Obama fired from his campaign people who were 100% in opposition to his personal beliefs, and in opposition to his campaign policies. And I applaud him for that! And I also applaud him for doing it swiftly! To me it shows a man who is not a hypocrite, it shows a man who has strong convictions, and says what he means, and means what he says. It also showed me that Obama is a man who keeps his word.
What we need in the White House is someone who has integrity, someone who says what he means, and means what he says. And whose actions back up his words, (and that is what happened when Obama fired the two people from his campaign, his actions backed up his words)
What we need more than ever in the White House right now is someone like Obama who wants to do things the legal way, and the right way, someone who is focused on being accountable to the American people first and foremost. And someone who has a strong moral compass, and is willing to do things the correct way, the legal way, because that is what needs to be done.
Does Obama Have a Loyalty Problem?
The candidates for president are shedding advisers and aides faster than my Rottweiller is shedding her hair. And that should be greater cause for concern, especially if you are planning on voting for Obama. Ask yourself: Does he have a habit of dumping politically inconvenient loyalists?
To wit, Obama did not defend Samantha Power after her "off the record" remarks in which she relayed to a Scottish journalist that her boss's opponent was a "monster." He could have just given her a talking-to and apologized but instead, she was let go. Just like that.
More recently, adviser Robert Malley of International Crisis Group also got the Samantha Power treatment. His offense? He had, yes, met with Hamas leaders. TIME's Joseph Klein called Obama's move "a sad abandonment of principles," adding that "the next president will be negligent if he doesn't include someone like Malley in his circle of Middle East advisers."
Even Obama's first literary agent, Jane Dystel, was unceremoniously dumped after Obama made the leap from Chicago to Washington. Peter Osnos, former publisher of Times Books, called the move "disloyal but not unusual."
What explains Obama's habit of letting go those he no longer needs? Of course, any political figure's career is bound to be full of episodes where staffers come and go, sometimes of their free will, sometimes not. But with Obama, there seems to be a familiar and disturbing pattern. While the problem with President Bush is he prized loyalty too much and refused to toss overboard people (i.e. Donald Rumsfeld) clearly deserving of a pink slip, Obama seems to tilt dangerously the other way. He has no Karen Hughes or Karl Rove-types who have loyally stayed with him through thick and thin. The trouble with Obama, I fear, is that were he to become president, any of his future advisers would fear speaking their mind in public or taking an unpopular stance. The result will be nothing but four years of public statements with all the sizzle of a UN communique.
Of course, this is not a trait unique to Obama. I have heard anecdotally that Hillary also dumped a foreign policy adviser last year after said person visited Iraq and noted marginal progress there. And McCain has dumped more advisers in recent weeks than I can count.
But I expect better from Obama. The kind of change he wants to bring to U.S. foreign policy is helped by having outside-of-the-box thinkers like Power and Malley in his inner circle.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
**
I wish that Obama had stuck by Samantha Power. She only told the truth after all. I do hope that he has at least a few loyal confidants who can tell him the hard truth. Whoever is advising him though is doing well. this is a guy who came out of nowhere, bushwhacked Hillary Clinton and now has a very good chance to be POTUS. Someone is giving him good advice.
Samantha Power made a significant error in judgment. She got out ahead of the candidate with a comment that could have been attributed to the entire campaign had he not dumped her. People who show poor judgement (ie: exhibit a lack of political civility in a candidate's campaign BASED on political civility) need to go and go quickly.
It's about judgment.
**
I agree with you, and wrote as much in an essay. Still, I hope and suspect that we have not seen the last of her in his service. If he felt the need, mistakenly in our mutual opinion, to abandon her because of the particular nature of his promised campaign style, there should be no lingering hesitation or compulsion against bringing her into his administration. This may have been au revoir and not adieu.
Obama definitely has a loyalty problem. And the problem is that Obama isn't loyal to America. He would rather take our enemies side as when he said that Hezzbolah and Hamas had legitimate grievances.
I think you have an interesting sense of stupidity. There's an enormous difference between recognizing the cause of an organization and approving of its methods. A terrorist organization isn't a terrorist organization because of its cause, its because of the means in which it accomplishes its goals: violence. Understanding why a terrorist organization resorts to violence is an enormously helpful tool in stopping them. If someone is so desperate they need to resort to violence to achieve it, you're not going to get them to stop by fighting them. Hell, you're going to make it worse. You're going to make them MORE desperate and they're going to become MORE violent. Because they resorted to violence, resorted to terrorism, we don't help them, they've lost their chances (although in all fairness we didn't give a sh*t to begin with and that's another problem...) and Obama knows that and so do you (don't pretend to be so foolish). But heaven forbid we actually understand them, we actually have a global perspective... oh no... that's unpatriotic.
Resident Chimp -- your name says it all ! Obama has said over, and over, that Hezzbolah, and Hamas are terrorist organizations. I am sure that you already know this fact! If not may I suggest you get a q-tip and clean out your ears..
I'm SO SICK of everyone dumping on Obama. It is SO clear that the Republicans have a WEAK candidate, so, what does the LOSING team do? Pile on.
Sore-losers.
I can't COUNT the ways McCain is unfit to be president. You DAMM Republicans will be sorry. Go ahead, vote for McCain. Just like when you voted for BUSH, you'll be sorry.
Obama '08
Gee, I voted for President Bush and I'm wasn't sorry either time. I might suggest you start with your fingers and then move to your toes to help you count ;) And since the Republicans have been winning, you might call me a sore winner.
Let me guess. You work for Haliburton?
This admission qualifies you for the All Time Idiots Hall of Fame. Anyone who has seen your posts here must have suspected as much, but to admit it yourself is sad. I hope you do not have children.
If you're not sorry about Bush, you're posting from China or Iran.
**
I think Obama is savvy enough to excuse these people from his campaign at this point to avoid the idiocy of talking heads and right wing talk show hosts and Hillary Clinton activists, and will offer them the positions they deserve in his cabinet when the time comes.
Samantha Power, especially, impressed--I appreciated every appearance she made to offer honest appraisal of the foreign policy scene the candidates would encounter on Day One--but she threatened his campaign and rightfully resigned...I have no doubt she will be offering her advice as soon as Barack Obama is sworn in.
I return to the old saw "The biggest crime you can commit as a politician is to tell the truth." When Ms. Power said that Hillary Clinton was a monster, she was voicing the opinions of millions of sane individuals and presaging the political discourse that has taken place over the past 6 weeks--"What is she hoping to accomplish by weakening the presumptive Democratic candidate?"
Your article seems kind of half-assed and short-sighted...stirring the pot for no real reason, alleging character defects when anyone with a political mind would see that this is a necessary and intelligent action by one who doesn't see the need to have his legitimacy challenged because of the careless actions of people whose experience is not in campaigning but advising.
In other words, what's your point?
I agree with the "What's the point?" comment.
I know literary agent Jane Dystel, and she has expressed no resentment toward him that I know of, and in fact has said very nice things about him and is rightfully proud of having launched his literary career. She's a class act and so is he.
Most authors have multiple agents over the course of a career. Obama didn't set out to be a political writer, but when he became one, he got a political writer's agent. Makes all the sense in the world from a business point of view.
Agents are employees of artists, it isn't a friend or spousal type relationship. Some agents are right for an author for a whole career, most aren't. By the way, because of the nature of literary contracts, the agent that makes a book deal continues to make money from that deal, regardless of whether they go to represent the writer for other deals. Book agents can't get "fired" from royalties. So Jane Dystel is not suffering from this alleged lack of loyalty.
Trying to extrapolate switching book agents as a "lack of loyalty" is just bad journalism.
In case you haven't heard, he will be giving Powers a very nice job.
Lionel, are you sure you don't just have a "parity" problem with these concepts: loyalty:disloyalty?
No one who has a "loyalty problem" is able to run a tight campaign the way Obama has for well over a year now. Furthermore, it is possible to pick competent people and then build them into a loyal and competent team, as witness Obama's campaign and ground operations for well over a year now.
Finally, if the rules are laid out clearly in the beginning, and then a member of the team breaks them, is it disloyalty if that person is asked to step down for the good of the organization? I think not.
. . . and so these old issues are "news" NOW because of what now?
I think there are some misinterpretations on the assessment of Obama's loyalty to those loyal to him - afterall, I thought this characteristic of loyalty is what critics heavily blasted Obama for when he didn't "renounce and denounce" Rev. Wright at the first sign of controversy. As mentioned previously, the brilliant Samantha Powers resigned despite Obama standing by her at the time her astute observation regarding Hillary's demeanor slipped out - and I do believe she has been within the Obama camp fold since things have settled down. When it comes to comparing Bush to Obama - it simply can't be done because Bush is a puppet of his administration - the talking head (as inarticulate as the head may be) - of those like Rumsfeld and Cheney who are actually pullying the puppet strings. Thus, you can't expect a Bush to stand without his handlers; whereas, Obama is actually the brain behind his words and promise of a new type of leader. It may be difficult to actually focus on the bigger picure here - as it is such a foreign experience for the American media - but it would serve the entire nation well if the real issues are brought to light and the front page.
Again, doesn't anyone find it curious that the author didn't speak to Malley or Power? They're the only two people who's opinion matter in this. Pathetic.
And I must have missed the part where he quoted Senator Obama after speaking with him in an effort to get the 'whole story' complete with all the facts. And why is this being 'published' now? What was the goal?
Good article--reflective of the self absorbed ambition that the Obamas demonstrate
Self absorbed ambition the Obamas demostrate? This is someone from the Clinton Camp saying this? Shameless and becoming a bit sad, Hillary is not George Bush, she has plenty positive attributes but it's becoming apparent that many of her supporters are not among those attributes. This is just nuts.
Remember Patti Solis Doyle
This has the smell of 1990's Clinton politics - DISTRACTIONS, and thus Stagnation. I disagree with what you care to concentrate on in Poltics, buddy. Enough is enough. First of all, Obama wasn't DISLOYAL to his crew. It appeared to be a case of what is better for the greater good of the campaign, considering the prospects, and the OPPONENT. Maybe Obama, would not have needed to let go of Powers or maybe Powers wouldn't have chosen to resign if Hillary Clinton and her minions were not still in the game. The Malley incident, and him leaving, had to do with the other opponent, the NEOCONS that will yack yack yack, about Hamas in public. Basically distract - distract - distract from the real issues. The United States has had too too many distractions - and the stakes are too high for this crap of distractions to continue in politics.
By the way, here is where loyalty goes to far. Hillary Clinton is a prime example. Loyalty to Bill Clinton and his crew of people and lackeys - Carville, Penn, Lanny Davis, Begala, etc, really got Hillary nowhere with the people she needed to get, in this Presidential Campaign. Loyalty is not always good. Loyalty to the Clintons went too far in the Media too. Its appears that you'd rather have phoney loyalty as opposed to honest commitment.
The Obama campaign has been held to a much different standard than Clinton or McCain. The actions taken by the campaign reflect that reality. With Power, for example, if she had not left, the media, Clinton and McCain would never have let it go. No amount of defense would have made anyone stop yapping about it. As for literary agents and publishing, trust me on this one: the word "loyalty" does not exist in the business. No way, no how, on any side. It doesn't matter. Biz is biz.
The people Beehner's talking about on the campaign staff had specific tasks they were charged with. If, by their actions, they become liabilities to be defended and "managed," they are, in effect, "disloyal" to their employer, Obama. The very idea of "loyalty," in the professional sense is an anachronistic myth perpetrated by patriarchal corporate America, where it certainly no longer exists, if it ever did. What is to be expected is the hiring and managment of staff who can best achieve the goal. Loyalty, however, is perfectly desirable in one's personal relationships, such as that of Obama and Wright. Beehner's confused if he see's the blatant cronyism of BushCo as loyalty.
Oh, first the arugala problem, then the loyalty problem. It's always a slow news week in hack pundit puppet land. Several people have brought up that you mention Joe Klein approvingly, and that that is reason enough to ignore everything you have to say. It is indeed. I hope several hundred people mention it. If there is a more useless hack pundit puppet than Joe Klein I have yet to step on it.
Stuck on Distractions and Stagnation, god, this has the smell of 1990's Clinton politics. I disagree with what you care to concentrate on in Poltics, buddy. Enough is enough. First of all, Obama wasn't DISLOYAL to his crew. It appeared to be a case of what is better for the greater good of the campaign, considering the prospects, and the OPPONENT. Maybe Obama, would not have needed to let go of Powers or maybe Powers wouldn't have chosen to resign if Hillary Clinton and her minions were not still in the game. The Malley incident, and him leaving, had to do with the other opponent, the NEOCONS that will yack yack yack, about Hamas in public. Basically distract - distract - distract from the real issues. The United States has had too too many distractions - and the stakes are too high for this crap of distractions to continue in politics.
By the way, here is where loyalty goes to far. Hillary Clinton is a prime example. Loyalty to Bill Clinton and his crew of people and lackeys - Carville, Penn, Lanny Davis, Begala, etc, really got Hillary nowhere with the people she needed to get, in this Presidential Campaign. Loyalty is not always good. Loyalty to the Clintons went too far in the Media too. Its appears that you'd rather have phoney loyalty as opposed to honest commitment. You need to learn to trust Americans, and maybe let go of your paranoia.
Samantha Power quit after the pundits and the Clinton campaign called for her resignation.
He switched his agent? Oh the humanity!!!!! That NEVER happens, most people keep the SAME agent their whole entire lives right? Whatever, maybe it was a business decision, ever think of that?
Maybe Obama realized that many people might be uncomfortable with a player on his team that had already met with Hamas before he sat in the Oval Office. You have no idea what the conversation between him and Malley went. And I'm sorry but a quote from "Joke" Klein, the biggest Neocon kissass on the left , is hardly enough to convince me Obama made a mistake.
How many staff members and advisors have left the Clinton and McCain campaign (voluntarily or not) since this race started almost a year ago? To be fair shouldn't you look at his opponents' record on the same issue?
Finally, if you're going to lodge serious criticism of Obama, find something that qualifies. That three people leave his campaign or his life either voluntarily or not, in over a year's time, is really not a big issue let alone unusual.
I am so sick of the amount of analysis and advice given to Barack Obama. Is it that people aren't aware of the type campaign Obama and his team are running? I remember media types saying he needs to get tough, or asking if he is tough enough. Now, those questions crack me up because I believe it was in Obama's best interest not to be tough with Hillary. Now, that she is basically out, Barack has no problem being tough on mccain.
Well said. And let us not forget that McCain dumped five senior people all in the span of last week.
Robert
Here are the possibilities:
(1) we have all gone back in time to the Army-McCarthy hearings in the House Unamerican Activities Committee [doesn't that sound like a committee in the Bush regime?]; or
(2) we have not learned one damned thing, and we just keep doing the same thing over and over again.
Somebody starts screaming about a bogeyman, mass hysteria ensues; the defense industry marks up their prices on everything by 10,000%; the idiots in government declare war and borrow billions to pay for the war, then decide who to attack; the country is mired in war and debt until finally, broke and disgusted, we give it up and start over again.
Reject, renounce, repudiate: do you reject satan, do you reject communism, do you reject totalitarianism in all its forms, do you reject homosexuals, do you reject rock 'n roll, do you reject those who would undermine our Christian Values?
Obama is campaigning in a country gone mad with the newest inquisition, this one run not by the Catholics but by the Congress, including the Democrats. Anybody says anything, all the rest of the pack of jackets jumps on them: you must reject. Yes, but did he renounce? What? No repudiation?
And the terms "tilt dangerously" kind of sounds like the same thing.
A fascinating viewpoint.
Samantha Power resigned because she knew he would look bad for what she did.
Obama IS better. He fires people who screw up and stands by those who make him look bad until they keep pushing (see: Reverend Wright).
If Obama becomes president, Samantha Power will have a big role in his administration. The fact that he had to let her go as his foreign policy advisor does not mean they no longer discuss issues. She was an unpaid advisor to begin with. She just lacks a title right now.
Why is loyalty desirable in a chief executive? I think our government should be a meritocracy, where the most effective public servants rise to the top and the rest are tossed aside. Samantha Power is a brilliant policy advisor with horrible political instincts. She should have never spoken to the press without clearing her statements with the communications staff beforehand.
I'm almost certain that Ms. Power and Robert Malley will be welcomed back into Obama's foreign policy advisory team after the general election. Something tells me that the only serious and permanent separation resulting from the campaign so far will be Jeremiah Wright, who flagrantly tossed Obama in front of the bus for no apparent reason beyond self-aggrandizement. That one hurt. The rest were just casualties of the 23/7 news cycle.
Finally, Obama does have long-time confidantes. The most important one is Valerie Jarrett, who may have a more Rove-like role in the Obama machine than anyone realizes. She's a very low-profile, fiercely loyal, extremely smart power broker who could be Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff.
Posted May 19, 2008 | 10:01 AM (EST)