Power was the third Obama adviser to stir up a cloud of dust in recent weeks by apparently substituting his or her own views for Obama's: In addition to the "monster" comment, made to a Scottish newspaper, Power told the BBC that Obama's plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq within 16 months was subject to change once he took office.
[. . .]
The first is the obvious one: whether he truly intends to follow through on what he's been saying. For most of the campaign, Obama has gotten good mileage out of the idea that he says what he believes while Clinton's plans are hedged to allow for extra maneuverability. But in Obama's effort to stay to Clinton's left on Iraq and NAFTA, he may have gone further than he wanted, or could deliver.
When Clinton, during the Ohio debate, promised to opt out of the trade deal if Canada and Mexico didn't agree to changes, Obama quickly agreed. He later referred to using "the hammer of potential opt-out" to enhance environmental and labor requirements in NAFTA.
Obama may well believe that, and he may intend to stick with his timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq no matter what happens. But if so, he needs to make sure that all his advisers remain with the program.
Yes, there are a few adults left in journalism (though apparently none in Panhandle Media). The above is from Peter Canellos' "Comments raise questions about Obama, his advisers" (Boston Globe) and it is an issue and it is a news story. Panhandle Media can try to pretend otherwise, they can say "I'm not a Hillary Hater, that's just mean to call me that" and then offer their dumb ass opinions on Power and the remark "monster." That's the Friday morning news cycle of last week. The news is what Power said to the BBC. It is news and it is not going away. But Panhandle Media tries to distract from reality by continuing to focus on the "monster" remark this week and ignore Power's revelations about Obama's non-pledge on Iraq.
A little no-talent, never was (if you were born in 1976 and that is your laughable QV, you can't even tell your parents you're in the "entertainment industry") takes his attack to The Huffington Post -- where Hillary Hatred is imposed from the top and people shouldn't be surprised by that since we're talking about Arianna. Why the non-Democrat Arianna has been allowed to have such an influence in a Democratic Primary is amazing? She's a former Republican with no party affiliation today. She made her name on the chat & chews by regularly disotrtion what Bill or Hillary did. And yet today she's allegedly a trusted voice on the same couple?
No, she's offering in blog form what she offered in her bad rants in book form a decade ago. And they pop up over at the Wall St. Journal. (As happens today with the 32-year-old 'man' who seriously needs to find a profession because he has none currently.) Why anyone, with Arianna's known history, should take anything she decides to say as a 'Democrat' seriously is a good question. She can be a critic, no question. But with her well-known and publicly documented long history of attacks on the Clintons -- from the right then and still from the right today for anyone who bothers to read them closely -- should have ruled her out as an 'expert voice' on anything to do with the Clintons.
Your 'stars' of Panhandle Media are not interested in ending the Iraq War, they are interested in electing Obama which is why they ignore the damaging and/or illuminating remarks Power made to the BBC. They're not 'independent,' they're not voices of honesty. What happens to voices of honesty? Tina Richards shares that in "Mom works to end deployments in Iraq" (Joplin Media):
My journey to Washington, DC began a little over a year ago when I received a call from my son about his impending third deployment. After countless hours in the halls of Congress, I attained what many told me was impossible. I not only stopped his deployment, but he finally received his VA benefits that were long overdue.
When he called me with the news, I was overjoyed. Then he told me, "But mom there are 200 Marines here who are worse off then me, but they don't have a mom on the hill speaking for them."
I told him to tell them, "Yes they do." Since that time, I dedicated myself to speak for them. I arranged travel for war resisters, disabled soldiers, parents, veterans and many others to come to DC and use the power of their voices. We changed the debate on Capitol Hill.
For this, I lost my home and all my belongings, maxed out every credit card, was thrown in jail and lost my job with the Democratic party.
And of course she saw herself verbally stoned by the likes of David Sirota -- another alleged 'brave' and 'independent' voice who forgot to reveal that the man he was defending (David Obey) was his former boss. Panhandle Media doesn't give a damn about the Iraq War. If they did, they would have defended Tina and called out David Obey. They didn't do that. Today they play dumb and silent on the revelation that Obama's 'pledge' isn't a pledge or a promise. He's gone around the country making that 'pledge.' They have no outrage, they are not insulted for the people, they are not bothered in the least because they do not give a damn.
The Iraq War has been a very useful fundraising tool for Panhandle Media. That's all it's been. They don't cover it seriously today and they certainly don't call out the 'anti-war' candidate when his pledge is revealed not to be a promise.
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.