Because, let's be honest, you should never trust a reporter with anything, especially one you've just met for drinks and a chat.

the fourth rule: see rules one through three.

ms. powers, much like condoleeza rice, doesn't impress me. one of two realities occurred:

1. she actually didn't know about press rules one through four.

2. she did know, but figured since that's the general tone of the obama campaign insiders, it would be ok.

"You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'.

The entire press is minimizing what she said by reducing it to "monster." It was much more than that. And they are minimizing her intent by calling it things like a stupid mistake or blunder. A silly unreal moment.

I don't for one second believe Power that this is not what she really thinks about Clinton. The whole was a statement of profound disrespect and disdain, and gave us a scary window on how the Obama campaign talks about Hillary to themselves.

Completely newsworthy.

What are we to do with people like this?

The quote:

"Obama is more about placating High Broderism, Tim Russert and the Washington Post editorial board than he is about transformative progressive change. I'll work hard to help elect him, but I also don't intend to delude myself about what to expect when he becomes President."

This is an incredible statement.

So as long as he doesn't delude himself about how nowhere Obama is, he feels just great about working hard to elect him.

Meanwhile due to a single ill-tempered word a bright progressive woman with informed and articulate opinions on foreign policy is now politically radioactive, hopefully temporarily though it will likely take some combination of time in exile and humbling reassurances to gain a candidate's confidence again.

To imagine that these seasoned politickers would be surprised by seeing the words that they uttered in a journalists presence is not believable.

1.  Samantha Powers made a colossal blunder.  Whatever her reasons she should have never used that word.

2.  The reporter could have just as easily not published the word but knew it would get buzz and chose buzz over discretion.

In talking to mayors, congressmen, state legislators, they'd often enough be on the record, say, "Let's go off the record for a minute." The prevailing view, to include those of our editors, was that doing it that way was okay. (One could also say no, gotta be 100-percent on the record.)

Felt like public officials were expected to know that sort of thing and if they didn't, said something on the record and wanted to have it back, too bad.

That said, there was a tendency to cut some people a little slack, depending on who they were. A colleague interviewed a young Olympian who said something that could be construed as racist (relating to a race of people and their physiques). My colleague said something like "You don't wanna be saying that and I'll give you a break this one time."

I had occasion to interview Fred Goldman (father of Ron, who was almost certainly murdered by OJ) after OJ was found liable for the murders, in civil court. I'd heard that Goldman did not refer to OJ by name. At one point I referred to OJ as "the man found liable for your son's murder."

Goldman said, "YOU MEAN THAT PIECE OF $#!+?!?!...... don't print that."

Could I have stood on solid journalism ground and printed it along the lines of "piece of (excrement)?" Sure. Right or wrong, I chose not to  do it, though I did refer to something like "flashes of searing anger."

They report. If you talk to a reporter, you may as well figure that they will report it to others. That's just the way it works.

Their function is the same as the biggest gossip around, male or female. You want the word to get out? Tell them. If you don't, then you better NOT tell them ANYTHING.