On the heels of The Washington Post Magazine’s glowing profile of U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, ABC’s Terry Moran gushed over the Democrat during her recent visit to Rwanda to pay respects to the genocide that happened there 20 years ago.
The segment aired during This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday April 13 and Stephanopoulos began the segment by beaming how “As a journalist, Samantha Power uncovered how America and the U.N. failed in Rwanda. Now, as America's U.N. Ambassador she was in Africa this week to make sure that doesn't happen again. ABC's chief foreign correspondent Terry Moran traveled with her.” [See video below.]
The Sunday Washington Post Magazine has a new, larger design, which allows for a bigger picture of Obama favorite Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The first sign that Post writer Manuel Roig-Franzia’s going to play it soft: he never mentions that Power called Hillary Clinton a “monster” in 2008.
Or the first sign might be the goopy copy about how she is “one of her generation’s most dazzling diagnosticians” of government failings. (Here again, Manuel leaves out that she's attacking Clinton failings.) To be precise, our government’s failures includes a failure to pass woolly-headed treaties like a ban on land mines. Power is learning that doesn’t exactly work:
Back on July 29th, the New York Times published an article that was ostensibly supposed to be a book review even as the first half of the long piece was an anti-Bush political rant. The byline was credited to Samantha Power, who is, as the Times somewhat benignly defined her, a "professor of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard." But, Power is far from a mere lefty Harvard professor because in the past she was a duly paid member of Senator Obama's staff and still to this day she is a key foreign policy adviser to his campaign for president. In fact, when Obama's shallow foreign policy experience was attacked in the press recently, she was the one who wrote a long apologia that was sent to media outlets to staunch the bleeding of the Obama campaign. Why the Times did not fully identify her as an interested party in a political campaign and instead painted her as just a "professor" is hard to understand.
So, why did the New York Times publish the work of a key adviser to a Democratic presidential candidate's foreign policy team without telling the reading public that this "professor" was a partisan operative and not just an uninterested, unbiased reviewer of books? Even Amitai Etzioni, a blogger for the left leaning Huffington Post, wondered why.