Obama Team Charges 'Double Standard' on Adviser Statements
By Alec MacGillis
Barack Obama's campaign, which has been spending more time than it would like discussing the utterances of its academic advisers, this afternoon downplayed the recent suggestion of its newly-departed foreign policy adviser that Obama's pledge to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months was less than hard and fast. And it charged that one of Clinton's Iraq advisers had suggested much the same last week, with little repercussion.
Samantha Power -- Harvard professor, author of books on the Rwandan genocide and slain UN official Sergio Vieira de Mello and resident big thinker in the Obama camp -- said in an interview with the BBC that Obama's withdrawal of troops from Iraq would inevitably depend somewhat on the circumstances he finds when he takes office. The Clinton campaign this afternoon pounced on the matter of fact remark as proof that Obama's promise to get out troops out of Iraq was disingenuous -- just an hour or two after the Clinton camp successfully demanded Power resign her campaign advisory post for another recent comment, telling the Scotsman newspaper that Clinton was behaving like a "monster."
(Whatever is it with the Obama campaign and the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth? After the recent Canadian consulate flap, the Scotsman and now BBC, one can only imagine there will be another bombshell arriving from New Zealand any day now. The Obama campaign may want to follow the lead of top Clinton aide Mandy Grunwald, who refuses to talk to the foreign press, period.)
The BBC interview proceeded as follows:
BBC: "You said that he'll revisit it when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment isn't it?
POWER: "You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can't even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.
He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together, in consultation with people who are on the ground, to whom he doesn't have daily access now as a result of not being the president. So to think, I mean it would be the height of ideology, you know, to sort of say, well I said it therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality entreats me -
BBC:Ok, so the 16 months is negotiable?
POWER: It's the best case scenario.
BBC: It's the best case scenario.
POWER: It is -
BBC: And of course in Iraq we've never seen best case scenario.
POWER: We have never seen best case scenario
BBC: So we needn't necessarily take it seriously at all.
POWER: What we can take seriously is that he will try to get US forces out as quickly and as responsibly as possible. And that's the best case, estimate of what it would take.
Clinton seized on these remarks today, comparing them to reports that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had privately assured Canadian officials that Obama's ant-NAFTA rhetoric was partly for political consumption. (The Obama campaign has, in fits and starts, denied those reports, and points to an Associated Press report that the Clinton campaign has given similar assurances to the Canadians.) "Sen. Obama has made his speech opposing Iraq in 2002 and the war in the Iraq the core of his campaign, which makes these comment especially troubling. While Sen. Obama campaigns on his to end the war his top advisors tell people abroad that he will not rely on his own plan should he become president," Clinton said today. "This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. You saw this with NAFTA as well."
In a conference call with reporters, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe rejected this, saying that Power's comments did not represent a change in Obama's Iraq thinking. "On Iraq he has been very clear. He offered a withdrawal plan well over a year ago, it's essential to his candidacy and a rock solid commitment," Plouffe said. "He obviously feels incredibly strongly on this issue." Pressed by reporters, Plouffe added that Obama would, in one of his first acts as president, meet with the Joints Chiefs of Staff and "make clear...that a withdrawal should begin immediately." "He has been and will continue to be crystal clear with the American people that if and when he is elected president we will be out of Iraq," Plouffe said. "It will be 16 months at the most where you can withdraw combat troops...There should be no confusion about that."
Plouffe also noted that Gen. Jack Keane, an architect of the Iraq surge strategy and informal adviser to Clinton on Iraq, had recently told the New York Sun that he doubted Clinton would withdraw troops from Iraq as quickly as she has said she would on the campaign trail. "Senator Clinton is very knowledgeable about national security and is probably going to be strong on defense," Keane said. 'I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January '09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made."
Also on the call, Plouffe said that Power had made the "right decision" in stepping down over the "monster" comment. Power is "a very brilliant person and a valuable part of the campaign, but [the campaign] can't condone those kind of comments," he said. But he charged that there was a "double standard" in Clinton's demanding Power's resignation while responding slowly to several people in her own camp who have strayed across the line, such as BET network founder Bob Johnson and machinists' union president Tom Buffenbarger.
Plouffe also further pressed the Obama campaign's call for Clinton to release her and her husband's tax returns of the past six years as soon as possible, saying there were too many questions about the links between the Clintons' newfound wealth and contributors to her campaign and investors involved in her husband's philanthropic and business ventures. Clinton is "one of the most secretive politicians in America today. There is no reason why the six years of prior tax returns cannot be released right now," Plouffe said. "They can go to Kinko's and Xerox them...Considering the huge amounts of money they have made in recent years...it's essential for the American people to know where they're getting money from."
Posted at 3:18 PM ET on Mar 7, 2008
Share This:
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Meanwhile, two polls released in Mississippi show diverging margins but an Obama win. And they also reveal an outstanding racial polarizing, with one poll showing a 100% gap between black voters and white voters! Full roundup: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/03/friday-polls-diverging-margins-in.html
Posted by: campaigndiaries | March 7, 2008 03:51 PM
Senator Clinton IS behaving like a monster.
Posted by: walterbond | March 7, 2008 03:54 PM
I THOUGHT THAT THE TRUTH WAS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE! So, where's the beef? Why'd Power quit over this absolute fact?
Posted by: prantha | March 7, 2008 04:06 PM
If Obama was any more effte he'd be PeeWee
Herman
Posted by: newagent99 | March 7, 2008 04:10 PM
Why is it not a surprised to me that the foreign press are doing a better job at asking question than our mainstream media. They are providing more informations for the public to make sound choice at the poll.
Posted by: Aeldas | March 7, 2008 04:32 PM
I really like Samantha Power. She IS a brilliant person and she was a huge asset to his campaign. This is a shame. What's worse is that most people in America agree with the "monster" comment (Republicans and most Obama-supporters).
As far as press bias goes, there is no doubt that Hillary has cowed the press into presenting her view of the facts. What's more, the press now seems intent on attacking Obama's character, not his positions. The Fourth Estates wavering integrity is disgusting to watch. Hopefully Obama will start getting a fair shake again soon.
Posted by: AdamSC | March 7, 2008 04:35 PM
Hillary is a MONSTER. She is a 'win at any cost' type of person.
In my opinion, what is of utmost importance is the integrity of the president (or the person running for president). If the president has integrity, he/she can hire and fire his/her staff if they do illegal or imporper things.
Clintons have a bad record when it comes to integrity. Obama has a good record. So, I still trust Obama to make the right decisions if he gets elected president of this country. I believe he will stand up straight and maintain his integrity, preotect the integrity of the white house, and keep the trust of the people of America as well as other nations around the world.
Posted by: Dave27 | March 7, 2008 04:37 PM
Another one of Obama's lies, speeches, and empty promises. Naftagate and now Iraqgate. We know you now Obama. Wake up young people who blindly follow Obama!
Posted by: MAUFIT | March 7, 2008 04:38 PM
It's sad how easily the American people get distracted from what really matters. Everyone knows that no politician can give a guarantee that they will deliver what they promise. The president is not a dictator nor a fortune teller. None of them know for sure what will happen between now and when they take office. None of them have absoute control over the thoughts and comments of everyone who works for them.
Look at those apspects of their past and present behavior that you think are important to a future president, and make your decision based on those facts. These sill rows about whether or not Hillary is bi or Obama is really a plant of Al Qaeda are either irrelevant or rediculous, depending on your point of view.
What do I want to know about Obama and Clinton? Who is more likely to keep running the government in the same ineffectual way it has been run for the past decades? Who is more likely to make decisions based on the special interests of powerful corporations, religious groups etc.? Who is more likely to bring this divided country back together again?
Did Hillary experiment with lesbian sex, did Obama toot some coke, who the heck cares. Did Hillary make a deal with the devil to get her senate seat or preferential treatment from the party in her presidential run? Is Obama secretly taking huge contributions from a few rich patrons? Those are the important questions.
Posted by: bjuhasz | March 7, 2008 04:42 PM
Hussein Obama is so over!
He not only took cocain, but also took bribes. He not only plagiarized, but also lied. He not only played dirty Karl-Rove tricks, but also had his senior advisor speak dirty words.
American will NOT have such kind of disgusting person be our president! No!
Posted by: hgogo | March 7, 2008 04:42 PM
If Hillary thinks that if she gets to the White House she won't find a pile of crap a mile high that none of us knew about, and she will have to change/reassess once she has more facts and access to classified information, then she is not only a monstrous liar, but she is very naive, reckless, and perhaps not as experienced as she likes to put forth.
Of course, Obama has his plan but you have to act responsibly. This clearly points to his character and honesty!
Posted by: dirops | March 7, 2008 04:43 PM
Does 'SEA HAG' count as a monster? Because I see her as sort of a 'SEA HAG' but I really don't put that into the 'Monster' category.
Hmmm... I could be wrong.
Posted by: PulSamsara | March 7, 2008 04:45 PM

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.