THE SPINE MAY 1, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
My old friend Samantha Power, a member of the president’s National Security Council staff, came to dinner last Sunday night after a showing of the movie Sergio, drawn from her book of the same title and directed by Greg Barton. The film is an HBO production which will air on May 6.
Sergio was Sergio Vieira de Mello, the Brazilian head of the United Nations mission to Iraq who was killed in a terrorist explosion at the U.N.’s headquarters in August 2003, months after the American invasion and months before Saddam Hussein was snared in his cave of hiding. De Mello was a charismatic man with beautiful teeth, as we were told many times during the movie. He was actually very handsome, and one cannot help feeling that the tragedy of his death was somehow enhanced by his beauty. The death of a more common looking person wouldn’t have generated so intense a feeling of tragedy.
In Samantha’s eyes, Sergio was an incarnation of the U.N. at its best. Alas, the film—as opposed to the book—did not make clear what that best actually was, even as personified by Sergio, except in a short but telling fragment of his role in somehow safeguarding the independence of East Timor from Indonesia. He clearly broke many of the rules of the organization, which brought a sense of frisson—a good thing—to the staff. There’s another exception in his negotiations with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. He clearly saved many lives.
Both Samantha and Barton explained that the film was driven by character and not by issues. Understandable. After all, this was HBO, not public television, which would have made its own more subtle and sordid compromises—compromises driven by ideology. The character theme of the movie was self-fulfilling. He was married but a philanderer, a philanderer with many women. He had not paid attention to his sons left in Rio (or was it Sao Paolo?), not at all. As the feature began, he was already enmeshed with a gloriously sensual women, Carolina, maybe 20 years his junior, also on the human rights career route. Carolina is there at the end when Sergio’s dead body is extracted from the carnage. But his wife, now widow, takes control of his life-in-death.
There is, of course, a great drama in the extraction of the dead body, which was begun when Sergio was still alive. He and a comrade were trapped in a subterranean hole, their bottom halves covered with concrete, their upper halves also encumbered by the ruins of the blast. But they could talk, and the people they were talking with were two American soldiers, rescue workers, whose names I forget, which is a shame because, in a way, these men are the heroes of the drama. Their tale was not only driven by character. It was also driven by narrative.
And the narrative was driven almost like a nail in the heart. One of the rescuers was a pious Christian who promised Sergio’s companion in their dungeon that he would bring him out alive. Please pray, the soldier beseeched him. But he could not. In the end, without pain killer or opiate, the trapped man had his legs sawed off, his upper half pulled up literally from the dead. The other soldier did not pray to his God or anyone else’s. He was a can-do person. He tried to keep Sergio alive by speaking with him, trying to keep Sergio also speaking to him. It did not work. When he rose, he did not rise from the dead. He was one among 21 killed.
The rescue and the non-rescue were re-enacted—these were the only scenes re-enacted in the film—by the two idiosyncratic American servicemen. Heroes, big heroes. As Cass Sunstein, Samantha’s husband—who, I learned during dinner, is the first son of the first son of the first son of the first son ... of the first son of the Gaon of Vilna, which means that Samantha’s son is also in this learned line—observed that this is really “an American story.”
But, to be sure, it is also essentially a story from Iraq. The U.S. wanted the U.N. presence as a legitimating hereness. The motives of the U.N. were actually the motives of Kofi Annan, the secretary general, and he wanted the organization’s presence to be a distancing mechanism, an outside force. That seems to have been de Mello’s attitude as well. An ironic footnote, a tragic footnote: The American military had placed an enormous armored vehicle in the road leading to U.N. headquarters and put it there to block a terrorist truck from heading for the compound. Any terrorist truck. Sergio had the vehicle peremptorily removed. This was a moment of vainglory. This was also the reason why a truck full of munitions was able to reach and explode right below his office, the murderers’ chosen target.
I do not know whether Samantha has shed her hostility to the American invasion. (Lots of folk at TNR haven’t, and my son, for that matter, hasn’t either.) She has a petulant moment in the film when commenting on the utter lack of rescue equipment available at the devastated site. Something like: “This is the U.S. army, for God’s sake.” Maybe it depends on what you think of the United Nations.
Which reminds me that Danny Goldhagen was sitting next to Samantha at dinner. The author of the majestic study of the holocaust, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, Goldhagen has now published another book on the question of genocide in general, Worse Than War, and is featured in a dazzlingly somber documentary of the same title. (A digest of the book was published in TNR.) Maybe I sat the two authors (and film principals) together to provoke an argument. You see, Danny shares my view that the U.N. is mostly responsible for the world’s genocides because its very structure absolutely prevents the international organization from moving against the perpetrators. The argument did not come off as I expected. Samantha observed—correctly, I believe—that, if powerful states like America and obvious others were willing to act against genocide in places like Darfur or Rwanda, it wouldn’t matter what the Security Council voted or did not vote. I hope I am characterizing her views accurately.
I am now reading Samantha’s book about Sergio. It has much more texture than the movie. But that is as it is. The book is not really character-driven, although Sergio’s teeth and body are featured in it. It is a book about history and issues—serious, even taxing.
Another guest, Charles Nesson of the Harvard Law School, has written an elegant blog post about the evening. And Charlie’s wife, Fern—a scholar in her own right, and on diverse topics—has just published an extraordinary little volume which takes you out of the world of Iraq and genocide. It is truly a lively book from its title, I Am Awake, on to the art works, delicate art works by Fern and others. These are faced by germane citations to short writings, mostly by Asian sages. There is, in fact, deep dialogue between text and illumination, between text and text, between illumination and illumination. No, you definitely haven’t seen this book before, much as my characterization may suggest you have. It is reviewed on Jeff Kornbluth’s blog Head Butler.
26 comments
"You see, Danny shares my view that the U.N. is mostly responsible for the world’s genocides because its very structure absolutely prevents the international organization from moving against the perpetrators. The argument did not come off as I expected. Samantha observed—correctly, I believe—that, if powerful states like America and obvious others were willing to act against genocide in places like Darfur or Rwanda, it wouldn’t matter what the Security Council voted or did not vote." Pretty much sums up why one ought to ignore anything Peretz has to say about the UN. As well, I gather that "Danny" would blame the League of Nations for the Holocaust, rather than the entire German nation. Oh. Nevermind. What rot.
- icarusr
May 1, 2010 at 11:50pm
Interesting post, Marty! Don't have time to comment right now, though. Still, this rang a bell: "I am now reading Samantha’s book about Sergio. It has much more texture than the movie. But that is as it is." This is true of most film versions of complex books, be they novels or non fiction. The German film version of Thomas Mann's great novel The Magic Mountain was so awful; I had a hard time watching it. In my experience the greater the book the worse the film.
- jdyer
May 2, 2010 at 12:46am
"Pretty much sums up why one ought to ignore anything Peretz has to say about the UN." Come on, Icarus, you do have a vested interest in the UN, don't you think? If I made my living from international law I'd be shilling for it too.
- jdyer
May 2, 2010 at 12:47am
jackson: international law and the UN are different things; and no, I have no vested interest in the UN or the UN system. I have seen it up close and negotiated within it, and so know its dysfunctions very well, both its bureaucracy and also its multilateral issues. And the only international law (as opposed to economic law) paper I have published was highly critical of the misplaced faith in the UN and the "New World Order". But I have also seen it work - and when it does work, there is no other organization that does what it does. You don't have to love a thing or think it is perfect to insist that any criticism of it be fair, or at least, in these pages, minimally learned.
- icarusr
May 2, 2010 at 1:04am
Nick and Karl Nick came over and we had a drink. He's a short philanderer. Five foot three, he has wavy hair and white shiny teeth. Then Karl came over. He's not the pretty boy Nick is, with his brush cut and Stanley Myron Handelman looks—he, too, never takes his hat off. He had Muscatel. Nick drank Cold Duck. But they both devoured the pork rinds I set out for them on my best Melmac. I sat them beside each other hoping to provoke a fight: Nick thinks it’s pronounced "Eyeran", Karl "Earan." They began yelling at each other about which, metaphysically, is better: eyes or ears. As usual, Nick quickly claimed Karl was a fascist. But just then my friend Ban Ki-moon came over to return my nine irons. (Neither of us golfs, but we both do a lot of pressing and I had loaned Ban Ki nine of my irons. Do I digress?) Ban Ki negotiated a cease fire. Right then my dear friend Francis Sparshott called to ask for a rain check. Nick has written a majestic, action packed manual, with great narrative drive, about assembling wicker. Karl has made an award winning instructional video about using ball peen hammers, without narrative thrust but with a profound exploration of the very idea of ball peen. They are my artist and intellectual friends. They enhance my own sense of being so very special to know them and host them. They bring out my inner Perle Mesta. And they make me want to use them to announce my own wonderfulness.
- basman
May 2, 2010 at 1:18am
basman, ROFL :) and wondering what one serves for dinner when Goldhagen and Power are discussing genocide after viewing "Sergio". fiddlehead fern salad with a crisp Pinot Grigio? maybe TNR needs a Style section...
- K2K
May 2, 2010 at 8:14am
Tip of the hat to a bull's eye spoof! But let's be fair. Who among us does not like to show off how wonderful they are, every once in a while? Let him who is without vanity...
- noga1
May 2, 2010 at 8:38am
icarusr “jackson: international law and the UN are different things; and no, I have no vested interest in the UN or the UN system. I have seen it up close and negotiated within it, and so know its dysfunctions very well, both its bureaucracy and also its multilateral issues. And the only international law (as opposed to economic law) paper I have published was highly critical of the misplaced faith in the UN and the "New World Order". But I have also seen it work - and when it does work, there is no other organization that does what it does.” I take your point, but it’s a lukewarm endorsement of the UN to say that “and when it does work, there is no other organization that does what it does.” In any case, the reason there in no other organization that “does what it does” is because the UN is there. If we were to abolish the UN I am sure other international organization will come into being to do what needs to be done, and while probably not perfect also they would at least do it better. With the UN it’s the hypocrisy of the organization that makes one want to abolish it. I believe in international organizations, but not in this one. We need a system of smaller more efficient international organizations decentralized and without the byzantine bureaucracy.
- jdyer
May 2, 2010 at 10:23am
well done basman, k2k
- benberger
May 2, 2010 at 10:59am
C'mon guys. The fact is none of us could have written this piece because, excuse me if I am wrong, we wouldn't have been there. Right?
- Sophia
May 2, 2010 at 1:17pm
well, my new theory is that Peretz wanted Mearsheimer's "Righteous Jews and "the great ambivalent middle" to know Peretz is tight with Cass Sunstein and [his wife] Samantha Power, you know, friends [and now employees] of Obama, definitely not "Afrikaners". at the very least, we now know he writes his own titles. The first title was "I am Awake!". This morning, it became "Samantha and Fern". Which leads me to wonder (for one minute)why so much of the post is about the HBO film "Sergio", when Peretz secretly wanted to write about Fern's "extraordinary little volume which takes you out of the world of Iraq and genocide.", and is, as noted at Headbutler, "expensive, self-published in a preliminary private run of 50". A further coincidence is that a huge water main break hit Boston about the time Peretz posted this, and that Fern Nesson's first master's thesis was “Great Waters: A History of Boston's Water Supply”. and thus still wanting to know what you eat for dinner after watching this film and sitting at the table with two experts on genocide, while day-dreaming of "deep dialogue between text and illumination, between text and text, between illumination and illumination." Is Peretz trying to announce he is now a Buddhist? Will The Spine now focus on Tibet? (it has occurred to me that Israelis could try a propaganda ploy by claiming Israel is actually a Budhist State, and Tibet is where all the Jews live) from "I am Awake" by Fern Nesson: A man asked Buddha: “Are you are celestial being or a god?” “No.” “Are you a magician or a wizard?” “No.” “Are you a man?” “No.” “Well then, my friend, what are you?” “I am awake.” Fiddlehead ferns are at their peak, so I DO think that was the appetizer. I had a close encounter with a small tray of fiddleheads at Whole Foods last week when I paused in front of the local-hero asparagus.
- K2K
May 2, 2010 at 2:26pm
Jackson: two points. First, "lukewarm" - indeed. There are only two things I endorse strongly: the original film of "The Lion in Winter" and Yourcenar's Memoires d' Hadrian. OK, three: 1982 Beaune 1ere Cru. Nothing else is flawless and so any recommendation has to come with qualification, some stronger than others. Second - As for abolishing the UN and coming up with something else ... well, frankly, the problem is inherent in the international system; the UN merely reflects it. Look, up until ten years ago, the WTO had resisted the "affirmative action" policies of the UN. The result was that the Secretariat was mostly of Industrial countries, and the educational elite of specific developing countries such as Brazil. Highly professional and competent, the Secretariat did its job removed from the jockeying that goes on in the UN. But then, come 9/11 and Doha and the need to be "inclusive" of developing and least developed countries, and then China joining, it became increasingly difficult to maintain the essentially industrialised professionalism and cohesion of the Secretariat. Or, for that matter, of the WTO. Whether the WTO will end up like the UN is anyone's guess, but it is less "clubby" than it used to be. Is that good or bad? Well, it all depends on your perspective: professionalism or inclusiveness? And yes, because of the world we live in, one always has to be sacrificed for the other. I am agnostic. So no matter how you structure the next UN, you will run into the same issues. And it is not as if the rest of the world is blind to its problems. Every court and arbitration tribunal that has looked at the UN system arrives at the same conclusion: you take GA resolutions and votes with a grain of salt. The only thing that matters legally is the SC; and the balance of power there also moderates great power adventurism. In any event, to quote Burke, to innovate is not to reform. I am quite hesitant to reinvent institutions, as I am not at all certain that we would not end up with a worse thing yet. (The Human Rights Council is the prime example of misguided reform initiatives. It was meant to fix the problems of the Human Rights Commission, and it ended up making things worse.)
- icarusr
May 2, 2010 at 2:35pm
basman -- you beat me to it this time, sir! Congratulations. If I try anything now it'll just be a clumsy "Johnny-Come-Lately" offering, weak and giving off a faint aura of miffedness. Way at the back of my mind, however, is Woody Allen's parody of Hemingway, like a sudden echo that makes one stop on the trail and look around, as it fades in the heat and dust of a New Mexico afternoon.
- ironyroad
May 2, 2010 at 3:25pm
Icarus: “So no matter how you structure the next UN, you will run into the same issues. And it is not as if the rest of the world is blind to its problems. Every court and arbitration tribunal that has looked at the UN system arrives at the same conclusion: you take GA resolutions and votes with a grain of salt. The only thing that matters legally is the SC; and the balance of power there also moderates great power adventurism. In any event, to quote Burke, to innovate is not to reform. I am quite hesitant to reinvent institutions, as I am not at all certain that we would not end up with a worse thing yet. (The Human Rights Council is the prime example of misguided reform initiatives. It was meant to fix the problems of the Human Rights Commission, and it ended up making things worse.)” You make a strong case against innovation, “to innovate is not to reform.” Yet you also make a case against reforming bad institutions, “(The Human Rights Council is the prime example of misguided reform initiatives. It was meant to fix the problems of the Human Rights Commission, and it ended up making things worse.)” So what is the answer, giving in to the tyranny of the small undemocratic States? Yes, I know the Security Council, and all that; still, the security while stopping excesses can’t stop the vitriolic antidemocratic, antisemitic proclamations coming out of the “human rights council.” These while not enforceable has given and excuse to the great powers not to intervene in genocides such as the one in Darfur. It has also had a significant impact in the rise of antisemitic violence and thuggery througout the Western world. The system is broken and staying with the same international structure because in the long run all reforms or innovations will merely recreate the same institutions are a pessimist’s prescription for abandoning all hope, and it gives voice to despair. Surely we can do better than that.
- jdyer
May 2, 2010 at 4:40pm
"You make a strong case against innovation, “to innovate is not to reform.” Yet you also make a case against reforming bad institutions, “(The Human Rights Council is the prime example of misguided reform initiatives. It was meant to fix the problems of the Human Rights Commission, and it ended up making things worse.)” Maybe icarus is a conservative at heart, according to this definition: "Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to conserve") is a political and social philosophy that says that traditional institutions work best and society should avoid radical change. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were."
- noga1
May 2, 2010 at 8:01pm
As the cow said: "The only way you'll find happiness is to accept that the way things are is the way things are." Or, as it says in the Donovan song: "Stop complaining!“ said the farmer, Who told you a calf to be ? Why don`t you have wings to fly with, like the swallow so proud and free?“ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W213DOg-klE&feature=related
- noga1
May 2, 2010 at 8:07pm
I'm strictly on sidebar in this thread but nevertheless: "Or, as it says in the *Donovan* song:" In the "Donovan song"? This is an old Yiddish folk song. ...Lyrics Original Yiddish Oyfn furl ligt dos kelbl, Ligt gebundn mit a shtrik. Hoykh in himl flit dos shvelbl, Freyt zikh, dreyt zikh hin un tsrik. Chorus: Lakht der vint in korn, Lakht un lakht un lakht, Lakht er op a tog a gantsn Mit a halber nakht. Dona, dona, dona, ... Shrayt dos kelbl, zogt der poyer: Ver zhe heyst dikh zayn a kalb? Volst gekent dokh zayn a foygl, Volst gekent dokh zayn a shvalb. Chorus Bidne kelber tut men bindn Un men shlept zey un men shekht, Ver s'hot fligl, flit aroyftsu, Iz bay keynem nit keyn knekht. Chorus Translation by Secunda On a wagon bound and helpless Lies a calf, who is doomed to die. High above him flies a swallow Soaring gaily through the sky. Chorus: The wind laughs in the cornfield Laughs with all his might Laughs and laughs the whole day through An half way through the night Dona, dona, dona... Now the calf is softly crying "Tell me wind, why do you laugh?" Why can’t I fly like the swallow Why did I have to be a calf, Chorus Calves are born and soon are slaughtered With no hope of being saved. Only those with wing like swallow Will not ever be enslaved. Chorus Translation by Kevess & Schwartz On a wagon bound for market There's a calf with a mournful eye. High above him there's a swallow Winging swiftly through the sky. Chorus: How the winds are laughing They laugh with all their might Laugh and laugh the whole day through And half the summer's night. Dona, dona, dona... "Stop complaining," said the farmer, "Who told you a calf to be? Why don't you have wings to fly with Like the swallow so proud and free?" Chorus Calves are easily bound and slaughtered Never knowing the reason why. But whoever treasures freedom, Like the swallow has learnt to fly...
- basman
May 2, 2010 at 8:55pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oslEIsL8Mbs
- noga1
May 2, 2010 at 9:09pm
BTW, it is interesting to note that my knowledge of the song is the Donovan version which of course I heard as a teenager in Israel.
- noga1
May 2, 2010 at 9:15pm
JD: incremental reform of existing institutions, based on a comprehensive understanding of the context in which they function, and a clear-eyed view of both what we expect of them and what they can actually do. Look, the problem with the UN is not that there is a General Assembly that passes irresponsible resolutions or that the UN bureaucracy is not functioning. It is, rather, that the UN is composed of 192 or so "states", each of which has a vote in the General Assembly - and for many, this is about the only forum in which they have any say and can claim any sort of "influence". And, frankly, the GA does not have any power, which means that the state Members of the UN end up behaving irresponsibly in the GA. You get rid of the UN, the OAU and the OIS and the Arab League and the rest of the international alphabet soup will be there to pick up the slack. And without the dampening effect of the Western democracies, they will be even more rabid in their resolutions and statements than the UN. What about a "League of Democracies"? There are two of these already - NATO and the OECD. But even they have been diluted because of political considerations. (The OECD was considerably more effective as an economic organization before Chile and Poland and Vanuato joined the club. The same with NATO.) Then there is the OSCE, which occasionally does something useful in the field of human rights - but there, too, do you keep Moldova and Belarus? If not, how to influence them; if so, then you end up like the UN. What we need is not another international organization; there are already enough of these. And as for Israel's problems - as you note implicitly, it is not that the "UN" is anti-Israel; it is that in the membership of the UN, Israel does not have many friends. For God's sake, Marty is endlessly complaining about the anti-Israeli sentiments of various European countries - so even if you have a league of democracies, it is not a given that Israel's position will be all that much better. Your point about lack of action in Darfur is well-taken, but no combination of international organizations is going to change that. States intervene where their interests dictate and their powers take them. You can get rid of the SC and the UN, and you still won't get the US to send in troops.
- icarusr
May 2, 2010 at 9:32pm
Icarus we are restating our positions in different words. I thing we can do better than a UN that has tragically allowed a number of lethal genocides to take place under its gaze. I think the UN had its uses during the cold war when it probably did stop a catastrophic war between the Soviet Bloc and NATO. Today, when the Security Council can’t even agree on sanctions against Iran the same set up may precipitate a catastrophic war. You think that only “the right kind of reform” will help the situation: “…incremental reform of existing institutions, based on a comprehensive understanding of the context in which they function, and a clear-eyed view of both what we expect of them and what they can actually do.” I don’t see that happening. Finally, I don’t know why a small country, such as Ecuador needs to express its views about what is going on in say the Sudan? Why does every country in the world have to vote on every issue under the sun? How does that serve the cause of peace? It’s not even democracy since its votes are not binding. It seems to me that the very concept of universality is being diluted if not mocked by making it seem that Suriname is as important as China in the international arena. What purpose does it serve to pretend that it is?
- jdyer
May 3, 2010 at 11:02am
"I thing we can do better than a UN that has tragically allowed a number of lethal genocides to take place under its gaze." The existing international order can't do better than the UN; that is the tragedy. If you want to change the international order, by all means - I will be right there with you, tilting at the windmills. There is nobility in your sentiment and I agree with it; but, as I said above, the UN merely reflects what is out there, and if bad things happen, it is not the fault of the UN as a concept or an organization, but rather, the shortcoming of its members and the existing international order. If the US does not send the Marines to stop the genocide in Darfur, it is not because of absence of consensus in the SC; it is because the US, assessing its national interest, preferred to send forces to Iraq and get bogged down there, than deal with the Sudan. And no, the other Great Powers either don't care or can't raise or send the necessary forces; this is not the UN's fault, but that of human nature. So you can come up with another international organization: if it recognises the notion of interest, it will be little better than the UN; if it does not, it will not even get off the ground. "What purpose does it serve to pretend that it is?" Ah well, there's the nub of the issue. For the US and the West to advance their interests across the globe, there are essentially two possible approaches: you do it through bilateral pressure or through psychological buy in. The former, which is clientism, may appear a lot more certain and bring better dividends to the US, but it is extremely costly both in its start-up and also mainenance. You need to be ever vigilant in respect of each interlocutor, and even so, there is the danger that they will be bought by others with bigger pockets or higher tolerance for policy divergence. You see this in Africa: the US never had much of a chance to establish client states, even through it tried; the EU bought off the OAU with various lopsided trade deals, but then under pressure from the Scandinavians, it started making human rights demands that many former client states were not prepared to accept. In comes China, with pots of money and no human rights or anti-corruption demands, and there goes the client neighbourhood. Another way of advancing your interests - which is essentially what Fukuyama was getting at - is the global psychological conversion method. The shorthand for that, from the West's perspective, is the "Rule of Law". Now, this takes a great deal of start-up effort, and it is somewhat uncertain at the margins, but once you have buy-in from a critical mass, it is a hell of a lot easier to enforce and monitor, and cheaper to maintain, than clientism. The process goes something like this: you get a whole lot of countries to agree by rules that you set, more or less, and persuade them that they have had a stake in the rules; that you will stick to the rules as well as they, and that you accept limits on the exercise of power if they agree to abide by the law. I say psychological because the leaders, and the elites, and the governing structures of countries have to internalise this concept, which is alien to much of the world; and they have to agree to allow the law, rather than raw interest or power, dictate their relations. But the beauty of this approach is that by and large, you off-load the monitoring and the costs of maintaining the global system to the actors themselves, rather than having to do it yourself. You purchase certainty, predictability and stability. (All of which is relative, of course.) And Ecuador's vote on Namibia? It's called buy-in - or "collective recognition", to use Walter Russell Mead's terminology. You make sure that each state party in the system has a stake in it and thus help to perpetuate an order that, at its foundations, is far more West-friendly than if the world were run on interest and power alone.
- icarusr
May 3, 2010 at 12:30pm
OK, yours can be the last word on the topic for now. I am sure we'll come back to this at a later date.
- jdyer
May 3, 2010 at 12:34pm
After Samantha Power's utter betrayal of everything she wrote in "A Problem From Hell" when she joined the Obama campaign and stood more mute than Pope Pius as Obama windsocked his position on Darfur, why would anyone read her again? But I'm sure you two have a good time thinking up new slurs for Hillary Clinton.
- Lymon1
May 3, 2010 at 5:01pm
"After Samantha Power's utter betrayal of everything she wrote in "A Problem From Hell" when she joined the Obama campaign and stood more mute than Pope Pius as Obama windsocked his position on Darfur, why would anyone read her again?" You must cut her some slack. Falling in love, getting married and having a baby within the span of less than two years must have distracted her or re-prioritized her passions. She always struck me as sincere and therefore, if I may say so, somewhat gullible. She probably believed Obama's promises and acted on that belief when she so actively endorsed and worked for his election.
- noga1
May 3, 2010 at 5:32pm
My impression is that in a broader sense -- not just in individual cases -- her general feeling is that Obama is more likely to do good in the world. And he sought her out in a way that other presidential candidates didn't.
- ironyroad
May 4, 2010 at 1:35am