‘NAFTA-gate’ story takes unexpected turn

Just when I thought I’d gotten a handle on the so-called “NAFTA-gate” story, it takes an unexpected turn.

Some Canadian news outlets reported last week that Barack Obama’s campaign had reached out to Canadian officials, telling them to effectively ignore Obama’s concerns about NAFTA, claiming the rhetoric was just political posturing. Those reports turned out to be false. Canadian news also noted that Obama aides had contacted the Canadian ambassador with the same message. That turned out to be false, too. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain read almost identical talking points, but much of the accusations proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, given the attention and scrutiny, the largely controversy had a fairly significant impact in Tuesday’s primaries.

Now, a new report out of Toronto suggests the original story may have left out some important details.

If the Prime Minister is seeking the first link in the chain of events that has rocked the U.S. presidential race, he need look no further than his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, The Canadian Press has learned.

A candid comment to journalists from CTV News by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s most senior political staffer during the hurly-burly of a budget lock-up provided the initial spark in what the American media are now calling NAFTAgate.

Mr. Harper announced Wednesday that he has asked an internal security team to begin finding the source of a document leak that he characterized as being “blatantly unfair” to Senator Barack Obama.

OK, so the chief of staff of Canada’s conservative Prime Minister decided he wanted to meddle in the Democratic Party’s primary process. Clearly, that’s wildly inappropriate.

But the odd twist is that it may have been Clinton who reassured Canadians about NAFTA.

From the Globe and Mail:

Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton’s musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

“Quite a few people heard it,” said one source in the room.

“He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton’s campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry.”

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

So, let me get this straight. If this report is right, the Clinton campaign gave assurances to the Canadians not to worry about her rhetoric on NAFTA. The Clinton campaign then spent a week hammering Obama on alleged assurances to Canadians about his rhetoric on NAFTA?

Based on reporting from the Canadian Press (what is effectively the Canadian AP), Ian Brodie chatted with reporters about Obama and Clinton, but somehow, the story only ended up focusing on the prior, not the latter.

“He said someone from Clinton’s campaign is telling the Embassy to take it with a grain of salt,” said one participant in the conversation. The source added, “someone called us [from Clinton’s staff] and told us not to worry.”

Josh Marshall asks, “So was Hillary bashing Obama for what her own campaign had done? Did they both do it? Was it all a set up?”

I guess we’ll know more as the story unfolds, and at this point, many of the details appear a little murky. That said, if the Clinton campaign effectively hammered Obama for something they themselves did, this story might end up causing them some heartburn, too.

NOTE TO CANADA, YOU ARE OUR HAT, NOT OUR HEAD. OMG stay out of our elections!!

  • Whatever the circumstantial outcome of this affair, the Democratic party needs to put a stop to the growing Rovean intrigue among the campaigns. -Kevo

  • I just did a Google News search for ‘nafta canada’ and found that other than TPM and a few Canadian news outlets, this news is apparently not yet in any MSM pages. Do we keep spreading it around in blogs, hoping it will catch fire, or do we start contacting the editors of the big newspapers in our n’hoods?

  • This entry conveniently forgets the focus was on Obama because of the proof of meeting that Obama’s chief economist had (which you conveninetly omit) with the canadians and the memo summarizing that meeting. And it got traction because Obama denied a meeting that he clearly must have known about soon after this story broke and then when the proof came out didn’t handle the questions particularly well and just tried to downplay the meeting as unofficial and the memo as a misunderstanding. That was the story and its a proper news piece..
    The initial reports did speculate -based on the statement you cite- that Clinton’s staff may have called as well. But since Clinton’s organization denied it and no one has come up with any proof otherwise or have even been able to identify this so-call staffer or the timing or substance of that supposed call, that part of the story died as unfounded speculation.

    Your attempts to revive it based on nothing but convenient mischaracterizations of the story about Obama just shows your bias and doesn’t help your cause.

  • Hillary NAFTA, good. Obama NAFTA, bad. Say hello to Clintonian triangulation, people. Secret weapon of the GOP….

  • Attacking your opponent on an issue in which the opponent is strong or you are weak is the basic foundation of Rovian politics.

    Obama is not a Muslim, ‘as far as we know’…
    Hillary is not a Lesbian, ‘as far as we know’…

    What we ‘do know’ is that as recently as 2006 in her reelection campaign Hillary was a proponent of NAFTA. What we ‘do know’ is that Hillary never spoke up against NAFTA in the 90’s. What we ‘do know’ is that a major weakness of Hillary in the Ohio campaigning should have been NAFTA.

    Somehow, Hillary’s weakness became an asset via attacking her opponent on the issue.

    So what if it took the assistance of the ruling Canadian party which is closely linked to the Rethugnican party! So what if it took misinterpretations and innuendos!

    The winning ‘recipe’ for the Clinton camp has now become:

    In a large pot
    – Stir in a dash of truth
    – Stir in a few sprigs of half truths
    – Stir in a bit of innuendo
    – Stir in a liberal portion of distortion
    – Mix in a few Photoshopped pictures darkening the skin of Obama
    Serve large portions to SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF THE WHITE FOLKS…

  • Let’s see how this shakes out.

    I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if the Clinton team did this, and I base that on their prior record of trying to co-opt issues. Example A would be when Bill Clinton asserted that he was against the war from the start and that Obama wasn’t really against the war.

    Team Clinton has earned their reputation, so their supporters should not be surprised when the rest of us don’t give them the benefit of the doubt. And obviously Hillary knows first hand how dumb it is to trust sheisters on important questions. Whether she’ll admit she did it (repeatedly) is a whole ‘nother issue.

  • That Clinton also gave similar reassurances to the Canadians is not new news. Nor is the fact that both Clinton and Obama denied dupliocity. The biggest difference is the fact that the media has portrayed Goolsbee as part of the Obama campaign, while Clinton used “indirect contact”.

    From CTV 2/28: “The CTV exclusive also reported that sources said the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton’s words. The Clinton camp denied the claim. The story caught the attention of Republican front-runner John McCain on Thursday.”

    My question is, why is this only reaching the echosphere today?

  • Glad to see some of you riled up about this. I’m pretty appalled that my government would do something that is not just inappropriate, but illegal and also potentially highly damaging to US-Canada relations should Obama win. Our conservative government is the most partisan one we have had in a very long time and YES YES YES, they would absolutely do something like this deliberately if they felt Republicans and McCain would benefit (ie., if they believe McCain can beat Clinton but not Obama). Tactics like this have long been their MO.

    There are reports that Prime Minister Harper is having the “leak” investigated, but there were two leaks — the first, verbal leak made to CTV here in Canada which broke the story, which we now know came from his very own Chief of Staff Ian Brodie, and the second, which was the sharing of the memo with 180 news media outlets across Canada and the US. It is ONLY the second leak that is being investigated — not the second. Conveniently allowing Harper to blame someone else for the memo but avoid pointing the finger at his own man.

    Completely ignored in all of this, of course, is that fact that Clinton’s campaign team also had discussions with Canadian officials to downplay her own anti-NAFTA speak in Ohio. That’s not “unfounded speculation” — that information came from the initial leak which ABC and other media outlets have learned was indeed Canadian Chief of Staff Ian Brodie.

  • Exactly RacerX – if we act surprised at Clintonian tactics, I suggest we check ourselves for symptoms of amnesia.

    Karl Rove’s playbook is attack your opponents strengths. Clinton’s playbook is attack your opponent based on your own weaknesses. Big f-ing difference.

  • Racer X
    And I wouldn’t be suprised if people on this thread started raising Vince Foster stories. Clearly frustration has taken hold after Obama’s disappointing showing on Tuesday and some are more than willing to SPECULATE that Clinton is evil and any and all rumors must be true regardless of any basis. The difference however is that there was PROOF about Obama’s people talking to the Canadians not just speculation and that was the story. All you are doing is reinforcing the story about Obama which doesn’t make him look good.

    And if you are going to engage in this type of speculation about Clinton without regard to source or truth than you end up looking hypocritical when you rightly complain about negative stories about Obama that are similarly speculative. And trust me with the Rezko trial starting- you will see more of them.

    This board used to be the place for intelligent discussion – can it return to that.

  • Just out of curiosity is it actually now a litmus test for being a true Democrat that you have to be against NAFTA?

    I’m just wondering.

    We’re still allowed to believe in evolution though right? I want to make sure I’ve got my orders from party headquarters right before the big purge starts.

    Thanks.

  • If I read his statement correctly, he only implicates the Clinton campaign and saying otherwise just minimizes what the Clintons did here. CB’s original post makes clear that all of the original allegations against Obama and Goolsbee (namely that they had reached out to the Canadians and gave assurances) turned out to be false .

    This was the Clinton camp and somehow between the Canadian border and Washington, this story got transposed into Obama offering reassurances. Some one has some ‘splaining to do. I’d start with the CTV reporter who originally circulated the story and work your way back to Ian.

  • My question is, why is this only reaching the echosphere today?

    Because Clinton now has Ohio in her column, so it’s too late to be relevant.

  • @ #4 You mean the memo that had a quote that wasn’t a quote and that the consulate agreed was different/implied something different than what was said?

    Or do you mean something about Clinton railing about words and actions and people who say one thing and mean another?

    Or that it looks like a couple of minutes out of an hour, in which someone at the consulate embellished what was actually said, are more meaningful than what now looks like the Clinton campaign specifically reaching out on this one topic?

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrFPkleRZmbmPtPxHBGNAPSzfUtwD8V61MF01

  • And I suppose this is another example of the soft treatment that Obama gets, while Hillary is so dogged by the press.

  • On March 6th, 2008 at 9:58 am, Truthsquad said:
    Racer X
    And I wouldn’t be suprised if people on this thread started raising Vince Foster stories. Clearly frustration has taken hold after Obama’s disappointing showing on Tuesday and some are more than willing to SPECULATE that Clinton is evil and any and all rumors must be true regardless of any basis.”

    look at the peter paul video. they have hillary clinton on TAPE, caught in a lie that that results in a felony. so, rumor or no, clinton is FAR from innocent and they are not just speculations.

  • Truthsquad: Try a new name. It really doesn’t add any more credibility than “the most trusted name in news” or “fair and balanced.”

  • HI,
    I am ashamed and angry that ANYone frm the canadian government did this…but not surprised at the Harper adminstration. I am a canadian, and I am watching the USA elections with interest. I hold a personal view on the Clintons and I do not trust them…they have been investigated so many times for “irregular” activities and it’s sad that anyone would even trust them?
    If I were american, I would insist on & pressure media to look into the trustworty issues, which include this incident. I am sad that Mr. Obama was attacked, but I am not surprised that it came from the Clinton camp. Now the Clinton’s are pushing the Florida & Michigan issue…and sadly, the american & canadian media are ONCE again manipulating facts…what ever happened to doing research on a report before it goes public?

    I read the “resumed” document that was leaked…there was no heading, no signature and it just looked like someone typed it up.

    I appologize for my country’s involvement in this.

    Claudia, in New Brunswick Canada

  • Keith Hussein
    Your type of thinking was exactly the type of misunderstanding of the media that got Obama in trouble with this story.

    The fact is that Goolsbee DID MEET with the Canadians. That is uncontroverted. But the problem was that Obama falsely denied that that such a meeting took place with anyone connected to his campaign. Since that statement was absolutely false and the falsehood was only admitted when the Obama campaign was confronted with the memo that proved the meeting, then they lost credibility on the issue. Therefore, no one necessarily has any reason to accept Goolsbee’s word that the memo about the meeting is wrong. Especially when there is no reason to believe that the Canadians had any reason to falsely report the substance of the meeting in an internal memo. SO the claim that the story has been disproved is not true. It has only been disproved to those who believe everything Obama says without respect to contrary facts. The rest of us still have questions.

    On the otherhand, the so called “indirect” and never identified contact from someone who may or may not be connected to the Clintons is just speculation that has never been backed up. No one has been identified – no timing has been given.

    To complain that the media got the story wrong when it rightly focused on what was uncontroverted- the clear contrast between the Memo and Obama’s statements- when the real issue was Obama’s mishandling of the story is not convincing to anyone who isn’t already on your side.

    The simple fact is that if Obama immediately came out when the story broke and said that Goolsbee had had an informal meeting with the Canadians but the discussion was being misconstrued- things would have died down instantly. Its the false denial -when its clear he and Goolsbee knew differently – that was the problem and was what created the story. Its not the “crime” but the coverup.

    Just like its a problem that it was only recently that Obama admitted that he and Rezko met in the house he wanted to purchase right before they made the bid on the adjoining properties. A fact that he conveniently forgot when he was asked questions about the Rezko deal months earlier.

    I’m not saying that there is anything necessarily wrong here but it leaves a bad impression.

    These inconsistencies are the issue that hurt him in Ohio and if you refuse to face why it was a problem and just continue the echo chamber “I say clinton is bad- why are you picking on Obama” screeds- it will continue to hurt him.

  • We can hardly complain about another country meddling in our elections.

    I can not believe there is a faction of our party so enthusiastically acting like R’s circa 2000. Regardless of who we support, can we stand for something more then victory at all costs ?? The ends do not justify the means and if this pans out like I suspect it will, I hope my fellow D’s will use reason to cast their support and not raw emotion.

    Rove must be creaming his shorts watching this non-sense unfold.

  • Isn’t the so-called leak by Brodie a red herring, pretty much? He says he didn’t mention either candidate. The reference to Clinton was reported by a source in the room who thought that’s what he heard.

    Not quite the same story or the same leak….

  • What Danp said. Anyone named “Truthsquad” who uses words like “uncontroverted” just has to be a parody of some sort.

  • Hilary Clinton supports a trade policy her husband championed and she didn’t say “Boo”
    for all 8 years of her White House “experience”?

    The hell you say.

    Let’s see if Michigan gets hooked again in June by “Nouveau populist” HRC.

  • I don’t apologize for the Canadian government — not because I don’t deeply regret our involvement in this, but because I didn’t vote for Harper and have never trusted him, so it’s really not surprising that he would do something partison and conniving. Preferences aside, Clinton, I feel, did what she had to do by taking advantage of Obama’s misfortune here — he would have done the same if he’d had the opportunity (and no, it’s not fair that his dealings with the Canadian government have been widely publicized and criticized while hers have not). But I am most disturbed that this interference has not (yet) sparked the kind of widespread outrage I would feel if another government deliberately interfered in OUR elections. Harper’s manipulations are unethical, illegal. He does not belong in American politics, and no one running for any kind of office, whether Democrat, Republican or Independent, should have to worry about possible meddling by a supposed “friendly” neighbouring government, even if that government has something at stake — which, it seems, Harper obviously feels is the case here.

  • Racer x and Danp-
    Its pretty much “uncontroverted” that when you are reduced to insulting me rather than dealing with my arguments that you are conceding that you have no response. Aren’t you the ones who are engaging in so clled “rovian attacks” i.e. if you can’t dispute the facts- attack the person. Will you question my patriotism next?

    Again- can we return to intelligent discussion.

  • Truthsquad:

    Simple questions for the simple minded:

    1. As originally reported, did a senior member of the Obama camp reach out to the Canadian government and give them reassurances that his talk about NAFTA was just political bluster?

    2. As originally reported, did a senior member meet with the Canadians and deliver those assertions?

    I believe the answer to both questions are NO. If someone said that I wrote an blogpost calling Truthsquad an arsehole, I say it never happened. But if they produced evidence that I did in fact write a response to Truthsquad, that’s evidence that I was lying? I don’t see how that follows. But really this is a semantics thing. The real issue was the media and the Clinton campaign’s portrayal of Obama as saying one thing in public and another thing privately. The conclusive evidence is that in fact wasn’t true. If you can’t grasp that reality, then at least change your name to Truthiness Squad so everyone can judge your comments accordingly.

    Obviously I give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this question, and in light of subsequent facts and apologies by the Canadian government, it looks like that benefit was deserved.

  • Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain read almost identical talking points…

    Since they both employ strategists from the same firm, I’m not surprised. They’ve been working together for weeks. Mr Lifetime of Experience and his adoring admirer.

    This is the kind of news that’ll push fence sitting voters into Obama’s camp. He’s the candidate of the people, with over 600,000 more votes than her, not counting any caucuses. He’s winning in the delegate count, and he’ll win the supers.

  • Isn’t the so-called leak by Brodie a red herring, pretty much? He says he didn’t mention either candidate. The reference to Clinton was reported by a source in the room who thought that’s what he heard.

    Not quite the same story or the same leak…

    THIS Globe and Mail story, referencing a Canadian Press article, says that several people heard what Ian Brodie said, and that it was Clinton he mentioned by name, not Obama. CTV News than inexplicably ran a story about Obama, and won’t provide comment to questions about why or how. Only afterwards was the diplomatic memo leaked that further narrowed the focus on Obama and away from Hillary.

    For the record, the Globe and Mail is our most reputable national newspaper. They are covering this fairly closely.

  • Skewered Left

    I did read the article- I would point you to this part of it –
    “But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate — either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama” and comment 24 of this thread.

    In short, this article contains nothing new (as the unsupported speculation that Clinton may have done the same thing was part of the original story) and nothing to support the exapanded but baseless speculation about Clinton that is on this thread.
    It certainly doesn’t contradict anything that I have said here.
    And if we are going to engage in speculation – given what we know the most likely scenario is that Brodie was thinking about and referring to the memo about Goolsbee on behalf of Obama which clearly exists and was widely circulated in the Canadian government.

    But hey if you guys want to push this non-story and ignore the fact that you really are only prolonging the bad press for Obama then be my guest.

  • Brodie is Harper’s right hand man in the Prime Minister’s Office or PMO. From what I’ve read, Brodie’s orders carry the same, uh, weight is as if it were the Voice of Fatpants himself.

    As for CTV. They’re the pro-Tory network. Always have been. A more benign version of Faux. Enough said.

  • Truthsquad: “I’m not saying that there is anything necessarily wrong here but it leaves a bad impression.

    What leaves a bad impression is somebody bringing something up, and then writing “I’m not saying that there is anything necessarily wrong here…”

    If I were writing a screenplay, and I had to come up with a name for the bad guy, Rezko would be perfect. Just mentioning the guy’s name leaves a bad impression. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong here, but Rezko…Rezko…Rezko.

    Well done, Rovesquad.

  • See the problem is not so much about NAFTA as it is that the Obama camp denied that any meeting took place. They finally acknowledged the meeting took place and downplayed the significance. This is Washington politics as usual and a candidate who if preaching for changing the dynamics of our government and full disclosure to the people; then turns around and has a backdoor meeting about NAFTA. Argue it, downplay it, but something brews rotten in Chicago and that is what the people saw.

  • Keith Hussein

    Simple answers. The reality that I fully grasp and you attempt to deny is that Goolsbee is a senior advisor to Obama and is an integral part of his campaign on economic issues. Goolsbee and the Obama campaign admit that Goolsbee did in fact meet with the canadians and talked about Obama and NAFTA. What he exactly said is controverted. The memo says one thing- Goolsbee says that it miscontrues what he says but conveniently doesn’t say exactly what he did say .
    Since the Obama campaign falsely denied a meeting took place however until the memo came out- Goolsbee’s credibility is a little tarnished.

    But hey continue to create your own reality where you can ignore every fact that you don’t like and call people names who don’t agree with you.

  • Poor Hillary singled out again by Obamofascists.

    “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002″

  • The reality that I fully grasp and you attempt to deny… -Truthsquad

    Well, fortunately for America, it doesn’t matter who grasps what or doesn’t, since Obama has an insurmountable delegate lead. I’m shocked to see people hung up about what was obviously just crossed wires. I can understand either candidate not knowing where every member of the staff was during the campaign. I would not hold it against Hillary the way her supporters are holding it against Obama.

    But they need every little thing you can ‘grasp’ on to since there really isn’t anything of substance to attack him on. Frankly, I’m starting to be surprised her faithful aren’t referring to him as ‘Osama.’

  • Since we’re on the subject, can someone refer me to the respective positions of Obama and Clinton on the unconstitutional, unratified treaty that Herr Bush entered into with the Canadian and Mexican governments known as the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP) promoting a, quote, North American Community? You don’t hear much about it in the “debates” or in the “mainstream” media.

  • Doubtful

    Your statement would have so much more credibility if you hadn’t previously been complaining about what so -called Clinton “surrogates” do. Apparently you believe that she should be held responsible for what everyone of her supporters does or says but no one should expect Obama to keep track of what his senior staffers do or say.

    Also talk about leads all you want- but no matter how you try to spin it Obama is simply unable to clinch the nomination. As you guys say- rules are rules. It is undisputed that he can not get enough delegates to clinch the nomination. In short, he is in the exact same position as her- both are short of the magic number.
    So it goes to the convention and then everything is in play because that is what the convention rules say. And things like the fact that despite the millions he poured in Texas and Ohio and his massive campaigning there – the voters rejected him are highly relevant.

  • Truthsquad:

    With all respect, if you knew anything about the Harper government you would realize how naive this sounds. PM Stephen Harper has very firm control over what information his government releases. An “accidental” leak of any kind is a near impossibility, and when anything scandalous occurs that reflects badly on him, he and his people LIE with so much regularity it’s a wonder they can sleep at night. (See the Chuck Cadman affair; the Afghanistan Detainee Transfer affair; the income trust scandal; his handling of the global warming and environment portfolios; the equalization payment reversal; I could go on). Brodie lied when he said he didn’t recall. Harper lied when he defended Brodie by claiming the leak didn’t come from his government, which we know it did. CTV News is conveniently providing an official ‘no comment’. Yet several inside sources are saying that he said Clinton, not Obama. The idea that Brodie DIDN’T say it is far more unlikely than that he did. Not because I believe Hillary would or would not have reassured the Canadian government, but because the very fact that several sources who were direct observers of the media scrum where this first came out are contradicting what Harper and Brodie are saying, combined with their track records and obvious partisan interest in the US election, make it quite clear that Harper and Brodie not only have ample reason to lie, but have done so on so many other occasions that the idea that they would be honest here is simply laughable.

    BOTH Obama and Clinton reassured the Canadian government about NAFTA. Either one being smeared like this hurts the Dems and helps McCain.

  • Tara

    And my point had nothing to do with the Brodie government. As Manny said the story was always Obama falsely claiming that no meeting occurred when one in fact did. By doing so he set himself up to be skewered by the leak of the memo.

  • doubtful

    ‘Well, fortunately for America, it doesn’t matter who grasps what or doesn’t, since Obama has an insurmountable delegate lead.”

    I have to give you that, Clinton only made up about 12 delegates and will probably lose that count with Wyoming and Mississippi coming up which Obama should sweep. I will also have to admit that there “really isn’t anything of substance to attack him on” since quite frankly he has no substance to begin with.

  • Rovesquad —

    I had three separate meetings this morning that my boss, who is out of the office this morning, knows nothing about. All three meetings were requested and initiated by the tree parties. This isn’t a hypothetical, by the way. This is true. I really met with three different people today on work-related issues.

    If you ask my boss, If I met with these people, she’s likely to tell you no since she didn’t ask me to have these meetings. I’ll correct her, and let her know that I did meet with them at their request. Then, she will “admit” that I did have those meetings — all without my bosses knowledge — each at the other person’s request.

    What happened in my meetings? As an example, in one meeting, I told the building supervisor that I would look into a more appropriate temperature for our hot water heater (our tap water is unnecessarily scalding hot). He thought I was going to get back to him before lunch. I meant that I would get back to him before the week is out. He “misconstrued” what I said. What exactly I said is “controverted”.

    Rovesquad has a strange yearning to turning harmless, everyday activity into a scandal.

    Here’s the truth: Obama has been a long time critic of NAFTA. The Canadian version of Faux news reported lies passed on from the Canadian version of the Plutocrat (aka: Republican) party…in order to help get Hillary elected in August and John McCain elected in November. Simultaneously, Hillary Clinton, a long time NAFTA supporter, gave her wink and nod to the Canadian government, while picking up the Faux news lies and passing them on to the people of Ohio.

  • Steve C.

    The convoluted arguments that you Obama supporters have to make to support your arguments just proves my point that you are doing your candidate no favors and are only hurting him.

    The fact is Steve C. if mutliple NATIONAL NEWS stations had printed articles about one of your bosses’ staff having the meetings you had today, your boss would certainly check with her staff BEFORE issuing a FALSE official press release categorically denying that such meetings took place. Unless your boss is an incompetent idiot or a liar. So unless your point is that Obama is an incompetent idiot and/or a liar- i’m not sure what the stories of your life are supposed to prove except that you have had a very boring day.

    Also lets be clear. While there is documented evidence that Goolsbee met with the canadians and Obama’s camp mislead the press about it (WHICH IS THE STORY THAT YOU KEEP ON MISSING), there is only unsupported speculation that anyone connected with the Clinton campaign had any contact so stop making assertions that are based on nothing but your desires to downplay the Obama campaign’s missteps. All you are doing is highlighting them.

    As I said long ago- I’m not creating this scandal – its Obama’s missteps and this harping on it by his supporters who miss the whole point as to why the story was news that gave this story traction and it is these acts which is unfortunately continuing to harm Obama by pointing out his misstatements.
    I

  • Your statement would have so much more credibility if you hadn’t previously been complaining about what so -called Clinton “surrogates” do. Apparently you believe that she should be held responsible for what everyone of her supporters does or says but no one should expect Obama to keep track of what his senior staffers do or say. -Truthsquad

    First of all, I don’t remember holding Hillary accountable for the actions of her surrogates or employees. I hold them responsible. The only way I relate it to Hillary is if she doesn’t do anything about it, like Mark Penn. I hold him accountable for labeling states insignificant; I thin she’s a bad manager for not having addressed Mark Penn’s missteps publicly. I challenge you to find one instance where I’ve ever attributed a surrogates actions or words to the candidate.

    I honestly think I’ve been nothing but fair in my criticisms of Clinton, and when I haven’t been, I’ve been willing to admit to mistakes in light of convincing evidence. I honestly don’t know why you’d try this ad hominem attempt to discredit me, unless of course it simply means you acknowledge I’m correct and you have no other recourse.

    But to the broader point, what does that matter? What you seemed to be railing against was the fact that Obama ‘lied’ about the meeting taking place. All I said was that it just seemed like crossed wires and that his ‘lie’ was just confusion. If you want to say that illustrates poor leadership or bad management qualities, at least that make sense, but calling it a ‘lie’ is over the top, in my opinion.

  • “Truthsquad” – you’re a troll. Why don’t you go skid off the road into the ditch for real, instead of the merely metaphorical as you have done here today repeatedly?

    It’s amazing, how ignorant Clinton supporters turn out to be, how unable they are to discuss the factual events.

  • Looks like a clinton campaign troll is hitting the board.

    I’ve seen them out elsewhere. TruthTroll and her ilk should be ignored.

    Example: If Obama were to criticize Hillary for saying the moon is made of Green Cheese. You can count on one of these Trolls spewing forth 35 reasons why the moon is indeed made out of green cheese. They are a waste of time.

  • …your boss would certainly check with her staff BEFORE issuing a FALSE official press release…

    Where is this “FALSE official press release”, Rovesquad, denying that the meeting took place? Or is this “”FALSE official press release” a figment of your imagination?

  • Doubtful

    There was absolutely no ad hominem attack upon you. I just correctly noted that there was inconsistency in your attempting to hold Hillary “responsible” for her staff (your word) but claiming that Obama is not responsible for the actions of his staff because clearly it must have just been “crossed wires”. The clear inconsistency is obvious.

    The point is that Goolsbee had the meeting. He knew Obama had denied the meeting took place. He either informed Obama before the denial that he had such a meeting and then Obama shouldn’t have denied it. Or Goolsbee informed Obama afterwards and then it was a lie when Obama didn’t correct this mistatement until confronted with the memo. And if Goolsbee didn’t tell Obama- than Obama should have held Goolsbee accountable for hanging him out to dry and denounced him as you clearly expect Hillary to do for anything dealing with Mark Penn.
    But your statement in this very thread at you are

    “starting to be surprised her faithful aren’t referring to him as ‘Osama.’

    clearly belies your claims that you are even attempting to be “fair” .

    But keep on supporting your candidate in this manner- it was this type of “support” that was partly responsible for Obama’s lead in Texas evaporating from Sunday to Tuesday and his losing by ten points in Ohio.

  • I HAVE NO REASON TO BELEIVE HILLARY IS INVOLVED. SHE HAS ALWAYS BEEN SUSPECT OF THE EFFECTS NFTA WOULD BRING ABOUT. SHE COULD NOT USURP HER HUSBANDS AUTHORITY AND DON’T FORGET THAT. THERE IS A LOT OF POWER THAT RESTS IN CONGRESS OR HAVE WE FORGOTTEN OUR CIVICS. I TRUST HER AND WHAT SHE SAYS. DO YOU THINK OBAMA IS SQUEAKY? CLEAN.I DON’T. PAT

  • Truthsquad:

    (Nice name. The irony is appreciated.)

    I was referring to post 33, where you claim that the accusations against Hillary are “baseless speculation”. They are obviously not. The story here is not JUST that Obama probably lied, or JUST that the Canadian government probably deliberately interfered and then lied about it, but that Clinton most likely did the same as Obama — and not only did she (so far) get off scot-free, but she used it to her advantage, to significant impact. Roasting him for what she also did is the height of hypocrisy, and the more this stays in the news, the more likely it is that the whole truth will come out — about everyone, including Clinton.

    If she has nothing to hide, and if this hurts Obama by staying in the news/becoming a bigger story, then she has nothing to lose. In the end, this hurts them both anyway because it hurts the Dems as a whole in the general election. Better to get the whole truth out now and either try to leave it behind or prepare how to spint it than to allow it to fester until the general election where it is SURE to come up given McCain’s very pro-NAFTA stance and the fact that both Obama and Clinton have boxed themselves into a corner on the issue. The truth always comes out.

  • Well Steve C you might want to look at the original report here, which repeated the Obama’s campaigns claims that no meeting had taken place .

    And look at this
    Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe was asked to comment on the conversation reported on Canadian television.

    “The story is just not true. Obama’s position on this is very clear. Our campaign has been very clear on this; it did not happen,”

    Or is your new claim that David Plouffe is not part of Obama’s campaign.

    But clearly you want to live in your own manufactured reality. As to the ad hominem attacks on me – I never knew that when they were touting Obama’s support amongst the young they were really referring to his supporters kindergartner mindset to insult people when they can’t dispute the facts.

    But feel free to call me a troll and further insult me because you have no other response. Again all you are doing is hurting your own candidate.

  • Rovesquad or TruthTroll’s very presence on the Board shows how the Clinton people are worried about this story.

    If the story was pure BS or easy to disprove there wouldn’t be any trolls out spreading disinformation. So don’t bother responding to them.

    I don’t know if the story is true but the clip I saw on CBC is accurate, but it sure looks like some serious chicanery is going on.

    Check it out yourselves.

    http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/vsu/wmv-hi/macdonald-obama-memo080303.wmv

  • Tara

    Fine- so give me some Proof that Clinton’s people meet with the Canadians like Goolsbee did other than a disputed and unrecorded statement by Brodie- who you yourself call an unreliable liar in your very long and detailed post at 44. Soemthing akin to Goolsbee’s admitted meeting , now confirmed by Obama, and the memo recording that meeting.
    The fact is you can’t because it doesn’t seem to exist despite the fact that it was searced for.

    What was found was the Goolsbee memo related to Obama.
    So your claim that it is “likely” that someone from her campaign did the same is clearly based on nothing but your wish that it be true. That is the defintion of speculation.

  • This whole NAFTA thing is depressing beyond words. I voted and caucused for Obama here in TX, but I had thought Obama somehow broke these past molds. I can’t believe something as transparently BS is still capable of tarnishing Dems like this. And these are Democratic voters falling for this crap. The one’s who are always the victim of it. I’d thought, at the very least, core Dems had wised up and could recognize a stinker like this for what it was.

    So, a coordinated smear that Dems bite on, that even if true is hardly scandelous, and it STILL hurst Obama — ane we STILL get the media and Dems criticizing OBAMA for not responding well enough to getting bitch-slapped. And yet again, it’s the ACCUSER who’s guilty of the sins they are accusing the victim of and walks away better off for it.

    So again, I’m left with the dilemma — can we change the game? Or do we have to play it well enough to get in and change it?

    If Dems can’t stop falling for this fluff, how on Earth do we expect the general electorate not to fall for it? And if they will, should we go with someone who can bloody the GOP as badly as they bloody us?

    Obama needs to show he can throw a punch. It doesn’t have to be a sucker-punch, but he needs to show he can give as good as he gets. I’m thinking of Clinton’s slam on Bush Sr. when he was running the high-minded campaign — I can’t even remember what he was countering, only his zinger of a response, which tells you who walked away the victor. Clinton brought up the fact that Bush Sr.’s father had been a hero during the Red Scare, and threw praising him, showed how the son had so utterly failed to live up to half the man his father was by playing the same game.

    Unfortunately, Obama is in the usual Democratic Catch-22 — by getting slimed unfairly, he gets criticized for not being able to stop people from smearing him unjustly. So, it’s never about the scandal of supporting the Swiftboaters, but Kerry’s inability to counter. But it’s the same paradox he has to solve to beceome President. He doesn’t need to fight like Rove, but he has to show he can hurt you.

  • Rovesquad @50, “your boss would certainly check with her staff BEFORE issuing a FALSE official press release categorically denying that such meetings took place…

    “It did not happen”…i.e. Obama did not send a messenger to assure the Canadian government that he lied to the people of Ohio about his criticism of NAFTA.

    “It did not happen”…i.e. Obama did not request a meeting with the Canadian government.

    “it did not happen”…i.e. Obama’s advisor never assured, or even hinted to, the Canadian government that Obama wasn’t serious about re-negotiating NAFTA.

    Again…Goolsman, a Chicago resident, met with the Canadians in Chicago at the Canadians’ request. Obama didn’t request the meeting. Obama didn’t know about the meeting. Goolsman and the Canadians both state, unequivocally, that Goolsman didn’t say what the Canadian Faux News television station (CTV) said he said.

    Still waiting for the “FALSE official press release” that was “issued” by the Obama campaign allegedly denying that this Goolsman met with Canadian officials. Where is this imaginary press release Rovesquad?

  • I just correctly noted that there was inconsistency in your attempting to hold Hillary “responsible” for her staff (your word) but claiming that Obama is not responsible for the actions of his staff because clearly it must have just been “crossed wires”. The clear inconsistency is obvious. -Truthsquad

    No you didn’t. You repeated a factless assertion about my character which I asked you to back up, which you haven’t done.

    You’re claim is that I attribute the flaws of Clinton’s surrogates to her while giving Obama a pass. I disagreed then, I disagree now, and nothing in your fact-free and baseless claim supports it.

    “starting to be surprised her faithful aren’t referring to him as ‘Osama.’

    clearly belies your claims that you are even attempting to be “fair” . -Truthsquad

    And as for my comment on this post concerning her ‘faithful,’ I’m was clearly refering to commenters in this thread, not Clinton or her campaign. You’re just continuing your disingenuous ad hominem.

    I have no problem calling out blog trolling twits whose fact-free posts are designed only to rile people up. If you can’t see the difference between criticizing blog commenters and criticizing a campaign, you are beyond help.

    And please, show me where I an any was absolved Obama over this issue? I only stated I don’t think it’s fair to call it a ‘lie.’ You’re attributing a position to me I have never taken.

    I’m not naive enough to believe that either candidate would lie about such a meeting taking place when it would be well documented, and the fact that Clinton’s supporters in the blogosphere are harping on it only means they have nothing else.

  • Steve C.
    I refer you back to my post at 58 where I have already responded and would note that it is “Goolsbee”- Obama’s chief economic advisor. But let me not interrupt your imaginary reality where you think that you are making points that help your candidate instead of engaging in senseless rants.

    Again keep at it. If you knew anything about the media- you would know that this stroy was old news and the media had moved on- which was GOOD for Obama. But keep on highlighting his missteps and misstatements through your wrongheaded attempts to defend him (Indeed even Andrew Sullivan admits Obama mishandled the press on this issue) and let it continue to dog him.

  • Hey liesquad…

    You conceded that it’s possible for people to hold legitimate meetings without getting the boss’ permission first. People do that everyday.

    But you denied that this happened to Obama because he would have checked before issuing a “FALSE official press release categorically denying that such meetings took place”.

    I’d like to see a copy of that “FALSE official press release categorically denying that such meetings took place” too. Where is it liesquad?

  • Me too, liesquad…where is the “FALSE official press release categorically denying that such meetings took place”. You do know that a press release is a written document…don’t you? Where is it?

  • The folks still peddling the original story, now shifting a bit in order to save it for Clinton by saying “Well Obama denied the meeting, are still conveniently ignoring the facts of that denial. That simple fact is that Obama denied REACHING OUT to the Canadians.

    This, without argument, turned out to be the truth, as subsequently (yet long after Clinton used it against him) verified by the very same people who leaked the story in the first place.

    The Canadians sought a meeting with Goolsbee for a long time and discussed it then.

    If anyone is still pushing this argument, how about you back it up with facts. I know, it’s inconvenient, but it sure makes you look less than stupid.

    The real interesting portion of this story may turn out to bite Clinton in the ass for lying in the first place, that it actually was her team that made the comments in the first place. The MSM has grabbed onto this and I’m glad the truth will come out. It sure doesn’t look good for Clinton.

    But hey, she’s already been vetted and is ready on day one. So what’s the big deal?

  • Doubtful

    My earlier posts speaks for themselves. As do yours. I hope you see the irony in your mischaracterizing what I said to support your false claim that I “mischaracterized” what you said. The truth here is that I have ignored the numerous contentless personal attacks about me on this thread from you and others.

    But As you said there is no point in continuing the discussion since by calling me “beyond help” – simply because I pointed out that it is hypocritical of you to accuse me of ad hominem attacks when, as your post 40 and earlier posts show, it is you (not me) who insists on baselessly attacking those who you disagree with – is nothing but an attempt to derail this thread since you have nothing of substance to say on the NAFTA issue.

    I really could care less what you think of me or nor do I care about the clearly self-important high opinion you have of yourself (which you for some reason feel the need to endlessly repeat).

    Again- There is no need to talk about anything here but the issues.

  • R.J and Dawn

    When you are reduced to the point of parsing the denials you yourself concede were made by the Obama camp to give them some favorable spin- you are really doing nothing but supporting Manny’s point in post 37 that Obama is nothing but a typical untrustworthy politician. And missing the whole point that this impression is what hurts him.
    I would also refer you to Memekillers post in 61. But as I said go ahead with the childish namecalling and keep on thinking that you are being helpful to your candidate or persuasive in anyway.

    But maybe you guys are really the Rovian trolls trying to hurt Obama by prolonging his bad handling of this issue. I figure there has to be some reason behind the obvious lack of any meaningful point in your posts.

  • Apparently the “FALSE official press release categorically denying that such meetings took place” was, in fact, a figment of liesquad’s imagination. Didn’t exactly live up to his chosen moniker, did he? (Good job Steve C.)

    Obama’s crime was that he was unaware that Goolsman agreed to and attended a meeting with the Canadian Consul in Chicago at the Canadians’ request.

    Goolsman went to the meeting without telling his boss (i.e. Obama) about it (happens every day), and when asked if Obama sent Goolsman to meet with the Canadians to “reassure” them about NAFTA, Obama said no…which was the truth. Hell, Obama didn’t even know that a Goolsman even scheduled and attended a meeting with the Canadians until after the media started asking him about it. And…all parties present at the meeting said Goolsman only affirmed Obama’s public statements.

    Conspiracy-theorists can interpret “it did not happen” in whatever twisted manner they choose, but to them, the truth does not matter.

    Obama did nothing wrong. Hillary Clinton? We’ll have to wait and see.

  • Clearly Fred Rutherford and Steve C. are the same person because why else would you keep on denying that I already showed you the press statement in post 58 ? At least DaveBreck concedes that reality- he just tries to parse the denial in an unconvincing way.

  • Truthsquad wrote, “[You’re] missing the whole point that this impression is what hurts him…

    Who created the “impression” that hurt Obama? Canadian Tory Prime Minister’s administration (Canada’s George Bush equivalent), CTV (Canada’s Fox News equivalent), John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

    Who did not create the “impression” that hurt Obama? Obama.

    Such tactics work because of people like Truthsquad who not only absorb these lies directly into the bloodstream, but even magnify them, for example, by claiming the existence of “official press releases” that never existed.

  • Wow. Sounds like a bunch of bickering children. Personally I think NAFTA on net has probably been beneficial.

    — Lifelong Democrat who believes in evolution

  • Truthsquad:

    I support your effort to see reporting from an alternative angle. And I agree that the message that dares to veer from the mainstream on this forum often gets unfairly hammered. You did well to stay above the name-calling and stick to content. Thank you.

  • Yes more than one person disagrees with you. -Truthsquad

    What are you even disagreeing with me on? You made a baseless claim which you still haven’t supported.

    You initially claimed that I hold Clinton accountable for her surrogates but not Obama.

    I honestly don’t see where I’ve done that. Then you try to prove your point using unrelated evidence, and I pointed that out to you.

    …since by calling me “beyond help”… -Truthsquad

    I only said you were beyond help if you couldn’t acknowledge the difference between an attack aimed at Clinton or an observation about her supporters among these comments.

    If you are conceeding that point, then you are truly beyond help.

    …since you have nothing of substance to say on the NAFTA issue. -Truthsquad

    Expcept for the part in my comment at 40 where I state that I didn’t think it was a ‘lie’ to deny the meeting, just crossed wires. That was a relevant comment to the NAFTA issue, and a comment which led to you relentlessly attacking me over by questioning my credibility:

    Apparently you believe that she should be held responsible for what everyone of her supporters does or says but no one should expect Obama to keep track of what his senior staffers do or say. -Truthsquad

    All I’ve asked of you since is to back that up, and the only attempt you made was mistaken, which I pointed out to you. I honestly don’t think I’m guilt of what you accuse me of, and I don’t see why you persist in trying to discredit me without so much as a hint of coroborating evidence.

    And now you’ve added an additional charge without support:

    …clearly self-important high opinion you have of yourself (which you for some reason feel the need to endlessly repeat). -Truthsquad

    What in the world are you talking about? I can only remember once ever indulging in self-important jest and that was after unmasking Memekiller’s joke Scooby Doo style, which was clearly a joke.

    And the Swan comparison isn’t because he disagreed with me. It’s because he was relentless in his comments, as you have been in this thread, oft repeating himself with absolutely no facts, so the comparison is apt, I’m afraid.

    I honestly don’t know why you’ve felt the need to attack me like this, but persisting in these attacks without any shred of evidence to support them, despite repeated requests. You have accused others of harming Obama with their support, but the only harm that is being done in this comment thread is to your integrity.

    It’s time to take Hillary’s advice and get real.

  • Liza

    As to who created the Impression- I would point you to Andrew Sullivan on this topic – one of the most rapid supporters of Obama that there is- who agrees that the bad impression was in large part created by the Obama’s campaign mishandling of this story.

    So yes. I hate to break it to you. Obama and his campaign are the ones who let a potentially small story get blown into something that hurt him by not simply admitting to the meeting until the memo came out. By playing these games with the press, Obama lost credibility and the high road and let questions about whether the memo was accurate or not foment.

    The ignoring of this fact and blaming others doesn’t help your cause.

    And the continued pretense that the Obama camp didn’t try to deny this meeting and didn’t backtrack on its denials when the memo came out are simply ridiculous
    and only again drags out the story to Obama’s detriment.

  • I agree with TomB. Truthsquad did well to stay above the name-calling and stick to his lie that Obama issued a “FALSE official press release categorically denying that such meetings took place”.

    Way to “stick to content”. Thank you.

  • Doubtful

    Reread my prior posts and especially yours at 51 if you want to know upon what I base my claim that you try to hold Hillary “responsible” (again your words) for her supporters.

    I really have no interest in debating the meaning of prior posts with you. That type of non-substantive back and forth is a derail. So lets simply say you and I disagree. This thread is not about either one of us – so your attempt to turn it into a personal debate is not an invitation I will accept. And no that doesn’t mean I agree with your points. It means I am not wasting my time repeating what I already said or responding to mischaracterizations.

  • I also agree with TomB. Truthsquad is a very polite liar.

    In fact, that’s why I support Hillary for President. I’d rather have somebody who can lie articulately and with warm smile on her face in the White House than somebody who might stumble while telling the truth.

  • So lets simply say you and I disagree. -Truthsquad

    No, I’m afraid it’s not that easy. You insulted me and I asked for proof. Now you’re just pointing backwards to posts where proof was not given.

    …base my claim that you try to hold Hillary “responsible” (again your words) for her supporters. -Truthsquad

    Actually, you’re moving the goal posts, here. You said surrogates, which implies those who work for her, like Penn and Ickes, and I challenged you to find one instance where I held her accountable in any way beyond a manager for their actions? You failed to do so.

    You also failed to cite an instance where I absolved Obama of a misstep of one of his surrogates.

    This thread is not about either one of us – so your attempt to turn it into a personal debate is not an invitation I will accept. -Truthsquad

    After several comments of you insulting me personally you decide that you’re not accepting ‘my invitation’ to debate this? That’s rich. You opened the floor to this discussion when you made your initial accusations in comment 43:

    Your statement would have so much more credibility if you hadn’t previously been complaining about what so -called Clinton “surrogates” do. Apparently you believe that she should be held responsible for what everyone of her supporters does or says but no one should expect Obama to keep track of what his senior staffers do or say.

    You insulted me, and I defended, because I don’t take accusations of such nature kindly, especially when they are baseless.

    And no that doesn’t mean I agree with your points. -Truthsquad

    It doesn’t matter if you agree or not, you’ve lost because you’re wrong. You questioned my integrity without evidence and I called you on it and you haven’t been able to provide one shred of support for your claim.

    You may walk away from the argument if you want, that’s fine. All it will mean is I successfully drove a troll away who wanted nothing more than to insult other commenters without cause or support.

    I don’t know why you felt the need to open with insults directly aimed at me when you could’ve chosen to keep it on topic, but playing like you’ve taken the high road when all I’ve done was defend myself from your attacks is the most disingenuous thing I’ve ever read.

    And, with your withdrawal from the argument and the continued absence of facts from your accusations, I’d like to leave you with a famous quote from the infinitely wise Willy Wonka, as portrayed by the enigmatic Gene Wilder:

    ‘You lose! Good day, sir!’

  • Doubtful

    You didn’t drive me away. I am just allowing you to be judged by your own words. Because no response is needed by to me to show your lack of anything meaningful to say on this thread. So keep up your myriad attacks on my and continue to claim “victory” in your own mind. Your need to name call and focus on yourself rather than any substantive arguments demonstrates my points quite well.

  • Why is the Obama campaign not pushing these new revelations? I know that the Penn-primary is over a month away, but he needs to eliminate these false seeds of doubt before the hearsay becomes accepted as fact in the voters’ mind. Otherwise, Clinton will win Pennsylvania on the same Obama-secretly-hearts-NAFTA lie.

    Option B, of course, is to leak a story that Clinton secretly has plans to turn Canada into the 51st state. In fact, I heard that she had a meeting with her military advisers earlier this week where she asked them to prepare an invasion plan.

  • Because no response is needed… -Truthsquad

    See irony.

    Also, please, it’s ‘doubtful,’ with a little ‘d.’ I know it’s a nit, but it is such a lovely pseudonym, and I’ve consistently used yours correctly. I deserve the same respect.

    I am just allowing you to be judged by your own words. -Truthsquad

    Finally, now we’re getting somewhere. I was hoping that you would use my own words to prove your point about my integrity and inconsistency. I’m still waiting for that.

    Where in the world did I call you a name, btw?

  • Wow … I just read through all 86 comments. There’s 10 minutes of my life I’ll never have back.

    It is funny, though, to see someone who, in some 20+ comments, accused nearly everyone else of being delusional or a liar, yet never posted a SINGLE shred of evidence explaining why these people were either of those.

    What’s better, is that he/she thinks everyone else has twisted themselves into knots, yet he/she is the only to have done so.

    It’s like a little psychological profile of someone suffering from some form of dementia.

    It’s also called being a troll, although I’m not sure if that’s the clinical term …

  • Hillary likes projection —classic narcissism, accuse the other of what you are doing.

  • As an American living in Canada, I find this whole situation particularly entertaining. To me the issue of NAFTA should have never been brought up it was bound to lead to controversy and neither candidates if elected would seriously open up NAFTA talks again! Canadians being involved in this is the icing on the cake! I’m sure Stephen Harper will slither his party out of this mess (or give the guy who started this all the boot), the man is a great politician.

  • Sounds like the Clinton camp was up to their ususal dirty dealing and of course, blaming everyone else but themselves.
    So, is the msm going to keep this one under wraps so as not be embarrass Clinton and cause her to whine about being a victim again. Are they going to let the voting public know the truth or sweep this under the rug like so many other of her misdeeds.

  • Amazing how the Hillbots will excuse her for anything including lying, cheating and being Leibermann in an ugly pantsuit. Her cozying up to mccain and dissing the probable democratic nominee is beyond the pale and makes her more republican than democrat.
    Go and drink your koolaid and forgive Clinton for getting in bed with the republicans. I just hope you can face yourself when it is found she has done alot more sleaze than has been reported so far.

  • This is not news or would not be buried on some blog site. No named sources. Probably an Obama Cult Troll that works for the news made up this story. Just like NYT McCain Flap.

    To Bad Obama’s Nafta-Gate has sources and a memo that does have Obama lying about NAFTA-Obama-GATE

  • “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002″

    I find this to be a despicable statement by Senator Clinton. Does Hillary really believe she can reduce Obama’s lifetime of experience to a single speech made six years ago? No reasonable person could believe this. I’m sorry… I have lost all respect for HIllary. As much as it pains me to think about it, I would vote for McCain’s lifetime of experience before I ever voted for her lifetime of scandal, innuendos and lies. Fortunately, I look forward to voting for Obama.

  • ms hillary is alsd playing the race card. ie She talking up about her and mccain’s experience and says obamba’s just got a speach. isn’t she and obama on the same side. What she’s really saying is mccain and I are white so you can know that you shouldn’t vote for the N””” word.

  • Sen. Clinton has asked the Canadian government to release the name of the person in her campaign who is alleged to have spoken with them. I have not heard a name mentioned, have you? There is a name associated with the Obama campaign who is said to have spoken with the Canadians — Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee. So if Clinton’s team is involved, why haven’t we been told the name of the person involved?

    BAC

  • This is not news or it would not be buried on some blog site. No named sources. Probably an Obama Cult Troll that works for the news made up this story. Just like NYT McCain Flap.

    To Bad Obama’s Nafta-Gate has sources and a memo that does have Obama lying about NAFTA-Obama-GATE

    Also the story has been updated. The reporter really meant to say Obama.

  • beatrice powell-lucas

    Words can not describe how idiotic and ignorant that statement really is. When has Obama’s race ever been a factor in this discussion or any other. I am not a Obama supporter; but what I see is a Harvard Grad, a Lawyer and US senator who has 12.9 million people who just voted for him and you have just reduced him to some other N****. You Mrs. Beatrice are nothing but a racist.

  • America must begin to stand up for her democracy. We cannot allow anyone to further take our Democracy from us, be it the Clintons’, the Bush’s or anyone else. In the current delegate controversy, Camp Clinton must follow the Rules like everyone else and not be allowed to change the game in the middle. They know this. They cannot be allowed to Cheat the System for their own aggrandizement and selfish grasping of power. There must be a fair and equitable resolution to this matter.

    As for Hillary’s superior foreign experience, Hillary did not think it important enough to read the National Intelligence Report and so she voted Yes on a War/Mistake that should have never been waged instead of having the intelligence and Judgment to say No, as other Senators did, and stated at the time, that we must not invade Iraq who did not bomb us on 911, but instead finish the job in Afghanistan. This makes her qualifyingly ineligible for the top job as commander-in-chief. Just because she surrounds herself with a bunch of generals does not make her qualified. A Photo-op does not eras her Iraq vote or exonerate it. Camp Clinton loves to stage phony events for the perception to make us think something that is not, is — Masters of Spin & Hype and Delusion, often busing people in to their events to make the crowd look bigger than it is!

    Then there is the current Camp Clinton Mantra, that may be the American public are having second thoughts about Barack Obama, beginning to doubt him because he did not win in Ohio. That is such spin. They won Ohio because they slandered him and made people doubt that he is a true Christian and some secret closet Muslim instead. They duped him on Naftagate, when they were the initial culprits, somehow Rezko’s trial was pushed up to conincide with the primaries and the insinuation that Obama was a criminal too, just waitin to go down with Rezko. That is why people doubted him unfairly, because of old-time party politics, instituted by a “do anything and say anything mentality”, no matter the cost to the person and the party.

    Those of us who care for our Democracy for the vetting of truth and for fair and accurate reporting must begin to call the main stream media to task. We can exercise our rights and our united power by calling CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. and ask them to begin to Vet Hillary Clinton and ask the important questions they should be asking her, like why she has not returned the money back to IPA, a company accused of sexually harrasing women? Why have they not further discussed Camp Clinton’s initial call to Canada in the Naftagate controversy? Why do they continually bring up negative stories on Obama and soft question of her — like the press is bought and paid for, yet again! It is an illusion that the press has been hard on her and soft on Obama. That is a traditional Camp Clinton spin and we all know they are the Masters of Spin (that means in essence they do not speak the truth).

    MEDIA OWES OBAMA AN APOLOGY AND UPDATE ON NAFATAGATE, CALL INITIATED BY CLINTON:
    Naftagate was the work of an initial call from the Clinton camp and Bush’s Canadian allie, Stephen Harper in an attemp to sabotage Obama and the democrats, which they did!
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home

    Brotherhood (1937) – 552: Do you wish to be courageous? Then prove your courage in battling for Brotherhood. Assurances alone will not create courage, nor will praises affirm achievement. No preparations can be a guarantee of success. Courage is tested by unexpected obstacles. I have already spoken about courage; if I repeat it, it means that this quality is especially needed on the path to Brotherhood

    Let the Vetting Begin!

  • Given the substantial impact on the voters in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island the press is obligated to thoroughly pursue this. The press was dupped by the Canadians, the Clintons or both. Obama’s involvement was investigated and reported. Unfortunately, that reporting was incomplete and supported Clinton’s accusation that Obama should not be trusted. The press can only distance themselves from this tragedy by investigating and exposing the source. It is only fair.

  • You people need to report further on this, as well as Powers’ comments on the Iraq war.
    Power did not say anything wrong!
    It’s not a contradiction to say Obama’s intent of getting troops out of Iraq in 16 months is ‘best case’ scenario. In fact, it is a realistic, intelligent assertion to say it can be a more-or-less scenario depending on presidential advisors and strategists.
    At least do a fair report. Sheesh.

  • This looks very crooked indeed on Hillary’s side, perhaps since Bill was in Toronto the day before the Primaries in Ohio. I am outraged at Canada for this foul play.

    Anyone who supports Clinton, also supports baggage like this. If this is what
    “Hildabeast” supporters wish for, then let them try more. Americans deserve more
    from her and they’re not getting it.

    I understand not every Canadian agrees with Harper, so I will say that America forgives
    those who don’t like him. However, for the ones who argue that they will cut off Canada’s oil exports to the US, I say please do, at the soonest moment possible. We’ll just have to
    go alternative sooner than later.

  • Comments are closed.