Departed Obama aide Power listed as host of Sunday fundraiser

Here's an interesting little footnote to the brief but explosive life of that controversy last week over Barack Obama's senior foreign affairs advisor, Samantha Power, going overseas, giving a newspaper interview and calling Hillary Clinton "a monster."

Power resigned with "deep regret" almost immediately, calling her remarks "inexcusable" and at variance with both the dignified tone of Obama's campaign and her admiration for Clinton. Power attracted considerable attention in her 14 months with the campaign for her foreign policy expertise, being a Harvard professor and a Pulitzer Prize winner.

But The Ticket has obtained some evidence that Power was also playing a little-known but important and influential role in Obama's highly successful political fundraising campaign. Last month alone the Obama money machine raised $55 million, or about $79,000 per hour around the clock for February's 29 days.

Now comes an invitation to an exclusive $2,000 fundraiser this Sunday evening at the Chicago home of Barbara Manilow on North Cleveland. Power is listed on the invitation as the top attraction and speaker.

At the time of this posting, no one from the Obama campaign had replied to e-mail messages asking if, despite her resignation March 7, Power was still the Sunday host and involved in the campaign's fundraising efforts.

(UPDATE: A campaign spokesman this morning reports Power will not be participating in the Sunday fundraiser.)

--Andrew Malcolm

                                                                          Photo credit: Sheila Griffin / AP

Comments

[Seller's Market]

$79000.00 per hour
An amazing amount,although of dayly diminishing value as
our dollar tanks. This financial effort involves hundreds of
volunteers and it's success pales dramatically when you
consider that it would take only 16 unlicensed therapists
of Kristen Dupré's class to accomplish as much. For tax
purposes however,it's a wash.

[Mike]

I think we may be seeing another one of those clever Obama doublespeaks that we are starting to see a lot of. Clearly Mr. Obama cannot prevail too long, publicly saying one thing and secretly doing other things. he's gonna get caught in the lies more and more. It is inevitable.

I think before we go many more months it is going to become much more apprarent that HE has an inherent dishonesty that will be evidenced by him publicly saying one thing and privately another. I think we are gonna see the "dark side" exposed more and more. This is regrettable, because I like the public Obama and was thinking I would like to vote for him, but I am starting to see way too many inconsistencies between public statements and public image and the reality of what he believes, what he has probably done, and with whom he consorts.

[Dr. B]

It appears the point of this article is to continue with the NYTimes' Anti-Obama pattern of attempting to extract a smears from otherwise benign situations.

First of all, Ms Power was expressing her PERSONAL VIEW., evidenced by the fact that she had taken the pains to make her comment an "off the record comment".
Unlike what Ferrarro and her predecessors (the Ken Starr accuser, etc) have done, She DID NOT attempt to speak on behalf of the campaign.

The interviewer to whom she was speaking has said several times that her comment came in response to a telephone call she had just received about Hillary's latest attack. Of course that would evoke a reaction from anyone. It evoked the same reaction from the average American who was bombarded DAILY with one unbelievably gutter-style attack after another.

An attempt to turn this into a representation of the Obama Campaign in incredibly insipid and lacking in logic; An attempt to even further build on that unintelligent argument is laughable, to say the least. Says a lot about what it takes to get hired by the New York Times.

[Maybe. But this is the LA Times.]

[Mia]

When was the invitation printed and circulated?

[Obama-rama]

I think a lot of garbage about Obama will come out. It will all be true.

[Yanos]

The campaign has already informed the reporter she won't be participating. Could it be that they were maybe unable to remove her name from all of the event's press materials at the time of this story's going to press? I agree with the earlier sentiment. Much like the NYT as of late (although I see today they've started bending to the resounding response from readers of their obvious Clinton bias and started reporting some good on Obama) articles like these are just searching for that "gocha!" moment regardless of whether or not it's newsworthy.

Why don't we stay focused on the issues? If Geraldine Ferraro is allowed to resign herself from the Clinton campaign, yet vow to continue to cheerlead via a freelance position then why don't we just leave the independantly-minded people in both campaigns to do what they wish, and focus on the nominees themselves.

For starters why don't the media start to press Clinton on some transparency for once? Obama has released his last three years of earmarks as of today. And the response from the Clinton camp has been no response at all. It's the same "we'll get to that". Let the people see what all her washington experience is made of. Tax returns, white house records, earmarks, heck even that sealed college thesis would be a start. What is she hiding?

[DoTheMath]

(UPDATE: A campaign spokesman this morning reports Power will not be participating in the Sunday fundraiser.)

Parentheses, no less! Doesn't this tiny update negate this whole article?

Not too biased.

[Ken]

I watched Samantha Power being interviewed on Charlie Rose. What a brilliant and and beautiful woman. She makes Condoleezza Rice look like an amature. Samantha Powers would make a great Sec. State or NSA.

[ss]

Anybody with common sense would know that this fundraiser and invitation was set up and sent before the "monster" remark and Power's subsequent resignation. Only a person with an agenda would actually think that this fundraiser was a last minute affair and not scheduled months ago.

[Angie]

Interesting how character assassination continues instead of dwelling on accomplishments. Let's move forward and quit digging for dirt! Of course it must be difficult for Barack Obama to compete with the squeaky clean Clinton family, who after all were attacked by a "right wing conspiracy"! Private Lives are Private, but LIES are a different matter and spell deceit. Sharpen up your memories and don’t be fooled yet again!

[converse]

What's all this about violins on television!?!

Oh...never mind.

[Tom]

Mike – What inconsistencies? Please give detail. Here are some facts about NAFTA

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBheLrsMh4E

Dr. B response is a good one regarding Powers.

In general, Obama’s campaign has been pretty disciplined and well run. Especially when you consider it has only been here for about a year. I think the contrast and choice that Obama brings to the table is pretty impressive. It is important for us not to miss the forest for tree so to speak. Obama has already achieved several milestones. One is his ability to raise money from the larges number of Americans, virtually breaking the grip that lobbyist and special interest have over our politics. This is quite an achievement that will have precedent. In the future honest public servants will know that they have other options that would fund their campaign. The second item is exciting a large number of the youth to participate in the political process. Here is an interesting link about that: http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/video-interviewer-picks-the-wrong-obama-supporter-to-try-to-railroad/

When you really look at it I think the choice is simple:

One is a leader the other a politician.
One is about the future the other about the past.
One is about our hopes the other about our fears.
One will unite the country; the other will divide it even further.
One refuses to use negative campaigning the other stoops in it.
One is about transparency, the other about keeping us in the dark.
One is inclusive, the other excusive.
One feels called to server, the other entitled to power.
One’s campaign is funded by average Americans and therefore beholden to them, the other’s mostly by lobbyist and answerable to special interest.
One is guided by a moral compass, the other by a self-interest compass.

Who are we going to make our next leader and the leader of the free world? This is not about personal likes and dislikes, nor about race or gender. This is about where we want to be in ten, twenty, thirty years. We need to claim our future with this election. Let us not allow fear mongering and divisive politics to win again!

Barack Obama is the only real choice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080310/cm_huffpost/090690

[Inkslayer]

TOM

Your facts on NAFTA are laughable.

An unnamed source claims to have herd from an unidentified reporter who claims to have herd a Canadian official say something he denies ever saying.

That's some evidence! LOL

Compare that to this:

On Feb. 9 Austan Goolsbee, the senior economic adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, had a meeting with Georges Rioux, consul general for the Canadian government. The two men met in Chicago, where Rioux maintains a consular office for the states of Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin and where Goolsbee teaches economics at the University of Chicago. Afterward, Joseph DeMora, a consulate staff member, wrote an enthusiastic summary (see below and the following two pages) for Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson. In the memo, DeMora praised Goolsbee's "intellectual prowess … approachability, curiosity and youthful enthusiasm" and alerted Wilson that the Obama brain-truster "appeared genuinely … impressed by the magnitude" of the economic relationship between the United States and Canada (see below).

For the Canadians, a key point of concern was Obama's sharp criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement. DeMora wrote Wilson that in the Chicago meeting, Goolsbee "candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign" but reassured Rioux that Obama's NAFTA-bashing "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

READ THE ACTUAL MEMO:

http://www.slate.com/id/2185753

Here's the last word on that issue -
PMO: Officials only got briefing from Obama campaign:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home

BTW - That's news KO hides from you. LOL

All a moot point now - Obama is unelectable. He's been exposed as the race baiting liar he is.

Too bad.

[Mike in Sac]

Tom,

You have it absolutely correct. There is a stark choice between the candidates. Barack clearly has the character and integrity to present the world with leaderships that can be respected. Lord knows we need that now. I firmly believe that Hillary, if elected, would use the power of the Presidency to make the Republicans pay for what they did to her and Bill. We just don't need that and would be worse off for it. She would further the divisiveness that currently reigns. That is the real choice in this primary election. Do we want a bitterly divided government or not. The choice is clear. Those who want gridlock to continue have their candidate in Hillary and those who want a new tomorrow and a sunrise of new beginnings in the Democratic Party have Barack.

The choice is starkly clear in their polar opposites. Barack really is the leader (not just politician) that we need.

[Tom J]

Okay, I give up. I really don't understand the point of this article.

Were you surprised that Obama supporters, generally characterized as well-educated and very interested in various serious matters, would be interested in attending a luncheon where they could hear one of his advisors speak? Particularly Power, who we've all seen on Charlie Rose?

What were you expecting - Paris Hilton as speaker? Maybe you've spent too much time in LA....

[Ken]

I bet the Rev. Wright will do the same.

[Dennis Kelley]

How absurd are we becoming. A pastor can say what he wants to say but it is not an endorsement of his views. Take the Reverend Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton, many agree with what they say but not everything. This racial issue was being pushed to the forefront by the Clinton camp. In fact, is the Black community and the Black Hall of Fame going to put an asterisk beside Bill's name stating he is the first Black president "when it served him".

I feel everyone should write to CNN to express their views on this issue. They keep running clips of the OBama pastor fueling the race issue. Does this mean that all 6,000 members of this congregation share the same view? Who are they trying to help, Hillary? It is her only hope in trying to encourage a white backlash vote. CNN has kept saying this Democratic primary is getting ugly but they are right in the middle pushing this issue for viewers.

There appears to be a group of Reverends that are trying to organize and express a problem with OBama and his comments about his pastor. They should get smart and realize he is left with no other choice. He has done more for the party, the youth of America all colors and a belief in the future than any other candidate since Kennedy.

To set the record straight, I am a white male over the age of 65. I have always voted Republican. My problem with McCain is that he is as pig headed as Bush. He listens to no one. How we are viewed internationally will continue to suffer under him. So what if he is a retired military officer, I am too.

[criss]

the last comment by jacksmith couldnt have been more wrong