Yes, Samantha Power made headlines today by resigning from her position as an adviser to the Obama campaign in the wake of an interview in which she called Hillary Clinton a "monster." And that's all a little shocking and a little silly and a little schoolgirl-crush-ish of her. But real, substantive campaign news of the day came from another Obama advisor, John Brennan, who gave an interview of his own in which he claimed "I do believe strongly that they [telecoms who broke the law by turning call data from their subscribers over to the federal government in the absence of a warrant] should be granted ... immunity, because they were told to do so by the appropriate authorities."
Brennan is arguing against his own candidate in this instance; Obama's official public position has been to oppose immunity. It's one of the reasons he won the endorsement of former candidate Chris Dodd, for whom this was a definitive issue.
A quick glance at the comments on that Think Progress page, BTW, will prove disheartening for anyone who's harbored visions of Democratic unity. And you will note, as I've discussed here earlier, that there's little purity or above-the-fray tone on the part of the Obama camp. In fact, it gets downright vituperative, with not a few stabs at Think Progress for even running the piece. Post-partisan indeed.
A word to Brennan: actually, the "appropriate authority" in this case would have been a warrant. Any other "authority" is decidedly inappropriate, a violation of the Fourth Amendment as well as the FISA statute itself.
A word to those Obama supporters, on TP and elsewhere, who defended Brennan with the claim that he demonstrates Obama's openness to surrounding himself with different views: that's an interesting point, and it would be a fair one to make if Brennan's comment had been made privately, in a staff meeting or behind closed doors with the candidate and/or other advisors. But this was a public comment, and what's more it was an argument — an attempt to sway opinion. When you have a position on a subject, as a candidate or as an officeholder, it's self-defeating to have members of your own administration making public arguments against you. That tends to make it impossible for people to know what your administration stands for, and thus what policy you're after — never mind that legislation is hard enough to negotiate even when everyone on your team is pulling in the same direction. There's already another team out there, after all. Debate in the officer's mess can be free and vigorous, but once you're beyond that space the public position must be coherent and consistent. Otherwise, people see either deception or weakness, and neither is good.
If Obama really is opposed to immunity, he needs to let this guy go — if not because he publicly broke ranks, then because he's a legal idiot. "Appropriate authorities" isn't even close.