Hillary Clinton's a monster': Obama aide blurts out attack in Scotsman interview

HILLARY Clinton has been branded a "monster" by one of Barack Obama's top advisers, as the gloves come off in the race to win the Democrat nomination.

In recent TV appearances Mrs Clinton had looked desperate and on the back foot.
In an unguarded moment during an interview with The Scotsman in London, Samantha Power, Mr Obama's key foreign policy aide, let slip the camp's true feelings about the former first lady.

Her comments came as Mr Obama, whose defeats in Texas and Ohio on Tuesday were largely attributed to a series of negative attacks on him, vowed to turn up the heat on Mrs Clinton over her claims to be the more experienced candidate.

Yesterday, the Obama camp went on the offensive, pointing out that Mrs Clinton has still not released her tax return and casting doubt on her experience.

In response, a Clinton adviser said the attack reminded him of the witch-hunt led by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, which led to the impeachment of her husband, Bill, when he was president.

Earlier, clearly rattled by the Ohio defeat, Ms Power told The Scotsman Mrs Clinton was stopping at nothing to try to seize the lead from her candidate.

"We f***** up in Ohio," she admitted. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win.

"She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

Ms Power said of the Clinton campaign: "Here, it looks like desperation. I hope it looks like desperation there, too.

"You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

Ms Power's comments reveal how the inexperienced Obama campaign is coming under increasing pressure from a battle-hardened Clinton camp that saw Ohio as its last chance to save its candidate.

Before Tuesday's vote in Ohio, the press and the Clinton camp seized on remarks by Austan Goolsbee, Ms Power's colleague, on the North America Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). His comments are widely believed to have cost Mr Obama the Ohio Democratic presidential primary.

Mr Goolsbee, Mr Obama's top economic policy adviser, had told Canadian officials a public pledge to force a renegotiation of Nafta with tougher labour and environmental rules was "more about political positioning".

But the Clinton camp said Mr Obama could not tell the public of Ohio, where many manufacturing jobs have been lost, one thing and then tell a foreign government something else behind closed doors.

Yesterday, Mr Obama blamed fierce attacks by Mrs Clinton for his defeats in this week's big primaries, and quickly made good on a promise to sharpen his criticism of her, in what promises to become an all-out brawl in the race for the White House.

The Illinois senator took the offensive against Mrs Clinton, targeting her claims she is more experienced in handling foreign policy. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no," he said. "She made a series of arguments on why she should be a superior candidate. It's important to examine that argument."

In recent days, the former first lady argued that Mr Obama was getting a free ride with the media and had hinted he was not ready to be commander-in-chief in a crisis.

Mrs Clinton, asked about her national security qualifications, highlighted a series of events in which she played a role, including peace talks in Northern Ireland, the Kosovo refugee crisis and standing up for women's rights in China.

Mr Obama's aides went on the offensive yesterday, holding a conference call to ask why Mrs Clinton had not released her tax returns. Her campaign team responded with a statement e-mailed to reporters while they were on the call that said the Clintons' returns since they left the White House would be made public around 15 April.

"There's no doubt Senator Clinton went very negative over the last week," Mr Obama said, adding that the Clinton campaign's attacks "had some impact" on the poll results, "particularly in the context where many of you in the press had been persuaded you had been too hard on her and too soft on me".

After this latest row, Howard Dean, head of the Democratic Party, warned that the tone of the campaign "may get nastier" and said discussions would take place to try to prevent that.

After Mr Obama's camp had raised the issue of Mrs Clinton's failure to release her tax returns, Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Mrs Clinton, described the statement as being reminiscent of the attacks the Clintons endured during investigations by prosecutor Kenneth Starr in the 1990s, which many saw as politically motivated.

Mr Wolfson's introduction of Mr Starr's name again portrays Mrs Clinton as a victim, while her attacks on Mr Obama's "preparedness to be commander in chief and steward of the economy" continue.

Mr Wolfson said: "I, for one, do not believe imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."

The Clinton campaign has also attacked Mr Obama's inexperience on foreign matters, but Ms Power insisted he was not afraid to take tough decisions on this front.

She added: "Hillary Clinton always portrays his position on meeting with dictators as naive."

Ms Power also described working for Mr Obama as a pleasure, and said that people who knew him "adore him".

She added: "When we started this, we were all backing the guy who was supposed to lose.

"He was 25 points down going in to Iowa in January.

"If people were in this for the job or the political reward they would have gone somewhere else. They would not have gone to Barack."

Ms Power also said she believed Gordon Brown and Mr Obama would get on "like a house on fire".

Ms Power was in the UK to promote her book on Sergio Vieira de Mello, the extraordinary UN representative who died in a Baghdad bomb attack.

PUBLISH AND BE DAMNED

WHEN is off the record actually off the record? When the rules are established in advance.

Journalists are always looking for knowledge and want the information they receive to be available for publication.

But occasionally an interviewer will accept an exchange is "off the record" and that the conversation is not attributable. Remarks can be used as background to inform a journalist's article.

If a conversation is to be off the record, that agreement is usually thrashed out before the interview begins. Sometimes, public figures say something and then attempt to retract it by insisting it was "off the record" after the event.

But by then it is too late, particularly if it is in the public interest that the story be published.

In this instance, Samantha Power was promoting her book and it was established in advance that the interview was on the record.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp

Gerri Peev needs to remain at the other side of the sea.

In United States during an interview, when statement is labelled as "OFF THE RECORD", it means that the statement is not attributable and it is usually taken out from the discussion before the interview is printed or made available to the public.

But this A hole UK interviewer doesn't understand this protocol. It is unbelievable what fools would do to get their names out there at any cost.
It's absurd how people are trying very hard to use this Obama thing to promote their impassible careers.

Gerri Peev was given an opportunity to explain the intention of Ms Power when she made an OFF THE RECORD statement, but the fool (Gerri Peev) couldn't answer the question.
She was also informed again, that in United States, reporters do not release stories that they don't understand or can not clearly explain.

Gerri Peev is a loser and should be ashame of herself!
I hope her 2 minutes fame serves her well for the rest of her life.

Ms Samantha Power, Barack Obama's top advisers had to step down yesterday over calling Hillary Clinton "A Monster"

I'm not sure whether her stepping down would affect Obama's campaign negatively or positively; but so far it's not looking good.
This is also one of the reasons why Obama and his people have to be very careful fighting back.
It is obvious that fighting back doesn't fit right with his campaign or style of politics; and they must quickly realize the importance of going back to the drawing table to figure out how to effectively fight back without turning off their supporters.

One the other hand, fighting becomes very easy for Hillary; the Clintons are known to be dirty and love to hit below the belt. Everything they do is extremely strategic. Hence, expect more heavy hitting below the belt from her campaign team.
Again, Hillary wants Obama to fight back more than anything; she understands how this strategy could easily break down Obama's camp.

@Big B1 Clinton is dirty Clinton is dirty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Please can you prove all these.If you can't then you should desist from insulting this woman .
I already proved to you in the other thread that Obama's silence will cost him a lot
HE IS NOT A FIGHTER
or let's say
HE'S NOT MUCH OF A GOOD FIGHTER

I'm not going to waste my time proving to you that the Clintons are dirty; at the right time you will discover the dirtiness by yourself.

Yes, Obama is not a fighter; in fact that is the whole idea behind his campaign and political strategy.
This is also why it is almost impossible for him to start throwing punches at this point in time.

@Hollandis:

But my question for you is, what have you (the fighters) accomplished lately with fighting?
Don't you think it's time for something different, something dynamic/stimulating, and something sincere that could positively amalgamate all?
If fighting is the answer, why don't you just go ahead and make OSAMA the Secretary-General of the United Nations?

Wake up, there are better ways to make good things happen effectively and efficiently through out the world.

Hillary is not a fighter.
You must recognize the difference between a fighter and a monster who cares about nothing but her desperate desires.

You should also ask her to release her tax return just like the other candidates.

@Hollandis:

FYI: Hillary's tax return will expose her and will allow you and others to realize that she can not relate to an average American.
This is why she is waiting to release her tax return when it's too late (when it wouldn't matter and wouldn't affect her votes).

Everything the Clintons do is shady and strategic.
Only a fool will think Hillary is a saint.

such an unwarranted attack on a journalist!

Must a journalist dance to the tune of everyone he/she interviews? I do know that you need to be prepared when being interviewed by any journalist in this country. You cant get interviewed and afterwards expect British journalists to take out some of the things you said. I dont think it applies in the UK.

I have never had to tell any journalist that any of my remarks is OFF RECORD.

Big B1:

Gerri Peev needs to remain at the other side of the sea.

In United States during an interview, when statement is labelled as "OFF THE RECORD", it means that the statement is not attributable and it is usually taken out from the discussion before the interview is printed or made available to the public.

But this A hole UK interviewer doesn't understand this protocol. It is unbelievable what fools would do to get their names out there at any cost.
It's absurd how people are trying very hard to use this Obama thing to promote their impassible careers.

Gerri Peev was given an opportunity to explain the intention of Ms Power when she made an OFF THE RECORD statement, but the fool (Gerri Peev) couldn't answer the question.
She was also informed again, that in United States, reporters do not release stories that they don't understand or can not clearly explain.

Gerri Peev is a loser and should be ashame of herself!
I hope are 2 minutes fame serves her well for the rest of her life.

or maybe the same protocols don't apply in the UK? have you thot of that? she certainly should have.

or maybe the same protocols don't apply in the UK? have you thot of that?

OK, good point!
Why don't you then go ahead and bless us with the protocol UK interviewers go by?

they're clearly not the same as America is all i'm saying.

i've read several interviews where the reporter says 'she later said off the record that, '
so my understanding of off the record is slightly different from your. (I always thot it had more to do with someone saying something as an individual and not in their capacity as, say, adviser to Barack).

you get me?

Thanks for your great response:

"OFF THE RECORD" in United States and Ajegunle means "between you (interviewer) and myself, I did not say what I'm getting ready to say"
This agreement between both parties is also based on the interviewer's integrity and trust.
But I guess in UK, integrity means absolutely nothing (original Nigerian style).

I could also remember another jackass interviewer (Martin Bashir) from UK, that almost ended Michael Jackson's life few years ago; all because this idiot wanted to be known (as the champion).

These fame hungry individuals should remain on the other side of the sea.

Hi everyone!
I've been reading through this thread, and I was struck by something. Having lived in DC, growing up in the journalistic community and now living in the UK, I can pretty much, categorically state that the "on the record", "off the record" rules are the same on both sides of the pond. And that is the kicker here! You see, the rules of an interview are agreed to IN ADVANCE! not retrospectively! It's like being pulled over by a cop and saying: "let me just put this joint out, oh, by the way, i didn't just say that officer". You don't just blurt something out, try to cover yourslef afterwards and start crying foul about it if it doesn't work. By the way, you guys can refresh my memory, didn't the whole Nixon tapes thing come out because someone blurted out something along the lines of "oh, that'll be on the tapes, " and then wished he'd never opened his mouth? picking up on things like this is what real journalism is all about.
Had there been an agreement beforehand (like there was about not reveling Prince Harry's posting in Afghanistan, oh, wait a minute, that was an american "journalist" who broke that one and put people's lives at risk), or had the spokesperson even prefaced her comment with "what i'm about to say is off the record", or, even better "can I speak off the record for a minute?" (and then wait for affirmative reply), I'd agree with you. But there wasn't.
Still, sorry to hear she had to bite the bullet on this one. Politics is a tough business!

Big B1:

Thanks for your great response:

"OFF THE RECORD" in United States and Ajegunle means "between you (interviewer) and myself, I did not say what I'm getting ready to say"
This agreement between both parties is also based on the interviewer's integrity and trust.
But I guess in UK, integrity means absolutely nothing (original Nigerian style).

I could also remember another jackass interviewer (Martin Bashir) from UK, that almost ended Michael Jackson's life few years ago; all because this idiot wanted to be known (as the champion).

These fame hungry individuals should remain on the other side of the sea.

To say that integrity mean nothing in UK is to speak without thought. Americans don't even know what integrity means. If you know what integrity means, you wont be a deceitful leader believing something and saying so but expecting that nobody should know about it.

Perhaps you are confusing the meaning of integrity with, side kro kro politics.

Did the interviewer agree beforehand not to publish certain aspects of the interview?

BTW, you already stated yourself that, it is the meaning in the United States and it does not have to apply to every other Nation or are you one of those who believe that whatever applies in America has to apply everywhere else? I am sure you're not one of those

FCK1:

Hi everyone!
I've been reading through this thread, and I was struck by something. Having lived in DC, growing up in the journalistic community and now living in the UK, I can pretty much, categorically state that the "on the record", "off the record" rules are the same on both sides of the pond. And that is the kicker here! You see, the rules of an interview are agreed to IN ADVANCE! not retrospectively! It's like being pulled over by a cop and saying: "let me just put this joint out, oh, by the way, i didn't just say that officer". You don't just blurt something out, try to cover yourslef afterwards and start crying foul about it if it doesn't work. By the way, you guys can refresh my memory, didn't the whole Nixon tapes thing come out because someone blurted out something along the lines of "oh, that'll be on the tapes, " and then wished he'd never opened his mouth? picking up on things like this is what real journalism is all about.
Had there been an agreement beforehand (like there was about not reveling Prince Harry's posting in Afghanistan, oh, wait a minute, that was an american "journalist" who broke that one and put people's lives at risk), or had the spokesperson even prefaced her comment with "what i'm about to say is off the record", or, even better "can I speak off the record for a minute?" (and then wait for affirmative reply), I'd agree with you. But there wasn't.
Still, sorry to hear she had to bite the bullet on this one. Politics is a tough business!

Thanks for the reminder about the hopeless american journalist who reported Harry's mission and put many lives at risk