Stop the presses! This is huge! Late last night, Big News broke: Samantha Power, one of Obama’s campaign advisers, called Hillary Clinton a “monster.”
Hmm. Okay, so it’s not huge news. Maybe it’s trivial and petty news. Maybe it’s not even, really, news. Doesn’t really matter: none of that stopped the Power(ful) epithet from becoming one of today’s big stories. Indeed, the word “monster” has been stomping and snarling its way through the mass-media landscape since “news” of its use broke last night. Epithet-zilla led MSNBC’s news coverage this morning. Mika Brzezinski, having introduced the morning’s top three stories—the monster comment, the Times Square explosion, the murder of UNC’s student body president, in that order—elaborated: “First up, though, politics: she’s a monster.” (To make the monstrous point crystal-clear, an image of Clinton’s face blazed on the screen as Brzezinski spoke, next to the words SHE’S A MONSTER.) “Words” Brzezinski continued, “a top Barack Obama adviser can’t take back. The name-calling tops our First Read this morning.”
Looks like it topped a lot of people’s first reads: the “monster” mash led the morning shows, network and cable. It got parsed in the blogosphere. Most In-Depth Analyses of the name-calling treated Power’s comment as a symptom of the frustrations of a too-long primary season, in which the back-and-forth of Campaign Warfare takes its toll on the psyche and, as a result, the common sense. “I think you’re seeing frustrations boil over,” Chuck Todd, NBC’s politics guru, put it. “When you’re fighting this long, you develop these sometimes irrational hatreds of the other side.”
Many also compared the epithet to the Clinton campaign’s “Obama’s using Ken Starr-like tactics against Clinton” commentary. But that’s a false equivalency. Never mind the metaphor-versus-simile distinction, being like something versus just being something. (That level of rhetorical subtlety is pretty much a moot point when it comes to political discourse.) What really matters is sourcing: who made the comments—and who, therefore, should be ultimately accountable for them.
The Starr comment came from Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s chief spokesman, on a conference call yesterday afternoon. “I, for one, do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president,” he said. Wolfson is Clinton’s spokesman; as such, it’s fair to assume that what he says, for good or ill, has been vetted by the Clinton campaign. But Power, the political Proteus of today’s monster’s ball, is merely an adviser to Obama; we can’t assume that her comments have any official sanction with the Obama campaign. In fact, Power made the “monster” comment while conducting an interview with the U.K. paper The Scotsman in promotion of her new book. The interview was entirely on the record, though Power tried, retroactively—and unsuccessfully—to remove the “monster” comment after she uttered it.
We can talk all we want about the on-the-record versus off-the-record question here (though it’s worth noting that Power, in addition to being a Harvard professor, public intellectual, and foreign-policy phenom, is also a journalist—a Pulitzer winner, at that; she’d know as well as anyone that her “monster” comment was ripe for the printing). More interesting to me, however, is the distinction between Wolfson and Power in terms of their relationship to their respective (if not respectful) campaigns—and whether that distinction should matter when it comes to the commentary they make in relation to those campaigns. Sourcing matters, after all; and there are profound differences between an advisor and a spokesman—not the least of which is the fact that the latter is officially sanctioned to speak for a campaign. The former is not.