Author to stump for Obama in Columbia

Samantha Power, a senior policy adviser to U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign, will stop in Columbia and other South Carolina cities Thursday and Friday to talk about Obama's foreign policy objectives.

Power, a Putlitzer Prize-winning author, will talk about Obama's "plan to restore American leadership on the world stage and decrease the risk of terrorism by attacking global poverty and rebuilding international cooperation," according to a campaign news release.

In addition to Columbia, Power will stop in Myrtle Beach and Charleston.

Power is a senior policy adviser on the Obama campaign and Harvard's Anna Lindh Professor of Global Leadership and Public Policy. She won the Pulitzer for her book "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide, and she was the founding director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University.  

Comments

[Reta]

All voters who are seriously studying the positions of the candidates on the USA's critical issues and problems welcome this news. Obama has exhibited his understanding of the US' present low moral standing among other nations. I hope Power's speeches will be covered by The State in detail. We need to know details about his positions and plans for leading in the foreign policy arena.

[Anonymous]

I agree. I still have to say that people are voting for him based solely on the fact that they "like" him. He seems like such a good guy and people are attracted to him because of it. Unfortunately, you have to take in consideration his actual stances and policies on issues, especially foreign policy issues. We suffered from a president who didn't have enough foreign policy experience, let's not make that same mistake again. This country is in a crisis and we need someone who has been on the playing field and knows how to get the job done, not someone who's going to need on-the-job training. Let's vote with our brains, not our hearts.

[Reta]

We are not suffering from the Bush-Cheney Administration's lack of experience, rather from the ideology that drives their decisions and actions. The Bush-Cheney (and Rumsfield) administration's staff and advisors have long and deep experience in making and implementing foreign policy--not to mention President George W. Bush's father and the long line of Bushes who have experience in working in and with former administrations. Let's take a good look at the real records and results of each candidate--and at the ideology and principles that drive each one.

[GW]

Anyone who wants to know the details of Obama's positions should visit his website, as I have done and learned a lot more. It's not enough to sit back and say you want to know more about any candidate's views, because now all that information for every candidate is readily available. Only a president can make foreign policy and every single president has had to make foreign policy when they take office. Every president has had on the job training from the first day they enter office. There have been no exceptions.

It sure would help the morale of the citizens of this country to have a president who we like, and who is competent. The characters in the Bush administration had long years of experience in government and look at the mess that they have made - the national debt, an immoral, unnecessary, expensive war, emboldening Iran, Afghanistan slipping back into chaos, loss of prestige. It goes on and on. Intelligence and vision are characteristics that I believe Senator Obama has which will trump the kind of Washington experience that many say a president should have.

When you look at it, Mr. Obama has earned his spot in this race against odds that none of the other candidates have had to face, and he is doing exceedingly well. Hillary Clinton is riding on the stardust of Bill Clinton, and is the Democratic establishment's mantel bearer for that reason. John Edwards had his day, failed to deliver and hopes that there is still some interest in what once might have been. Rudy Giuliani is conning a lot of Americans with his strong on terrorism diatribe, milking 911 for every drop he can get out of it. The governors in the race believe that the presidency is in the natural order of things for them.

I believe that America needs a fresh, new set of eyes to pull us out of the mire of divisiveness, negativity, fear, incompetency, and mismanagement.

[puddin' tame]

To the person who said we should vote with our heads instead of our hearts because of Obama's lack of foreign policy experience I would ask: who should we vote for? None of the candidates have foreign policy experience. How does someone who isn't president even get foreign policy experience? By being married to the president? Going by that logic, we should all vote for Dick Cheney for president.

[Anonymous]

In actuality, Bill Richardson has more experience than Obama, Hillary or any other candidate for the presidency (Democrats or Republicans) but unfortunately the media has failed to shed light on that. To get some foreign policy experience you can start by serving on the foreign policy committee (as does Obama-even if it is less than 2 years) or in this case, being throughly involved with what goes on in Iraq. Did Hillary vote for the war? Yes. So did nearly all of the Democrats in Congress and even registered Democrats supported the war. I wish Democrats-politicians and voters- would stop claiming that they were against this war the entire time. Given the information that was provided to her she made the decision that she thought was best to protect this country. Unfortunately, she along with the rest of us were wrong. At least she was even in the U.S. Senate to vote, Obama was still a state senator. Had he been in the U.S. Senate there's no telling how he would of voted, especially as a first year U.S. Senator.

[Beverly J. Walden]

Here's my concern with Obama:

What exactly does this mean ...
... according to a campaign news release, Obama has a "plan to restore American ledership on the world stage and decrease the risk of terrorism by attacking global poverty and rebuilding international cooperation ... .
Oprah said it herself; she asked you to think. So, think about that commitment. I challenge you to repeat it over and over until you "get it." (then you define it for me)

Are you serious? I could care less your personal choice as to who to vote for, but the above is nothing more than "glossed over stuff" coming out of a canidate's mouth! And Samantha Power is going to "stump" for that?? Cudo's for the Pulitzer Prize, but then again, with a book title beginning with, "A Problem From Hell: ..." I think I get the gist.

That statement tells me nothing! I, like most, get lost in sentences that can be interpreted ten ways to Sunday! How can he walk the talk to something I doubt he even understood - but it looked good on speech notes??

Heres' what I expect for my vote: Tell me clearly and concisely what you are going to do. Then tell me how you are going to make it happen - and when. Because that is what I am going to hold you accountable for!!

[Fil Munas]

To me, Obama seems to be the smartest, kindest and bravest of the whole lot (on both sides) running for President. Samantha Power sure knows a winner!

[spenser]

The problem with Obama is that he says he never voted for the war. True, but its because he wasn't elected to office until 2004....war vote was in 2003.

So he says he didn't vote for the war, but that because he couldn't. Obama then says he was on record against the war, but that a pale comparison. Preaching from the sidelines is much different than actually having to raise your hand and say "Aye" or "Nay". Its like being the backup quaterback running up to the coach after the starting quarterback just fumbled the football and saying.."well, I wouldn't have done that if I were in".

Truth is no one will ever know, not even Obama himself, what he would have actually done once he was shown the faulty, doctored intelligence up-close and personal along with the rest of the Congress. To say otherwise is disengeuous and faulty at best.

I know Obama can't run on experience as he has none, but spare us this "would've, could've" nonsense please.

[vicupstate]

I assume Obama made public statements at the time that he opposed the war. There may have been a resolution in the IL senate at that time as well. The point is he studied the issue, made a decision, made it public, and history proved it to be the correct one.

He was 'snowed' into war like HRC and the others.

[vicupstate]

that is a typo. I intended to say he WASN'T snowed into voting for the war.

[spenser]

Wow, a statement. That's almost like actually doing something.

My point exactly.

[Anonymous]

Exactly my point Spenser, Thank you!

[spenser]

There's the problem. You can't differentiate between blabbing and actual action. Talking about doing something is not the same as actually doing something.

George Bush said he'd go to Vietnam if his Texas unit got called to serve. Actually going to Vietnam is obviously not the same.