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?
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.