Samantha Power has a must-read article in the Aug. 14 issue of The NY Review of Books, titled The Democrats and National Security. Here’s an excerpt:
“How can Obama and his Democratic colleagues expose once and for all the fallacies in the conservative approach to national security, while putting forward a convincing alternative? They must start by not shying from the security debate or relying, with quiet relief, on polls showing that (unlike in 2004) only 4 percent of Americans today view terrorism as their top concern. Democrats must instead seize the advantage the polls show they could have on security issues. This means talking early and often about national security and going on the offensive by strongly presenting the foreign policy plans already devised, whether by members of Congress or by the Obama campaign. It also means explaining how each plan —whether for retrieving loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union or for assisting Iraqi refugees in Syria— advances the central goal of keeping Americans safe. Democrats can break with their reputation for squeamishness about national security issues by showing their ease and confidence in dealing with these topics. Instead of changing the subject when national security issues arise, they should look forward to taking part in detailed foreign policy discussions that allow them to show their new strength.
They must also answer McCain's apocalyptic claims about the effects of a US withdrawal from Iraq. Too often on Capitol Hill or in the primary battle, Democrats have confidently suggested that since the US-led invasion brought savage sectarian killing to Iraq, a US departure will rid the country of much of its violence. Critics of President Bush have seemed to imply that no serious harm will flow from a US withdrawal. But American voters realize that the effects of a US drawdown are in fact unknowable. The failure to acknowledge any possible humanitarian or strategic risks of leaving makes Democrats sound less sophisticated than they are, and deprives them of the chance to describe their plans to draw down troops in a careful and strategically sound way. McCain's alarmist forecast thus goes unchallenged.
Prominent Democrats must drive home the continuing costs of remaining in Iraq—costs to Iraq, the region, Afghanistan, US military readiness, and national security as a whole— while describing the specific ways an Obama administration would limit the harmful consequences of withdrawal. (In fact, Obama outlined such plans in a speech last year but it got little attention and needs reinforcement from the Democratic echo chamber.)
Obama has long stated his intention to retain a Quick-Reaction Force in the region to carry out counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda and other such networks. He has made clear his concern for Iraqi civilians in mixed neighborhoods who might be more vulnerable following a withdrawal of US combat brigades. He would offer these civilians fair notice of US plans and would be open to relocating those who would feel more secure if they moved. He has promised $2 billion to assist the two million Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries. He would establish a war crimes commission to gather the testimony of survivors and put militia leaders on notice that they may eventually be prosecuted. Obama's plan to meet with the region's heads of state is the first of many steps that will be required to prevent regional conflict.”
More here:
The first time I got really excited about Barack Obama's Foreign policy was after hearing this conversation. I couldn't believe somebody like this could enter the American presidential politics
Barack Obama’s Senior Foreign Policy Adviser Samantha Power on Obama’sCall to Increase the Pentagon’s Budget, Hugo Chavez, Funding the IraqOccupation and Attacking Pakistan
My fundraising for Obama '08
Samantha Power is great! Her common sense voice rings clear in this Sam Stein article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/26/samantha-power-unapologet_n_93493.html
If you've been following my blog, I think it would not be hard to figure out that I'm a pretty big fan of Samantha Power. It was she who first drew my attention to Senator Obama and every time I have heard her speak, I hear a voice of reason. Tuesday, the Financial Times ran an interesting column titled "The problem with Power" which is worth reading.
There was a lot of discussion on the mailing lists of a few of the groups I'm in about the Power resignation. For anyone who's interested in further reading and some good bloggy analysis, I recommend the following:
Obsidian Wings' in-depth analysis of why Power had to resign, why it's a shame, and why the reporter should have thought twice before publishing.
The Economist's Democracy in America blog's brief summary of the comment and the fallout. And a follow up about the reporter's explanation about what she did and why (and why it was still a poor choice.)
(Sorry this post has little zombie content. I'm off to dine on a brain-filled lunch, but I wanted to post this first for people interested in more information -- especially as I didn't cite my sources during the mailing list discussion.)
During an interview Ambassador Andrew Young publicly admired how Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton stood by her man:
"When [Bill] Clinton decided to run, Hillary set up a 'defense committee'. That's what they called it. And you know what it was? It was to go around and neutralize all the women that he'd ever been involved with. And she got her friends to be on the defense committee to protect him from the attacks."
Neutralize.
Now there's an interesting word. I wonder how The Clintons define the word "neutralize". Did they pay these women off? Did they threaten them? Do they define it as "by any means necessary? It's certainly worthy of investigation.
I mentioned this point in response to a comment on another post but I wanted to repeat it because there is so much dirt on The Clintons right out there in the public domain that it baffles me that Senator Obama has not yet obliterated their campaign. Why not simply state the obvious? The Clintons have been getting away with murder. How dare they make innuendos about Rezko with the mass grave of skeletons they have in their closet? There's so much to call The Clintons on from Mark Rich to Rwanda to their Good Cop/Bad Cop exploitation of women.
Hillary's no feminist icon. If you look at the facts, I'd Professor Power hit the nail on the head.
Lake Champlain, March 10. 2008
On April 20, 1982, the Vermont House of Representatives passed Resolution H.R. 19 protecting Champ, the legendary lake monster, “from any willful act resulting in death, injury or harassment.” A similar resolution was adopted in the same year by the State Assembly of New York. One theory is that Champ, whose sighting predates the famous Loch Ness monster, is a plesiosaurus, a prehistoric water-dwelling reptile that escaped extinction in Lake Champlain, which lies between Vermont and New York.
Vermont Democrats, who last week voted 59% to 39% to make Barack Obama their party's nominee for President, are now considering a new resolution similarly declaring their candidate a "protected species" to provide him the same legal safeguards as Champ. The fear is that Obama has had his mojo stolen and may be eaten alive by his opponent. And so she would prematurely bring to an end the career of a new breed of politician intent on fundamentally changing Washington.
There is some evidence to support their concerns. After Vermont, Hillary Clinton won primaries in Rhode Island, Texas and Ohio. And the 3AM phone call ad and NAFTA-gate that contributed to her victories are still actively discussed in the media. On top of all that, one of Obama's two top female foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power was forced to resign late last week after she called the former First Lady a "monster".
It is interesting that the comparison of Hillary Clinton to a monster did not come out until after the Vermont primary. But it does raise some questions. Was the former First Lady's decision to move to New York affected in any way by that state's resolution protecting the lake monster? Just asking. It appears Hillary has not suffered "death, injury or harassment" since she migrated to NY; probably pure coincidence. Is Hillary in fact a carnivorous Plesiotsuris (from the Greek plesio and Yiddish tsuris, meaning "similar to trouble") who is taking advantage of the legal protections intended for Champ, whose friendly image serves as mascot of the minor league Lake Monsters baseball team? To quote Hillary: "There is nothing to base that on, as far as I know."
Elsewhere, NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, a super delegate who endorsed Hillary Clinton, announced he may not vote for her in Denver after all.
Great article in the Huffington Post - wanted to share a little.
She has no idea.
She has no idea how many times I defended her. How many right-leaning friends and relatives I battled with. How many times I played down her shady business deals and penchant for scandals -- whether it was Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures, Web Hubbell, or Norman Hsu. She has no idea how frequently I dismissed her husband's serial adultery as an unfortunate trait of an otherwise brilliant man. For sixteen years, I was a proud soldier in the legion of "Clinton apologists" -- who believed that peace and prosperity were more important than regrettable personality traits.
And then she ran for president.
After seven years of George W. Bush, America is hungry for change. Big change. And let's face it -- Hillary Clinton, the party standard-bearer and former White House denizen -- isn't it. But even after voters coalesced around Barack Obama, handing him eleven straight primaries (twelve, if you count Vermont), she refused to accept the possibility -though math, money and momentum were clearly against her -- that the Bush/Clinton Family Band might not be #1 on America's Billboard chart anymore.
So, rather than step aside and become the hero of her party, she made a strategy decision to go negative in advance of Ohio and Texas. Not just negative -- personal. She cynically chided Mr. Obama's message of hope. She played the victim card. The gender card. The Muslim card. She cried "shame on you, Barack Obama" for his campaign tactics, while (if we're to believe Matt Drudge) simultaneously floating a picture of him in Somali garb to stir up questions of his patriotism.
She accused Mr. Obama of his own shady business deals (the irony of which nearly ripped a hole in the fabric of space/time). She accused him of being two-faced on NAFTA, when it was her campaign that had winked at the Canadians. She demanded that he "reject" the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, but remained silent when Rush Limbaugh stirred up votes for her in Texas. And she crafted the now-infamous "3am" attack ad -- which used scare tactics to highlight Senator Obama's perceived lack of experience in foreign affairs. Straight out of the ol' Atwater/Rove playbook. Of course, all of this paled in comparison to her husband's patronizing, racially insensitive comments earlier in the primary season.
Was this the same Hillary Clinton whose husband ran on the idea that hope was more powerful than fear? The wife of a president who had less foreign policy experience than Barack Obama when he was elected? And exactly which crisis is she referring to when she claims to have more experience? And while we're at it, where the hell are those tax returns?
Read entire article by Seth Grahame-Smith
1. Samantha Power messed up by calling Sen. Clinton a "monster" while a reporter's tape was running.
2. The reporter was fully within her rights to quote her.
3. Power was right to offer to resign.
4. Sen. Obama should not have accepted her resignation.
In retrospect, this incident was an opportunity for Sen. Obama to differentiate between things people say in a hard-fought campaign and things people say that are calculated to appeal to peoples' worst instincts and Republican-type fears. He should have said the comment was unwise and apologized for it. Power would have apologized, too, and made clear that she has always admired Clinton when she did right, but was frustrated by her doing bad ... she's essentially already said all this quite well.
Obama would then have been able to suggest some helpful rules for the discourse over then next several weeks ... don't use Republican talking points against fellow Democrats, don't dredge up old rumors and sexist or racist stereotypes, but go ahead and criticize policies when criticism is called for.
These rules would effectively place out of bounds 2/3 of Clinton's recent attacks on Obama, and would be further evidence that Obama knows that "bringing people together" and "ending bitter partisanship" doesn't mean giving in to the other side or otherwise being mealy-mouthed on important issues.
Maybe he can walk this back and still do this. Maybe he should invite Ms. Power back into his campaign.
The powerful contributions of unpaid Obama advisor Samantha Power have underscored my faith in this campaign. The clarity, judgment, and vision of this Pulitzer Prize winning Harvard professor demonstrates the possibility of leadership formed from the interplay of multiple gifted, fair minded, and common sense individuals.
Considering her resume, I completely reject a politics which expels her for one mortal gaffe, especially when she both retracted it immediately and later issued an eloquent apology. Politics of the past has given us snakes adept at weaving mistruths and watching their own backs. If we are to expect the truth from government, then we must expect to see mistakes. When we see a confession of mortal imperfection, we can finally see honesty but if we want to see it again, we must be willing to offer forgiveness. If we do not have the compassion to accept a genuine apology, then we are perpetuating the deceptiveness of politics as usual.
Frankly, I like the ring of an OBAMA POWER ticket!
I was disappointed and sad to hear that Samantha Power resigned. Her resignation may have been a nice gesture to deflect a media and Clinton campaign hissy fit. Nonetheless, it's foolish for the Obama campaign to let her go. She's a brilliant foreign policy mind whose central concern throughout her career has been human rights.
I don't particularly think Hillary Clinton is a monster, and I think Ms. Power had a childish, ridiculous moment in saying that she [Ms. Clinton] was. But Ms. Power's foreign policy agenda--human rights--is exactly what should be at the center of Obama's candidacy and, hopefully, presidency.
Anyone who has been as deeply involved in this campaign as we here on OMS knows the feelings that pushed Samantha Power to call Hillary Clinton a monster. After all, even Tina Fay, who is unabashedly pro-Hillary, used much stronger language on Saturday Night Live to describe the former First Lady.
One of the main reasons I have been very happy to serve -- and I have done so with the strongest of commitments -- as a volunteer supporter of the Obama campaign was because it reserved for me the freedom of expression that is just not possible for those who have formal roles as staff or advisors. And having worked for the Bill Clinton Administration and some of its appointees, rest assured, I have strong feelings about the Clintons that are often difficult to contain. But if you're a senior policy advisor to the candidate, you have no choice but to keep such feelings out of the public domain.
So, it's too bad. Samantha Power's angry outburst reported by a foreign journalist has lead to her resignation from the campaign. Just in case it is not yet clear to her, this means that her role in an Obama Administration will probably be limited at least initially to a position that does not require Senate confirmation. There are lots of those at the NSC and State Department for a brilliant policy professional like Ms. Power, especially with her background on the crises in Darfur and the Balkans. In fact, she would find a precedent and suitable match in Bill Clinton's appointment of Sam Brown to head our delegation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which has had a major institutional role in Kosovo, Chechnya, and as far away as Central Asia.
Brown's radical past and prior record at ACTION made it impossible to get Jesse Helms' approval for an ambassadorial appointment. So Brown served a full tour as the Head of Delegation, without the rank of ambassador, to the US Mission to the OSCE in Vienna. Intent on leaving government service with the title of Ambassador, however, Brown reached out to his former secretary Betty Curry, Bill Clinton's personal secretary in the White House (who had an interesting role herself in the Monica Lewinsky scandal), for help. She made sure that the President gave Brown an "interim" appointment, a temporary measure permitted under law while the Congress is in recess, that gave Sam Brown the title, but not rank, of Ambassador.
So Samantha Power, while things may look bleak today, you are now free to speak out, and still look forward to a fruitful role and position in the Obama Administration.
Samantha Power has resigned due to the leak of her off-the-record comments to The Scotsman on Monday. I think that's a real shame, and I would be proud if the Obama campaign organization would refuse to accept it, and convince her to stay on. Ms. Power is a valuable asset, and I don't think we need to kowtow in any way to the demands of the Clinton camp.
Ms. Power's remarks were not, of course, the most "politically correct" things to say, by any means, but here's something else she said, to the graduating class of Santa Clara in 2006:
... if the shapers of US foreign policy looked out for the human consequences of their decisions, the world and the United States would be far better off. ... the trick is never to confuse means and ends. Cold-blooded reason is a tool that you can employ on behalf of what you believe in. But if you employ reason too soon, it can pre-empt feeling, and you can end up believing nothing at all. Lesson Number Two, then, is "Let reason be your tool, but let justice be your cause."
I can't condemn Ms. Power because she expressed her feeling. The truth is, I feel exactly the same way. She has apologized for the remarks, and the demands from the Clinton camp are, as usual, petty and self-serving. Why should we listen to them?
I will have my differences with Ms. Power, and Senator Obama for that matter, in the future. But I know a valuable asset when I see one, and I urge Senator Obama and Ms. Power to reconcile and continue working together in this campaign.
Don't let them win, folks! Don't let them win anywhere! The apology is sufficient, and Ms. Power is the same positive influence she was before. Would I be so passionate if she were less beautiful? Don't confuse me! Yes, I believe I would be, because you and I can make decisions based on principle, and I strongly believe that Senator Obama and Ms. Power are better when they work together.
Samantha Power is an award-winning truth teller who won the Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for her important work on American foreign policy and genocide during the 20th century.
While her comments, calling Hillary Clinton a "monster," were out of line, her message remains. The Clinton campaign was complicit in allowing the genocide in Rwanda during the 1990s. When they had the power to do something, they actually encouraged UN Peacekeepers to move out of the region, helping diplomats escape while their house stewards were raped and murdered.
You might remember this story from the movie, "Hotel Rwanda," which depicted the work of Paul Rusesabagina to prevent the genocide and respond to the crisis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYwuXvA589A
Samantha Power spoke the truth. Unfortunately, many in the United States are still ignorant to the continuing genocide in the Darfur region, as well as the humanitarian crisis created by the Iraq invasion by US troops in 2003.
Sadly, by speaking out in insulting terms against Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power broke the rules of diplomacy. Her violation is miniscule compared to the atrocities tolerated by the Clintons. As Jesus once said, "You strain a gnat and swallow a camel."
Yahoo! news today reported that Samantha Power has resigned from the campaign after referring to Senator Clinton as "a monster" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_el_pr/obama_adviser).
The article goes on to say:
"Senator Obama has called for change, and a new kind of politics," said New York Rep. Gregory Meeks. "This is the worst kind of politics."
Interesting. I guess that 1) there isn't anything more important for Representative Meeks to do in New York, and 2) the expectation is that reaction from the Obama campaign should be near-instantaneous. With all due respect, the Representative needs to start doing his job and let Senator Clinton manage the high-level stuff (it's ridiculous to even call this an "issue").
...further, the article states:
(Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson) defended his own comparison of Obama to independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, saying he'd been responding to "attacks" from the Obama campaign regarding Clinton's tax returns and real estate transactions. That, he said, was a clear reference to Whitewater and so it was appropriate to bring up Starr in that context.
Oh, that makes it clear, Howard - the difference is that it's ok when you do it. Kind of like the "Florida and Michigan votes must count" thing where the other campaigns followed the rules while Senator Clinton's did not, right?
While both campaigns need to rein-in their people to a degree I continue to be amazed by the lack of courtesy and decorum from a campaign supposedly run by the "solutions candidate," the one with all the supposed experience. And for goodness sake, Hillary, stop wearing that yellow suit...it makes you look washed-out!
Shaping Obama’s view of the world: Samantha Power, a senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, was born in Ireland, won a Pulitzer prize for her book on genocide and has played basketball with George Clooney. She is keen to preserve the special relationship with Britain and says that, contrary to reports, Gordon Brown didn’t snub Obama
Sarah Baxter (London Times) meets Samantha Power
With her long, straight auburn hair, blue eyes and freckles, Samantha Power looks as though she has stepped out of a photograph of the Kennedy clan. She was born in Ireland, lives in Massachusetts and shares the admiration of America’s royal family for the candidate they regard as the new JFK.
I wonder: could she be a relation of Caroline Kennedy from the wrong side of the blanket?
She laughs: “Maybe it’s the hair. I don’t have any Kennedy blood, stock or power.”
Power came to America at the age of nine with her mother – a doctor who left her father for another man at a time when Ireland did not allow divorce – and has risen to become a senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
If he continues his dazzling ascent to the White House, she could have a great deal of power and dominion over the rest of us.
Last summer Obama told her she should write a book about her life. “Barack thinks everyone with an interesting life story should write a memoir,” she teases. Power, 37, is engagingly frank, but insists: “I’m more interested in other people’s stories.”
Her Pulitzer prize-winning book on genocide first captured Obama’s attention in 2005 and he may well reward her with a trusted place in his new Camelot. She once referred to herself as the “genocide chick” and, although the subject lacks glamour, it does have its perks. One of these was playing basket-ball with George Clooney – “She’s the best I’ve ever played against,” he says gallantly.
Power, for her part, describes the Hollywood star as a brilliant “one-man diplomat” for Darfur.
“I’d like to say, for the record, that I did not get into issues of genocide for the privilege of meeting George Clooney,” she says with mock solemnity over a coffee in Washington.
“He’s more than a celebrity. He’s doing things that both the US and British governments should be doing. It shouldn’t take a celebrity to go door to door for contributors for troop commitments. I’ve been blown away by him.”
She is also thrilled by the impact Obama is already having on world affairs: “I have a friend who just came back from Burma last week and said all that anybody is talking about on the streets of Rangoon is Barack Obama. What is incredible is how many constituencies he can appeal to, how many boundaries he can cross effortlessly – of race, of age, of geography and of religion.”
“Obamamania”, she believes, owes much to the building of a movement by dedicated supporters. “The only way we were going to win was to have organisers who were willing to freeze their asses off in rural Iowa when it seemed like there was going to be no political payoff. The corollary is that those who are helping Obama do so with quasi-evangel-ical fervour. I think Obama supporters, by and large, do not see this as mere politics. They see this as the future of the world.”
What does Power – who is much sought after by ambassadors because of her closeness to the Illinois senator – think of the report last week that Gordon Brown had badly misjudged Obama’s electoral appeal and was now desperately trying to play catchup after snubbing him in deference to the fading Hillary Clinton? “It’s not fair,” she says staunchly. “He’s not a fair-weather friend who has only just realised Obama is for real.”
At any rate, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, our man in Washington, got in touch with Power almost as soon as he arrived last autumn and met Obama a couple of weeks ago in Maryland.
Hitherto, the principal conduit between Britain and the candidate has been Lord Malloch-Brown, the junior foreign minister, whom Obama came to admire when he was deputy secretary-general of the United Nations.
“He was really taken with him,” says Power, in what will undoubtedly be viewed by American conservatives as a desperately bad sign. “It’s a relationship that has persisted and they have talked a number of times since.”
Power spent her twenties as a reporter in trouble spots such as Kosovo, Rwanda, East Timor and Sudan before helping to found the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University in 1999.
It was as a journalist that she met the subject of her latest book, Sergio Vieira de Mello, a close friend of Malloch-Brown who served as the UN mission chief in Iraq and was a victim of the first big Al-Qaeda suicide attack in Baghdad in 2003.
The dashing Brazilian diplomat was invariably sent to wherever there was a nasty war being fought or a precarious peace to be kept and ordered to make the best of it, which he usually did.
Power and de Mello had dinner together at a seafood restaurant in Croatia when Nato began bombing the Serbs for the first time in 1994. She gave him the opportunity to cancel, but he said insouciantly: “The sky is falling but a man has got to eat, hasn't he? If world war three starts while we’re having dinner, we won’t order a second bottle of wine.”
She was charmed, as were many women who met de Mello; but there was a tough, pragmatic side to the humanitarian that fascinated her. Wherever he found himself, from Bosnia to Rwanda, East Timor, Cambodia and Baghdad, he would do business with warlords and rebels, occupiers and insurgents – whatever it took to rummage up food and shelter for people at risk.
Power has chronicled his life in Chasing the Flame, an intellectually ambitious biography to be published next week.
She writes honestly of his capricious love life – for most of his career he had a loyal wife and two sons quartered in Geneva while he often had girlfriends in trouble zones with him – and movingly details his final hours trapped alive in the rubble of the UN headquarters.
Her passion, however, is the exploration of the art of the possible in foreign affairs. De Mello had little time for UN bureaucracy but loved working in the field. Power is impressed by the “strand of dignity, freedom from fear and impulse towards service” running through his career.
De Mello started out as a “denunciator” who participated in the student battles in Paris in 1968 but became “an accommodator”. Power talked about him at length with Obama while she researched her book and believes that the two men have a lot in common.
“Both guys have thought more about broken people and broken places than just about anybody in public life. Most presidential candidates haven’t lived in broken places. They may have interned in a broken place for the summer. This is in his [Obama’s] blood.”
By the end of de Mello’s life – he died at 55 – she thinks he “may have reached the best balance possible, which was to be willing to walk into a room to see if there is anything you can extract from the unconciliatory”.
She adds: “Neither Sergio nor Barack is ambivalent about the use of force. In East Timor, Sergio was the person who gave shoot-to-kill orders, toughening up the rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers against the judgment of a lot of pacifists at UN headquarters.”
Obama has been criticised for saying he would meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, without preconditions; but Power counters that “definitions of toughness have to be rethought”. It is tougher, she believes, “to be in a room with Ahmadinejad than lobbing verbal hand grenades against him from 5,000 miles away” – a position now being adopted by some neoconservatives who are urging President George W Bush himself to open talks.
Power shocked some friends by opposing the invasion of Iraq. “Some people said, ‘How could you write about genocide and not support the war?’ It felt like one was sentencing the Iraqi people to life imprisonment under a brutal regime.”
She decided, however, that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was planning a new round of slaughter and the costs and benefits of war were not worth the risk. Now she admits the question is: “If we leave, could it get worse?”
Power believes that Obama would do all he could to prevent large-scale civilian deaths by a meticulously planned withdrawal from Iraq. “If a systematic campaign of genocide were to unfold, he would try to get other countries to join the US to go back in order to stave it off. What you are talking about is a massive crime against humanity and the hope would be that humanity would step forward.”
She knows, however, that “with the record of stepping forward in Rwanda or Darfur or in the Holocaust, it is going to be very difficult”.
Just as de Mello’s good intentions did not save him from Al-Qaeda’s nihilism, so Obama’s message of hope could be met with cynicism. So far he has triumphed over every expectation. If his luck holds, perhaps Obama-mania could sweep the world.
From The Sunday Times (London)
February 24, 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3422315.ece
Check out this interview with a foreign policy advisor for Barack Obama
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/10/16/1/a-conversation-with-samantha-power
