OK, actually, Power lost her mind momentarily. No one who says what she said can retain an advisory role in a presidential campaign. But it is indeed a loss to Obama and, more importantly, to those of us among Obama’s supporters who considered the presence of someone like Samantha Power one of the reasons to support the candidate.
I very much second what Henry, at Crooked Timber, said:
If further reinforcement be needed, this tells me again how bad I (and I suspect many other blogging academics) would be at real world politics in the highly unlikely event that someone wanted me to work for them in a campaign.
I wonder if Obama will be able to hold on to Goolsbee after the Canada/NAFTA flap.
Not a good week for the Yes We Can Man.
a
- Well, maybe I’d have to consider being Special Adviser on Electoral and Constitutional Renewal, in the unlikely event…aaa
a
Count me one of those who is relieved to see Power out of the picture. She’s much too closely aligned with the “humanitarian imperialism” and her writings on genocide were the bible of liberal supporters of the invasion. I’m not exactly sure why BHO chose here as an advisor; her writings for the New Yorker often sounded like they’d been composed for the Weekly Standard.
I was directed to an interview for her with the New Statesman, in which she discusses her views on intervention (very very briefly). Negard the NSDAP as the epitome of evil, a book on the subject that endlessly repeats “So then the Nazis did otice how the [moslty] British readership responded. I’m sorry to say I’d have to agree with them. The whole scheme of her book (A Problem from Hell) is to impose moral blinders, so that we’re not allowed to ask why the Clinton Administration was opposed to intervening in Rwanda—”NO EXCUSES!!!”—thereby setting aside the role of imperialism & blowback in genocide (neither Washington nor Westminster wished to enter an open confrontation with the French government already actively intervening in Rwanda). Admirers of Power praise her high-octane rhetoric as evidence of her moral engagement. Sorry, I’ve read zillions of books about the Nazis, and while I rx because they were EVIL” is of no se whatever.
Seed planted by James R MacLean — 09 March 2008 @ 22:38
Apologies for the mutilated 2nd paragraph, which ought to have read:
Please see the linked interview for her with the New Statesman, in which she discusses her views on intervention (very very briefly). Notice how the [mostly] British readership responded. I’m sorry to say I’d have to agree with them. The whole scheme of her book (A Problem from Hell) is to impose moral blinders, so that we’re not allowed to ask why the Clinton Administration was opposed to intervening in Rwanda—â€NO EXCUSES!!!â€â€”thereby setting aside the role of imperialism & blowback in genocide (neither Washington nor Westminster wished to enter an open confrontation with the French government already actively intervening in Rwanda). Admirers of Power praise her high-octane rhetoric as evidence of her moral engagement. Sorry, I’ve read zillions of books about the Nazis, and while I regard the NSDAP as the epitome of evil, a book on the subject that endlessly repeats “So then the Nazis did x because they were EVIL†is of no use whatever.
Seed planted by James R MacLean — 11 March 2008 @ 19:19