but in case you come back to read this thread, I wanted to address something you say:

I do think it is a failing of the media that we now have to spend a week talking about how naive and inappropriate Ms. Powers was, without debating whether or not Hillary is running the kind of campaign that makes brilliant people so angry they call her a monster.

I agree with you entirely. We've gotten stuck in the "Samantha called Hillary a monster," cycle without evaluating anything else that was said in the interview. I have posted elsewhere that her comments, if reflective of an insider's view of the Obama campaign, are revealing in that she seemed genuinely impressed with the level of deceit going on by Hillary. Knowing firsthand what goes on in political campaigns, her seemingly genuine distress and surprise seem worthy of some investigation.

It reminds me exactly of the helpless feeling I got as I watched the whole Dan Rather demise unfold in slow motion. Remember the fake memo indicting W's going AWOL in the National Guard (or whatever the specifics were)? ALL anyone talked about from the moment that memo became suspect was that the memo was suspect. There was absolutely no more talk WHATSOEVER of the original story, which by all accounts was essentially true. So, here Dan Rather was crucified by the right/press and the real story was being ignored. God, that frustrated me.

so what?

Dear Glenn,

I agree with you 99% of the time, and most of what you say here is correct--the British press is much more aggressive and less deferential, and that's a *good* thing. As is Russert's absurd statement that everything is automatically off the record.

*However,* in this one lone case, I feel like Power's remark should have been taken off the record, and I believe I'd say the same if it was a Republican. There is a standard in this country of granting interview with the occasional comment offered off the record, and the "off the record" mention itself seems to come naturally--it's not like she said "oh hell! I can't believe I just said that!"

If one was British and talking to the British press, or American and talking to the American press, there wouldn't have been a problem--I believe Power got shanghaied by a culture of journalism that is significantly more aggressive (remember, she's not an experienced politician). It'd be like trying to play cricket while observing the rules of baseball. It'd be different if Power had tried to claim "off the record" even two minutes after she said, but given that the mention is so offhand and comes immediately after the "monster" quote, I must in this specific instance side with Carlson. At the very least, the journalist had a responsibility to inform Power *immediately* after she said "by the way that's off the record", to say "No, actually, it isn't." The journalist's silence, in this case, equals consent, so it is fair to say Power was blindsided.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post here claiming that Mr. Greenwald had once suggested that polling data was unreliable. I received quite a drubbing thence from Glenn, and others of the pile-on persuasion. I admitted that I could not find the reference, these blogs not being conducive to extensive researching and me, at work, not having the time to go through months of posts with a fine tooth comb. I took back the remark and apologized, and forgot about it. I was pretty sure I had read it, but lacked the proof to back it up.

This afternoon while looking for an old post of mine, I inadvertantly found the post I was referring to..."Douglas Schoen and Hillary's slimy pollsters" September 27, 2007...

Wherein, the following remark by GG:

I" say it is "baffling" because it is hard to understand why someone would want to become a political journalist and then spend most of their time engaged in this sort of petty, substance-free chatter about which campaign has inched ahead and which one has fallen behind every day. It's all transparently baseless and meaningless. Look at any of the polling data or the predominant conventional wisdom for the last several elections months before the first primary vote was cast and, in retrospect, it all ends being completely misinformed.

I post this just as much to vindicate, as to make a point. I myself have noted that its a better idea to approach one's critics with finesse (and also admit to getting carried away and hitting the publish button in haste, when a few moments of reflection later I wish I hadn't). Even a clock can be right one hour a day, and even a brilliant mind like Glenn's can err or misremember. What better reason for civility?

I just don't agree. Because I don't agree that the founding fathers were ignorant about contraceptives. I don't think that means I need to report for re-education.

You need to stop thinking of the founding fathers or framers as anything other than a diverse and contentious lot that agreed with each other on very little, if anything at all. What they have to do with the diverse citizenry of Connecticutt, or any other colony, is even less obvious to me. Let's not forget that many of the colonials remained loyal to the crown. Opposition to torture wasn't unusual at the time. Napoleon himself was opposed to torture. After having lived through The Inquisition most people were. Just the same, some of the things that they did not consider torture or inhumane back then, we certainly would do so today.

"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know."

- Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon to Berthier 11 Nov 1798, Corres., V, no. 3606 p. 128 quoted in - Napoleon on the Art of War