This is beginning to resemble Bush v. Kerry more and more. What I don't understand is why the Democratic party elders are letting Hillary destroy the party.

I was very surprised with Samantha Power's statement. I thought she was smarter than that.

With that said, I am not sure how I feel about her resignation ... is it good for Obama or not?

It seems more like he is letting the Clinton campaign dictate how he runs his campaign.

But at the end of it ... if can't tumble with her now, he's not going to be able to run against McCain, but more importantly, he will not be able to run an effective administration, should he win.

He's looking weaker by the day ~ which is exactly what the Clinton team has sought out to do ...

It's clear enough that a certain fatigue has set in, partially by plan, partially because it's a fact, and the campaign is content to let a few kerfluffles go down, see how it plays , and then resume.

What remains are the facts that a campaign that vowed never to take the low road either decides to turn back and do just that, or continue on the high road but with a more pugnacious attitude about it.

I prefer the latter. Obama is running against precisely this type of politicking, and the events that have transpired since last week are exactly what we'll be in for for 4 more years unless the people themselves demonstrate their support for the new politics Barack Obam represents.

Everything in the campaign thus far has represented what we believe, and it's not time to abandon all hope just because the other side does exactly what we knew they would. But to rise above this, we need to deluge the public voice with our objections to this approach, or we will be doomed to permanently watch things like global warming and the deteriorating economy partisanized to a solutionless gridlock.

Now that Obama has accepted the resignation of Ms. Powers, I think he should immediately fire back at Clinton and demand that Wolfson be fired for comparing Barack to Ken Starr.

Number One, if she has set the ground rules as such, (someone in your camp publicly disses me, then they should be gone), he should pick up that rule book and hit her over the head with it.

Number Two, "monster" is a pretty generic term, whereas "Ken Starr" is a very specific term with an explicit meaning. And let's face it, in the Clinton household "Ken Starr" is a much harsher and demeaning invective than calling someone a nondescript "monster".

If this is how she wants to play, then she should be forced to follow the rules that she herself set.

Of course he's letting the Hillary campaign dictate his campaign.

His entire platform is pretty much "I agree with Hillary. Except for my awesome speech six years ago."

Isn't the statement "Hillary is a Monster" not something that the Clinton campaign really wants to see in a headline? This is a pretty common thing to see in political campaigns. A surrogate making a nasty comment, getting it out in the press, and then resigning to shield the candidate.

Hillary has pulled this stunt multiple times on Obama already. Think Bill Shaheen.

Every headline that has "Hillary" and "Monster" in it is hurting Hillary. She would have been much better just ignoring it. If it were Karl Rove I would suspect he planned the whole thing.

The Clintons a few weeks ago made Obama "the black candidate." More recently they put this Canada-NAFTA thing in the headlines, with no real charge that withstood critical scrutiny, and Rezko, although that too has no substance, and the Clintons know it.

The Clintons are masters of spin, but it looks like they were outspun here. I hate to see Obama playing the Clintons' game, but sometimes, those who live by the sword die by the sword.

Hillary keeps talking about how she has been vetted. The undeniable reality is that without even delving into more recent matters, like the fundraising for Bill CLinton's library, there is enough dirt on the Clintons to make ugly headlines for them for the next nine years if necessary. She is not electable. The nation has had more than enough of the Clintons.

The upside: Obama has quickly dispatched a problem so that it does not dog his campaign.

The downside: He has lost a wonderfully strong voice in his campaign, and looks weak and reactive. It might have been better to say that she apologized and that was enough, just like MSNBC suspended Schuster and left it at that.

To illustrate the point: Last night on the local (San Francisco) news they showed Hillary repeating the McCain line. It was disgusting, but she looked confident and in command. They then showed Obama looking passive and the clip did not directly address what Hillary said but more spoke to his years of experience vs. hers.

The trouble is that there is a large segment of the population that does not respond to the words but to the visual and visceral. Viscerally, that made Hillary look like a strong warrior, and Obama like a passive intellectual. Kerry lost a lot in 2004 because he was perceived as too passive in hitting back on the swift boaters. Dukakis and Bernard Shaw and the hypothetical rape of Kitty--well you get the point.

Obama has to stand up here and show a little backbone, a little fierceness. It is not his style, and it does not have to be done with maliciousness or harshness, but it has to come across as forceful and tough. Dropping Power, not hitting back hard enough on NAFTA-that doesn't cut it.

My two bits.

Clinton has spent the past year making sure we know she is a "monster", able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, able to start wars during coffee break, too tough for the average man, etc. So now that someone shows how successful she was at projecting that image, she wants that person fired? I don't get it.

And, Powers comment was, in my opinion, a compliment. Would Clinton prefer to have been referred to as a lady?

This is the box Obama placed himself into...

Hillary can get as down and dirty as she'd like, and Obama can't respond in kind. He's got to figure out how to respond to this and much dirtier tactics and still stay above the fray.

My guess is, he can't. That places a real limitation on him -- trying to run a positive campaign inside a world that never was and never will be "positive."

In regard to Josh's first posting, I see his points but I do not entirely agree that the speedy resignation is an example of Obama’s “slapping this guy around like crazy.” I think to maintain his integrity and the moral high road (and I do think that it is this high road that will eventually resonate with the voters and the powers that be within the Democratic Party) there was no option but to have Power resign and to accept that resignation with dispatch and professionalism. It is unfortunate that the resignation appears to have been in reaction to demands from the Clinton campaign, but I think that it was an act of principal from both Samantha Power and Barack Obama that unfortunately coincided with demands, not a reaction to the demands.

What I cannot understand at this point is why the Obama team is not being all out by aggressively pursuing some of the news items that have been buried, for example, the obfuscations and distortions the Clinton campaign has made in regard to the NAFTA reassurances to the Canadian government. It tells me something about Obama that he is not going after these issues, pointing out the lies and deceit. And this worries me more, much more, than his actions in regard to Samantha Power (who probably--I hope--will be back with him should he win the presidency).

What about The Scotman's attitude towards "off the record" comments? It is cavalier and unprofessional. I suggest we need to engage them on this point. Have ya'll read the editor's explanation? Essentially: One's the tape's rolling, there are no takebacks. As a journo myself, that's not exactly how you build contacts and respect.

For anyone who's still hungry:

Tonight, BBC America's Newsnight airs an interview with Samantha Power, who has been forced to resign as Barack Obama's foreign policy adviser after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster". As Obama faltered in this week's crucial primaries in Texas and Ohio, Power defended his foreign policy credentials in a tough in-depth interview with Jeremy Paxman.

Newsnight airs tonight on BBC America at 10:00 p.m. ET/7:00 p.m. PT.

For further information: Matt Marshall, 202 355 1737, matt.marshall@bbc.com

Hillary is on the path to single-handedly ruin the chances of a Democrat winning the presidency.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c

I think we can safely say that The Scotsman will never be granted an interview by the Obama administration.

I believe canning Power has a lot more to do with losing TX, OH, & RI this week. Why? This was a terrible outcome for him given the assumptions that he was going to at least take TX Tuesday night. When Hillary stumbled with IA and then in the states after NH, she finally shook out the campaign staff. Obama has failed to do the same after his stumble in OH & TX.

Also, the two campaigns are the BIG TEST between two Democratic campaign strategies: Obama's 50 STATE (advocated by Howard Dean) versus Hillary's Big State (championed by Rohm Emanuel). Matthew Rothschild over at the Progressive (http://progressive.org/mag_wx030508) opines that Obama should've written off OH to concentrate on TX. He then concludes that the outcome wouldn't have been as much of a"comeback" for Hillary if she had only taken OH.

Finally, Power's departure should relieve some of the pressure Obama's campaign has experienced over her previous comments toward Israel.

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.

Had it been a Clinton surrogate who called Obama a monster all the Obama supporters would be grabbing their pitchforks and gunning for blood and anyone who denies it is a liar AND a hypocrite. Bill Clinton called the IDEA the Obama was against the Iraq war consistently a fairy tale and he gets branded a racist. Double, triple, quadruple standard.

Obama surrogates with their anti-Hillary rhetoric is just over the top. Hillary says he's not ready to be Commander in Chief - that's topical and substantive criticism. That is in bounds. But all this she's a Bi!$#, she's a monster has nothing to do with policy or vision. But I guess if you can't win on substance, then you resort to personal attacks.

Obama is "new politics" just as George W. Bush is to "uniter" or "compassionate conservative". great line, great in theory, but when you look at their actions and those of their supporters, they do not match the rhetoric.

I think rstephen's "Swiftboating moment" remarks are basically right, and with seemingly only more internecine squabbling to come from the two of them, on this day of March 2008, it rather suddenly looks a lot like "Hello, President McCain."

COMMENT...

From the old system to new... Why can't we track new responses?

This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v integration services, iscsi storage arrays