drawing mustaches on and blackening the teeth of pictures of Hillary Clinton ...

Yes, Sam Power would be a very foolish person indeed, imho, to rail publically about Hillary being a monster ... perhaps safely to her bedmate, perhaps not, but certainly not to her friends... people talk, stories spread.

I've been alarmed by the lack of "message discipline" shown by Team Obama for months ... Power was not coerced into saying those things ... she said them freely, happily.

Of note, if she had sat down and detailed in all seriousness with no name-calling, all of the Clinton campaign's transgressions and evil deeds, it probably would have resulted in her leaving the campaign as well, UNLESS it was vetted BY THE CAMPAIGN. Things were bad enough BEFORE her comments and her comments, which went beyond the "monster" name-calling and included insinuations of "bad deeds;" and thus likely confirmed worst suspicions of the REAL tone of the Obama inner circle.

Even in my unimportant life, I have had to keep big secrets, professionally and personally and operate for the "best interests" of the whole where my personal opinions or preferences simply were not relevant once the course had been set.

As NPR mentioned this morning, Power has studied true despots, true monsters ... Was she comparing Clinton to a Maurice Sendak Wild Thing or Pol Pot or Godzilla? Inquiring minds want to know.

Anyone making the TV interview rounds is going to be encouraged to dish dirt ... Two words: "No comment"

Bop, why does Glenn keep posting videos of John Bolton! You know, bop o, I've been trying to hold-my-tongue about this, or at least keep it in my cheek (per. William's advice), but there is ...something about Bolton that makes my brain hurt. Viscerally(sp?).

I can barely/faintly speak about. I used to listen to the Amb. Bolton at the UN during the run-up to the War and the effect on me, even then, was... You are a good speller bop, what's the word I'm looking for? All I know is, every time I see him, I have this urge to hog-tie Mr. Bolton. Then, tar, feather and ride his as* out of town on a rail, the Third rail, preferably. End of interview.

Well, bop, I've got to go brush the snow off my tulips. It's almost Spring time.

Don't forget to spring-forward tonight.

bah.

ps. On the bright side, William Timberman is progressing satisfactorly with his english studies. (I'll keep you posted.)

I admit that I have very mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, Glenn is of course right, and the American press approaches those in power on bended knee far too often. The results of this are clear to see, with the spectaculary lame press coverage of the Bush Administration, and the enabling of the official B.S. for public consumption.

On the other hand, is it unreasonable to suppose that people might avoid a business like politics if they can expect that their careers can be ended by one careless slip of the tongue? Or is it unreasonable to think that the reason so many politicians speak in brainless, talking-points-based platitudes--which reporters profess to hate--is because they know that wandering off those talking points opens them up to this kind of feeding frenzy? Haven't we seen how the Bush Administration punishes reporters who have the temerity to ask him hard questions by making sure they never get called on again? Is it unreasonable to think that many other powerful politicians do the same thing?

(And before anyone points out the obvious--"If everyone asked hard questions, then that wouldn't be possible!"--let me note that there is no way on God's green Earth that every reporter is going to get on board with being tough. And until that Utopian day, the powerful will avoid the tough reporters and go to the easy ones.)

I don't know the answer, honestly. But I do know that neither extreme is palatable. Where in the middle is the right place to meet? I have no idea.

Isn't this piece in direct contradiction to what

you wrote earlier this week admonishing reporters for their obsessive focus on the politics of personal destruction instead of focusing on the issues? What does Samantha Power saying Hillary Clinton is a "monster" have to do with the presidential campaign? . . ..

No points for consistency here Glenn. How disappointing.

If you want to accuse someone of making inconsistent arguments, the bare minimal obligation you have is to quote the two statements that are allegedly inconsistent, not just invent paraphrases that are inconsistent, attribute them to the person, and think you've made a point.

I'm not a Dubliner, don't live in Dublin but perhaps I know more about your golden girl than you do. That snide little "resent" didn't escape me either.

We know your shit does not stink, no more than Hillary's. You never said anything you regretted -- I suppose as an O'Donnell you live in the environs of Dungloe, where no one can say anything rude about an O'Donnell.

The woman has had an impressive career, she has done an awful lot, much of it good. Harvard is not Trinity or Yale, it is not particularly incestuous in its hiring and it is perhaps tougher for a Harvard grad to get on faculty there than anywhere else. Moreover, given her resume, she could have walked, sauntered into a well paid job, or a judicial clerkship and straight into a professorship at 29 -- it is pretty evident that she did not.

Yes, there is a whiff of resentment in your comments about her, a big dose of "returned yank" syndrome as it is known among Irish expatriots, especially professionals, and more than a little schadenfruede to be nice or even healthy.

But as we all now know, you have never embarrassed yourself in public, you have always been right, you have never made a mistake. I unfortunately make mistakes all the time, nothing too fatal, but a lot ... but then I put myself in roles where right answers are not obvious and mistakes will be made. I am sure that last sentence will attract another slightly snide comment.