Skip to main content

Okay folks, it is time for some serious retrospection. Last week CTV broke a story that Obama was playing both sides, telling Ohio he would renegotiate or quit NAFTA, but telling Canada "don't worry, be happy, it's just politics."  Here on Daily Kos, though, nobody could believe Obama was actually a politician, rather than a new honest perfect phenomenon.  So how did you all respond?  By attacking the messenger.  Well, folks, the messenger was right.  The AP, you see, has the Canadian Government memorandum laying out what happened.  So what happened, and what happened here?  And what does it mean?

What happened?  That's pretty easy to figure out.  The memorandum, you see, says:

Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.

How did the Obama campaign respond?  Well, at first they denied it ever happened.  And everybody here believed him.  Well, almost everybody.  And then the Canadian Embassy denied it, and the hoopla here was grand and exuberant, as were the accusations that Clinton supporters were trolls and liars.  Let me show you.

It was first reported HERE, by SusanHu.  I won't ever bother to comment on the personal attacks and general "troll" accusations. Instead I will go to the comments that dealt with actual substance.  There were some good responses, including one that posted Obama's denial:

"The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama’s consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy -- that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy."

and another that posted the Canadian Embassy's denial:

    Roy Norton, the minister of public affairs for the Canadian embassy, is flatly denying that any Obama campaign official spoke to the Canadian ambassador in recent days or told him that Obama's anti-NAFTA stump speech is merely "campaign rhetoric."

   "No, none," Norton told me when I asked him if Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., had spoken to any Obama advisers recently. He added: "Neither before the Ohio debate nor since has any presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson about NAFTA."

Then the source was questioned.  Why?  Not because CTV was inherently unreliable, but because the story was presumed to be untrue, therefore the report was unreliable.  The very same people who pimped Drudge just a few days before complained "the story is unsourced."

And why pay attention?  After all, "it's been debunked."  You see, on Daily Kos, "debunked" means "denied by Obama," or "proved categorically with contemporaneous video and DNA, plus sworn testimony of leaders of at least four of the world's major religions if it is denied by Hillary."

Anybody who repeated the story was called dishonest, because of the above denials.  

Okay, the above were SusanHu diaries, and while a long-time poster, during this campaign she has garnered some bad blood.  So what happens when somebody else, an Obama supporter, tries to be fair about this story.  Let's look shall we?  Steve 9341 pointed out that Obama's denial was a "non-denial denial," and that ABC News had their own follow-up.  How did people respond?

With demands that CTV apologize, not Obama.  By attacking the diarist:

Basically I'll sum it up like this.  If your story is what you can consider to be a reasonable summation of events, then you're off your rocker.  You basically have no basis to say you approach a situation in an unbiased, fair fashion.  And at that point, I don't have any reason to not treat your words as pure drivel.  I'm sorry, but, impartially, thats the stupidest thing I've read all weak.  I understand if you've come to different conclusions, however.

Look folks, I could do this all day, but the point is a simple one.  It is not about Canada, or NAFTA, or CTV, or really even about Obama himself.  It is about you.  It is about the delusion that Barack Obama is somehow magically different, beyond his wonderful oratory skills, nee talents.  He is a politician.  His denials are just as non-denial as everybody else's.  His triangulation is just as three-sided as everybody else's.  His desire to be President is as motivated by ego as much as anybody else's.  Why is this important?  It is important because he is probably going to be the nominee, and when he is I will support him. But we must support him in reality, because the myth that is Obama amongst his most ardent supporters is not grounded in reality.  The real Obama is a magnificent candidate.  The idolized Obama, like so many idols before him, has clay feet.  If you support the real one he can win.  If you support the one with the clay feet, then you are gambling he can get to November without a storm that washes away the clay and brings the statue tumbling down.

Originally posted to Palate Press: The online wine magazine on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:28 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Tipped for (24+ / 0-)

      Why is this important?  It is important because he is probably going to be the nominee, and when he is I will support him. But we must support him in reality, because the myth that is Obama amongst his most ardent supporters is not grounded in reality.  The real Obama is a magnificent candidate.  The idolized Obama, like so many idols before him, has clay feet.  If you support the real one he can win.  If you support the one with the clay feet, then you are gambling he can get to November without a storm that washes away the clay and brings the statue tumbling down.

      I'll bet this goes poorly, though.

      What if this... is as good as it gets?

      by Marcus Tullius on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:33:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is only one of his issues that (10+ / 0-)

      bother me. But I won't waste time listing those. The people that care and are really concerned know what they are.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:33:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama is a Politician! (10+ / 0-)

      and a damn good one at that.  That's why I'm voting for him!

      •  Exactly! (15+ / 0-)

        We're supposed to be shocked that Obama is a politician?  Running for office? How dare he?

        I don't think most sane folk think Obama is "magically different," just better. That's enough.

        Besides if Obama's objections to NAFTA rest on environmental and labor standards, and those are strong points, BTW, then Canada really has little to worry about. What would Obama do, renegotiate NAFTA to insist that member nations provide health care for their workers or something as outrageously radical as that?

        Oh, Canada already has that. Never mind.

        If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. ~James Madison

        by mjshep on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:26:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes...he's not going to (5+ / 0-)

          unilaterally withdrawl us from NAFTA.  Only an idiot would pull us out of a treaty without trying to re-negotiate it.  See Kyoto!

        •  yeah, same old straw man arguments here (8+ / 0-)

          I still can't get past the whole "I can't support candidate X because I don't like their supporters" way of thinking of things.  it's the most childish logic.  as if anyone has enough personal contact and experience with people to make any kind of real generalization about how they all collectively "feel".  it's just plain bullshit.

          as far as the Canada story, it sounds like a particular economic adviser said too much of his own personal opinion to some right-wing Canadian member of the government or something of the sort, and that has been blown up into some major event by hacks, yes hacks is appropriate - like Susan Hu.  if you want an example of a worshiping follower who doesn't check their facts and can't stomach any questioning or criticism of their candidate - look no further than her!  certainly Canada's current government is run by right-wingers sympathetic to Bush.  they want Republicans to remain in power here.  now, we have one candidate who has demonstrably, by her own word, massively flip-flopped on the issue of NAFTA, vs the other who is being criticized because an aid of his said some offhand comment which the campaign has said is not representative of his position.  and it's Obama's supporters who are lacking critical thinking skills?  hehe.

          "It seems like he's smiling at the wrong times..." - Pat Buchanan on John McCain 2.19.08

          by itsbenj on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:48:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Excuse me,,,, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            katz5

            but the type of person who supports a candidate most definitely has an influence.  And it should.

            So what if David Duke endorsed?  Would that bother you?  It would bother the hell out of me.

            If you love everything about a candidate, that sort of thing is easy to ignore.  But when you're on the fence, and have very shaky feelings about a candidate, seeing a bunch of pricks endorse the guy most certainly isn't going to do much to push you off the fense into their camp.

            "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 3960+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

            by Miss Blue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:33:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  i don't give a (0+ / 0-)

              flying shit what david duke, or louis farrakhan say about anything.  at all.  if you want to, that's your choice.

              "It seems like he's smiling at the wrong times..." - Pat Buchanan on John McCain 2.19.08

              by itsbenj on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:10:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  No, the problem (6+ / 0-)

          is that he was playing populist in Ohio was reassuring the corporate-friendly conservative establishment that he wouldn't rock the yacht,  and when was found out, he didn't tell the whole truth (at best) and lied (at worst.)

          I was just over at Politico, where Ben Smith says everyone knows Obama isn't serious in his opposition to NAFTA but Obama aides aren't supposed to admit that. Oh, I see.

          I supported Edwards because his opposition to our horrible trade policies was genuine--unlike Obama's, which is apparently phony.

          Funny to think that some people questioned JRE's authenticity.

    •  Thank you (9+ / 0-)

      Just thank you.  

      And, take a look at my story on the A.P. (and now CNN) revelations, with some great quotes by Larry Johnson, who was Deputy Director of Counterterrorism for the U.S. State Department and knows a thing or two about how embassies and diplomacy operate.  (Larry is a pariah at DailyKos now, but when he wrote what people here wanted to read, he was a favorite.  So it goes.)

      "Obama Nailed on NAFTA-Gate [+ Must-See Timeline Update]"

    •  I especially like how you ignore this paragraph: (23+ / 0-)

      Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Goolsbee's visit was not as an emissary from the campaign, but as a professor from the University of Chicago. He was not authorized to share any messages from the campaign, Burton said.

      Goolsbee was IN NO WAY speaking on behalf of the campaign.

      That can't be much clearer.

    •  Your own diary debunks you. (12+ / 0-)

      Roy Norton, the minister of public affairs for the Canadian embassy, is flatly denying that any Obama campaign official spoke to the Canadian ambassador in recent days or told him that Obama's anti-NAFTA stump speech is merely "campaign rhetoric."

      What part of that don't you understand?

    •  And you insult (4+ / 0-)

      people right back.

      It's funny how those who are most offended by contrary arguments are those who are the quickest to insult others.

    •  Best read the article, itself, not your account (19+ / 0-)

      The article correctly points out that statements attributed to an Obama rep were not said by him, but were the interpretation of a Canadian staffer.  When the Canadian government says, "No, that was not accurate" then who are you going to believe?  Hearsay, or those involved?  Even if we accepted that a supporter of Obama DID say what was reported, does anyone imagine he was on a secret mission for Obama to reassure Canada that he really didn't mean it?  Is that what you are suggesting?  seriously?

      If this interferes with your pre-election efforts, my apologies, please carry on.  NAFTA is Clinton-quicksand.  The more people hear, the more they recall that it was Bill who shoved that puppy through.  Clarification of her statements of support for NAFTA seems to elude her, and for good reason.

    •  It's an issue, because it's all we have to go on (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tikkun, katz5, mgee

      This is one of several issues where Obama's entire philosophy of record and consistency therein must be assessed from what has come up during debates, during unsolicited campaign speeches, and then any evidence such as this Goolsbee thing that adds contradiction or corroboration.

      I just spent about 10 minutes looking around Obama's website 'Issues' section for any mention of NAFTA or trade, and it's never mentioned that I could find except in the most tangential of references under general comments on "keeping America strong".  This has been the only place for me to hang my hat on specifics of the issues he has raised in the campaign (and, to his credit, on things like health care, there is a lot more meat there then is usually given credit for).  He has no voting record here of note, so all we have to hold him to a position is what is published by him, and that doesn't exist (although who knows, perhaps the site is being updated as we speak).

      So, it is either the case that: a) Goolsbee was misquoted, b) Goolsbee overstepped his characterization of Obama's statements in the debate and in Ohio appearances, or c) there is a serious chink of cynical and very non-Obamesqian realpolitik showing up here in an issue of crucial importance to Ohio voters.  

      Frankly, I thought Obama went out of his way on 60 Minutes last night to provide some centrist latitude here, and if we was really looking to throw a lie to Ohio voters by suddenly turning into Dennis Kucinich for 5 minutes, he certainly didn't do it here, and once again, the comments were broad enough to not pose any threat of contradiction.

      So, it's worth talking about (and we aren't talking about HRC here, so any response of "yeah, but Hillary said..." is just divisive).  If nothing else, he could go a long way towards addressing this issue by illuminating what exactly he means by being willing to carry the threat of "cudgel of realignment" or whatever it was (sorry, not exact quote, but you know the one I mean) to open up markets in the NAFTA sphere.  What is the threshold that would trigger such a consideration?  Does it exist today?  And what would that mean for future US participation in NAFTA?  I care somewhat less that he agree with me on this than that he articulate this clearly and without capacity for spin.

      Do that before noon eastern time today, Senator, and you've done a good job in response in this last most crucial news cycle.

    •  He is so busted! Lied to Ohio voters! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam, Dave B, santh, katz5

      Don't suppress the vote! seat the FL & MI delegates

      by indydem99 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:50:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The reality is that Canada won't be affected much (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tamar, Same As It Ever Was

      ... by any NAFTA re-negotiation.  The reasons for re-negotiation surround basically three issues -- regulatory corruption, environmental protection (including CO2 pollution) and workers' rights.  

      Canada's trade and workers' rights standards are equal to or better than ours.  In fact, it would benefit the American people if Canada were to insist in the course of a re-negotiation on us raising our standards to match theirs, particularly in the realm of single-payer health care as a workers' right.

      Mexico, on the other hand, is a cesspool of corruption, worker abuse, and pollution.  That's the reason that more American jobs have gone to Mexico than to Canada.

      I see no reason why it is wrong for an Obama advisor to tell a contact of his in the Canadian government that this fact is a fact.  I'd like to see Obama himself saying this on the stump.

      •  unfortunately (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tbetz

        One thing Canada is not better on is environmental standards and particularly CO2.  We're pretty much Saudi Arabia of the North.

        I have no idea whether Harper personally believes in anthropogenic climate change (I suspect he does, he is smart and pragmatic) but he doesn't give a shit about the consequences as Canada has more to gain by selling oil than to lose by climate change.  I doubt he loses much sleep over polar bears or coastal flooding in BC.

        •  Labor is better on this than Harper. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scoopster, Scientician

          And given their scandalous administration so far, I really don't think the Conservatives can hold on to power much longer.

          But then, perhaps "As It Happens" (the CBC version of which I listen to daily, my primary source of Canadian news) is giving me an inaccurate image of the Canadian political situation.

          •  The CBC is great (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tbetz

            I rarely find myself yelling at the TV/Radio for getting the basic facts wrong like on the US networks.

            No, the Cadman affair is pretty big and could trigger an election that ends Harper's rein.  Certainly Harper has not caught fire with the public.  At best they are satisfied keeping him in a minority.  

    •  I absolutely agree with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Anglo

      this:

      He is a politician.  His denials are just as non-denial as everybody else's.  His triangulation is just as three-sided as everybody else's.  His desire to be President is as motivated by ego as much as anybody else's.  Why is this important?  It is important because he is probably going to be the nominee, and when he is I will support him. But we must support him in reality, because the myth that is Obama amongst his most ardent supporters is not grounded in reality.  The real Obama is a magnificent candidate.  The idolized Obama, like so many idols before him, has clay feet.  If you support the real one he can win.  If you support the one with the clay feet, then you are gambling he can get to November without a storm that washes away the clay and brings the statue tumbling down.

      But the focus on this story is just dishonest.  Everyone seems to be leaving out a significant part of what the memo actually said:

      Goolsbee ''was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy,'' the memo's introduction said. ''On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement.''

      Sounds exactly like what Obama said in the debate, doesn't it?  There is no chicanery going on here, Goolsbee specifically denied using the "political maneuvering" language in the memo, and:

      The Obama campaign and the Canadian embassy denied there was any inconsistency between what the candidate was saying publicly and what advisers were saying privately.

      It's all in the New York Times article you link to.

      We are the ones we've been waiting for. - Barack Obama

      by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:32:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wish I had the ability to hide rate you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scoopster

      because your diary is a stinking pile of pooh.

      By following your link, I found the following quote of a statement Goolsby made at this much reported meeting...

      Goolsbee ''was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy,'' the memo's introduction said. ''On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement.''

      Anyone with two ears on either side of his head and a brain in between would have clearly heard Obama say exactly what has been reported at any time during at least the last two years.  It is only in this campaign that the glare of attention on Nafta has increased pressure on both candidates to take an even toughter position.  And both of them have taken stronger positions over the last few weeks than either ever has before.

      And I say GOOD! It means that whatever it is we are doing is working.  We need to keep it up and hold their feet to the fire.  Neither one will do anything more about trade agreements than they have to do to appease the base.  So let's set a high price on our appeasement.

      And back to the hide rating.  

      I am sick unto death of the nonsense people like you write about Obama supporters.  I am every bit as politically savvy as any Hillary supporter.  More so, because my candidate actually has a prayer of becoming President.  I understand that he is a politician.  I just happen to think that he is the most gifted politician in a generation.  And lots of people agree with me.  Moreover, he is going to try to do what is right and he has made a great beginning by being choosy about who funds his campaign.  Yes, he has taken lots of Wall Street money.  I wish he hadn't.  But I am making a calculated bet that he has not accepted so much support from the financial sector as to make him useless to us progressives.  Yes, I know it's a risk.  I am prepared to take it because of the available, unpalatable alternatives.

      Hillary Clinton's base is not you and it's not me.  Her base is that group of people who are the subject of the book 'What's the Matter With Kansas?'  Remember them?  They are the people who consistently vote against their own best interests because they are caught up in identity politics.  It's not even that they always vote for someone who looks like them (although it helps), it is that they vote for someone who parrots back to them their deepest held fears and prejudices.  And if you want to stand with that group then good luck to you.  With that group, there is no risk of getting anything new or unfamiliar.  Everyone knows how politics is played among them.  The only problem with Democrats playing that game is that we have been getting beat at it for the last 40 years.

      You know what the definition of insanity is?  Playing the same rigged game over and over but expecting different results.  Politics is a game.  If we want to win it we need to do two things.  First we need to change how the game is played to rules that are better suited to our strengths as players.  Second we need to select a team leader who is Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Babe Ruth, and Mohammad Ali all rolled into one.  That would be Obama.

      To close.  We don't like Obama because we think he isn't a politician.  We like him because he is a better politician than the others in the field.

      Stop insulting our intelligence.

    •  I think it is time (0+ / 0-)

      for those of us who support Obama but don't view anyone running for President as messiah material to state that Obama is not perfect.
      I think he's the best candidate running.  I think he is smart, principled, and has a real vision for this country.  I like the ways he's voted and the things he stands for.  
      That said, he is still a politician and he is a practical man.  If he's elected President, he's going to disappoint us at times.  At other times his leadership will help turn the country in a far better direction.
      I am fervently hoping that the leadership will far outweigh the disappointments.  
      And when we look at the Canada/NAFTA flap, Goolsbee isn't Obama himself and what Goolsbee said (according to the Canadian memo, not to Goolsbee) is not shocking or terrible.  The worst part of this story is the Obama campaign's hedging when asked.  They should have answered right away with:  "Goolsbee was at the Canadian embassy, has a very brief conversation with an official there and said the following: [goolsbee statement here]; While Goolsbee does not speak for the campaign, his off-the-cuff remarks are in line with Barack Obama's plan to revise the NAFTA agreement to make labor and environmental standards a much higher priority."
      If they had done this at the beginning, the whole thing would have blown over.

      If, in our efforts to win, we become as dishonest as our opponents on the right, we don't deserve to triumph.

      by Tamar on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:58:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  dhonig, not a good news day for... (0+ / 0-)

      ...Senator Obama.  Check out what just went up at Josh Marshall's site...

      http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...

  •  Well... (43+ / 0-)

    From the article:

    ''This thing about `it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language,'' Goolsbee said of DeMora. ''He's not quoting me.

    ''I certainly did not use that phrase in any way,'' Goolsbee said.

    ''That's a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered,'' Goolsbee said of memo's account. ''A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy.''

    So it's pretty much as we thought, a non-story.

  •  So what was actually said? (43+ / 0-)

    ''He's not quoting me.

    ''I certainly did not use that phrase in any way,'' Goolsbee said.

    Read the article thoroughly, then revise the diary, or delete.
    I believe what you're doing is called cherry picking, for your own benefit, whatever that may be.

  •  This is silly--and Clinton propaganda (23+ / 0-)

    To sit down with Canada and discuss environmental core revisions to NAFTA would be wonderful. Why? Because WE are the slackers here, not Canada. And if you could get a unified approach, Mexico would come along.

    Your take on the context of the conversation may be correct, but the general understanding of the context of potential NAFTA discussions is not. We have been stonewalling Canada with respect to lumber agreements, and that would be on the table too.

    The worst take on this came from Mary Matalin, who suggested Canada would stop selling us oil. Duh! A good hunk of the oil from Alaska--our oil--as well as Canada's goes to China. The idea that it is "our" oil, as opposed to Exxon-Mobile's is silly.

    When you have thousands of people on a campaign staff, you have tens of thousands of conversations. Unless they gel into policy statements, they shouldn't be the subject of diaries or accusations.

  •  It's gonna be a long day here today n/t (18+ / 0-)


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:34:46 AM PST

  •  I think you are being unfair... (12+ / 0-)

    to Barack Obama on this...he has a position on NAFTA on his website...agree with it...don't agree with it the rest of this is just nitpicky stuff...

    Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:35:09 AM PST

  •  So... I guess this means that Bob Johnson will (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, DrKate, Larry Bailey, Lying eyes, katz5

    never show his face here again, right?
    I mean, he can't continue to write diaries here with his credibility in tatters----can he?!

  •  Total crap (11+ / 0-)

    You HRC supporters are nuts.  I never seen anything like the torrent of negativity and slime you have dumped.  Congrats you reached Rove levels!

    •  Reached? (5+ / 0-)

      I say they have surpassed it.

      Not to worry, because if either Mccain or Hillary get elected completely proving they are the corporate puppets, the next election will be decided by pitchforks and knives.

      Clinton supporters are more virtuous than the rest of us. They have twice as many virtues because they hold both standards.

      by KingGeorgetheTurd on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:43:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Really? Are you serious? (13+ / 0-)

      I don't understand why when anyone attacks Obama's legions it someone turns into Clinton propaganda.  Why does he get a free pass?

      The diarist is absolutely right.  There is a sick double standard within this community that is undermining the discussion this site intends to create.  If you want to silence all dissenters and viciously attack any opposed, how does that make this site better than the right wing noise machine?

      Stop thinking in terms of partiality and start thinking in terms of intelligent argument.  Just because you want Obama to be perfect and different and the savior of the Democratic party does not mean that he doesn't have political tendencies consistent with other politicians.  He's a product of the same system...get over it.

      •  because it is propaganda (6+ / 0-)

        is Hillary responsible for the emails her unpaid staffers sent out about him being a muslim?

        Please, just because we want nothing to do with slime politics, don't get your panties in a bunch about having it on yourself. Just don't deny it.

        Clinton supporters are more virtuous than the rest of us. They have twice as many virtues because they hold both standards.

        by KingGeorgetheTurd on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:06:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That makes no sense (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          miriam, HadIt, jmknapp, Lying eyes, katz5

          So claims from Dkos and Drudge are reliable and CTV is clearly unreliable and unrealistic?  You don't see the blatant double standard I was talking about?

          However, you just proved my point.  I was not arguing for either Clinton or Obama, but merely advocating fairness in judgment and substance in argument.  Yet you still attacked me for my comment:

          Please, just because we want nothing to do with slime politics, don't get your panties in a bunch about having it on yourself. Just don't deny it.

          So there it is...The response confirms that this is not about reason, but rather emotion.  I don't care who wins, really, because I'll vote democratic regardless of the primary or the slime or the hypocrisy presented by other supporters.  But, please do us all a favor and stop with the suggestion that Hillary supporters are ruining this site, because those who truly value impartial opinion and relevant debate are getting nauseous from the delusion.

    •  Brilliant snark. Thank you. n/t (8+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burrow owl, RonV, HadIt, shpilk, jmknapp, DaNorr, katz5, mgee

      If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

      by dhonig on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:48:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  you're totally snarking, right? (0+ / 0-)
  •  BO Supporter Applauds this Diary (8+ / 0-)

    Frankly, I'm very surprised that ANY of you would doubt back-channel conversations between BO advisers and diplomats ensuring them of BO's faith in free markets.  Do any of you know how NAFTA functions?  IF BO were to open up NAFTA, the other countries would do so as well.

    Want inflation to increase 10% M/M, then have BO renegotiate NAFTA.

    On trade, there is very little difference between BO and HRC.  Anyone who believes otherwise is in denial.

    Moreover, if you were to listen to Austan (BO's chief economic adviser) on CNBC, you'd see that he believes in free markets as much as HRC and Robert Rubin.

    Can the government do more to redistribute the rents of free trade?  Of course.  And both BO and HRC will undertake government programs (ie. wage insurance) to do so.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

    by PatriciaVa on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:40:56 AM PST

    •  real vs. phony attacks (18+ / 0-)

      I am an Obama leaner, but not maniac.

      They are both politicians.

      Legit dings on Obama:

      - Not spending enough time on subcommittee work.

      - Harry & Louise like flyer (but HRC plan mediocre)

      - Vote skipping on MoveOn

      - Vote skipping on Iran (but HRC voted wrong which is worse)

      - Obama has some responsibility for Goolsbee' comments; Goolsbee is his lead economic advisor. On other hand Clinton campaign sent same "don't worry messaging to Canadians; and Goolsbee's actual comments in detail are more complicated then "Obama is just lying to get votes" meme.

      False/Phony dings on Obama:

      - NAFTA HRC has been more endorsing of it, until recently.

      - She did vote wrong on Iraq war

      - She did vote wrong on Iran

      - Overall she has attacked Obama more on more phony stuff then -- Obama has attacked her

      - re-raising Farrakhan was complete total B.S.

      - Clinton campaign did racialize; denials are pretty pathetic (fyi I am white).

      - the Ayers thing is complete crap, no there, there.

      •  I'm not an Obama leaner... I'm a full-fledged (11+ / 0-)

        supporter...

        but your post might be one of the most rationale, cogent arguments I've seen for realizing that Obama is, after all, still a politician.

        I believe he's sincere in his willingness to listen to us and to try to always do what's best. But as he often says, he won't always agree with us and vice versa.  And I do believe he has to triangulate to a certain degree on certain issues - what works in certain parts of the country or certain parts of the world won't work in others and he has to walk a fine line and take a measured approach in everything he says and does. Ummm... as history has shown, that's typically part of the job responsibility of the leader of the most powerful country in the free world.

        Howard Dean told the unvarnished truth all the time, and while it was red meat for me and others in the Democratic base, his FCC comment effectively neutralized his momentum when the media turned on him like rabid dogs.  And as much as we'd all like to believe that their is a single politician in the world who never parses their words, I'd be money if Howard had that moment to do over, he'd take it in a heartbeat.

        Obama is not a savior and he's not the answer to all our prayers. And I agree with Hillary on one thing - the skies won't open up and celestial choirs won't sing if Obama is elected.

        The reason I support Obama is because he actually expects us to take some personal responsibility and become participants in our democracy.  He expects us to hold our government accountable. He believes that WE have a stake in what happens in this country and doesn't constantly shout in my face about what HE and he ALONE will do, unlike the other candidate in this race.

        So, does this memo make me think any less of him?  No.  First, we don't even know at this point what the truth really is.  But worst case scenario, if this memo does have legs, I expect him to handle this the same as any other serious candidate would.  Sorry, but I don't hold him to so high a standard that I expect him to lay down, roll over and hand the nomination over to Clinton.  I expect him to FIGHT LIKE HELL for the knock-out blow tomorrow, and that means doing everything he can to kill this still alleged (and denied by all parties involved) accusation.

        •  also Coal & Corn (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bigchin

          His early stand on Coal issues viz. Illinois interests, vs. current stands now that he is national?

          Similarly Corn subsidies when running in Iowa?

          ...etc.

        •  Thank you. (5+ / 0-)

          Your response to this thread is the best I read so far.  Once again, I've never understood the idea that Obama supporters think he is perfect in every way. I'm supporting him for reasons you listed.

          That and the fact that I think his is a winning strategy. My decision is not necessarily about the issues, but who is the person that actually get things done.

          I do think that compared to McCain and Clinton he comes out pretty damn clean as a politician, and that can be only good for him.

          Other than that, I really don't see what was so wrong about this, true or untrue. I really have to roll my eyes at the people who think that this just cost him Ohio. Wishful thinking? I thought, according to these folks, the people who live in Ohio are "lunch-bucket democrats" who don't have time for wearing Birkenstocks , drinking lattes or reading hoity-toity newspapers like the NY Times

        •  You are in the minority (0+ / 0-)

          seeing Obama for what he is. Recommended.

          Quizá, podríamos!
          (But it takes more than just a President)

          by shpilk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:34:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  This is so Rovian (7+ / 0-)

    I can't believe that the HRC campaign is using Rovian tactics.  Didn't we have enough of that for 8 years?

    Look it, Clinton said what she said on NAFTA.  She didn't think it was all that bad.  Leave it at that.
    Alot of Dems bought into this neo-liberalism crap much to our detriment.  I don't think people realize what a battle we are fighting trying to change the mind set in this party.  Let's start with someone that's determined to do something different.  From what I can tell Obama is much more of a DC outsider than Clinton.  That means there is some hope that he may change the course.

  •  Tired of this crap (11+ / 0-)

    What's the absolute worst case here? Some Obama functionary spoke out of turn. Big Whoop! And that's if it even happened.

    Didn't the Canadian officials themselves refute the story? Or am I missing something here?

    Unless you have pictures and video of Senator Obama himself meeting with Canadian officials - give it a rest.

    Please.

    •  Now we need video? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam, RonV, jmknapp

      First it was a report.  Denied by the campaign.

      Then it was a confirmed report.  Denied by the campaign.

      Then it was a confirmed report with the parties named and denying it.

      Then they had to admit they had met.

      Now there are notes from the meeting, so they deny those.

      I guess after all that you would demand video, but if that turns up you will say if is a forgery.

      The rest of the world sees this story and understands that the Obama campaign has been caught lying to cover up their political dishonesty.

      •  Well it was easy to deny (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tomjones, tbetz, Anglo

        calling the Ambassador and a side conversation (as describe in the NYT article) with a consular official during a tour are somewhat different things.  The original article was pretty clear that a telephone conversation was made TO the Canadian Ambassador to reassure the Canadian government that Obama was blowing smoke.  Did that happen?  Apparently not so it is easy to deny.  Was Goolsbee have a backchannel chat with the Chicago consular as directed by the campaign?  Maybe but then again maybe not.  It would be conjecture and would be a logical option but it is still conjecture.  An equally logical option is that the conversation went as  Goolsbee described and the consular read messages that he thought were there.

        So what exactly is the there there?

        "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

        by newfie on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:15:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  dhonig, this was a great diary (15+ / 0-)

    and much of what you said, people are missing. But thanks for trying to make an important point. We have to see our candidates for who they really are, Politicians. No one walks on water, No One.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:44:53 AM PST

  •  Goolsbee should be sacked (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jmknapp, Patrick B

    This is the only correct response to this.  It's the only way to clarify Obama's position on NAFTA.

    Dave in DC

    •  How can you sack someone (8+ / 0-)

      who doesn't work for you?

      Thank you Senator Dodd!

      by jrooth on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:54:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's an advisor to the campaign (0+ / 0-)

        Obama should sever that relationship -- state that he is no longer an advisor to the campaign.

        •  This is clearly an important issue (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DrKate

          We DESPERATELY need reciprocity on these trade agreements, which are flawed in a very great many ways. The only way we are going to get that is if the politicians are on the same wavelength as the people of America, not if they go around telling trade partners one thing and the people another.

          The same thing goes for the WTO and health care. The candidates need to be more honest about what they are going to need to renegotiate in WTO so they can do what they propose to do.

          This is really important because it could delay any changes in healthcare for years or even decades while these changes to avoid discriminating against larger companies, etc. are being worked out.

          *(Single payer would be SO MUCH EASIER because its what the other WTO countries ALREADY have, so they could not object to trade barriers, etc.)*

      •  First you hire them on. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DrKate, Glinda, jrooth

        Then you summarily dismiss them.  It is the only honorable thing to do.

        "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

        by newfie on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:16:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  the only correct response? (0+ / 0-)

      sack the messenger or reporter?  How in the world are you going to change anything then?

      sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

      by DrKate on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:51:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's bull, and so is this diary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scoopster, jrooth

      That's bull, and so is this diary.

      And the problem is not the content, but what you Clinton supporters always leave out. The truth being the most important part.

      Goolsbee disputed a section that read: "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

      "This thing about `it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me.

      "I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," Goolsbee said.

      So, the 'story' WAS wrong, both in content and to whom was supposedly contacted.

      But you and SusanHu conviently leave that part out of your attacks.

      Which does not surprise me, since those are also the tactics of the Clinton campaign. Being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest seems required traits of both the Clinton campaign and her supporters.

      The Obama campaign and the Canadian embassy denied there was any inconsistency between what the candidate was saying publicly and what advisers were saying privately.

      But I guess being dishonest is more important than the truth to Clinton and her supporters.

      It's not a sign of weakness to learn from a mistake. It's a sign of stupidity to keep doing the same things over and over without ever learning~Dave Dial

      by DAVE DIAL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:02:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Goolsby should be rejected AND denounced (0+ / 0-)

      plus a lot more verbs that I can't think of right now.

  •  Goolsbee wasn't even speaking for Obama. (19+ / 0-)

    Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Goolsbee's visit was not as an emissary from the campaign, but as a professor from the University of Chicago. He was not authorized to share any messages from the campaign, Burton said.

    Burton, who was on the call while Goolsbee described his visit to the AP, said, ''It all boils down to a clumsy, inaccurate portrayal of the conversation.''

    Asked if he agreed with Burton, Goolsbee said he did.

    This type of mischief coming from the BushCo-friendly government of Canada is hardly surprising.

    •  If only Obama campaign had said so (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RonV, shpilk, AnnieM, JoeySky18

      But they just denied the meeting. I am sorry, the campaign just failed credibility 101.

    •  Shocking that we'd take the words of a key (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RonV, rmerren

      advisor as evidence of the positions of the person s/he advises.  Really, what's the world coming to?

      "[G]lobalization is...increasing the efficiency of resource allocation through stronger capital markets" - Barack Obama

      by burrow owl on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:59:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't you also find it interesting... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        burrow owl

        that a recurrent theme amongst some of the posters here is that the Canadian government is working for Bush or Clinton, because this document embarrasses Obama. But, who were the Canadians working for when the Consulate initially agreed with the Obama folks and denied that the meeting ever took place.

        I'm sooooo confused!

        "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

        by RonV on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:18:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Another round of the popular game.. (0+ / 0-)

      W.O.R.M.

      Popcorn anyone??

    •  So it doesn't matter? (0+ / 0-)

      Just because he is not paid by the campaign or says he is not speaking in an official capacity?

      The story is: The senior economic advisor to the Obama campaign tells the Canadians that the NAFTA campaigning in Ohio is just rhetoric and not a true reflection of how Obama plans to deal with NAFTA.

      And that's OK because you can caveat it with all kinds of stuff?  Very slowly: The guy who advises Obama on economics told the Canadians that Obama's campaigning in Ohio on NAFTA is not true.  That is devastating, even if you don't add in all of the phony and weasling denials that took place last week.

      You're right!  This is great news for Obama!  Let's spread the word!

      •  Do you honestly not see the difference (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peraspera

        between a claim that the Obama campaign deliberately sent an emissary to the Canadians to tell them that what he was about to say would all be lies, vs an adviser making some comforting but non-specific noises without any sanction or prompting from the Obama campaign?

        Really?

        Thank you Senator Dodd!

        by jrooth on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:04:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here's a test of your honesty: (18+ / 0-)
    1. Is Goolsbee a "top staff member for Obama's campaign?"
    1. Does this memo in any way confirm that:

    a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

    The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

    1. Does it matter at all to you that Goolsbee, who is not a "top staff member for Obama's campaign," says:

    ''That's a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered,'' Goolsbee said of memo's account. ''A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy.''

    Thank you Senator Dodd!

    by jrooth on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:46:26 AM PST

    •  Okay, I'll play (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, andgarden, JoeySky18
      1. according to the AP, he is "Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser," so, YES.
      1. It confirms the heart of the story, though not the individuals first alleged to have been involved.  In other words, the story is true.  If, on the other hand, Obama (and you)is relying on the details to allow denial, well, that really doesn't do much for his credibility.  He said "it didn't happen," not "it happened, but they got the names wrong."
      1.  Nope.  Not at all.  It is the ultimate non-denial denial- "they didn't quote me perfectly, therefore I can deny it." In other words, it looks a lot like the denial you're relying on in (2), doesn' it?  

      If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

      by dhonig on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:12:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, that confirms it (11+ / 0-)

        This is just a fact-free slime.

        Shame on you.

        1. Advisers are not staffers.
        1. Nowhere does the memo confirm any of the key points of the original story, which was a claim that a top Obama staffer initiated contact with the Canadian Ambassador to warn him in advance that Obama would speak out about NAFTA and that this would be just rhetoric which could safely be ignored.  Not one of those claims is confirmed by the memo and some are directly contradicted.  The fact is the story is not true.  No staffer at any level, let alone top, contacted the Canadians about NAFTA.  As Obama correctly stated, "it didn't happen."
        1. His denial doesn't even remotely resemble "they didn't quote me perfectly, therefore I can deny it."  What it says is "I said nothing of the kind and even the suggestion is ridiculous."

        I hope you can find your integrity again some day after Senator Clinton has withdrawn.  

        Thank you Senator Dodd!

        by jrooth on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:52:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What IS the heart of the story, in your opinion? (0+ / 0-)

        I won't argue the points about who is or isn't a staffer, and what exactly was said, for two reasons:  first, because there's no way to settle that debate; and second, you're probably right about the fundamental points about Goolsbee's role and the purpose of his meeting at the consulate.

        But...you state:

        It confirms the heart of the story, though not the individuals first alleged to have been involved.  In other words, the story is true.

        But what is the heart of the story, in your opinion?  That Obama has no plans to change NAFTA and is completely bulls--ting the voters of Ohio?  The AP story you cite certainly does NOT come even close to hinting at that- there's no indication that Goolsbee was acting on behalf of the campaign (and in fact they flatly deny that in the story), and the memo itself reinforces the points Obama has been making on the campaign trail.

        So...what exactly does this story CONFIRM to you?

        Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

        by cfaller96 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:08:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  wow, this is dishonest: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jrooth

        "they didn't quote me perfectly, therefore I can deny it."

        "Perfectly?"  No, he says that the quote is factually wrong:

        ''A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy.''

        He's not talking about a misplaced participle.  

        And given that fact that you didn't even see fit to include Goolsbee's quote in your supposedly objective diary, I'd say you shouldn't lecture people on being overzealous in service of their false idols.  

        "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

        by chumley on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:32:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Another round of the ever... (0+ / 0-)

      increasing popular game of W.O.R.M.

      Popcorn anyone?

  •  Now Seems Ohio is Out of Reach (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, burrow owl, DrKate, JoeySky18

    This flap over credibility is going to hurt B.O. in the GE. How do you go to a foreign government and say one thing and another to the people of Ohio. How cynical! And of course the cover-up is always worse! I also think that this may reverb in Texas. If Hillary wins both and we get a new primary in Florida the math and the mo could change once again. If the meme becomes Obama is a phony then Houston we gotta a big problem.

  •  Bye Bye Ohio? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    waytac, Patrick B, JoeySky18

    This is devastating for Obama.  Not just because it hurts him on the NAFTA issue, but because they have been weasling and denying nonstop.  Here is a key part of the NY Times version of the story:

    The memo obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 ''introductory meeting'' between himself, Goolsbee and the consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.

    Goolsbee ''was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy,'' the memo's introduction said. ''On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement.''

    Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Obama's position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.

    See how the weasle words worked on the "consistent with Obama's position" stuff?  Who in ohio currently believes that Obama does not want to fundamentally change the NAFTA agreement?  Has he really told the people of Ohio that he is only concerned about labor mobility and environmental concerns?  That sounds much milder than his attacks on Hillary!

    And how does this fit with Obama's personally weasly words at the beginning of this on his campaign plane gaggle, where he said that the story was false and that nobody talked to the Canadians?

    Today's news so far (and the sun is just coming up in Texas):

    1. Rezko trial
    1. Goolsbee busted
    1. Joe Wilson slam

    Guess he's lucky we had heavy early voting in Texas.   Of course, his voters are welcome to come back and caucus for Hillary tonight!

  •  We SHOULD be reassuring the Canadians (5+ / 0-)

    The criticisms of NAFTA really don't bear on our trade relations with Canada at all.  What everybody is talking about is improved labor and environmental standards, and if anything, Canada is ahead of us on those two scores.  And we sell more manufactured goods to Canada than we buy from them, so trade with Canada isn't hurting our manufacturing base at all; it's helping it.

    Everybody is aware, or should be, that the big problem with NAFTA is the lack of, or lack of enforcement of, reasonable labor and environmental standards in Mexico.  Both American workers and Mexicans are suffering because of that, and there's not even a hint in what's been quoted in the memo that Obama isn't serious about them.

    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

    by leevank on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:51:44 AM PST

    •  Canada has also been hit by this (4+ / 0-)

      I live in a heavy manufacturing area in southern Canada, and our economy has just been devastated by the movement of industry to Mexico. Canada and the States have been close and fair trading partners for ages; it's the lack of labour standards in Mexico we need to really consider when talking about NAFTA.

      This whole thing is much ado about nothing. Probably just a staffer assuring the Canadians that Obama's stance on NAFTA wouldn't strike a blow to US-Canada trade relations.

      You will find no witty quotations here.

      by Soviet Canuckistan on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:56:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not even a staffer (4+ / 0-)

        It's an outside economics advisor who's a university professor.  This would only be significant, or at least SHOULD only be significant, if somebody produces a memo from the Mexican consulate or embassy saying an Obama advisor said he's not serious about improving labor and environmental standards in Mexico, and there's been nothing remotely like that.

        "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

        by leevank on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:38:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  CNN all over this (0+ / 0-)

    ...think there may have been some back-channeling going on...OH is lost for Obama...on to TX...and then PA...and then Denver...wonder if Hillary will let Obama speak at the convention ?

    What the hell's going on out here--Vince Lombardi -6.75/-5.85

    by Patrick B on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:53:04 AM PST

    •  ZOMG NOT CNN!!! (3+ / 0-)

      Is it BREAKING!!!!  Give me a break.

    •  What the Hell? (0+ / 0-)

      Are you people kidding me?

      Goolsbee disputed a section that read: "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

      "This thing about `it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me.

      "I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," Goolsbee said.

      But this diary, you and SusanHu conviently leave that part out of your attacks.

      Which does not surprise me, since those are also the tactics of the Clinton campaign. Being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest doesn't seem to matter to neither Clinton or her supporters, and in fact are required traits.

      The Obama campaign and the Canadian embassy denied there was any inconsistency between what the candidate was saying publicly and what advisers were saying privately.

      What is the deal?

      The only deal is, distortion and intellectual dishonesty. The same deal that we progressives have been sick and tired of for the last 35 years. The same deal that the Clintons want to continue.

      It's not a sign of weakness to learn from a mistake. It's a sign of stupidity to keep doing the same things over and over without ever learning~Dave Dial

      by DAVE DIAL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:45:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama campaign is full of inept liars (5+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, burrow owl, RonV, santh, JoeySky18
    Hidden by:
    WahooMatt

    Is what I could glean from this story. When they
    are basing their whole Ohio campaign on NAFTA, at least they could get the facts right. They could have just stated that yes some campaign official did meet the embassy people, but he/she represented his/her own views. This hedging just cost them credibilty.

  •  This is CRAP (10+ / 0-)

    This is a new conservative government in Canada playing along with Hillary to inject itself into our election on the day before the Clintons are eliminated.

    This is yet another case of the Clinton Campaign doing and saying anything to get elected.

    Just take a look at this for a second, and ask yourself this question.

    If Obama was the Candidate in this race that really wasn't going to do anything about NAFTA, and the "Canadian Government" knew this, why would they rat out Obama if he was going to go along with them?

    If Clinton was the one who was going to be tougher on the Canadians, why would the Canadians rat Obama out, and throw the Election to Clinton?

    This is all just election dirty tricks, and like every other "strategy" of the Clinton Campaign, it is a horribly thought out strategy that never takes the "counter argument" into account.

    To sum up:
    Obama says he is tougher on Nafta than Clinton.
    Clinton says she is tougher than Obama on Nafta.

    According to the Canadian Government, Obama is lying about being tough on them, so they tell all of us so that we don't make the mistake of electing Obama because he really isn't going to change Nafta to be tougher on them.

    You would have to be an idiot to believe this. That, of course, doesn't stop Mark Penn from pushing this.

    I really hate these people now. If Obama loses, McCain wins in November.

    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. ..John F. Kennedy

    by irishamerican on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:54:34 AM PST

  •  I agree but... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, irishamerican

    it'sut there and it will hurt him...the press wants this to go on and on...

    What the hell's going on out here--Vince Lombardi -6.75/-5.85

    by Patrick B on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:57:44 AM PST

    •  It won't hurt Obama (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scoopster, blueyedace2, tbetz

      Because he will handle it in the right way. He will turn it around on Hillary like he has every other stupid attack she has tried to make on him.

      All he has to do is lay it out exactly the way I did.

      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. ..John F. Kennedy

      by irishamerican on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:00:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oy. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RonV, HadIt

        If Senator Obama lays it out like you did, he'll be doing himself no favors.

        What if this... is as good as it gets?

        by Marcus Tullius on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:04:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It probably will hurt him somewhat (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scoopster

        but not enough to give Clinton the pair of 20-point wins she needs on Tuesday.

        Clearly her campaign saved their big guns for last.

        You will find no witty quotations here.

        by Soviet Canuckistan on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:04:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Handle it right away? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RonV, jmknapp

        He has let this trickle out all week!  His chance to handle it right away was when this came out early last week!

        Instead they falsely denied or used weasle words that are making more sense now.

        •  I agree with you on "trickling" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueyedace2, Patrick B

          I have been upset with Obama's Campaign for a year on these false emails. I don't think that they have been fast enough to refute the stuff that can really hurt them.
          Other than the "3 am" response, they have been too dismissive of the lethality of the constant subterranean slimes and lies.
          The way they have handled this so far might cost him 3 points in Ohio. I never thought he was going to win there anyway. The onus is on him NOW to take back control of the news cycle. I have been discouraged all morning watching the coverage on MSNBC and CNN. It has been all Clinton all the Time with doubt sowing, inuendo, and live interviews with Wolfson.
          All I can think is that Obama has something HUGE planned for later in the day that they have confidence in taking over the newscycle......
          I certainly hope so.

          Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. ..John F. Kennedy

          by irishamerican on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:13:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He still has (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueyedace2, irishamerican

            those two-minute blocks of air time all over TX and OH.

            You will find no witty quotations here.

            by Soviet Canuckistan on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:15:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You have to admit (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            miriam

            That even the 3am response was poorly handled.  Yes, they got the ad out very quickly and that shows they have lots of money and fast reactions.  But aside from it playing into the "me, too" meme that is out there on Obama, it also seems a little odd to simultaneously condemn the fearmongering and put out a fearmongering ad of your own.

            What you won't agree with is that the "my speech in 2002 shows my judgment" argument on foreign policy is extremely weak.  It is a "I already like Obama so I am looking for something to say he has foreign policy experience" argument that doesn't play well outside of DKos or dorm rooms.

            •  I disagree with you (0+ / 0-)

              What you won't agree with is that the "my speech in 2002 shows my judgment" argument on foreign policy is extremely weak.

              His position on Iraq was clear to me, and it is NOT weak.

              The fact that Kerry got beat with the "he was for it before he was against it" argument is something Obama would never have a problem with, Hillary would, and would get beat just like Kerry did.

              Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. ..John F. Kennedy

              by irishamerican on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:48:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  How about this: (0+ / 0-)

              He has more elected experience than HRC and does not have the blood of 650,000 + 3,947 people on his hands.

              Is that enough experience?  Or does he need to starve some women and children through an embargo, like the Clinton's did in the 1990's?  Will he have enough experience then?  

              "Capital consists of living labor serving dead labor for the maintenance and expansion of the latter." --Karl Marx

              by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:49:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Let's hope... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RonV

        ...but you're starting to see comments throughout press that'change in camapign can be felt', I discount that, but not the fact that a change in reporting is happening, the scrutiny on Obama is increasing rapidly along with more and more stories that are questioning him...I think too many people are brushing off the Clintons...if they see any chance of an opening, like a OH win (and trust me she's gonna win OH...I think)this thing is going to Denver...and as I said, if she wins PA...the nomination is hers.

        What the hell's going on out here--Vince Lombardi -6.75/-5.85

        by Patrick B on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:05:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary made him do it (0+ / 0-)

        That must be it. Either that, or aliens from outer space.

        Quizá, podríamos!
        (But it takes more than just a President)

        by shpilk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:19:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Didn't Happen"..."Wasn't True"...."Inaccurate" (7+ / 0-)

    Obama lied. His campaign spokesperson lied. And, they've been caught outright lying and dissembling about it.

    CNN and the NEW YORK TIMES and AP and CTV are reporting this story. ABC is sure to do a follow-up, since the Obama campaign told them, it "didn't happen."

    February 28, 2008:

    CTV reported last night that two unnamed Canadian sources said a "senior member" of Obama's campaign team called Wilson in the last month to warn him that Obama would be ratcheting up rhetoric against the North American Free Trade Agreement, but that he should "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA" and "Its just campaign rhetoric...Its not serious."

    When asked about the CTV report, Obama said today, "It wasn't true."

    Bill Burton of the Obama campaign told ABC News no senior Obama campaign representative called the Canadian embassy.

    "The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama’s consistent position on trade," Burton said separately in an email.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

    http://www.ctv.ca/...

    But, now, there is evidence that it did happen; it was true; and the CTV report was accurate.

    Goolsbee did tell the Canadian Consul-General that Obama's rhetoric on NAFTA was "political maneuvering."

    March 4, 2008

    The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

    The memo obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 ''introductory meeting'' between himself, Goolsbee and the consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.

    Goolsbee ''was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy,'' the memo's introduction said.

    ''On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement.''

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    "Hope has to be made a reality in politics." ~ Hillary Clinton

    by SignalSuzie on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:03:05 AM PST

    •  When did Michael Wilson (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Soviet Canuckistan, tbetz

      become part of the consular staff in Chicago?  Those bastards!  Canadians are always pulling this kind of stuff.  

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:22:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  lol... (0+ / 0-)

        Thanks for the laugh.

        "Hope has to be made a reality in politics." ~ Hillary Clinton

        by SignalSuzie on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:13:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm glad I helped you laugh (0+ / 0-)

          that is really what I am all about.  I connect with Obama when he call this the "silly season" because it truly is a lot of silliness.  Comes from all directions and from all sides.  Some of it crosses into nasty but most of it is just silly.  This too shall pass.

          But really - watch out for those Canadians.  THey are out to take over the continent.  Then there will be no more baseball, no more football, no more basketball.  Only hockey.  And that is a real bad.... hey wait a minute.  That is a good thing come to think of it.  Hell I'm in ice rinks all year round anyway it might as well be all year on TV.

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:03:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Is there any indication in that article (6+ / 0-)

      that Goolsbee was acting on behalf of the campaign?

      Or was he talking as a member of the University of Chicago economic staff?  Or just as a normal citizen?

      Ok, I'll answer my own question:

      Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Goolsbee's visit was not as an emissary from the campaign, but as a professor from the University of Chicago. He was not authorized to share any messages from the campaign, Burton said.

  •  I still don't see the big deal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Soviet Canuckistan

    Did anyone actually think he was going to get rid of NAFTA? It's like the health care debate.  Chances of it passes are low, so what is the point in arguing against each other about it?   I do think he could do some good explaining his position, but I just don't see this as anything shocking.  I'm also not blind thinking he's a perfect person either.  

    •  He said in the ohio debate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam, DrKate

      That he would get rid of Nafta in response to the stupid Russert question.

    •  Umm...Obama's campaign denied the meeting... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam, RonV, DrKate

      took place and then said if it did occur NAFTA didn't get discussed.  I agree the back channeling isn't shocking.  It think it's the denial that is the problem here.  

      "A change would do U.S. good!"

      by AnnieM on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:17:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not what I remember. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scoopster, peaceandprogress, tbetz

        Maybe you could quote that.

        What I remember is that the Obama campaign said the claim was inaccurate.  And, according to Goolsbee, it is.

        •  Here's a clip (0+ / 0-)

          Boris Gundunov and Into the Stars below are technically correct ... the denial is about a meeting with the Canadian ambassador.  Here is a clip.

          http://www.wkyc.com/...

          "A change would do U.S. good!"

          by AnnieM on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:44:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  And here's another link.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          miriam, Scoopster

          http://www.ctv.ca/...

          What I found troubling is that this meeting DID take place and NAFTA got discussed.  I think the Obama campaign should have been more forth coming initially to say that Goolsbee wasn't there in a campaign capacity.  Now it just looks like they are covering their tracks.  

          Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago.

          Then Goolsbee says in the AP article:

          Goolsbee "was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," the memo's introduction said. "On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

          Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Obama's position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.

          This is a link to the AP article not the NYTimes version:

          http://ap.google.com/...

          "A change would do U.S. good!"

          by AnnieM on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:05:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  No it didn't (10+ / 0-)

        It denied that a meeting took place between a member of their campaign and the Canadian ambassador.  That denial is entirely correct, as the meeting in question was between someone who is not an official member of the Obama campaign, was not acting as an official member of the Obama campaign and was with a different Canadian official.

        Since the story is complete hearsay, and the person in question is saying he's being misquoted, there really is nothing here at the moment.

        I finally put in a signature!

        by Boris Godunov on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:32:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The meeting as it was reported at first (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scoopster, tbetz

        did not happen. There was some truth to the story, but not what CTV had first reported.  They also never totally denied it happen, hence why people kept saying something was up.  

        In all honesty the whole issue is pretty innocent.

      •  Any major lack of honesty is a deal-breaker (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        miriam, DrKate, rmerren

        I think a lot of BO people will realize that this is their last chance to avoid a disaster in November and will switch their votes to HC.

      •  a river in Egypt (0+ / 0-)

        but it's disbelief is what most Kossacks will be swimming in, come 2009 when President Obama disappoints and enrages most of this community.

        Oh well.

        The candidates of real change dropped out of the race long ago [or were never in it to begin with].

        Quizá, podríamos!
        (But it takes more than just a President)

        by shpilk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:15:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, they never denied that a meeting took place (0+ / 0-)

        only denied that the CTV story was accurate.  The Canadian ambassador in Washington denied he or his staff had any such meeting.  This memo is apparently about a meeting the Obama advisor had with a member of the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

        "If you are the big tree, we are the small axe"

        by peaceandprogress on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:39:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  There is no big deal (5+ / 0-)

      It's just more intellectual dishonesty from the Clinton campaign and her supporters.

      The fact is, both Clinton and Obama said the same things about NAFTA during the debate. Neither said they would end NAFT outright, but both said they would use the threat as a tool to restructure it.

      Which is EXACTLY what the advisor(who was not even acting on behalf of the campaign) told the low level Canadian staffer.

      It's not a sign of weakness to learn from a mistake. It's a sign of stupidity to keep doing the same things over and over without ever learning~Dave Dial

      by DAVE DIAL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:05:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  yup, it's like everything else (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Salo

      No change.

      NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, WTO whatever you want to call the corporatist rape of the planet in the name of American imperialism. No change.

      Health care. Ribbons and bows on an infected box of deadly toxins and cancer. No change.

      GWOT. Same as it ever was. Jingoisitic, but a kinder gentler machine gun hand. No change.

      MIC. Stronger than ever, with a larger military and more troops and increased spending.

      This is what we will get at the end of the day from Obama. He takes a few bricks off the accelerator of the dead conductor train that is headed right for the cliff. That's all.

      Clinton leaves a few more on, perhaps, so he's better than her.

      McCain .. ?? He puts those color coded logs into combustion chamber.

      Quizá, podríamos!
      (But it takes more than just a President)

      by shpilk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:13:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  omg! Another brain-using diary (9+ / 0-)

    I'm becoming mildly optimistic that all hope is not lost at dKos.

    Congrats!

  •  I Guess I'm More Interested on the Policy Side (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, RonV

    I wish that Sen. Obama was better on economic issues, including trade.  Goolsbee has been known to state that Globalization (including the off-shoring of jobs) does not have an impact on domestic wages, for example.  Um ...  And this is the guy who writes Sen. Obama's economic policy stuff.

    He needs to be a lot better as an advocate for the working person.

    I think that he is a great candidate for people employed in law, technology and academia ... and for the creative class.  And for Maria Shriver.  But he could improve as far as what he offers the rest of us.

    •  upper class candidate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam

      he's never said with any believability that he will work for the working poor or working class americans.

      sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

      by DrKate on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:57:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How about the foreign policy? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam

      Like the GWOT? Obama's your man.

      Like military spending and the MIC? Obama's your man.

      Own stock in GE, Raytheon, BAE? Obama's your man, because just like Clinton and McCain, there will be a trillion a year + budget on 'security', and regardless of the rhetoric, there will be yet more death and destruction to further American imperialism as we try to burn our impiratur into the foreheads of the rest of the planet.

      Looking for real change?

      Sorry. Not this time.

      Quizá, podríamos!
      (But it takes more than just a President)

      by shpilk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:08:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is it really this hard? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scoopster, tbetz

    Yes, Obama isn't perfect. Yes, people believe he's better than he is.

    That is how we win.

    http://soundtransit2.com

    by Bensch on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:13:07 AM PST

    •  Err (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, DrKate, Larry Bailey

      It's decepetive.

      Maybe you "win" but you don't really know what you've "won".

      •  ???? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scoopster, tbetz

        Have you been MIA for the last few months? We know a LOT about our candidates.

        http://soundtransit2.com

        by Bensch on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:43:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  also, "buyers remorse" (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shpilk, Larry Bailey, Lying eyes, demer

        waking up in November after the election, when Obama announces he will put Lieberman, Hagel, and Lugar in his cabinet, will surely produce buyers remorse.

        sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

        by DrKate on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:59:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have to wonder what role (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DrKate, demer

          Joe Lieberman is going to play in an Obama administration; that has crossed my mind. Barack has no bones about 'working across the aisle', and since Lieberman straddles it, and was Barack's mentor it's a possibility.

          Can you imagine the howling here?

          Yes, I think it's hilarious watching the Pied Piper as he plays the tune, and all the mice fall in line.

          I remember when Obama posted here, a long time ago and chastised the community for failing to be 'flexible'. I've never forgotten that, and I never will.

          Quizá, podríamos!
          (But it takes more than just a President)

          by shpilk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:05:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  "that's how women won the vote" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam

      Obama says, "with words and hope".

      Right.  He should read up on feminism and how many women died getting the vote.  The success was not based on words and hope, it was based on actions and strategy.

      sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

      by DrKate on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:58:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is not what he said. (0+ / 0-)

        He did not specifically lay out what the suffragists did, but he did say that they had a hard battle and that his definition of "hope" is standing up to oppression. And then he went on to talk about civil rights activists in the sixties and how some of them died for the cause. It's not accurate to say that he believes women won the right to vote by sitting around wishing for it.

  •  Thanks for the diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DrKate, Larry Bailey

    I fell for it too, the denial that is. I thought the Clinton campaign had planted the story after I read the denial.

    I also like the close here, it is important to remember that we, as Democrats, always have a harder road in these contests. Media will line up to coronate McCain this time and we have to win on the facts and Obama will need to make a cogent argument for the future of the country that is factual enough to penetrate the veil of slime and slant that will be coming his way. Overall, media coverage has been very positive for Obama so far. That will change soon and we shouldn't forget that.

  •  real problem is GATT going back to Reagan (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, blueyedace2, sbdenmon, tbetz, bigchin

    which set into international law that capital was free, and human rights, citizens rights, labor rights and environment are not allowed to be used to set barriers.

    So money is free to move from real democracy to country where standing up for safe working conditions earns you a bullet to the back of the head.

    or strip mining ocean of tuna and killing whales is okay, and tuna boycott is illegal.

  •  blame Canada (7+ / 0-)

    I'm sure everyone wants to fight about whether Obama is "as great as advertised".
    This Obama supporter doesn't care - I'm rating him against the rest of the field and still feel he's the best choice.

    But this whole thing is desperately comical.
    Is Canada such a threat to America that it's wrong to assuage their potential trade fears? Are we losing that many jobs to Canada?
    Does Lou Dobbs have another show I don't know about?

  •  Thou shalt have no idol before Hillary. n/t (7+ / 0-)

    My Blog: The place I ramble when I'm not rambling here.

    by Capt America on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:18:28 AM PST

    •  Hold a mirror up and look (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larry Bailey

      There's going to be a hell of a lot of disappointed progressives in about 18 months after they realize the sizzle is long gone and they are stuck a tough, indigestible steak.

      Let me guess about the level of Buyer's Remorse ...

      oh, it will be sort of like what I've been saying for months. Gore .. sigh.  Edwards .. sigh .. Kucinich, Dodd .. dare I even type it .. maybe even some Clinton .. sigh ...

      We'll get our chance to find out.
      Check this in about 18 months or so.

      You'll see yourself in the mirror a hell of a lot better if your take the sunglasses OFF.

      Quizá, podríamos!
      (But it takes more than just a President)

      by shpilk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:57:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't have sunglasses. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm looking at the situation as it stands.

        Clinton is a DLC, 50%+1 Dem with heavy ties to corporate America, including her campaign financing team.

        Obama is a new blood Dem who is running on the 50 state strategy and is financially beholden to the American People who have helped fund his campaign.

        Neither of them is a progressive savior, but I have a lot more faith in Obama's willingness to listen to progressive activists and citizens than I do Clintons.  She's proven that she wants to play Centrist rather than actually accomplish anything.  Why not go with the one who may actually do something right?

        My Blog: The place I ramble when I'm not rambling here.

        by Capt America on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:28:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Please tell us what else will happen in 18 mos. (0+ / 0-)

        What stocks should I buy? Will we be out of a recession? Thanks!

  •  Yep (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, shpilk, mbair

    I think a lot of people are in for a surprise with an Obama presidency - it's not going to be a Left or even Progressive leadership. Most likely it's going to be Centrist policy after Centrist policy in the model of a Bill Clinton and that's not bad per se but it's not what this country needs.

    We need a leader who is willing to make the tough decisions and put their ass on the line. We need to make leaps - not babysteps and bandaid policies where we end up in the same position or worse off 5 to 10 years down the line.

    Don't expect Progressive policies from Obama - he won't deliver. He'll be "better" than the Republican but he won't really make this country a better place for working and middle-class people.

    •  I disagree, obviously, (0+ / 0-)

      but are you implying that we'd get something different out of Hillary Clinton?

    •  So are you saying that (0+ / 0-)

      Hillary, wife of Bill, will offer more Progressive policies than Obama?

      I really hope not because that is a pretty weak argument.

      •  Jesus (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shpilk, dhonig

        Don't assume that anyone who offers a critique of Obama supporters the Clintons.

        ObamaClinton are the same candidate outside of the race and gender difference. Just look at the facts, same voting records, same policy-support books same rhetoric (outside of Obama's change, change, change bs).

        I'm saying (and I hope I am wrong) that we're going to get the same old shit for the next four years. Corporate Democrats who push Centrist policy when what we need is real change.

        Someone else in this thread posted, "we can't expect him to end NAFTA, that's just not possible" but fuck that - we do need to end NAFTA and re-examine all free-trade policies which are ruining our manufacturing base and killing income growth...

        •  scary, isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          demer

          It's as if there's this brick wall where the 'left' used to be, and Barack Obama is IT. To most of his supporters, it appears that he is the ne plus ultra of the 'left', and it's totally impossible to imagine anything could be beyond Barack.

          Scares the fucking hell out of me that so many are hypnotized by this guy. My own mother and my son are both hypnotized by Barack, like he can do no wrong at all.

          Incredible.

          Quizá, podríamos!
          (But it takes more than just a President)

          by shpilk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:53:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'll go you one better (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          demer

          I'm saying (and I hope I am wrong) that we're going to get the same old shit for the next four years. Corporate Democrats who push Centrist policy when what we need is real change.

          We really have an opportunity to seize the agenda after 8 years of Bush and with either Clinton or Obama we'll only get incrementally better policy, policy that doesn't address our fundamental problems in government today.

          •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mbair

            We're going to have both legislative branches and the executive and this is a PRIME moment to swing policies in a Progressive direction but I fear that our presidential choices don't support that kind of change (Hell, even the legislature is full of Corporate assholes).

    •  bingo .. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dhonig, Salo, demer

      been saying this for months and months. He talks 'hope' like Reagan talked 'morning in America'. I'm not saying he's going to govern like Reagan, but at the end of the day, the 'morning' was for corporations, not people in Reagan's administration.

      I pray that 'hope' is not just for corporations and insiders, but I'm fully prepared to see just that with an Obama administration, just like it would be with Clinton and just as it was with Clinton.

      Obama will roll back GWB to the era of GHWB, with a little Big Dog thrown in for good measure.

      New improved "Kinder, gentler", now with "hope".

      People are swallowing this stuff wholesale and it's making me upset.

      Quizá, podríamos!
      (But it takes more than just a President)

      by shpilk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:45:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      demer

      but I hope I'm wrong, way wrong.

      Obama has chosen to run on moderate positions and the whole rationale that I see for his electability at this point is that he appeals to the center. Therefore, if he's the nominee, what kind of a mandate do we have once he gets elected? Is that what this country really needs at this time? As you posted: no.

  •  Obama seems to have a propensity (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, dhonig, Larry Bailey, roseeriter

    ...to find himself hung out to dry on the foreign policy questions that have come up in this campaign.

    No, I don't want him answering that phone.

  •  You left this out: (6+ / 0-)

    "This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me."

    "I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," Goolsbee said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    Both candidates have taken up the rhetoric of fair trade: enviro and labor standards.  Neither, clearly, is as protectionist as Edwards might have been.  Hillary says we can trust her not to be a rampant free trader like Bill.  She says that "behind the scenes" she opposed NAFTA.  However, she still has a corporate lobbyist as her closest adviser.  Progressives remember how guys like Robert Reich were ignored by the Clintons in favor of advice from guys like Penn.  Obama isn't perfect and doesn't walk on water, but there is indeed a difference in terms of credibility.

  •  Look, here's the deal (6+ / 0-)

    When someone puts something on a piece of paper, without quotations around it, that doesn't make it true.  Putting quotation marks around doesn't make it true.  Putting quotation marks around it and underlining it doesn't make it true. And those rules apply even if the words appear in a Canadian memo.  

    Let me demonstrate this for you:

    Last night on 60 Minutes, Senator Clinton appeared to suggest that Barack Obama may be a double secret Muslim terrorist.

    Last night on 60 Minutes, Senator Clinton appeared to suggest that Barack Obama may be a "double secret Muslim terrorist."

    Last night on 60 Minutes, Senator Clinton appeared to suggest that Barack Obama may be a "double secret Muslim terrorist," eh?

    The truth is all that's Left

    by Left Leaner on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:29:20 AM PST

  •  Let's be honest about this. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, leney

    We're all smart people and we all know that the debate points that Obama and Clinton are making are made to appeal to people who don't follow politics as we do.  That said, I think if you're going to try and use this as a swipe against Obama that you're not acknowledging your own insight into the process.

    Let's break this down:

    1. It looks bad.

    There's no doubt that the average Joe or Jane reading this is going to be turned off.  But they're not.  This isn't going to get much coverage and, as a result, it won't change many minds.  Not at this point.

    1. There's nuance in this.

    Goolsbee claims he never said that Obama was misleading people about NAFTA.  Furthermore, he didn't "not say" this this to the Mexicans, he said this to the Canadians.  Does anybody here actually think that Americans are upset about losing jobs to Canada?  Maybe a few, certainly, but this is a small detail that can't be expressed when making stump speeches.  Why?  Because it's confusing to the general "NAFTA BAD, NASCAR GOOD" population who will react MOST strongly to this.  To everybody here, though, it's not a real issue.

    •  The reason for this is clear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tbetz

      Does anybody here actually think that Americans are upset about losing jobs to Canada?

      It isn't happening.  When the loonie was "cheap", there may have been some job loss to Canada.  But since the planned devaluation of the USD, it's been going to other way.

      So - NAFTA sucks for Canada, and it suck for the USA because of the deals with Mexico.

      Let's all use our brains here instead of our unquestioned support of Hill.

      -6.5, -7.59. Is there a hyphen in anal retentive?

      by DrWolfy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:52:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not a swipe against Obama, it's a swipe (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tbetz

      against Obama supporters.  Clinton supporters are really, really, really pissed off that we don't see the wisdom of a Clinton nomination.

      Eventually, Clinton supporters are going to have to let this go and line up against McCain.  But boy, is it taking them a long time to get there.

      Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

      by cfaller96 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:16:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Same comment [UPDATED] (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, dhonig

    dhonig, you are fighting the good fight. Keep it up.  

    Obama will win the nomination and Hill will lose.  The writing is on the wall.  BUT all the people who are posting facts and not unadulterated adulation for Obama are truly patriotic and it is admirable.

    As for the Obamanias, you guys are off your rocker.  You are willing to believe a country's government over its free press.  Why has CTV re confirmed its story and named names and has a timeline, if it is all UNTRUE?  Why is CTV just pulling this story out their A$$? Huh?

    If CTV had reported and then confirmed in a follow up story  that Hillary warned the Canada embassy that in the coming months she will be saying things against NAFTA but not to believe because it is only campaign rehortic, I would have to believed the press.  I would be sick about it but I would have to believe the press.  YOu see I believe in democracy not any one candidate.  I believe that the press is more apt to tell the true than any one government.  I believe it is imperative that citizens always err on the side of the press not any government.

    The most troubling aspect of Obama's followers are that they are so emotionally invested in Obama (for whatever reason) that they can not fathom Obama during anything so underhanded.  That is very troubling.

    If you get what you have so willingly have thrown aside, any criticial thinking, and Obama becomes president, will you then be willing (and others be PERMITTED) to criticize him?  If not, should we just abolish/disband all the federal agencies Inspector Generals, GAO, Segments of the AG offices, all the government ethics laws, you know federal oversight?  Why will we need them. No?

    James Madison, in the Federalist No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments wrote:

    If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

    I guess the election of Obama will render James Madison's word obsolete, No?

    Updated:  Now AP has a  memo DOCUMENTINGthat CTV is correct.  Always belief a free press over any government.

    •  CTV WASN'T correct (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chumley, tbetz, paintitblue

      CTV's story claimed that BOTH Obama's and Clinton's campaigns CALLED the Canadian Embassy to tell them that  their NAFTA campaign rhetoric was just that.

      CTV's story was WRONG.  whoever their "source" was, they had the story completely flipped.

      at this point, all we have is a leaked memo from Harper's conservative administration about a meeting between Goolsbee, a part-time Obama staffer, and low-level Canadian consular officials.

      the reason that Obama supporters are fighting this hard is not that we view Obama as the second coming or something like that.  it's because we want him to win.  it's really as simple as that.  stories like this are rife with allegations but are based on little fact.  

      Susan Hu is also not respected around these parts because she will continue to repeat outright lies from such "luminaries" as Taylor "I don't lie, I just exaggerate a lot" Marsh and others.

      the bottom line is that the CTV story was wrong.  this is like the Rezko story: the main thing that Obama's done in either instance is that he's had his name linked to the stories.  there's no substance behind the allegations, but the allegations themselves are meant to be politically damaging.

      it's something that Hillary Clinton is already too familiar with.  it's something that John Kerry went through in his swiftboating.  and we'll be damned if we let something like that happen to Obama, who is one of the best presidential candidates we've seen in a long time.

      •  My only reply is... (0+ / 0-)

        There is something wrong with you.  You need professional help immediately.  If you have just ingested the Obama Kool aid immediately try making yourself vomit.  If that does work, in my opinion, you should seek medical attention immediately.  The kool aid has begin making you deaf, dumb, and blind.

        •  but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chelle in mo

          the kool-aid is so tasty.

          let's get one other thing straight then.  i support Obama because he matches a lot of the policy stances and general approach to government that i believe in.  particularly those that emphasize getting citizens involved again in their government.  a lot of other Obama supporters will say the same.

          so stop with the "cult" meme you so desperately cling to and acknowledge that Obama supporters are backing him because he has the substance that we need to get things done AND the style that great leaders require.

  •  ........ (5+ / 0-)

    I am so sick of the entire Hillary campaign for arrogance and condescension.  Let it go, you've lost.  You're killing the party and doing the Republicans job for them.

    Love is a temple, love the higher law. -7.00, -7.64

    by ckeesling on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:33:07 AM PST

  •  you call this a scandal? (9+ / 0-)

    I can't believe this diary made the rec list.

    I can't believe people (read Clinton-supporters) are so obsessed with this trivial and distorted conversation that allegedly took place between an Obama advisor and some Canadian functionary.  WHO CARES????

    People are grasping at desperate straws to try to prove how little integrity Obama really has.

    This Clinton/Obama race has proven one thing more clearly than anything else - only one of these candidates has integrity...

    WAKE UP.

  •  People insist upon putting Obama on a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, Dave B

    pedestal, and are infatuated with him. So it's no surprise to find he is defended in this manner by some.

    Quizá, podríamos!
    (But it takes more than just a President)

    by shpilk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:38:29 AM PST

  •  Congrats, Hillary supporters... (13+ / 2-)

    You little hit-job made the Rec. list.  Did you guys have a conference call last night coordinating your efforts?  There is no THERE there.  

    kakistocracy - Elections have consequences, but capitulation has its price.

    by RichM on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:44:23 AM PST

    •  It's interesting since CTV has walked back on (8+ / 0-)

      this story so many times. There are so many versions of this story, and the fact that many versions of this story exists show that it's nothing more than a right-wing network's attempt aided by the conservative Harper government at influencing an U.S. election.

      What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

      by slinkerwink on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:48:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Prof Dave, tbetz, paintitblue

        The CTV first come out and said that 'Obama had a spokesman promise Canada that he would do nothing with NAFTA, even though the rhetoric from the campaign said he was going to renegotiate or leave."  That is absolutely not true.  Although, there does appear to be some overture on trade, it doesn't show that there was anything sinister.

        kakistocracy - Elections have consequences, but capitulation has its price.

        by RichM on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:54:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  HR for false accusations (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam

      as insane as it might sound, people have different opinions. This comment is yet another symptom of your illness, which deludes you into believing everthing good about Obama is organic and natural, and anything negative about him is part of a conspiracy.  I genuinely never thought somebody of your tenure here would turn into a tin-hat conspiracy theorist.  You owe me an apology.  That, or support your accusation.  Show me where I cross-posted this, commented on it elsewhere and asked for support, or anything else to justify your "conspiracy" accusation.

      If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

      by dhonig on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:49:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's off now.. (0+ / 0-)

      There's more substantial diaries that are more important than this.

  •  Remind me who is the NAFTA candidate (0+ / 0-)

    In this election, and if Senator Clinton benefits more from NAFTA being on everyone's minds or Senator Obama?

    Lynch mob partipants volunteered, too.

    by cskendrick on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:45:11 AM PST

  •  HRC has NAFTA issues too... (0+ / 0-)

    Why are people forgetting this?  I think this Obama thing can be sorted out pretty easily.  Saying this shows lack of honesty when HRC has been dishonest about NAFTA to start with doesn't make much sense to me.  I think both candidates probably wish to get rid of all this NAFTA debate.

    •  She's not Bill (0+ / 0-)

      Hillary gets a bad rap on this because of Bill.

      After-all we all know that every woman falls in line and agrees with everything her husband says and does:

      And there is this:

      Liberals and conservatives are two gangs who have intimidated rational, normal thinking beings into not having a voice on television or in the culture.

      by Dave B on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:58:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  she gets the good and the bad (0+ / 0-)

        She IS claiming part responsibility for all of her husbands benefits to the country.

      •  HRC wants credit for the Clinton administration. (0+ / 0-)

        It's the big centerpiece of her "35 years of experience" and her alleged foreign policy experience.  (Seriously, where else is her foreign policy experience?   In the Senate, where she has just a handful more years than Obama?)

        But when there's something about the Clinton administration that people don't like, we're supposed to give her a pass, and know that she didn't support everything, behind the scenes, after all...

        Please.  How convenient.

        She takes the good with the bad, or she should stop bragging about her time in the White House as a reason to support her.  She doesn't get to pick and choose -- that's our job.

        "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

        by chumley on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:39:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think it is dangerous (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, Catesby

    to continue to see Obama as "holier than everyone" and refuse to see...it boggles the mind and is worrisome from the standpoint of Obama being in the general election.

    This is exactly the kind of thing that will give repugs a handle on attacking Obama.  And successfully rebuffing the attacks will not happen if we continue to shoot the messenger, insult the diarist or reporter, make disingenous claims of lack of credibility.  

    Every diarist here who has said one thing critical of Obama has just about been run off this site.  There is a collective attack going on to either troll rate or not rate any comment that raises an issue.

    distressing, immature, scary.  How do you expect Obama to win like this?

    sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

    by DrKate on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:49:39 AM PST

    •  straw man (12+ / 0-)

      I am an Obama supporter and I don't see him as perfect, or holier than thou, or a messiah.

      I am getting tired of people saying that I do.

    •  I don't think most people feel like that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tbetz

      If this is the biggest scandal they can come up with, then by scandal standards it's pretty tame.

      I see what happened from the article and I'm not that upset about it.  It's politics.   Again people who don't support Obama think Obama supporters are somehow crazy or think he's perfect.  We DO NOT.

      •  then why don't you see the danger (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        miriam

        of his contradictory position and its effect on his credibility?  You are no better than those who blindly follow.  Watch how this issue turns the tide for him.

        sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

        by DrKate on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:09:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It damages his central credibility (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          miriam

          The integrity of his message is all he really has to go on.  

          If he develops the habit of speaking out of both sides of his mouth and doing background that contradicts publically stated positions the press will gleefully disembowel him.

          "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

          by Salo on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:45:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If he had a contradictory position... (0+ / 0-)

          ... I'd see a danger in it.

          Canada is not at risk of harm in the event of a NAFTA re-negotiation.  An Obama economic advisor saying so to a very low-level consular official does not conflict with Obama's stated position on NAFTA.

        •  It isn't contradictory to say to the people of (0+ / 0-)

          Ohio that NAFTA needs to be fixed and at the same time reassure some low level Canadian official not to worry.

          This is like all the other Obama "scandals" that are wipped up by Larry and Susan that don't really go anywhere.

          This tell us one big thing:  Obama IS vetted if ya all can't come up with anything more damaging than this non-story.

          It takes a village... unless it is a caucus. -Hillary Clinton

          by Yoshimi on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:59:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I would except (0+ / 0-)

          that his position is not contradictory.

          According to the cited consular memo:

          Goolsbee ''was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy,'' the memo's introduction said. ''On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement.''

          Exactly the position Obama took in the debate.

          We are the ones we've been waiting for. - Barack Obama

          by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:00:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see this report as contradictory. I see (0+ / 0-)

          the NY Times piece and believe that the report by CTV is somewhat exaggerated.  Since there is conflicting evidence on all sides, I place look at oall of these reports and try to see wha t makes sense.

          What I see, is the Clinton campaign wanting to get more people to question Obama's integrity.  Most Obama supporters do not believe he is infallible, and this kool-aide drinking accusations are annoying in the extreme. Obama has never said he opposed trade agreements, and neither he nor Clinton are strictly protectionist, a charge that is likely to be leveled by the McCain campaign.

          What amazes me is that CTV uses unnamed sources for the story, which should put everyone immediately on their guard.  I mean come on, what other TV station does that sound like.  Furthermore, CTV Global owns the Globe and Mail, the more Conservative of the two major Canadian papers.

          I'm not accusing them of being a Fox clone, but since when did progressives start blindly trusting the mainstream media. Given some of the undeserved bad press Clinton has gotten, why are you suddenly so trusting of a weakly supported negative report?

    •  Good points all, though I think we're starting... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DrKate

      ...to see some moderation occurring in the Obama ranks here.  A small number of the more frequent Obama commenters are starting to encourage reason and balance, and a very few (Marcus, Turkana, and RenaRF) have done yeoman's work in this area for quite some time.  I do agree that a lot of the HRC supporters have disappeared themselves lately, and I'm hoping they come back soon, as we'll all need to be one before too long.

      •  for me, hard to imagine (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rmerren

        coming back.  I'm already moving to other blogs now that have a more mature readership.  I am concerned about my country like everyone else, and have never been so blind to my candidate that I can't see strategically.  

        Obama has been forecasting his republican leanings for a long time.  Bi partisanship, yes.  But when it means throwing democrats and democratic principles under the bus, no.  I won't vote for anyone who runs away from his democratic roots and the party.

        sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

        by DrKate on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:13:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  MyDD would be a good fit fot you (0+ / 0-)

          Wall to wall attack diaries.  Through the looking glass into an alternate universe of fulminating hatred for the best candidate the Dems have run in many decades.

          •  Are you saying there's no room at Daily Kos... (0+ / 0-)

            ...for anyone questioning the potential nomination of Senator Obama?

            •  Markos wrote a book called (0+ / 0-)

              Crashing the Gates.  It's about winning the country back the Dean way, the 50 state strategy.  Mark Penn and Hillary Clinton don't believe in that strategy, preferring the outmoded and ineffective 50 percent plus one DLC method that has lost us the last many elections and made this country an embarrasment to live in.  Hillary supporters on the blogs have become unhinged and are throwing mud as hard and fast as they can.  So, no, there is no place on Daily Kos for those who would damage the Democratic party by means of repeated demonstrably false accusations against any candidate.

              •  Yes, that's what I thought you were saying... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                miriam, dhonig

                ...here you are, an almost 70k UID, telling UIDs in their 20's that they ought to take a hike from DK.

                •  You will need a miracle in Texas (0+ / 0-)

                  But it won't happen.  Your beloved candidate is going down ugly, but she is going down, regardless of how many diaries flung at the wall on various inconsequential matters, and regardless of how many idiotic red phone ads.  She is going down because the people know a triangulating DLC corporate shill  when they see one.
                  The Rezko business is apparently your primary area of "concern."  You are bringing up a thoroughly debunked allegation over and over to try to damage Obama.  Perhaps you could try building up your own piss-poor candidate instead.  You could talk about how she really didn't mean to vote for the invasion of Iraq, or Kyl-Lieberman, or against the cluster bomb ban, and how she doesn't truly want status quo re Cuba, or how she didn't actually work hard to gut the ethics reform bill.  That'll work!  If it doesn't, you could always bring up the red-hot topic of user I.D. number.

                  •  Oh, I see, you've found something that "debunks", (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    miriam

                    ...the fact that Senator O and Rezko bought side-by-side properties in the same day, with all the concerns incumbent in that?  Good luck proving that "debunking", as there are real estate records.

                    BTW, HRC is not "beloved" to most HRC supporters -- who instead admire and trust her experience.  "Beloved"-ness is left for the Obama supporters.

                    •  I'll leave the cleanup of slime to others. (0+ / 0-)

                      We've got a nomination to win.  When all this is over and President Obama is in the White House, you can look back on this time and ask yourself:  "why didn't I work harder to help my beloved candidate overcome her overwhelming negatives (insert laundry list of indefensible votes, racist campaign tactics and shady dealings with foreign interests here) instead of attempting to slime her opponent?"

        •  This ain't over yet, Dr. Kate... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          miriam

          While I don't have the same concern as you about Obama ditching Democratic principles, or about a GOP appt. or two (remember Clinton Secy of Defense William Cohen), I do have a huge concern about his electability after the Republicans have their way with him, and it has nothing to do with his origin, name, whether he wears a flag pin or not, or his apparently very, very limited past association with Farrakhan or the former Weather Underground couple.  The Repugs will do a number on that stuff but IMHO those particular attacks will come off as petty. My concern is about the Rezko matter. Despite what we're told on this site -- that the Rezko matter is just some "boneheaded" mistake surrounded by HRC-based attacks and "myths" -- it is no myth that in 2005, Senator Obama and Antoin Rezko (already under a public cloud and now revealed to have been broke at the time) collaborated (through discussion, planning, and pre-purchase walk-throughs) in the same-day purchase of adjoining properties, with Obama buying the big home and Rezko (through his wife, Rita) buying a lot that was obstensibly to be used for a condo development, but was too small (and even smaller after Rezko sold Obama a 10-foot swath of it in 2006) to serve as anything but a side yard for Obama.  When the Repubs are done with "exploring" that situation, I believe Senator Obama as our nominee -- and we by extension -- will be in deep trouble.

    •  That's one of the alarming things (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larry Bailey

      about the mindset here.

      If Obama wins the nomination i'll happily vote for him. But I reserve the right to say what I don't like about his campaign or policies.

      It should be strong enough to withstand my spitwads.

      "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

      by Salo on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:43:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't talk to Kossaks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paintitblue

    Talk to Ohio and Texas voters. The primary is TOMORROW!

    Austin loves Obama!

    by DrJK on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:51:05 AM PST

  •  Sounds like a whole lot of nothing... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    applegal, tbetz, paintitblue

    ...at the very worst, it looks as though somebody was talking outside the confines of their pay-grade (which is not to suggest anyone got paid, just a turn of phrase) and more likely, the Canadian government officials in question are reading into this what they would like to hear.  I'd like to know who wrote the memo and WHY it was leaked.  This memo was not intended for public consumption, why, all of a sudden, is it?  And why does that not make the whole thing circumspect?  

    On top of all that, you have everyone in question denying it happened at one point or another.

  •  how much damage does this story do? (0+ / 0-)

    Is there anyone who can quantify how much damage this story does and is there any way to salvage the situation.?

  •  And the Hillary supporters (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chumley, tbetz, henna218

    all stand and cry about Democrats attacking Democrats.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    -6.5, -7.59. Is there a hyphen in anal retentive?

    by DrWolfy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:54:08 AM PST

  •  If Hillary Lies she was misunderstood... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrooth, tbetz

    If obama strains at all, he is has committed the worst sin

  •  Strictly speaking, this would be a good (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chumley, tbetz, paintitblue

    "caveat emptor" diary, reminding us all that Obama is human and will inevitably disappoint us at some point in time.  Some Obama supporters do need to remember that.

    dhonig goes a bit far, however, in assigning motives to Obama supporters in general.  Cherrypicking some comments does NOT prove a point about the overall psychology of Obama supporters.  Otherwise, I'm sure I can find plenty of damning stuff about Hillary supporters.  There's really no need to go down this path.

    Finally, I strongly urge everyone to read the article that dhonig trumpets as final proof of something.  There's very little, if any, "proof" of anything in the story.  This story has devolved into a "he said/he said" story, and we have little hope of discerning what a President Obama will do about NAFTA, and whether he's being dishonest about it now.

    Civic spirit drowns in a hurricane of mere survivalism - McKenzie Wark

    by cfaller96 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:57:39 AM PST

  •  I HAVE TWO WORDS FOR ALL OF YOU (11+ / 0-)

    Who wrote this in the AP?
    One guess....Yep that's right, our favorite:

    NEDRA PICKLER

    I am done with this piece of shit story, it's crap.

    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. ..John F. Kennedy

    by irishamerican on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:01:01 AM PST

  •  how is this playing today? (0+ / 0-)

    this prima face looks real bad for obambi.

    would love to know what the networks are saying.

  •  An Apostle talked to Canada (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scoopster

    Not Jesus himself.

  •  single worst diary (5+ / 0-)

    i've ever seen on the rec list.  sad.

    "It seems like he's smiling at the wrong times..." - Pat Buchanan on John McCain 2.19.08

    by itsbenj on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:06:31 AM PST

  •  PLEASE UPDATE YOUR DIARY TO SHOW THIS!!!!!! (9+ / 0-)

       Two years after U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins was accused of meddling in Canada's federal election, the same is being said of Stephen Harper's Conservatives with respect to the current U.S. contest.

       Democrats appearing on a nationwide U.S. political program accused the Harper government yesterday of interfering in the primary campaigns to help the Republican Party candidate in the coming campaign.

       "You've got a right-wing government in Canada that is trying to help the Republicans and is out there actively interfering in this campaign," Bob Shrum told the popular program, Meet the Press. Mr. Shrum is a top-level Democrat adviser who has had key roles in the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry.

       At issue are reports that members of Mr. Harper's prime ministerial office leaked word last week that a member of Barack Obama's campaign told a Canadian diplomat that Mr. Obama was not serious when he raised the possibility of renegotiating the free-trade agreement.

       snip

       ABC News says the leaker was Mr. Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie. Mr. Brodie reportedly learned of the conversation which took place between Mr. Obama's economic adviser and a Canadian diplomat in Chicago from Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States.

       snip

       Opposition MPs said it appears obvious to them that the Harper Tories want the Republicans to win and that they have taken steps to help them to do so.

       The Harper government may find itself in hot water should the presidential winner be a Democrat, they said.

       "This is serious," said Navdeep Baines, the Liberal Party's trade critic.

       snip

       Mr. Harper's communications director, Sandra Buckler, said Mr. Brodie also doesn't remember such a conversation.

       "Ian Brodie does not recall discussing this matter and at the end of the day Ambassador Wilson issued a statement and we stand by that statement," Ms. Buckler said.

    link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...

    What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

    by slinkerwink on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:06:48 AM PST

  •  Naturally... (8+ / 0-)

    ... the portion of the article where Goolsbee points out that he was misquoted and the conversation mischaracterized is mysteriously absent from this diary.

    "Mom, baseball, apple pie, and a unified Democratic juggernaut.

    by Purplepeople on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:07:23 AM PST

    •  And dhonig has not updated his diary. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tbetz

      It takes a village... unless it is a caucus. -Hillary Clinton

      by Yoshimi on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:34:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's all you need to know about this diary. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scoopster, tbetz, KingGeorgetheTurd

        The diarist is not interested in objective reporting about this alleged story.

        She/he is interested in insulting Obama supporters as cultists who support a "false idol."   Period.  

        "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

        by chumley on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:42:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That certainly seems to be the case... (0+ / 0-)

          ... but when something like that happens it usually means there is a flaw in the argument to find and point out. In my opinion, the best way to respond to something that looks like trolling (other than ignoring it completely) is to treat it as though the poster is entirely serious and refute the argument. There is always the chance that the poster made an innocent mistake, however unlikely, and this way I avoid jumping to a mistaken conclusion about motivation.

          If it was a troll, then I'd rather other people joining the thread read and understand why the argument presented doesn't hold up. And if the troll attempts to keep the argument going, then those same new people get to see the troll's argument devolve and become less and less coherent. You just have to avoid getting drawn into name-calling and the like and treat everything said as though the troll is being entirely serious. Either they eventually give up or come off looking completely ridiculous. Usually both.

          "Mom, baseball, apple pie, and a unified Democratic juggernaut.

          by Purplepeople on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:57:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  dhonig was actually driving to work (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon

        between posting it an returning, and is now just reading the comments for the first time.  However, given that you PRESUME bad faith without any basis, and read into my absence something nefarious, I will simply let it stand.  Revel in your paranoia.  I hope you enjoy it.

        If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

        by dhonig on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:52:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The more of this type (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, cybrestrike

    of diary crap that I read, the happier I feel that I voted for Obama in the primary, and I look forward to voting for him again in the general.

    All my life I've had one dream: to achieve my many goals. - H. Simpson

    by henna218 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:19:13 AM PST

  •  I think I'm finally becoming a true dKoser (0+ / 0-)

    because none of the claims from either side are making me mad anymore.

    There is good info in the various news reports, but frankly this diary doesn't add much.  I will add this on my list of pros and cons as a con for Obama.  Unless I learn more to change my mind.

    This is just another edition in the never-ending diary wars and makes little effort to moderate the fighting: "False Idols" and a case can be made for selective quoting, but I won't make it because I don't really care.

    •  I agree. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      henna218, mrchumchum

      I give dhonig credit for playing concern troll about the nasty diaries out there while underhandedly writing a less than honest diary.

      I can't wait until Hillary is forced to drop out this week.  Then we can all focus on being less than honest about the other side.

      It takes a village... unless it is a caucus. -Hillary Clinton

      by Yoshimi on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:33:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Could have dealt with a little less sarcasm (0+ / 0-)
  •  Nice Morals. (0+ / 0-)

    bink, Jon Meltzer, mikepridmore, daria g, Pacific John, markusd, tikkun, catfish, Dave B, HadIt, Victor, DCDemocrat, shpilk, Matilda, linc, pitbullEmily, DrKate, SusanHu, Porfiry, mbair, Larry Bailey, Miss Blue, Zain, AnnieM, sazharnyc, campskunk, paluxy1945, mcm, roseeriter, PaulVA, Caldonia, Fagelson, jmknapp, clarknyc, exlrrp, averageyoungman, joanneleon, Gabriele Droz, Lying eyes, andgarden, Dianora, SaraBeth, another American, SignalSuzie, sadair, Andiamo, Fasaha, vigilant meerkat, Scientician, mostest, mango, irishamerican, Preston S, The House, PatriciaVa, ammasdarling, DrSteveB, Owllwoman, david mizner, redhaze, A Person, TomP, ann0nymous, Lamil, Ellinorianne, Izarradar, NewHampster, wsumike, wils02, Partisan Progressive, crazyshirley2100, mrchumchum, grlpatriot, JoeySky18, smartheart

    Yes we can change. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can seize our future. - Barack Obama 01/26/08

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:29:16 AM PST

  •  seriuous is sunanHu sock puppet for Taylor Marsh? (0+ / 0-)

    n/t

  •  NAFTA doesn't help you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, henna218, mrchumchum

    Hillary is worse on NAFTA than Obama.  Saying he's not perfect doesn't help you hacktacular Clinton worshipers.

    Seriously.

    Get it?  Obama != perfect.

    Hilary == still worse.

  •  I Don't Like Either of These Candidates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, vbdietz

    But I like Obama's campaign a hell of a lot more than I like Clinton's.  And this diary is a good example of some of what's wrong with Clinton's campaign.

    The diary gratuitously assumes that Obama supporters expect Barack Obama to be something more than the better of the two remaining candidates for president on the Democratic side, so that if he's not perfect they'll suddenly switch to Clinton. I see no reason to think that Obama supporters expect perfection.  They simply prefer Obama to Clinton.

    In the context of this race, one would have to compare anything Obama's done on NAFTA to Clinton's desperate running away from the record of an administration that she likes to claim as eight years of her experience (to say nothing of her own statements lauding NAFTA).  

    Frankly, both these candidates will pursue pro-corporate neo-liberal trade policies while trying to convince their party's grassroots that they really care about the environment and workers' rights. This is one of many issues on which there's really not a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Clinton.

    What difference there is involves spin: Clinton's desperate flailing compared with Obama's well oiled machine. There's no question in my mind which of these two candidates is better prepared for a general election campaign.

    This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)

    by GreenSooner on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:32:04 AM PST

  •  This ability of partisans to ignore news that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, mrchumchum

    adversely affects their candidate is a phenomenon that is not unique to either the Obama partisans or the Hillary partisans.

    It is what happens when one develops a "partisan brain" and can be seen in the great work by Drew Westen in his book "The Partisan Brain".

    Maybe it's because I was an Edwards supporter and not an Edwards' partisan and now I'm in the column of supporting whomever will get the Democratic nomination but to be able in effect to stand and watch while both sides' partisans cherry pick stuff they like about their candidate and ignore and deny that which they don't like even in the face of factual evidence to the contrary it just makes me that  much happier that I forked over $25 bucks for Mr Westen's book and I'd urge all of you to do the same.

    You may be luckier than me - his book may already be out in paperback and it'll cost you less than it did me.

    I don't think anyone helps thoir candidate by becoming a "partisan" - you help youre candidate by becoming a "supporter" and you get to stay grounded in the reality based world.

  •  Well yeah... It's a community (0+ / 0-)

    And it is full of bullshit just like every other community. Whee...

    I don't blame Obama too much for the anti-NAFTA rhetoric, since most Americans have a malformed view of NAFTA and free trade generally; Although I am disappointed that Obama did not use the moment to explain the misguided views of NAFTA and free trade, and discuss how he will address the matter. This is what he typically does to issues.

    Also, NAFTA already has labor and environmental protections. To say that it does not, is an ignorant fallacy.

    Example:

    NAFTA’s Labor Side Agreement, officially called the North American Agreement for
    Labor Cooperation (NAALC), "represents the first instance in which the United States
    has negotiated an agreement dealing with labor standards to supplement an international
    trade agreement."1

    NAFTA is the left's golden child of free trade. They should stop hating and start enhancing!

    I am crass and hostile. If you want to be comforted and babied, unplug your internet connection and call your parents.

    by nanobubble on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:38:43 AM PST

  •  It's a Wash (0+ / 0-)

    Actually both BO and HRC are weak on NAFTA.  Both are weak because their economic advisors are mainstream economists who are wedded to neoliberalism.  For them, free markets are the best solution even if it means that individual workers (or thousands of individual workers) will be thrown out of their jobs.  The benefits of free trade (cheaper manufactured goods) will outweigh the losses.  So goes the free trade logic.  If anything, I'm more diappointed with Obama's choice of economic advisors simply because I knew what Hillary would do and hoped Obama would be more progressive on economic policy.  Instead of Goolsbee I would have liked Obama to move toward John Edwards' positions and his advisors, like James Galbraith.  

    But you can't have everything and I don't want Robert Rubin back in the White House. (Clearly Paul Krugman is auditioning for Clinton as well.)  

    A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

    by tryin to make it real on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:40:32 AM PST

  •  Goolsbee and the word "rhetoric" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz
    Goolsbee is a world-class debater, winning tons of awards for his debating expertise.  No one with that much 'debate-fu' would ever refer to anything as "only rhetoric".  It's like an intellectual property attorney saying that something is "only a copyright issue".  I saw those words and knew that didn't come from Goolsbee.  

    I suspect Goolsbee said something that some lower level Canadian dignitary misinterpreted, and|or Harper's administration twisted.  I really doubt Goolsbee was unclear or disingenuous.  I've seen him talk, and he clearly delinates between Obama and his ideas, and stays on point just like you'd expect out of a debate master.

  •  I understand the concern... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz

    ...that we will all be disappointed in a President Obama because we tend to "idolize" him now. I have come to support Obama, but I don't idolize him. We'll have hard work ahead no matter who becomes President. But I've read this diary carefully and the point I'd like to make is this:

    Renegotiating NAFTA to build in protection for workers and the environment we all share is not "protectionism." My belief is that Obama was attempting to make this distinction.

    Did Obama deny flatly that he talked to the Canadians? I don't know why Michael Wilson would have denied speaking with Obama: "Neither before the Ohio debate nor since has any presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson about NAFTA." I suppose this statement could be "parsed," (which is another thing wrong with our politics.)

    All said though, this whole affair seems to be taken out of context. Obama's promise to "fix" NAFTA does not mean he's "taking it off the table." I can see why a "protectionist" sentiment would arise here and I think it would be appropriate for Obama to reassure the Canadians.

    "John is NOT anti-business, as the recent vitriolic US Chamber of Commerce statement seems to portray. He is simply anti-crook..." - Blue Waters Run Deep

    by nehark on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:43:14 AM PST

  •  One thing is for certain (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, santh

    If Hillary were caught in a similar situation, all of the people who are bashing this diary would be singing a totally different tune.

    They know it, too if they are honest with themselves.

    Much worse diaries, predicated upon the most flimsy of evidence have sat upon the top of the rec list for days because they were anti-Clinton screeds.

    I find this exercise to be most enjoyable, as neither an Obama or Clinton supporter. It shows exactly just how far down the rabbit hole this place has gone.

    Quizá, podríamos!
    (But it takes more than just a President)

    by shpilk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:46:30 AM PST

  •  Dhonig (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scoopster, tbetz

    please.  SusanHu has created her own bed during this primary.  Her inflammatory language has brought its own deserved response.  At this point, she could be declaring God's own truth and people would be upset over it.  

    Defending her is rather pointless.  

    As for the CTV incident, it is possible to discuss that without mentioning Susan.  If you wanted a rational discussion, you should have done so.

    •  vbdietz (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larry Bailey

      I acknowledged Susan's problems.  she is simply the first diarist to have brought it up.  I thought I very pointedly addressed a DIFFERENT diary by an Obama supporter after introducing it with Susan's diary.  It did not seem appropriate to not mention Susan, because to do so would have been to ignore the first chapter of the story here on Daily Kos.  Perhaps it might be better if people could simply read the content without having knee-jerk responses to personalities, but that might be too much to hope for this primary season.

      If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

      by dhonig on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:55:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Based on NY Times report, I would say CTV claims (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scoopster

    are exaggerated.  It is reasonable for Obama to reassure Canada that he is not protectionist, which is consistent with his trade position and the statements of the aides cited in this report.  I would also submit that Clinton is also not protectionist.

    For an aide to reassure the Canadians that his statements shouldn't imply he is protectionist, is not the same as saying to ignore the rhetoric.  Democrats are often accused of being protectionist b/c they care about worker and environmental protections, and will oppose trade agreements that don't include them.

    The NAFTA battle was unique in dividing the country.  Ultimately, Bill Clinton was able to convince a sufficient number of democrats to support the legislation, after selling them on the labor and environmental side agreements.  Unfortunately, these side agreements have been largely ineffective.  A justifiable reason to want to renegotiate the agreements.

    Asserting he's not being protectionists, doesn't mean ignore what he said about renegotiating the trade agreement.  It also makes sense to me that the Canadian government would exaggerate the claims of the Obama campaign b/c the Harper government is more conservative (They are the Progressive Conservative Party after all) than past Canadian administrations, and is more likely to favor the agreement in its current form.  I submit that they would prefer a McCain administration to either an Obama or a Clinton administration. This story is much ado about nothing.

  •  Send to Hillary--note from Canadian Embassy (0+ / 0-)

    News from the Embassy of Canada

    Statement by the Canadian Embassy

    Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008 — The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

    The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.
    http://geo.international.gc.ca/...

  •  Yawn (n/t) (0+ / 0-)

    "The fact which the politician faces is merely that there is less honor among thieves than was supposed, and not the fact that they are thieves." Thoreau

    by shigeru on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:26:32 PM PST

  •  Oh, please, give us your best response to this (0+ / 0-)

    Wow. I think you owe a lot of people an apology for this.

    I don't know why we should expect any more from Hillary supporters than we get from the candidate, though.

    "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets!" -Bill Hicks

    by Tismo70 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 10:12:47 AM PST

    •  It looks even worse (0+ / 0-)

      Canadians contacting the campaigns. Austan Goolsbee agreed to accept an invitation from Canadians, who pressed him for answers about protectionist sentiments emerging in the US Presidential election.

      Wasn't the rap yesterday that Goolsbee was NOT speaking for the campaign?

      If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

      by dhonig on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:52:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site