The Yale Daily News reported today that a senior intentionally impregnated herself using donations from unpaid men and took herbal drugs to induce miscarriages for an art project.

“Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process…

“‘I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity,’ Shvarts said. ’I think that I’m creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be.’”

Dictionary.com defines art as “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.”

Shvarts project “will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts’ self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting,” reported the Yale Daily News.

For once, the National Right to Life Committee and NARAL Pro-Choice America were in agreement: they found the exhibit offensive and sick. And as a pro-choice woman, I agree. Shvart’s art is universally horrific, traumatizing for women who have endured the heartbreak of a miscarriage, mocking of women who have made the difficult choice to have an abortion, and damaging to the pro-choice lobby, which has fought long and hard to dispute charges that women recklessly use abortions as birth control.

What woman would choose to endure a miscarriage? What woman who has had a miscarriage wants to watch video footage of a woman who impregnated herself for the sole purpose of aborting the fetus have a miscarriage in her bath tub? And furthermore, how could a professor sanction such an exercise that could’ve had long term effects on Schvart’s health?

My belief is that it is an elaborate stunt, and that at the end of the day, it will be revealed that the project was done using tomato paste. But stunt or not, it is in appallingly poor taste. My heart breaks for the women who are haunted by the memories of their own tragic miscarriages who will turn on the TV tonight and find this story leading the news.

One of the top academic schools in the nation weighed in on the Clinton campaign’s accusations that Barack Obama misspoke when he referred to himself as a professor. The University of Chicago, where Barack Obama taught law school from 1992-2004, issued the following statement today:

“The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as ‘Senior Lecturer.’

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”

Oh snap!

Camp Hillary hasn’t spun the statement—yet—but Op-Edna has a few ideas:

Hillary Spin: Call attention to the fact that the University of Chicago did not make the NCAA Tournament.
Obama Reply: They made the Division III NCAA Tournament.

Hillary Spin: Say with conviction, “The University of Chicago’s definition of ‘professor’ differs from the definition in the dictionary I have here in my hands.”
Obama Reply: Groan, shake head.

Hillary Spin: Universities shouldn’t be endorsing a candidate.
Obama Reply: This from a woman who touts an endorsement from a middleweight boxing champion. (PS - Not that the University of Chicago endorsed anything other than the fact that Barack Obama was a professor)
Hillary Redirect: You got endorsed by Hulk Hogan!
Obama Response: Indeed I did. Interestingly enough, I was also endorsed by Sinbad. So remind me, did they hand out bulletproof vests before your welcome ceremony at the Bosnia airport?

-Fin-

Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame (Woodward’s other half) is penning a book on Hillary Clinton titled “A Woman in Charge,” but couldn’t wait for its release to share his thoughts on the presidential candidate’s shaky relationship with the truth.

In light of evidence that her descriptions of landing in Bosnia under “sniper fire” were fabricated, Hillary and her campaign staff have chalked the incident up to a simple “misstatement” among millions of words. But as Hillary’s entire candidacy is based on the premise of having superior foreign policy experience to her opponents, and that claim has been revealed as a farce. When Barack Obama uttered words once spoken by Governor Deval Patrick, Hillary made a tremendous stink, claiming that if Obama’s campaign was based on words, the words should at least be his own. Then by your own judgement, Senator Clinton, your claimed foreign policy experiences should be your own.

An excerpt from Carl Bernstein’s forthcoming book indicates that this may not be only one misstatement, but the latest in a pattern of lies in Hillary Clinton’s public life.

“Since her Arkansas years, Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth… [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid.  It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share…

“Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…” (Bernstein, “A Woman in Charge”)

Today, on the Anderson Cooper 360 blog at CNN.com, Bernstein offered further analysis regarding Hillary’s Bosnia lies:

“When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out — usually long after they have been challenged — the  mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest — once and for all — in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC’s refusal to recognize those states’ convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of  the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.”

Personally, I think the reaction by her campaign is almost more tasteless than lying about something that could so easily be refuted by numerous witnesses. Their response was to send an email citing specific “misstatements” Senator Obama had made. These charges, reports the New York Times, included Obama “saying that he was a law professor — he was a senior lecturer.”

When Obama said he was a law professor (and for the record, numerous lecturers refer to themselves–and are referred to by their students and colleagues–as “professor”), it wasn’t as though it turned out that he had actually been a janitor at a law school or the career counselor. He taught law. People commonly refer to those who teach at universities as “professor.” That was not a misstatement; it was word choice. Hillary’s misstatement was an outright lie.

“I made a mistake and, you know, I had a different memory,” she after the backlash in the media. Basically, prettier language than “I lied.” Remembering something differently and broadcasting your false memory as a means of furthering your candidacy are two very different “mistakes.”

“I have written about [the Bosnia experience] in my book and talked about it on many other occasions, and last week, you know, for the first time in 12 or so years misspoke,” she said on the air at a Pittsburgh radio station.

In a later press conference, the media jumped all over that 12-year claim. “I was joking — I mean, you know, gosh, lighten up guys,” she responded. “Obviously I say millions of words every week. There is a lot more room for error when you are talking as much as I am talking.”

“Lighten up guys?” “More room for error?” Look, your highness, whether you say five million words a day or fifty, a lie is a lie is a lie. We have had eight years of an administration that lacks any semblance of respect for the truth. We can’t afford eight more.

Hillary has excused herself, saying that the misstatement just “proves I’m human.”

Actually, Senator Clinton, it just proves that you’re a liar.

 First and foremost, I need to thank Andrew Romano at Newsweek. In today’s “Stumper” (Newsweek’s hot political blog), Romano provides a link to my post from last week, Clinton Campaign: Obama Wins “Boutique, Latte-Sipping States.”

Romano writes: “As the opening gun sounded yesterday on the uninterrupted six-week Pennsylvania marathon, Clinton’s strategy was clear: appeal to the state’s whiter, older, more blue-collar and more conservative Democratic electorate by reminding them, both explicitly and implicitly, that she–unlike, presumably, her opponent and his “boutique, latte-sipping” supporters–is one of them.”

I don’t know if Andrew is a regular reader of this blog, but I am so honored by his referral… particularly because I thoroughly enjoyed his piece before realizing it linked to my site! As a Newsweek subscriber (it came free with my public radio membership, and I’ve kept it ever since), I have tremendous respect for that publication. So this is a big honor for me.

Now, back to the actual content of Romano’s piece.

He reports on a Hillary Clinton rally in Philadelphia last night: “‘I saw a sign up there: ‘Help Wanted. Experience Required, Day One,’ Clinton said near the start of her remarks. ‘And I think that says it all. I want you to think about this campaign as a loooong job interview. Because each of us is going to come and talk about what we’ve done and what we want to do, and you have to decide: who would you hire for the toughest job in the world?’”

Well, Op-Edna reader Babar77 recently asked the same question. So I’d like to turn this space over to him momentarily, while I sit back with my pad thai and bask in my new fame.

—

Hillary would crash and burn my job interview (by Babar)

Lately, Hillary Clinton loves to tout her resume on the campaign stump, inferring that she would be a better pick if you were hiring for a job.  Well, I do have experience interviewing professionals for jobs.  In my career, I’ve interviewed about 100 people and hired seven.  So I decided to see if I could put together how she might fare if I were interviewing her.

Let me start with the basic qualities I look for in a candidate.  The first and foremost are candidness, integrity, ability to work a problem under pressure, ability to work in a team, and ability to accept constructive criticism.  For a leadership position, I also look for judgment, reflection, and ability to mentor.  Then I test for technical knowledge, and make sure it jives with the resume.  The reason I rank technical knowledge below the others is that it’s more easily gained on-the-job or through training if the candidate has the first qualities covered.  However, there is a minimum threshold of technical knowledge required based on level of position.  Based on those I’ve hired, I would say my theory definitely holds water.  Finally, if I get one whiff of someone trying to take over the interview (I let candidates know they will have their own time at the end) or if I detect an air of entitlement, they will be shown the door.

Next I have to ask myself how would Clinton’s resume look?  I assume a cover letter would emphasize her 35 years of experience and ability to drive change by working within the system.  It would include her previous positions (including First Lady), her education, her goals, and finally rewards and accomplishments (including her husband’s).

Now let’s assume I have a lot of resumes to look through (as it completely the case in this year’s election).  I would need some way of quickly filtering candidates.  As I have done in real-life, I scan the resume and cover letter over looking for deal breakers and making sure it all jives.  I would notice that her claimed 35 years of experience includes her years at school.  The very next suspect item on her resume is including her spouse’s experience as her own – something I have yet to see in the thousands of resumes I’ve scanned.  Stretching the truth is an obvious violation on integrity, and would draw into suspect every other claim on the resume.  I would immediately eliminate her and she wouldn’t even get an interview because if she can’t even get some basics correct, I have little hope of her doing her job well.

Would she still fare better in an interview?  I could go into a lengthy discussion here, but I would summarize it:  I think she would show she possessed technical knowledge and the ability to think under pressure.  However I think she would fail miserably at candidness, ability to work in a team, judgment, reflection, ability to mentor, and integrity.  Her results with health care and Iraq, coupled with her reasoning for both would speak to her lack of judgment, reflection, ability to accept criticism, and ability to work in a team.  Her dismissals of states that don’t vote for her and (most importantly) lack of acknowledgment to her supporters and volunteers in those states speaks to her ability to mentor and ability to work in a team.    

I can only imagine how the part of the interview would go when I asked her about her accomplishments in the senate or as First Lady.  Of course, she would have a significant disadvantage to any real life candidate I’ve interviewed in that her record is easily researched on the internet.  However, I would ask her questions without first revealing what I know to test her integrity.  I listen carefully to pronouns when I ask candidates about their team experiences.  Overuse of “I” or absence of “We” (as Clinton does so frequently) is another sure way to fail one of my interviews.

Another failure in the interview would be her response when asked in a debate, “What is your greatest weakness?”  That type of sugar-coated answer is a sure way to get booted, especially when compared to the candid responses given by other candidates.

Finally, her biggest failure – which might even cause me to show her the door before the interview is scheduled to end would be her high sense of entitlement.  In my experience, you can directly correlate a sense of entitlement with job performance and they are inversely related (The greater the entitlement, the worse the job performance).  There are psychological studies to back this assumption up – google “Emotional Quotient.”

In Summary, based on her campaign performance, I believe Clinton would fail miserably at getting hired if I happened to view her resume or interview her.

Nine out of ten African Americans in today’s Mississippi primary voted for Barack Obama, and with Geraldine Ferraro aboard Hillary Clinton’s sinking ship, that’s no big surprise.

First, the former vice presidential candidate and Clinton supporter won hearts and minds with this gem: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position… And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Then, when it was clear she had offended virtually every African American in politics and beyond, she drove it home: “Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, ‘Let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world,’ you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up… Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

Oh boy.

Did Hillary Clinton or her top spokespersons issue an apology and ask Ferraro to step down?

“I do not agree with that,” she said today. ”It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we’ve both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this on the issues. There are differences between us. There are differences between our approaches on health care, on energy, on our experience, on our results that we’ve produced for people. That’s what this campaign should be about.”

So here we have the formulaic, ever-predicatable Hillary Clinton Non-Apology Apology.

Voice Disagreement + Re-direct (Mention Both Sides) + Mention Health Care + Sensitive Closing = Hillary Clinton Non-Apology Apology

Notice how this particular Non-Apology Apology omitted the oft-relied upon “experience” claim.This is because, quite simply, when even Sinbad (yes, he’s alive) can debunk your supposed foreign policy experience, you’re really in deep doo doo.

Hillary has referred to her visit to Bosnia in 1996 as a dangerous mission, going so far as to say: “We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady.”

[Insert Op-Edna fantasy press conference scenario]

Op-Edna: “Senator Clinton, if Bosnia was indeed too dangerous to send the president, why did you bring your teenage daughter Chelsea with you? And also, why would you bring Sheryl Crow and Sinbad? What did you have against A Different World?”

Senator Clinton: [insert Standard Non-Apology Apology]

Yes, then First Lady Clinton traveled to Bosnia with her teenage daughter, Sinbad, and Sheryl Crow. Not exactly an inconspicuous posse, IMHO.

Sinbad’s response is possibly the funniest thing he’s ever said in like three decades of comedy: “What kind of president would say, ‘Hey, man, I can’t go ’cause I might get shot so I’m going to send my wife…oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.’”

But seriously, Sinbad is pissed.

“I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or ‘Oh, God, I hope I’m going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank,’” the Jingle All the Way star said. “I think the only ‘red-phone’ moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place.’” 

To Clinton spinmaster Phil Singer, this was no laughing matter. Rather than defer to the Non-Apology Apology (see above), he went straight for the Distract and Destroy tactic (perfected by George “Hey, look over there!” W. Bush).

“The sad reality of what was going on in Bosnia at the time Senator Clinton traveled there as first lady has been well documented. It appears that Sinbad’s experience in Bosnia goes back further than Senator Obama’s does. In fact, has Senator Obama ever been to Bosnia?”

WHAT??? Senator Obama didn’t even SAY anything. Come on, Phil, this guy did Houseguest. You gotta let this stuff roll of your back!

P.S. - If it appears to you that Sinbad’s experience is more substantial than Obama’s, is he now on your VP shortlist? I’m just asking… seriously.

FOX News is reporting that a Pentagon study of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents has found no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

In related news, nearly two out of three Americans say, “DUH.”

The study will be released tomorrow.

Gloria Steinem isn’t the only feminist on the block this election season. Germaine Greer, an Australian writer who was one of the 20th century’s leading voices on feminism, weighed in on Hillary Clinton’s candidacy with Australia’s Nine Network last night.

Yahoo! news reports:

“I don’t like Hillary because she’s so bossy and cold and manipulative and stuff, and I don’t think having her in power is going to make any difference, basically, because she will have the same set of advisers…

“I can’t see that Hillary would appeal to feminists because, why is she there? She is there because she is Bill’s wife, and it’s a bit useless to pretend, ‘Oh, it’s because of her wonderful job as a senator.’”

On the other hand, Greer had nothing but kind words for Bill: “Everybody loves Bill. Bill is adorable and Bill is always flattering me and inviting me to stuff in Britain and we’re buddy-buddy, and I like him.”

In Clinton’s defense, it should be noted that Greer is notorious for untimely insults. Immediately following “Crocodile Hunter” Steve Irwin’s death in 2006, she said, “The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin.” In 2007, on the tenth anniversary of Princess Diana’s death, she called the late Princess Diana a ”devious moron”, a “desperate woman seeking applause”, “disturbingly neurotic” and “guileless… She dressed to the same demotic standard of elegance as TV anchorwomen do.”

It’s a fairly safe bet that neither Clinton nor Obama are in any hurry to earn Greer’s endorsement.

With his victory in Wyoming last night, Barack Obama has extended his delegate lead over Hillary Clinton to 99 delegates. Including pledged delegates (those won in primaries in caucuses) and announced superdelegates (Democratic Party leadership that can vote as they choose at convention), Obama has 1,527 delegates and Clinton has 1,428.

There are 33 delegates at stake in Mississippi on Tuesday, March 11, and Barack Obama is polling anywhere from 6 to 24 points aheadof Clinton in that state. The next contest isn’t until April 22, when Pennsylvania heads to the polls. Hillary is still polling around 15 points ahead of Obama in the Keystone State, but if we look at trends from other states where she had a double-digit lead more than a month ahead of the contest (places like Virginia, Maryland, Washington State–all of which Obama won handily), it’s fairly clear that Hillary’s lead in Pennsylvania will most likely be diminished.

158 delegates are at stake in Pennsylvania, and for Hillary, this will be the next make-or-break state. For if Obama somehow comes from behind to win, and goes on to win North Carolina (115 delegates), there are no more delegate-rich states left. She will, as has been predicted, be forced to rely on superdelegates who, voters would hope, should cast their votes in consideration of their districts’ decisions, and not in line with their own political alliances and interests.

The delegate math may be close, but the race tally is not. Obama has won 29 contests to Hillary’s 14. Hillary’s campaign argues that “boutique or ”latte-drinking” Red States don’t count. But if that were true, Al Gore would’ve been president in 2000, or at least John Kerry would’ve beaten Bush in 2004. When you lose a state like Ohio–and I hate to say this, but regardless of who the nominee is, I believe Democrats will–you need states like Kansas, Louisiana, Virginia and Washington to go your way.

If Al Gore had won his own home state of Tennessee in 2000, he would not have needed Florida to win the presidency. Regardless of who you support, it would be ridiculous to deny that Obama can beat McCain in states (like Virginia) where Clinton cannot.

What has backfired on Clinton is that in her efforts to prove Obama’s victories in “Red States” insignificant, she has only succeeded in preventing herself from having any viability in those states in a general election. For a nominee Obama, Red States are very much in play. For a nominee Clinton, they most certainly are not.

image courtesy of CNN.com

Forget an Obama aide calling Hillary Clinton a monster.  According to the Times Online, a Clinton aide has called the 27 states that Obama has won “boutique” and “latte-sipping.”

“One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama’s victories in ’boutique’ caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: ‘Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling.’”

 It is ironic that the Clinton camp is calling Obama supporters out for having feeling; Hillary has plenty of “feelings,” which were very hurt at being called a “monster” by now former Obama advisor Samantha Power.

Over at the Daily Kos, founding blogger Kos took issue with the Clinton aide’s classification of states that Obama scored big in.

“Really, why don’t Clinton and McCain get a room already? They’re all using the same arguments… The rust belt is (from west to east) the states bordering the great lakes: Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. Of those states that have had a real contest, Obama won two (WI and IL), Clinton won two (OH, NY), IN and PA is pending, and MI is still trying to figure out how to have a real contest.  Not exactly dominant… And what the heck is up with the ‘latte-sipping’ crap?”

Additionally, Kos has posted an excellent map showing which states each candidate has won.

“I see latte- drinking states on Clinton’s camp — California and New York! What an idiotic way to insult a bunch of states. And “boutique” states? Cute. Again with the ‘only big states matter’ b.s.

“That’s why Obama is the far stronger national candidate. He respects the entire country, not just a select few ‘pre-approved’ and ’sanctioned’ Clinton states. An assertion proven by the last SUSA poll, which proved not just a clearer path to theWhite House for Obama, but showed that he runs tighter even in states he loses. That matters at the presidential level, forcing Republicans to spend meager resources defending supposedly safe territory.”

As usual, Kos is right on the money. Democrats always count on the big states in a presidential contest, and for the past two elections, that hasn’t served us well at all. When Clinton supporters point out to me that “Hillary won California and New York,” I respond, “So did Gore and Kerry.”

The truth is, the election cannot be won on Blue States alone. Democrats need a candidate with Obama’s broad appeal, a candidate who stands a chance in states like Kansas, Nebraska, and South Carolina. The more “boutique” states that Obama wins (are there actually any boutiques in Kansas? Or, for that matter, lattes?), the less likely it is that a state like Florida or Ohio will have as much influence on the outcome of the next election.

To Hillary’s disadvantage, her opponents (both McCain and Obama) are running to be President of the United States. Hillary is running to be president of the states she wins, states like California, New York, and Massachusetts. Part of the reason for Obama’s mass appeal is that he isn’t condescending toward ANY state, whether he wins it or loses it, whether it has two electoral votes or 20. He went to Boise, Idaho. What does the Clinton campaign think about Democrats in Idaho?

“Superdelegates are not second-class delegates. The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic.” - Joel Ferguson, the Co-Chairman of the Clinton Campaign in Michigan, said last month.

Ironically, now that the seating of his state’s delegates is on the line, Ferguson had this to say yesterday: “Howard Dean is just wrong on this point… If the party is not part of the solution, they’re just kissing Michigan off for the general election.” 

So Michigan might become a red state? Now Ferguson can have his karma, and eat it too.

Somehow, this man kept his job, but Samantha Power lost hers. She insulted one woman. Ferguson insulted millions of American Democrats. Democratic leadership in several Red States called for the Clinton campaign to apologize for his “second-class” remarks, but having done some research on this, I can’t find any evidence that an apology was made.

UPDATE: I did a little research and found the reason many of us never heard Ferguson’s insulting remarks are that they came on February 18, the very same day the Clinton campaign accused Obama of plagiarizing Deval Patrick.

Like Ferguson, the Clinton campaign has an attitude of changing its tune when things don’t go its way. Red States would matter if they were the only states Hillary were winning. Hillary would support caucuses if she did as well in them as Obama.

We already have a president who breaks the rules to suit his own needs. Been there, done that, Senator Clinton.

Have you ever had the urge to call someone a name behind their back? Well you’d better curb that crazy talk, pal, or you’ll find yourself among the 63,000+ other Americans who lost their job last month. I’m not talking about our country’s pitifully dismal economic situation, I’m talking about Obama campaign adviser Samantha Power, who was asked to resign from her role on the campaign for calling Hillary Clinton a “monster” to the Scottish newspaper, “The Scotsman.”

“She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything,” were the precise words that did Power in.

When people in Clinton’s campaign staff made reference to Barack Obama’s adolescent drug use or alleged he was a Muslim terrorist, they were terminated. That was justified. But when her husband called Obama’s campaign a “fairy tale,” he wasn’t punished for it.

I’ve decided to look up the word in question. Dictionary.com provides the following definitions for the term “monster”:

–adjective

Granted, those aren’t the friendliest terms. But honestly, fireable? Give me a break. I heard a political cartoonist on NPR describe Dick Cheney as a “cave troll.” People regularly refer to Dennis Kucinich as “elvish.” I think George W. Bush looks like a goblin. These are the creatures of “fairy tales.” Are we really about to allege that calling someone “a legendary animal combining features of animal and human form or having the forms of various animals in combination, as a centaur, griffin, or sphinx” is on equal footing with calling them a terrorist?

This is getting ridiculous. As Sam Stein of “The Huffington Post” articulately points out, the Obama campaign has been stripped of one of its top intellectual talents. On a conference call, Clinton supporters rallied against Power, claiming her words were “a torrent of negative personal attacks” and “personal character assassination.” They called for her immediate termination. They insisted that Obama must fire her, saying, “It’s really a test for Obama, a test of character.”

A test of character would’ve been for Hillary Clinton to correct her husband for alleging Obama’s candidacy was little more than a myth. Instead, she simply said, with a grin, that her husband got overly enthusiastic in his support of her.

Hillary has been heard over the past few days touting John McCain’s experience, saying that she and the GOP nominee have years of service to their country and Barack Obama has little more than a speech. If Senator Clinton feels that serving eight years as a Senator in Washington D.C. or her tenures as First Lady and First Lady of Arkansas are on equal footing as John McCain’s decades as an elected official or time spent in Vietnam as a soldier and POW, she isn’t a monster; she’s delusional. And if she feels a need to question Barack Obama’s service, she should come spend some time on the South Side of Chicago. I can’t remember the last time I heard that she was working side by side with citizens in some of these communities, which are plagued by violence and poverty.

Yes, Samantha Power with her Harvard experience and undeniable intellectual prowess probably could’ve settled on a more tasteful word than “monster” in describing her boss’s opponent. Are we firing her for name-calling or for doing so in front of the media? Because if you spend 15 minutes in any political campaign headquarters, you’re bound to hear language that would make professional athletes in a locker room blush.

I think Ms. Power’s departure is unfortunate for the Obama campaign. But if the worst mud the Clinton campaign can sling is that Obama advisers are name-callers, I think they’ll recover somehow.