a reasonable question, except that

The article to which Power refers is here, and its headline is: "MIDEAST TURMOIL: INQUIRY; Rights Group Doubts Mass Deaths in Jenin, but Sees Signs of War Crimes."
www.americanthinker.com

Uh-huh and... wot?

She didn't have the exact quote in front of her at the time.

Her quote was incoorect but her gist was and is correct.

Powers essential point that a massacre was being essentially white washed by casting doubts as to it's authenticity while underplaying the War Crimes that occured is still correct .

The fact that the Human rights group doubted some of the possibly inflated claims by the Palestinians in that instance does little to detract from Power's point that it was a dilution of truth in order to service a pro-Israeli agenda.

Samantha Power advocated an American occupation, and doesn't pretend to favor a two-sided solution:

It's two sided in that it recognises the "irresponsible" nature of both governments in the lead up to this point and while while it's unrealistic in that the idea of American troops being stationed in both Palestine and Israel is a no-sale in terms of the American popular will and DC politics it can also be sed that the crux of ME Peace issue stems from this one central thorn in the paw of the Muslim world. A daily shaming that is unforgettable and possibly unforgivable by this point by their lights.

And while this proposed scenario will never happen due to a wide variety of ciurcumstances one should also consider that it makes more sense to spend billions on and put troops into Israel/Palestine in the name of ME peace and stability than it does to put 'em in Iraq as has been the case fer the last five years.

"just look at her... erghh." trumps Judas is a country a religified as the US?

Puh-lease.

No unflattering press on Obama?

Also puh-lease.

Gotsta go now.

Always fun.

Be Well.

/As ya do
stage left.

And I promise Carville will NEVER be considered for any position for which diplomacy is a requirement.

Oh, Spud almost fergot. As a foreign policy advisor Powers gig is almost the exact opposite of a diplomat. Instead of mouthing pleasantries and observing form, her gig would be to speak unvarnished truth to power.

"Maturity" in DC is too often code talk fer "thoroughly co-opted"

"Intellectual Honesty" is code talk fer "Able to mouth think-tanked propaganda with a straight face"

Always a pleasure, Sweet 'ums! ^_^

Be Well.

Her quote was incoorect but her gist was and is correct. -- Spud

No it's not. Go back and read #29.

...while this proposed scenario [Power's recommended U.S. occupation of Israel] will never happen due to a wide variety of ciurcumstances...

... among them, the fact that a reasonable high-schooler could figure out that it's a ridiculous suggestion...

...one should also consider that it makes more sense to spend billions on and put troops into Israel/Palestine in the name of ME peace and stability than it does to put 'em in Iraq...

Kind of a weak test, isn't it? And I'm not sure it passes that one!

"just look at her... erghh." trumps Judas is a country a religified as the US?

Spud, this is the most sensible thing you've said here tonight, so let's end on this note. Good night, young potato. Try to spare some brain cells, okay?

Good night, young potato

May hosts of angels sing you to yer sleep, oh ash-rising Avian

Try to spare some brain cells, okay?

* Spud looks whistfully at PR'd blazebat *

Okay, ...dammit.

Be Well.

/How young do ya think Spud is, btw?
//The answer might surprise you.
///Spud is kinda like Archie or Jughead,
////a superannuated teenager.
/////Woo Hoo! Slashies are KEWL !!!1!ELEVENTY

Someday when we look back on this I hope people will finaly be able to admit that Change can only come when you replace all of Washington not just the top man. Obama's use of Change was a campaign slogan and nothing more. Half of Obama's campaign staff worked for Bill Clinton's campaign why did anyone think that his administration would be any different

"why did anyone think that his administration would be any different"

The Supreme Court.
The Tax Code.
The Approach to War.

Plenty "difference" to me.

The Supreme Court appointees are important and would have be will served by any Democrat

The Tax Code is the one Clinton had in the 1990's

The Approach to the war will be the thing he changes now that he is in power and has responsibilities' He will become more of a hawk then a dove

Nothing is different

"The Tax Code is the one Clinton had in the 1990's"

Without putting too fine a point on it...no, it's not.

"Nothing is different "

Wha?!? You just admitted the SC will be.

The Sc would have been no matter which Dem go into office and if The Tax code is not the one Clinton had in the 90's explain this. "I'd cut taxes for seniors who are making $50,000 a year or less. It is true that I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton, when I don't remember rich people feeling oppressed."

Put what ever point on it it you want but there is not going to be any change. Ezcept the change for Republican to Democratic