Skip to main content

So where does Barack Obama really stand on these three issues?

Has Markos ever apologized for getting this one wrong?

PMO: Officials only got briefing from Obama campaign (The Canadian Press)
OTTAWA — Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday. With the NAFTA affair swirling over the U.S. election and Canadian officials skittish about saying anything else that might influence the race, it took the PMO two days to deliver the information. After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for — or received — any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday. "The answer is no, they did not," said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.


In the case of the Obama campaign’s briefing,  it’s not just an allegation.  We have the document prepared afterward: "[Obama senior economic advisor Austan Goolsbee] suggested that of the Democratic candidates, Obama has been the least protectionist (unintelligible).  HOM asked whether we could expect to hear more of this as the elections progressed, Goolsbee thought not. In fact, he mentioned that going forward the Obama camp was going to be careful to send the appropriate message without coming off too protectionist."  Judging from the use of the word "unintelligible", one might think the interview is on tape somewhere.  In other words, Obama is dog whistling.

And there are other examples of Obama saying one thing and his advisors saying another.  See the next two excerpts, below.

Obama Adviser: I ‘Strongly’ Believe Telecoms ‘Should Be Granted Immunity’
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has consistently spoken out and voted against granting retroactive immunity for telecoms that participated with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. This stance was part of the reason he won the support of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), a leader on civil liberties issues. One of Obama’s advisers on intelligence and foreign policy advisers, however, is someone who "strongly" supports telecomm immunity. John Brennan is a former CIA official and the current chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance. In a new National Journal interview, Brennan makes it clear that he agrees with the Bush administration on the issue of immunity.

Power on Obama's Iraq plan: "best case scenario" (Politico)
For all the chatter about Obama adviser Samantha Power's calling Clinton a "monster," another set of remarks made on her book tour in the United Kingdom may be equally threatening to the Obama campaign: Comments in a BBC interview that express a lack of confidence that Obama will be able to carry through his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator," she said at one point in the interview.

As the Clinton Fact Hub points out, "Sen. Obama has repeatedly criticized Hillary for not having a ‘firm’ and "clear" withdrawal deadline." (Thanks to No Quarter.)  He did it again Friday, in Wyoming.

Carolyn Kay

Originally posted to cmkay on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:53 PM PST.

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

  •  [Crickets] (8+ / 0-)

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:54:55 PM PST

    •  Yeah, it's like people aren't permitted to have.. (8+ / 0-)

      ... differing opinions or sumpin'.

      Poor Carolyn;  stuck in a cult where everyone must march in lockstep with The Goddess on every issue, and incapable of grasping that the process of honest and active discussions among advisors is what produces good policy decisions in the end.

      •  Guess They've Got Their Karl Rove (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christin, Nellcote, mayan, tbetz

        Talking Points Machine all cranked up now...

        •  Goolsbie/Rioux memo doesn't show a wink-wink (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Hillary Clinton has been putting forth a straw-man: Obama says one thing to the American Public, but says another thing to our foreign allies.  Let's get real hear -- it's a smear, a blatant like.  It is untruthful, they know it, and so to Clinton supporters here who continue to push this non-sense.  What the memo actually said was:

          On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more infavor of strenghening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these are more *core* principles of the agreement.

          (emphasis on *core* principles in the original)

          What's startling about this is that: (a) "*core* principles" was the only thing in the memo that was stressed with asterisks, (b) that what was expressed in private was exactly what Obama is saying in public.  True, the memo also includes the following:

          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 second quote is used by the diarist to insinuate that Obama didn't actually mean that his policy is to reform NAFTA to include labor and environmental protections as "*core* principles" of this agreement.  This of course isn't true.  

          On the campain trail broad-brush strokes are often used to make broader points, sound-bytes are often mis-quoted or used without context. This advisor was saying something rather obvious -- simplistic rhetoric should not be confused with "clear articulation of policy plans".
          It's a truism.  The phrase doesn't mean that Goolsbie didn't drill Obama's policy. I'd once again re-enforce that the stress on "core principles" was probably words that Goolsbee used himself.   Overall, the memo gives a really good impression of what happened.  Its probably not exactly the message that Goolsbee was trying to effect, but, it's clear to me that he was trying to send a message:

          Obama's policy is for "core principle" change to NAFTA. There is simply no nod-nod wink-wink here.

      •  We all know who's stuck in a cult ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... and it isn't me.

        Carolyn Kay

        •  Then what's the big deal about Obama's advisers (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Great Uncle Bulgaria, Goatsnake

          ... having and expressing differing opinions on various issues?

          Either they are permitted to have differing opinions or they aren't.  The latter case is cult-like thinking.

          •  Privately, they should tell him ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... what they really think.  Publicly, they at least shouldn't tell the media that the guy's lying to voters.

            And why does he have such conservative advisors, anyway?

            Carolyn Kay

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

          Millions of Americans are trapped in a spell and marching dumbstruck to the polls? It's you guys who are the Flat-Earth enthusiasts. You apparently don't believe in the laws of mathematics. She can't win the pledged delegate vote - and it gets more and more unlikely that she can come within 100-150 delegates as every state votes. After his victories in Texas and Vermont, Senator Obama will put Wyoming and Mississippi into his column this week.

          Wake up - let Shrillary officially join Johnny McBush and come work for Democrats. You might like it.

          Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

          by dpc on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:36:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And he can't win a majority, either. (0+ / 0-)

            So should we just sit and twiddle our thumbs?

            Carolyn Kay

          •  well that was compelling (0+ / 0-)

            I can just see the ticker tape of the number of Clinton supporters you grabbed with that one...


            Bueller... Bueller... Bueller...

            Hey, props.  Next time try not being so righteous and condescending.  I have at least limited success with that.

            •  If They're Still Supporting Her (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              then perhaps they aren't thinking things through very well. She can't overtake him in pledged delegates - end of story. She can only hope to squeak by through superdelegate nullification of the primary votes - and that will rip the party apart. She has also expressed that John McCain is better suited to be President than Senator Obama. She voted to support Bush in Iraq.

              And - it was the diarist who started in with the cult horseshit. I somehow don't think many Obama supporters are coming over to her side when she writes a misleading diary like this and then chirps about cults.

              Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

              by dpc on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:04:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The fat lady ain't sung yet. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Gee, last week it was all, "Hillary should just drop out.  She can't win another primary."

                She's not listening to that defeatism, and I'm glad she's not.

                Carolyn Kay

                •  OK (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Nice revisionist history. There wasn't a soul in the world saying that she wouldn't win another primary. Three weeks ago she was up 15-20% in Texas and Ohio. She lost Texas and Obama managed a solid 44% in Ohio. So stick with her through thin and thin.

                  Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

                  by dpc on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:36:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Jonathan Alter of Newsweek ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... told her to drop out BEFORE March 4.  Brent Budowsky and Paul Rogat Loeb, among others, were salivating over what they thought would be her demolition on that day.

                    Carolyn Kay

                    •  I Think Alter Was Right (0+ / 0-)

                      After this is all through she may have wished that she had quit.

                      Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

                      by dpc on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:01:12 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Why would that be? (0+ / 0-)

                        She's fighting hard, and Obama's fighting hard.  There's no shame in trying your damnedest to do something you really want to do.

                        I promise you that if the situation were reversed, I wouldn't be telling you your candidate should drop out, or he might have wished he would quit.

                        Please think before you write this kind of stuff.  If it works turned around, then say it.  If it doesn't, then don't.

                        Carolyn Kay

              •  misleading? (0+ / 0-)

                I mean, you may not like what it has to say but what about it is misleading?  The main thrust was quotes from Obama campaign advisors.  Nothing misleading about that.  If the one advisor supports telco immunity, fine.  Not misleading, just stating a position.  Ditto on the Power comment.

                Now, onto the McCain flap.  Yeah, messed up and uncalled for - pretty low tactics.  I don't think that's what she actually said, but that's mostly immaterial because that's the idea she wanted to convey.  I don't believe that she actually thinks that, or that when she finally concedes (as seems increasingly likely) she'll make a ditch to throw her supporters to McCain.  If she does such a thing that'll be my last straw.

                She voted to support Bush in Iraq.... this comment is going to take as long as a diary, but here goes...

                It's very easy right for everyone to cast judgment on these types of votes.  Does anyone remember at all how politically toxic it was to criticize the administration in '02 and '03?  And you wanted this from the Senator from New York post 9/11?

                I remember attending school at the University of Idaho at that time, and in Oct '02 feeling the war drums beating (I can proudly say that I was against the war before it started).  The most ridiculous assertions were scribbled on the sidewalk leading up the administration building - linking Saddam to Al Qaeda and 9/11 mostly.  And I remember thinking, if this ignorant uninformed crap was being disseminated on the campus of an institution of higher learning, where both information and liberal views should be readily available, what was going on elsewhere?  And it happened there - yet another something I don't hear a lot about anymore - broad, sweeping detentions, dragnets (this guy - who ended up being deported.. notice how the FBI official is quoted as saying "not a shred of evidence that convinces me he's not a terrorist" - was picked up in a pre-dawn raid.. little known outside the community is he was not the only person they tried to get.  The other, or others, I don't remember anymore, got ahold of their lawyers too fast)...

                So yeah - our caucus as a whole can reel in the failure of preventing war with Iraq.  Fair enough, I agree.  We ask our politicians to stand up for what we believe in, for what is right, even when it's not popular.  Just ask Mr. 30% and the paleocons re: abortion and gay rights.  No problems there standing the the way of majority opinion.  Still, the matter is more difficult to judge, I think, in the course of a war - and in point of fact the war was supported by about the same number of people who now support the S-CHIP expansion, on which we're now claiming a mandate.

                Just some thoughts.  Not intended as a defense (because the vote is still indefensible), just some perspective.

                Oh, and accusing the Hillbots of "not thinking it through" i.e., being somehow logically or intellectually inferior, misinformed, or more broadly and simply stupid, is as offensive as calling the (and here I forget the insult de jure for Obama supporters) cultists.

                Again, not a defense... just some thoughts.

        •  You are crossing into troll (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tbetz, teyigdhk

          worthy territory with that comment.  While I have your attention, instead of quoting those parts of that NAFTA memo that conveniently help your candidate, you may want to include the parts that reaffirm what Obama's stance has been on NAFTA all along.

          Did you actually read the memo or is this simply a cut and past job.

          that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. - Barack Obama

          by acuppajo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:37:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  yet at the same time (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        it's always pertinent to call out every Clinton advisor for every disreputable and anti-democratic position they take?

        right.... at least be logically consistent.

    •  Obama has been consistent on ALL of these fronts (9+ / 0-)
      1. He has consistently opposed unfair trade. He supports fair trade with enforceable labor and environmental protections. Hillary Clinton praised NAFTA even as recently as 2004. Links: one, two
      1. He strongly opposed the war both in 2002 and 2003 all the way to keep Bush from pulling the trigger. Hillary Clinton and John McCain enabled the war
      1. Obama consistently opposed telecom immunity and voted against it, Clinton skipped the vote and McCain voted to give immunity:

      "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
      By Greg Sargent - October 24, 2007, 1:18PM

      Telecom Immunity Rollcall

      Question:  On the Amendment (Dodd Amdt. No. 3907 )
      Vote Number: 15 Vote Date: February 12, 2008, 11:03 AM
      Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
      Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3907 to S.Amdt. 3911 to S. 2248 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007)
      Statement of Purpose: To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.
      Question:  On the Amendment (Dodd Amdt. No. 3907 )

      Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Nay
      Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea
      New York: Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting Schumer (D-NY), Yea

      Clinton people doing this behind the scenes:

      Glenn Greenwald
      Saturday September 22, 2007 08:15 EST
      Former Clinton officials lobby for amnesty for FISA lawbreaking

      •  Obama's voting record is EXACTLY ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... THE SAME AS CLINTON'S on these issues.

        It doesn't matter what you say, it matters what you do.

        Oh, that's right.  Obama supporters are the "word" people.  Words speak louder than actions.

        Carolyn Kay

        •  Not true. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tbetz, Great Uncle Bulgaria

          Let me repeat:

          1. HRC and JM hawked the war. Obama wasn't in the senate then, but opposed the invasion all the way. Please see here
          1. Trade record is similar when then were in the senate, but HRC voted for more FTAs before Obama got to the senate. Hillary Clinton strongly praised NAFTA in 2004.
          1. As I showed you he voted against telcom immunity, while HRC  did not vote.
          •  he voted against cloture (0+ / 0-)

            but voted for FISA.

          •  I'm glad you brought up Obama's position on war. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kbman, AJsMom, Lisactal

            Obama wasn't in the Senate when the vote was taken on the Iraq War resolution, and when running for the Senate in 2004 he made conflicting statements, even telling the New York Times at one point, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

            Also in 2004:
            "When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards’ votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'"

            His much-touted 2002 speech wasn't as anti-war as he'd like you to believe.  In the speech, he never said "Do not attack Iraq", or "If I were in the Senate right now, I'd vote against any resolution that could in any way be construed as giving the President the authority to send troops to Iraq."  That gave him deniability, in case the war went well.

            In 2003, when the war was popular, he took the speech off his website.

            His war funding voting record has been exactly the same as Clinton's.

            He didn't make it back to Washington to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran resolution, even though he'd been notified the vote was imminent.

            "[T]hose looking to the Obama campaign as a means of ending American militarism will be sorely disappointed. The Illinois Senator has vowed not to reduce the ballooning US military budget—which consumes an estimated $700 billion annually—but rather to increase it. He has called for the recruitment of another 65,000 soldiers for the Army as well as 27,000 more Marines. He has vowed to put 'more boots on the ground' in the 'war on terror,' the pretext invented by the Bush administration to justify 'preemptive war,' i.e., military aggression aimed at asserting US hegemony over the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia.

            "As for Iraq itself, his promises to end the war are belied by his pledge to keep American forces in Iraq to defend 'US interests' and conduct 'counterterrorism operations,' a formula that would see tens of thousands of US soldiers and Marines continuing to occupy Iraq and repress its population for many years to come."

            Carolyn Kay

            •  2004 stuff you posted is completely bogus (0+ / 0-)

              it's been debunked over and over. He was protectin Kerry/Edwards who had voted for the war. See Media matters.

              Clintonites shouldn't be pulling this stunt because if Clinton somehow wins the nomination, does she want Obama, Gore, Dean etc to bash her and her Iraq war vote at the DNC convention?

              Funding votes are a consequence of the war being underway. Obama always said, even in his 2002 speech and interviews, that once we invaded, we's assume a grave need to leave responsibly. That's the reason we should never have invaded, Obama argued correctly. Gore's reasoning has been similar on the invasion and aftermath.

              Next, Obama introduced his Iraq withdrawal bill in Jan 2007 which Hillary Clinton aped with a similar bill 2 weeks later. The language from his bill made its way to the only serious Dem withdrawal bill a couple of months later. Obama in that sense moved the party away from the war.

              The website stuff is moot given that he kept opposing the invasion all the way through March 2003:

                 MAR 2003: Obama Challenged Other Candidates To Take A Position On Iraq War. The AP wrote, "Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question...Issuing the challenge at a weekend speech in Champaign, Obama said he does not oppose war if it's necessary. But he believes Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that, with Iraq's economy in shambles, he can be "contained" until internal pressures force him out...Obama said candidates wishing to unseat Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald in 2004 should speak up now as the Bush administration moves closer to using military force against Iraq. `What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,' said Obama, a state senator from Chicago." (AP, 3/3/2003)

                 MAR 2003: Obama Said It's Not Too Late To Stop The War. "State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, `It's not too late' to stop the war." (Chicago Sun- Times, 3/17/03)

              while HRC and JM kept hawking it. see

              Harry Reid was fuzzy and flip-flopped all over the place on scheduling the Kyl-Lieberman vote. Obama didn't get sufficient time to return from NH to vote. He took his position that he'd have voted against it that very night. I'll post a link shortly.

              Obama does want to increase the military size. While I myself would like to see his full justification for it, clearly, given that national guard and reserve troops have been stretched thin badly because of the Iraq war (which Clinton and McCain enabled) at least for the next couple of years, we clearly do need a larger force.

            •  Reid's scheduling mish-math on K-L (0+ / 0-)

              Please see here  on how Reid was fuzzy on the scheduling of the vote.

              Second, CNN (aka Clinton News Network)'s report that senators were informer used anonymous sources which could well have been Mark Penn for all you know. Their story was disputed by the Obama campaign. Unless CNN releases the actual names of the claimed "sources" and that story is independently verified, currently known evidence clearly shows Reid to have flip-flopped all over the place on scheduling the K-L vote.

        •  except for cluster bombs... (0+ / 0-)

          Hillary thinks we should keep using them, Obama doesn't.

  •  Hillaryhub-HarperGov't-ARG. (23+ / 0-)

    It's like rock-paper-scissors for unreliability.

    math is the new momentum.

    by haruki on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:56:22 PM PST

  •  Uh... (7+ / 0-)


    I'm sorry I overreacted. Really.

    by turnover on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:58:00 PM PST

  •  No Quarter? (12+ / 0-)

    Larry C. Johnson is a racist Clinton hack.  You’re in titled to your opinion, but once you start linking to Larry C. Johnson you cease to be creditable.  

  •  I'm confused (7+ / 0-)

    Brodie, PM Harper's chief of staff, was very clear that Clinton's campaign had contacted the Canadians stating that Clinton wasn't really anti-NAFTA. Clinton's position and rhetoric has been pro-NAFTA until recently.

    The Canadians have acknowledged that the memo distorted the truth re Goolsbee.

    Personally, I'm not impressed with either Obama or Clinton (though I prefer Obama), since I believe they BOTH are more pro-corporate than they claim, but for Clinton to call Obama a hypocrite is laughable.

  •  Hillary and her advisors say the same thing (0+ / 0-)

    voters don't meet jack shit to them

    •  Quotes, please. Links, please (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Unbacked up assertions mean nothing.

      Carolyn Kay

      •  On this site, these days, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shpilk, dougymi, Lisactal

        all you are going to get from asking for back up is their backs up. This site has gone from political discussion to single-minded anti-Hillary attacks. Don't expect anything else here when you mention her name. Never mind that she was in public service when Obama was in grade school and has served as an excellent Senator from NY. Or any of the rest of it. Obama is a saint, with no faults. And anyone who says otherwise is apparently committing heresy.  Everything he has done is perfect..including consulting insurance companies about the legislation affecting them. When I heard that, I was amazed that anyone can take his "change" crap seriously. He is as corporate as Hillary, only he lies about it. Oh, wait..misspeaks..he doesn't lie. Riiiight.

        What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

        by Demfem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:21:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't support Hillary (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Baculum King, dougymi, Lisactal

          but your observation is 10,000% correct.

          My tagline is there for a reason. I think that Obama and Clinton will both make fine Presidents in the mold of Pre-GWBush reality.

          The world cannot really afford either one; neither candidate will bring change that is needed, the real leadership that is needed to face all the many critical things that threaten the future of humanity.

          Unlike some of the WATBs here who will take their ball and stay home, vote for Nader, or worse McCain I will support the Democratic nominee.  

        •  I know, but I call them on it, anyway. (0+ / 0-)

          Honestly, this is just like the message board wars of 2000 with the Bushbots.  That was back in the olden days, before blogs.

          Carolyn Kay

  •  Some problems here... (8+ / 0-)

    First of all, so what if Obama doesn't 100% agree with every single one of his advisers? That's why you have advisers, to offer different viewpoints. Obama's actual vote trumps his adviser's opinion on telecom immunity.

    Second, Golsbee saying Obama won't be too protectionist doesn't mean Obama secretly supports NAFTA. There is such a thing as too protectionist even if you don't support NAFTA.

    Second, Power's statement on Iraq is consistent with what Obama said in the debate, which is that he will work with the best information he has at the time.

    Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. -Barack Obama

    by klizard on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:59:52 PM PST

    •  So it doesn't matter to you ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burrow owl, oysterface

      ... that Obama is out on the campaign trail promising stuff that his advisors say he can't deliver on?

      Did you even read the post?

      Carolyn Kay

      •  I did (8+ / 0-)

        The fact that he doesn't surround himself with YES men and women makes me comfortable.  I realize that it is harder to digest nuanced opinions, but you should try it some time.

        GWB surrounds himself with yes people.  And i get the feeling Hillary does too.

        •  Campaign staffers (0+ / 0-)

          What we know of what's going on inside the campaign supports your theory. There is every indication that loyalty is valued more than ability -- think of why Mark Penn has lasted so long or why it took so long to removed Patty Solis Doyle as campaign manager. If the way the campaign has been run is an indication of how a Hillary administration might be organized, it doesn't auger well for it's success.

      •  What stuff? Like Promising us that John McCain (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkC, object16, EntrWriter, tbetz, pgm 01

        would be a great Commander in Chief?

        Or utilizing Republican leadership to fund her campaign?

        <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

        by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The examples you used (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkC, sxp151, tbetz, pgm 01, paintitblue
        Don't really support that.

        If he says, "I want to get the troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible," or something to that effect, and then an adviser of his (an ADVISER) says, "It would be more realistic to think it might take a couple years to get all the troops home," I don't see the issue.  Maybe it's because I don't believe in immediate withdrawal myself, but I see no disconnect between a candidate's policy ambitions and the possible speedbumps to enacting that policy.

        A candidate's PERSONAL ambitions standing in the way of reality however...

        •  But he HAS been saying ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... that he would get the troops out immediately, whereas Clinton wouldn't.

          The guy's just a regular old politician.

          Carolyn Kay

          •  And I'm sure he wishes to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            And stop saying, "The guy's just a regular old politician," in every post.  You sound like a robot.
            •  Start with talking points... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ...and work back from there.

              Unfortunately, the blogosphere doesn't work like a press release.

              •  I wrote the post myself. (0+ / 0-)

                I know that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions, but that's the way it is.

                You'd know that if you read my website regularly.

                Carolyn Kay

                •  I'm sure it's your original work (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I kind of doubt the ideas are yours, though.  I've seen the same one-sided, tendentious stuff in all the usual places.

                  •  So, I should discount anything YOU say ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... because of your beliefs?

                    Where does that leave us?  You can't believe me and I can't believe you.

                    When does the unity part start, anyway?

                    Carolyn Kay

                    •  Carolyn, this is straightforward (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Look, you're trying to draw conclusions from evidence that simply doesn't support it.

                      To my knowledge, no one has vouched for the accuracy of the contents of that memo.  No one.

                      Is it authentic?  Yep.  Accuracy is something else, however.

                      Eyewitness reports are extremely unreliable, whether or not they're written down.  This isn't an Obama campaign memo -- it's a third-party recounting, after the fact, of a conversation.  Those involved in the conversation never had the chance to review it for accuracy.

                      And because this has been pointed out many times, yet these ideas persist, then it most certainly does appear that we're not talking about reasoned deduction, here, but rather talking points.

                      I would never discount your evidence because of your beliefs, though a history (or lack of same) of dishonesty would lead me to double check evidence produced by anyone.

                      The problem here is that most here are already familiar with this story, and simply don't agree that the evidence supports the conclusions.

                      •  The original report was most likely correct ... (0+ / 0-)

                        ... that Obama advisor Goolsbee talked with the consulate and told them not to worry about Obama's rhetoric.  Why would anybody lie about that, either the person who leaked it to CTV or the CTV reporter?

                        I think they tried to drag Hillary into it because they had egg all over their faces and could be accused of having an effect on our elections.  If they accused her too, they could look "bipartisan".

                        But the fact that the last statement agrees with the first one makes me think that those two are the true story.

                        Carolyn Kay

          •  No, he's been saying... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MarkC, sxp151, EntrWriter, pgm 01

            "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless going in."

            Precisely what Power said, but in fewer words.

            •  Un huh. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The guy's great a being vague.  He loves to give himself deniability.  And the folks that have fallen for him always give him the benefity of the doubt.

              Carolyn Kay

              •  Better to be vague (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                about that which you can't POSSIBLY be specific and honest about this early, than to nail yourself down to something unrealistic, or to flat out lie to get votes.
                •  But every time Clinton does that ... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... they ream her another you know what.

                  I'm just saying that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

                  Carolyn Kay

                  •  If there's one thing Hillary (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    has never been accused of, in my memory, by the MSM or even an Obama supporter, it's being vague.

                    Calculating, duplicitous, hypocritical, triangulating, self-defeating, ill-prepared, arrogant, etc...  But not vague.

                    Obama deserves to be asked about being vague.  Hillary, however, does not get to play a victim for things that only happen to Obama.  She can play the victim about a million other things.

          •  Don't think Obama ever said "immediately" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            EntrWriter, tbetz, pgm 01

            I find an article suggesting that here, but if you read the actual statement, he says, "The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops." (Emphasis added.)

            Another article from around the same time interprets the same statement in the opposite way.
            "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday if U.S. troops aren't out of Iraq by the time he's president, the first thing he'd do in office is order the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 'get a plan to begin withdrawing" troops from Iraq. He was careful not to say he'd try to bring troops home immediately."This will be a messy withdrawal,' Obama said. 'People who say we'll just pull them out are irresponsible.'"

            Seems pretty consistent to me.

            I'm an Obama supporter, but I'll still defend Clinton.

            by sxp151 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:26:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then why has he repeatedly criticized Clinton ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... for NOT saying she'll bring the troops out immediately?  In fact, Clinton has always said pretty much what Powers said.  And Obama supporters have jumped all over her for it.

              Carolyn Kay

              •  Cite an example, please? (0+ / 0-)

                If he's criticized her unfairly, you must certainly have a link to an example of such an unfair criticism.

                •  It's in the POST. (0+ / 0-)

                  He criticized her yesterday, in Wyoming.

                  Carolyn Kay

                  •  I asked for an example of unfair criticism. (0+ / 0-)

                    What was unfair about what he said in Wyoming?

                    She was quoted either this morning or last night in Mississippi because one of my advisors had said that in a interview overseas that well Senator Obama would not... he has given a time frame for withdrawal, but obviously it would be subject to decisions and the situation at the time.

                    And so, Senator Clinton used this to try to imply that I wasn’t serious about bringing this war to an end. I just have to mention this because I don’t want anybody here to be confused.

                    I was opposed to this war in 2002. If it had been up to me we would have never been in this war. It was because of George Bush with an assist from Hillary Clinton and John McCain that we entered into this war. A war that should have never been authorized, a war that should have never been waged.

                    I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009.

                    So don’t be confused. Don’t be confused. When Senator Clinton is not even willing to acknowledge that she voted for war. She says she voted for diplomacy despite the title that said authorization to use U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq. So I don’t want to play politics on this issue because she doesn’t have standing to question my position on this issue.

                    Looks accurate to me.

                    •  The question was ... (0+ / 0-)

                      ... When did Obama say he'd bring the troops home immediately.  I said, he has criticized Clinton for saying she doesn't know when the troops can come home, implying that he WOULD bring the troops home on a scheduled date.

                      And I gave you the example of him saying it in Wyoming yesterday.

                      Carolyn Kay

          •  No, that was Edwards . . . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            who talked about "immediate" withdrawal.

      •  Not even the NAFTA memo... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkC, tbetz, pgm 01, paintitblue

        ...disputed as it is, supports the conclusions you're trying to make.

        Here's a question for you: does it matter whether you look credible in your criticisms?

        •  Does it matter to you ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... that you refuse to believe the evidence right in front of your face?

          Carolyn Kay

          •  I addressed the evidence below (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            And unfortunately for you, the evidence is widely available online (not just the stuff you pick and choose in an attempt to fit your conclusions) for anyone to see.

            Who you think you're fooling, I can't guess.

          •  LOL We had 8 years of Clinton "drama" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            EntrWriter, tbetz

            right in front of our faces (and in front of our children).

            We've had 8 long years of bush and his preemptive war that Hillary AND Bill both approved and signed off on.

            We have Hillary in her own words telling us how wonderful John McCain the Republican candidate is.

            We have Republican 527s led by Republican McCain backers FUNDING HILLARY's campaign in Pennsylvania (and TX and OH).

            We have all the evidence we NEED right in front of our faces.

            Thank you for your concern.

            <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

            by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:13:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you think there won't be a lot of drama ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ... if Obama edges his way into the White House, you've been living on another planet for the last 16 years.

              Carolyn Kay

              •  Kay kay... drama about looking to positive (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ways to develop alternatives to our society is not a bad thing.

                <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:36:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Kay is actually my last name. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I think looking toward the positive is a wonderful thing.  But we should never confuse the possible with the probable or the real.

                  If we don't keep our feet on the ground, especially about a candidate, we might make a mistake about who he is and what he stands for.

                  Carolyn Kay

                  •  We have adequate information about McCain (0+ / 0-)

                    and his lack of judgment in abandoning his sick wife, the Keating-Five affair and his lack of backbone in dealing with people who disparage his daughter and his supposed "ethically standards" forged in the POW camps of Vietnam (yet he now forcefully advocates for torture).

                    My feet are firmly on the ground and my eyes see clearly.

                    Ditto for Hillary. She beyond redemption at this point.

                    Obama has done nothing but exhibit good judgment and good values in his life's work.

                    <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                    by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:22:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Do you have a link handy? (0+ / 0-)

              We have Republican 527s led by Republican McCain backers FUNDING HILLARY's campaign in Pennsylvania (and TX and OH).

              I know there was an attempt by Limbaugh and others to get Republicans to vote for Clinton in Texas, but this is a new wrinkle that I had not heard before.

              •  Republicans for Obama (0+ / 0-)


                Carolyn Kay

                •  You are unethical and that is NOT the site that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  pgm 01

                  posted this information and you know it.

                  That site is not Republicans FOR Obama so much as they are Republicans AGAINST Hillary.

                  They see the writing on the wall from the incompetencies and corruptions of the bush administration and they note that Hillary would be a continuation of same.

                  <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                  by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:57:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't call me unethical. (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm trying to answer questions that really don't have anything to do with the post.

                    Just trying to help out, and you call me unethical.  That's low.

                    Time has more on the crossover voting.

                    I just don't think these people are going to stick with the Democratic Party in November.  And even if they do, do we want people who will drag the Democratic leadership EVEN FURTHER TO THE RIGHT?

                    Carolyn Kay

                    •  First, the person asked a question about (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      pgm 01

                      a specific link and you provided a sneaky link to the wrong site that had nothing to do with answering the legitimate question per that Republican 527 group that is affiliated with John McCain and is operating in Pennsylvania (and funded Hillary in Texas and Ohio).

                      That was unethical and I called you on it.

                      Secondly, we were not discussing crossover votes, we were discussing credibility and evidence.  You, again, obfuscate and try to play a switch.

                      Finally, your "concern" about the crossover of Independents to Democrats is duly noted. [Said very dryly.]

                      This is what Independents do every election season. They vote. And it is not for the Independent candidate. We do not have a proportional representation in our system of governance.

                      And, I'm not answering your bait question about the issue of realignment.

                      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                      by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:26:55 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, it is from Politico and NOT from that link (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pgm 01

                that the diarist threw to you.  That was incorrect, false and had no relation whatsoever to the Republican 527 organizations that are funding Hillary.

                Here's the link to the Politico article.

                   A new pro-Hillary Clinton group spent $864,000 making and airing ads in Texas and Ohio in the run-up to her victory in the March 4 primaries. And the group has at least $200,000 in the bank toward an expected air war on her behalf in Pennsylvania and the subsequent states.

                   American Leadership Project raised a total of $1.2 million – $1 million of which came from AFSCME, which has endorsed Clinton – since Feb. 21, according to a report it filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission.
                   Titelman, an attorney with ties to former Pennsylvania Republican Gov. – and McCain backer – Tom Ridge, reportedly was leading the fundraising drive. Reached by telephone in his Washington office, he declined to comment on the group’s fundraising.

                This diarist has proven herself unethical.

                <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:54:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And you have proven to be unethical ... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... by calling me unethical.

                  Do you see how stupid it is to call names?  It never gets us anywhere.

                  At all.

                  Carolyn Kay

                •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Thanks for the link. I would say that I was surprised but nothing surprises me at this point.  Why does the Clinton campaign play everything right to the edge of being illegal?  My hope was that even if Clinton managed to pull off a victory by pressuring the superdelegates that she would at least be a slight improvement over the "anything goes' tactics of the Bush administration.  I think she will have the same attitude with slightly different targets, and that will irreparably hurt the Democratic party.

          •  Do you ever comment (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MarkC, tbetz

            without tagging on an insult at the end?

            Please don't insult monsters

            by stevej on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:14:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Have you read the NAFTA memo? (0+ / 0-)

            I have.

            Nothing in it contradicts Obama's public statements about NAFTA.

            I dare you to read it and find anything in it that supports your assertions.

            •  Maybe you missed the part that was in the post. (0+ / 0-)

              "[Obama senior economic advisor Austan Goolsbee] suggested that of the Democratic candidates, Obama has been the least protectionist (unintelligible).  HOM asked whether we could expect to hear more of this as the elections progressed, Goolsbee thought not. In fact, he mentioned that going forward the Obama camp was going to be careful to send the appropriate message without coming off too protectionist."

              Least protectionist means most in favor of free trade and treaties like NAFTA.

              Carolyn Kay

      •  Read it, digested it, shat it out. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Poor Carolyn;  stuck in a cult where everyone must march in lockstep with The Goddess on every issue, and incapable of grasping that the process of honest and active discussions among advisors is what produces good policy decisions in the end.

        •  Cult. Uh huh. *I*'m in a cult. (0+ / 0-)

          And what am I culting for?

          Carolyn Kay

        •  As opposed to the Obama supporters (1+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:

          who attack people for not supporting their little god. I have a right to my opinion, political and otherwise, however Obama supporters, including my own sister, have told me that if I can't see "the TRUTH", I should not vote. And you Obama supporters wonder why people think you are a cult. Well, it's because you act like one. And I am an Edwards supporter and am now supporting Hillary. Of course, that put me on the wrong end of the argument on this site. And gets me attacked and belittled by people who should know better. At least if they are over 12 they should. Don't say things like

          stuck in a cult where everyone must march in lockstep with The Goddess on every issue,

          if you are an Obama supporter, aka Obamabot. Because all it does is make you look like you think YOUR cult is fine, but not anyone else's.

          What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

          by Demfem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:28:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, it is not your opinion... (0+ / 0-)

            ... that a politician's advisers must agree in lockstep with the politician they are advising?  

            Good. We have progress.  

            Now, explain to me why it is bad -- as Carolyn has insisted in her diary -- that Obama's advisers do not agree in lockstep with the positions Obama has publicly advocated.

            •  No, but their public utterances should be (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              similar. You know, advise in private, support in public. That sort of thing. Otherwise it looks like no one knows what the hell is going on, or what the policies are. And it makes the candidate look like a fool. Oh, my bad..sorry, forgot Obama is perfect. Must be his advisors' fault for not checking with him on what the current policy might be on any given subject. Or they aren't telling him what the policies are.  

              What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

              by Demfem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:41:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  When he's paying their salaries, I'd agree. (0+ / 0-)

                Until then, they are free agents.

              •  By the way, the advisers do not set policy. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                They advise.  Someone who acts as though something an unpaid adviser says is Obama's policy position is either ignorant or dishonest.

                Which are you?

                •  If all they are doing is advising, then (0+ / 0-)

                  they shouldn't be making policy statements, which is what they are doing. Advising on policy and running one's mouth to the media about the policies are two entirely different things.

                  What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

                  by Demfem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:27:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Advisors advise, candidates decide . . . (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Take the surge, for example.  This was a topic of public discussion over a year ago.  Clinton has advisors who took differing public positions on this - Jack Keane helped put the strategy together, Wes Clark didn't think it was a good idea because it wouldn't accomplish what it was supposed to do.  So, because she has different advisors with different positions on this, that means what?  Neither of these advisors have changed their minds on this, their positions are publically known and have been for along time, so your point seems moot. This isn't a matter of advisors having the same position as the candidates and if they don't not saying anything public about it, because Clinton has that same situation going on with some of her advisors, and everyone knows it, and it's not seen as her having one public position and a different one in private.  Same for Brennan and telecom immunity - he's one of many national security advisors for Obama, he has one position, others have a different position, and Obama is with those who say no to telecom immunity.

      •  rude again n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MarkC, tbetz

        Please don't insult monsters

        by stevej on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:13:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  BHO put himself in this position by (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      issuing a lot of vague promises and not filling any content (this is the kind of issue that make people think he's all talk, no substance, by the by), and by drastically flipping from pro-trade to some weird impression of Jennings Bryan.

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

      by burrow owl on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:10:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  EXACTLY!! (0+ / 0-)

        All hot air and no substance. What is he afraid of? That someone will steal his ideas? No worry..ideas only work if they have a plan behind them, and Obama's don't seem to.

        What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

        by Demfem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:30:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What statements has he made that support your (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        contention that he changed his positions on trade?

        Of course the claim that he took vague positions without providing content is complete nonsense, his website has detailed positions that he doesn't recite in detail during rallies.

        Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. -Barack Obama

        by klizard on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:55:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  heh... [too obvious] (12+ / 0-)

    Here is the quote from Samantha Power that you need to FULLY address and not a section that was lifted out. [I took the liberty to bold some key sections.]

    "You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

    Samantha made that astute remark and nailed the issue TO. THE. WALL.

    After all we have been through in this nation over the past eight years with a cowboy who never veers off course to prove how tough he is... it is folly for you to hold Obama to this same standard.

    Obama is NOT the President at this point in time. He doesn't have the full(est) information. The situation on the ground and in the political realm in Iraq WILL shift in a definitive manner before the fall elections arrive in this nation.

    Samantha worded that in a very precise manner and she should be commended for it.

    <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

    by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:00:41 PM PST

    •  But that's not what Obama is saying ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burrow owl, oysterface, kayfromsouth

      ... on the campaign trail.

      He's just a regular old politician.


      Carolyn Kay

      •  Obama says` (14+ / 0-)

        constantly that we "have to be as careful gettin out of Iraq as we were careless getting in to it."

        That is the same thing Ms. Power said, but said with more eloquence.

      •  A regular pol vs (7+ / 0-)

        a fearmonging race baiting John McCain loving pol.

        I'll take the former,


        I say, Bush = McCain and Hillary says, Hillary = McCain, therefore, Hillary = Bush. Vote Obama.

        by Hope08 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:07:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Honest question (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        What do you feel he should be saying about Iraq that he isn't?

        •  If he were being honest ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... he'd be saying exactly what Powers said in the quote above, and wouldn't try to beat up on Clinton for saying exactly what Powers said.

          Carolyn Kay

          •  I'm not too good at this stuff (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tbetz, pgm 01

            and it WAS an honest question, so I might've missed something big. But I just visited both of their websites, and under "Barack Obama's Plan," he promises to have combat brigades out of there in 16 months. Sen. Clinton's plan gives no indication regarding how long it may take. She does promise to start the process within 60 days, but while Obama lays out a "best case scenario," she doesn't even do that. It's important to those of us who want this war to end now in the sense that we know what his endgame is.

            Now it may turn out to be implausible, in which case the strategy will obviously need major or minor tweaking. What confuses me is that Sen. Clinton herself has been talking about 1 to 2 brigades per month, but will that be a constant rate? Since that's what Obama's website says, doesn't that mean she's shooting for 16 months also? If so, why doesn't her site say that?

            •  for the reasons Powers stated, We do (0+ / 0-)

              not know the real situation, what it will be like in Jan and how the process of ending the war will go.
              He promises to "end the war in Iraq", which is what all of us want.

              She lays out the cautionary plan taking into consideration how difficult it wil be logistically and  one example the problem of what do we do about the folks that have helped us?

              The Iraqis that have served our troops as translators, etc. She gives a more thoughtful, considered and yes, conservative and centrist view of what the reality is in Iraq, imho.

              Why dp you think all those generals and admirals came out in her support?

              poverty,poverty,poverty...the real enemy the democratic party should be fighting

              by Lisactal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:46:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Of course, it's important to you ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... and I want to end the war, too.

              What Powers is saying is that you can't really tell now what the situation will be in January of 2009, no matter what's being promised today.  And that's the very reason why Clinton doesn't want to make a promise today.  But Obama does, knowing that he'll have to re-evaluate in January of 2009.

              Does that answer your question?

              Carolyn Kay

              •  Sort of (0+ / 0-)

                But Clinton has said 1 to 2 brigades per month ( So the only difference is that Obama says it can be done in 16 months. I like to hear that. It gets me nervous when a candidate doesn't put any sort of timetable on it, because we've been playing it by ear for 5 years now.

                From what Obama knows right now, he thinks we can be out of there in 16 months. If that plan has to be re-evaluated once he takes office, I trust that the timetable will be adjusted and we'll be told what it is. I don't view it as dishonesty because everyone knows how fluid the situation is. Until I hear a timetable from Clinton, I can't feel 100% sure that she's committed to trying to end this thing the day she takes office.

                I understand your point, it's just a difference of opinion. I need that one extra reassurance - you're better for not needing it. I know ending the war is important to you, I'm sorry if I suggested it isn't.

              •  The difference being that Obama actually read (0+ / 0-)

                the reports and the news and followed the many assertions by diplomats and people trained in statecraft who gave MANY warnings that the bush approach to the Iraq situation was an error.

                Hillary, on the other hand, did NOT read the NIE. She did NOT exercise good judgment in ascertaining the underlying conditions for the bush administration's rush to war.  Hillary did NOT listen to experts from Hans Blix to Kofi Annan to de Villepin and our many diplomats who signed off on that formal letter with their knowledge that this was wrong to proceed against Iraq at that time and in that fashion.

                Hillary does NOT say the same thing that Samantha Power says.

                <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:07:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Better a 'regular old politician' (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        than a lying slimeball like HRC

        "I'm not a musician. I'm a rock and roll guitar player."--Little Steven Van Zandt

        by ChurchofBruce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:16:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Have you been (0+ / 0-)

        Have you been to an Obama rally?  Have you read the text of his speeches in full or are you just relying on soundbites?  My guess is the latter.  I sat and I listened at one rally in Cleveland and heard it with my own to ears about being careful how to proceed in Iraq.  You're way off the mark here.

        •  been to rallies in NH, listened to dozens of (0+ / 0-)

          speeches in full on CSPAN, including Michelles several times. Just not as impressive as her speeches when it comes to specifics.

          I recognize his ability to inspire, I like it but he ventures to close to evangelist land for a lot of people.

          I recognize his specifics are on his website but I still find her policies more impressive.

          poverty,poverty,poverty...the real enemy the democratic party should be fighting

          by Lisactal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:49:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I thought he'll be Right on day one (0+ / 0-)

      ya know no need to carefully examine all the particulars or history of an issue, black, white,against the war, for the war, no need to look at UN inspectors, gassing the Kurds, etc.

      poverty,poverty,poverty...the real enemy the democratic party should be fighting

      by Lisactal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:41:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I rather like the fact that Obama... (9+ / 0-)

    ...and his advisors don't necessarily agree on all issues, or at least how best to attain certain goals.

    I've heard it said: "If you're stupid, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people that disagree with you."

    Obama, I think, is pretty damn smart.

    I'm sorry I overreacted. Really.

    by turnover on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:01:25 PM PST

    •  But he's telling voters what he thinks ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... they want to hear, and his advisors are saying this is what is really his position.

      Hypocrisy is only important to you if you think it applies to Clinton?

      Carolyn Kay

    •  Having a POTUS surround by yes men (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      has really help this country for the last 7 years.

      You take the Power quote out of context.

      The Canadian government has changed their story 4 times in the last week.

      And you also took Brennan point doesn have his full argument:

      I do believe strongly that they should be granted that immunity, because they were told to do so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context, and so I think that’s important.

      Which is a really good point, but this isn't a FISA thread, so we won't go there.

      So Obama as president will be surrounded by really smart that will bring many veiwpoints to the president when crucial decisions have to be made.  Damn, this is a breath of fresh air after what we have had to endure for the last 7 years.

      •  Man, my writing sux today (0+ / 0-)

        I apologize for the D+ in grammar.  I

      •  But if they continue making statements ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... that are contrary to the administration's policy, it doesn't matter how smart they are.

        The public will lose confidence in the administration.

        Carolyn Kay

        •  Don't mix your arguments (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The public loses confidence in an administration if the administration does get anything done.  

          Now, during the campaign, when you are selling a message, when don't stay on message it hurts your campaign.

          However, once someone is elected, that means I have bought the product, so I don't care what you say, I just want results.

          •  Yes, well, not getting anything done ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... will also be a hallmark of an Obama administration, if we get that far.  The only real accomplishments he's ever had were taking credit for the work of others in his last year in the Illinois legislature.  Other than that, he's always been running for his next job.

            Carolyn Kay

        •  That only applies when there actually is... (0+ / 0-)

          ... an Obama administration.

          Until policy advisers are in the employ of the government, they remain free agents.

          To pretend otherwise is either an act of ignorance or dishonesty.

          Whaich are you, Carolyn?

          •  Neither, and you know it. (0+ / 0-)

            Of course the advisers are free agents.  They're even free to say what they think when the do work for the government.

            The hypocrisy, let me type v e r y  s l o w l y  is in Obama saying one thing, and his advisers saying, oh he really means something else.

            Obama tries to tell everyone what he thinks they want to hear.

            Carolyn Kay

    •  He isn't smart enough to make sure (0+ / 0-)

      that he and his advisors are on the same page and saying the same things. Or do his advisors do his thinking for him too?

      What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

      by Demfem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:33:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That response makes no sense (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        EntrWriter, tbetz

        So, your argument that it is good for the president to be surrounded by people that are simply there to blindly follow orders?

        Again, in the last 7 years Bushco has fired key people that told him that Iraq is bad, the economy is bad, the EPA is not doing there job, that the DOJ is acting illegally...

        What is wrong with having different opinions.  It's not like Obama has a bunch of Neocons for foreign policy or Rand foundation scholars as his advisors?

        •  Nothing is wrong with different opinions, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zbctj52, Lisactal

          however, when running for office, it helps if the advisors aren't going around contradicting the candidate. Looks like none of them know what their doing.

          What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

          by Demfem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:43:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know about that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Kay is from Louisiana, so I am surprised that she doesn't appreciate the Power comment more.

            Power, a female, throws out the "monster" word and apologizes and falls on the sword for Obama.  A day hit for the Obama campaign, but the "monster" label is turning into a meme and sticking.

            If "monster" comes from a male advisor, holy Batman on a bicycle.  But from a woman, it is Chicago/Louisiana politics at it's best.

            Also, having a advisers that are a little independent helps with cross over votes.  Clinton is, for all intents and purposes, the incumbent.  She has had a lock on the DNC machine from day one.  That means that Obama was limited at the percentages of D voters he could get.  Having advisers with other perspectives, has help cross over voting.

          •  Brennan isn't contradicting Obama . . . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            He's stating his opinion/position on telecom immunity, which happens to be different than Obama's.  Should all of Clinton's advisors/surrogates/supporters who disagree with her on her vote for the Iraq War now change their opinion/position and say they were wrong and she wass right just to get their positions in sync with one another?

  •  The Canadian Thing (14+ / 0-)

    Look, if you're going to cite my government as a source, you need to know that this is a highly partisan, minority government whose sole policy objective is to win a majority in the next election.

    They have been involved in several scandals involving duplicitous leaks and blatant acts of political favouritism.

    The opposition Liberals held a party gathering last Fall. Guess who they invited as their keynote speaker?

    Hint: he is on the verge of winning the Democratic nomination.

    When BO cancelled (because of the campaign) Howard Dean went instead.

    Want more? David Frum and Mark Steyn are long-standing allies of the Prime Minister.

    It took the Tories a week to get their hit story straight, and that bastion of liberalism, Hilary Clinton, was all too happy to play along!

    •  Oooh, please diary this! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Just don't assume your readers know much about Canadian politics. Or its location. But I think that Harper hasn't gotten nearly the level of crap he deserves on this, and because of that his plan to disrupt the American primaries is still somewhat successful!

      "Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes

      by MarkC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:23:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Something is missing from this diary... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    object16, tbetz, henna218, pgm 01, Hope08
    I think it's the "Crossposted at" tag at the top.
  •  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (7+ / 0-)

    Because surrounding oneself with a bunch of yes men cronies, is exactly what a President should do. Worked out so well for America and the world when Bush Jr. did it did it not?

    The people and soldiers in Iraq, for example, are just thrilled with the results.

    All my life I've had one dream: to achieve my many goals. - H. Simpson

    by henna218 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:02:18 PM PST

    •  It doesn't matter to you that Obama ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... is just a regular old politician, promising one thing to one group, and something else to another group?

      I thought he was transformative.  A new kind of politician.

      Not so much.

      Carolyn Kay

    •  If the war in Iraq is so awful (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      why didn't Barack Obama stand in opposition to funding it on the Floor of the Senate?

      Don't talk to me about yes men.

      Holler all day about hope. When it comes to calling out truth to power and real leadership, Barack Obama failed the people in Iraq and our soldiers. Period.

      He has failed to show leadership in opposition to the Iraq War where it counts, as Senator from the State of Illinois in the US Senate.

      I don't support either Obama or Clinton.
      And no real progressive should.

      I'll tolerate either one, as the Democratic nominee, and unlike many of the WATBs from either side, I will vote for the nominee.

      But take off your damn blinders. Obama is just another politician, angling for votes, even if it costs the lives of Iraqis and our soldiers.

  •  (sʇǝʞɔıɹɔ) u& (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glinda, pgm 01, punkdavid

    Clinton supporters don't get to complain about lack of African-American support, because your candidate thought it wouldn't matter if she pissed us off.

    by Sagittarius on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:04:44 PM PST

  •  different people have different opinions? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    turnover, tbetz, pgm 01

    that's unpossible!

  •  Here we go again (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, pgm 01, teyigdhk, paintitblue

    The "NAFTA memo" was an after-the-fact transcript of a spoken conversation.  It's not verbatim, and its accuracy has been questioned by those actually involved in the conversation.

    In normal times, that would be enough to discredit it.  And I'm not inclined to say "rules of skepticism be damned" just to push a candidate.

    At any rate, for the most part the memo itself backs up what Obama himself has said, and it was very clearly mischaracterized by the early CTV reports which were the entire impetus of this charge that Obama was inconsistent.

    There are real grounds to criticize both Obama and Clinton.  IMHO you do neither any favors by pushing obviously bogus stuff.

  •  Obama needs to keep his advisers mouths SHUT! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, dougymi, tbetz, punkdavid, teyigdhk

    I was watching MSNBC this morning and they were saying in the past these advisers rarely were on TV or on the radio or gave interviews.  If they did say something STUPID than the media never really focused on it because the candidate didn't say it.

    According to MSNBC with the 24hour news cycle and the internet, anything anybody says can be used against them.  

    As a result, Obama as well as Hillary need to keep their advisers on a tight leash.  Instead Obama's and Hillary's surrogates who speak to the press should themselves be politicians who tend to know how to speak to the media.  Policy advisers may be brilliant but they aren't politicians so they are at risk for misspeaking.

    Hopefully, Obama will tell his advisers to keep their mouths shut and instead his surrogates who speak to the press should be Congressmen, Senators, etc.

    •  I have to agree with this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, dougymi, tbetz
      There are certain people whom you employ to help you with policy.  They are meant to advise YOU about policy.  There are certain people whom you employ to help you with public relations and media.  They should be helping you with what you say to the media, and THEY should be the ones speaking to the media when you're not around.

      Policy advisers should stay in the back room.

    •  best comment on this thread. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, Glinda, tbetz, DemocraticLuntz

      I support diversity of opinion but those people shouldn't be talking to the corpmedia. The corpmedia wants to encourage as much fighting as possible, whether for nefarious reasons (i.e. a great many of them are in the tank for mccain) or for professional reasons (fighting = stories = ratings/eyeballs).  

      Sen. Obama doesn't need to help the corpmedia in this. Those advisors who hold diverse opinions should keep their mouths shut. There's room for that in policy meetings, not in meetings with the corpmedia. There's a reason that campaigns hire media relations people. Not everyone is good at dealing with those jackals.

      I saw that item at thinkprogress about brennan's opinions on telecom immunity and I didn't like it one bit. That may have injured the fight in Congress over telecom immunity (or it may not have, it hasn't played out yet).  It certainly wasn't helpful.

      A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

      by dougymi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:14:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  In the GE it will be crucial to have these idiots (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Asinus Asinum Fricat, dougymi, tbetz

      shut the hell up. I don't care for either Obama or Clinton, but I want the Democrat to win.

      Both campaigns are being run like tow bit candy stores.

      The trad media will eat these missteps up, and twist and distort Saint McCain to the high heavens.

    •  Agreed. Academics by and large ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      have a notorious lack of media savvy.  And frankly so does anyone who has not had media training.

      But this problem is relatively minor in comparison to the out-of-control Humvee careening in the Clinton camp.

      "The Revolution Won't Be Microwaved."

      by Glinda on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:17:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Liar! Liar! Diarist is a liar! (0+ / 0-)


    ....and an "eye of the beholder" to you too.

    by leftbird on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:11:13 PM PST

    •  Sheesh... Hilbots decided last week to attack (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sagesource, tbetz, leonard145b

      Obama on his strengths and that includes his good judgment in having such a distinguished and highly-qualified group of advisers.

      Trying to isolate him... it won't work.

      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

      by bronte17 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:16:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not a Hilbot. (0+ / 0-)

        Thank you very much.

        Carolyn Kay

        •  More of a droid, then? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glinda, EntrWriter, tbetz, leonard145b
          •  Not at all. (0+ / 0-)

            I was an Edwards supporter.  When he dropped out of the race, I took another look.  Of the two pro-war, pro-corporate candidates left in the race, I determined very dispassionately that Clinton's platform is more progressive than Obama's.  So I decided to vote for her.

            Then I saw the incredible hatred directed at her by people who call themselves progressives, and the demeaning, sexist vitriol.

            That turned me into a rabid supporter.  But I do my own research and develop my own ideas about what's going on.  You'd know that if you were a regular reader of my website.

            Carolyn Kay

            •  Aaaahh, sexism (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I'm a young woman.  And the only "sexism" going on in this campaign is the deluded belief of many Hillary supporters that by voting for HRC, they are getting Bill's third term.  It's the greatest scam of all time; all these women are voting for her under the banner of "women's rights" while privately wanting Bill back in the White House.

              I have no doubt that when the nomination is finally, finally wrestled from her grasping claws, her supporters will take it as proof that women are still oppressed -- when the fact is that any other candidate (that is to say, a candidate not married to a former president) would have been toast long ago.

              I don't hate her because she's a woman.  I hate her because her actions in this race inspire hatred.  I didn't hate her a couple of months ago, either, by the way.  Seems like you and I have both developed very strong feelings for her lately.

              •  You're wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                The intitial taunts coming from the Obama campaign directed at Clinton were meant to belittle her experience and make her nothing more than "President Clinton's wife". And they just got worse.

                And it's the Obama campaign that's been stirring up the hate.

                Carolyn Kay

  •  This has all been combed through so many times (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EntrWriter, tbetz

    It's not worth it to comment on again

    Hillary is a Skrull

    by LoLoLaLa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:15:42 PM PST

  •  Not Sure What The Point of All This Is (7+ / 0-)

    Diarist, you really aren't going to win any converts here.

    Wouldn't your time be better spent phone banking in Pennslyvania, the last "state that matters"?  Or dreaming up some simpler attacks on Obama (like "he's real black looking when you darken and widen his face" or "if there were a crisis when he was president he would be too coked up to answer the phone" and shipping them off to Mark Penn and company?

    See how easy it is?  Knock yourself out!

    •  It's not important to correct misperceptions? (0+ / 0-)

      I think it is.

      Besides, there may be a few visitors on the website from Mississippi, Pennsylvania, or Puerto Rico.

      Carolyn Kay

      •  I have a feeling most voters from those states (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        will be able to see through this transparent attempt at bullshitting them.

      •  Misperceptions to correct. . . (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tbetz, Great Uncle Bulgaria

        1).  There is a mathematical chance for Hillary to win the nomination.
        2).  Hillary never supported NAFTA, nor voted to go to war.  
        3).  The Clintons have run a smooth, smart, respectful campaign.
        4).  Hillary has accumulated a wealth of undefined "experience".
        5).  Hillary has a lengthy list of progressive, courageous acts.
        6).  The Clintons have achieved many milestone acts both legislative and historical that have created amazing progressive change in American life.
        7).  Hillary can still win both a majority of the primary states and a majority of the popular vote.  (Hint: Wyoming is number 26. . . .)
        8).  Hillary's proven track record with health care legislation proves that she is the one Americans should trust on this issue.
        9).  The Clintons have shows that they can win 50% against a Republican in a national election.
        10).  Hillary's core constituency is in no way based on very poor and very ignorant, disproportionately white female voters who are in no way influenced by years of national branding of the Clinton name as well as not so subtle racist fears.

        •  Obama can't win it, either. (0+ / 0-)

          Carolyn Kay

        •  Your #10 is the most ridiculous thing ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... I've ever read.

          I have a master's degree and am not rich, but not poor either.  I have no racist fears and have in no way been influenced by the Clinton "branding".

          You know, you can throw around these insults all you want, but all it does is inflame more than half of the Democratic Party.

          And I'm called strident.

          Carolyn Kay

    •  by that standard you'd knock 80% of the diaries (0+ / 0-)

      here off the list.  Who in their right mind is going to have their mind changed by joe blow's (UID 152175) diary entitled "Why I won't ever vote for Hillary Clinton" or "10 Reasons Why Barack Obama is the Logical Choice" or any one of the myriad clones of such diaries?  Who here has had their mind changed by such diaries? There are sure a lot of them, but I don't see your name as a commenter on why those are stupid.

      I think the issue is a real one, particularly for the reason that advisors should keep their mouths shut unless they're media people. Whether you agree with the diarist or not, it's an issue.  With the sorry nature of diaries lately, this one ain't bad.

      A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

      by dougymi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:26:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (6+ / 0-)

    So here I am. And here I’ll stay. I’ll use every talent I possess and all my energy to try to bring back tolerance, decency, and generosity to the country I love.

    You may recognize this - it's from your website bio. I don't see much tolerance being displayed to those that disagree with you. I see dismissive one liners and condescending put downs but hey, that may just be me.

    Please don't insult monsters

    by stevej on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:20:21 PM PST

  •  Bad strategy! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, pgm 01

    Carolyn, if you are going to write a pro-HRC diary, may I suggest you drop any reference to Stephen Harper? The man is toxic and it does not do your candidate any good being associated with him since questions about motives and such would undoubtedly surface, you know.

    •  that's a genetic fallacy (0+ / 0-)

      just because you don't like the source of the information doesn't discredit it.

      if it's right, it's right. if it's wrong, it's wrong.  now point me to the denials recriminations.

      •  Be my guest! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        •  Day-um! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          And the National Post is generally a real right-wing rag.  For them to slap down a neocon Conservative like Harper so hard is pretty amazing.

          Unable to deliver the mail on time with any consistency, Canada Post came up with an ingenious solution. It simply redefined late mail as "on time." Where previously the standard was one day across town, for example, now it would be two. Bingo: at a stroke, the corporation cut its late-mail rate by a third.

          That was years ago. I imagine the Stephen Harper of the time would have snickered at such transparent falsehoods. But now he is Prime Minister, and has convinced himself these are part of the job description.

        •  clearly you missed the point (0+ / 0-)

          so I'll simplify:

          If Harper says the sky is blue, it's still true.  You might look twice, but still true. Not dependent on the source.

          So, just because Harper says something, and he has a history of lying, doesn't mean he's lying.  I'm not saying that you should trust what he says (certainly, based on history you should be suspicious), but dismissing it out of hand without proof isn't rational either.

          •  No, I'll presume it's a lie... (0+ / 0-)

            ... until it's proven otherwise.

            That's what one must do with pathological liars.

            •  this from (0+ / 0-)

              the "hope not cynicism" crowd.

              one "must'nt" do anything, ever.  one chooses exactly how one responds, or deals.  all you're doing now is making an assumption based on your personal feelings and previous experience.  probably not wholesale wrong, but certainly it doesn't leave a whole lot of space for the possibility they are telling the truth.

              which probably happens at least sometimes.

          •  You're right! (0+ / 0-)

            I did not respond to your point. I'm glad that you did so yourself in your reply above by bringing up the notion of trust.

            For that's what it's all about in this situation. We do not know what happened in the case of the NAFTA scandal. What we do know is that somebody said that Ian Brodie brought up Clinton's name, and that was confirmed by more than one person. Stephen Harper, known to be a liar, then said that no such thing happened. Contrary to you, perhaps, I am dismissing Harper until proven wrong. And until then, questions about any motivation he may have to cover up Clinton's involvement (if any) will crop up.

            I agree though that it's a question of perspective. Either one of us may be in the right. Hopefully we'll know one way or the other at some point.

    •  So did all you Kossacks ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... discount what the Canadian government was saying when it sounded as though they were trying to say Clinton had done the same kind of briefing on NAFTA as Obama?

      Carolyn Kay

      •  Nope! (0+ / 0-)

        The original story about Clinton's involvement DID NOT come from Stephen Harper!

        •  But IT DID ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... come from the Canadian government.  The first report didn't come from Harper, either.  You just decide which reports you want to believe if they feed into your already preconceived notions.

          Honestly, this is like the fight over the AWOL memos.  The superscript wasn't high enough, so I don't believe it.

          Carolyn Kay

          •  Ian Brodie is not "the Government" (0+ / 0-)

            Carolyn, I think Brant's column is pretty clear on this.

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

            At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.

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

            Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

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

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

            That was before "government officials" started on the denial track.

            •  So, you believe the SECOND report ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... about what HARPER'S CHIEF OF STAFF said, but not the FIRST report about what HARPER'S CHIEF OF STAFF said, and you don't believe what HARPER HIMSELF said.

              I guess you just believe in hope.

              Carolyn Kay

              •  Here's the equation, Carolyn ... (0+ / 0-)

                ("Journalists from CTV news" + "Ian Brodie" + "Quite a few people" + "one source in the room")

                IS GREATER THAN

                "Ian Brodie" + "Government Officials" + "Stephen Harper")

                You may not agree. That's your prerogative.

                •  Of course I don't agree. (0+ / 0-)

                  The preponderance of the evidence is on my side.

                  If you insist on numeratizing it, is 2/3 Obama's guy was the goofball to 1/3 Clinton was the original source.

                  Carolyn Kay

  •  I only WISH Hillary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    and her advisors would disagree.  Unfortunately, they seem to be saying the same shit about McCain, superdelegates, etc...
  •  Carolyn (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, leonard145b

    go pollute your own website.  

  •  Astonishingly enough (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, mrchumchum, teyigdhk

    there are posts elsewhere with the same headline covering the same topic. You'd almost think it was a coordinated push to establish a talking point rather than an attempt to start discussion.

    Nothing Power said is unreasonable or far removed from Obama's stated position, which is not surprising given that she was one of his senior advisors before a Hillary-supporting journalist burned her. There can't possibly be any correlation between Obama's chief foreign policy advisor getting punked and Hillary leading a PR blitz about foreign policy credentials and "3AM," now could there? It wouldn't be the first time that foreign media have pulled a stunt on her behalf.

    Non-issue pushed by astroturf "bloggers." Next?

    No laws but Liberty. No king but Conscience.

    by oldjohnbrown on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:41:08 PM PST

    •  And I almost forgot (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Should it come as any shock at all that advisors have different opinions? That's why you have more than one around. It's also why it's valuable to keep some around that don't agree with the candidate. They're good sounding boards.

      I seem to recall that Hillary also has more than a few advisors who, far from merely disagreeing, have been screaming "F*%% YOU!" at each other and slamming doors for the last while when they aren't blaming each other for setbacks. It's a hotly contested primary. It happens.

      No laws but Liberty. No king but Conscience.

      by oldjohnbrown on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:44:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, and another point (0+ / 0-)

        I think we're all for legitimate policy debates, and differences of opinion.

        It just happens that supporting amnesty for telcos isn't a legitimately disagreeable opinion.

        Besides the fact that it undermines the constitution it pretty much closes the door on one of the most egregiously illegal aspects of the Bush reign.  Far more damaging than simply bad legislation.

      •  Yeah, but the only thing Hillary advisers... (0+ / 0-)

        ... have been arguing about is campaign strategy.  They don't care much about policy -- all they are really interested in is getting elected, and all their energy is focused on making Obama look bad in the press, playing the refs.

        Unlike the Obama campaign, where the 50-state campaign strategy is a given, and those not directly involved in implementing it have time to argue policy points.

    •  "you'd almost think it was a coordinated push" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      Carolyn, they need to give you a raise.

      •  careful about that... (0+ / 0-)

        One could make the same assertion about all the recent diaries from people who just joined (say with UIDs higher than 148000) describing their multiple reasons advocating the candidacy of the Illinois Senator.  One could make the assertion that they might have been sent straight from the Obama campaign.  I don't think you want to go there.

        A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

        by dougymi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:33:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  UID snobbery (0+ / 0-)

          You're right.  They should have stopped accepting new members right after you signed up.

          HRC:  Insult 40 States.
          HRC Supporters:  Insult 6-Digit UIDs.

          Neither seems like a particularly brilliant way to bring people into the process.

          I guess I'll just mosey my high-UID-havin', latte-drinkin', Prius-drivin', trust-fund-havin' self on out of here, then.

          •  horsecrap (0+ / 0-)

            look at my friggin comments before putting me in some kind of box. I made no accusation about you personally, just gave you a warning about going to that place. Now you have accused me falsely of being a supporter of Sen. Clinton.  You don't know anything about me, but you make accusations.  It's clear you don't know much about the community here either, since you're the one who agreed with the accusation about the diarist in the first place.

            A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

            by dougymi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:54:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  They could afford to raise my salary by ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... 100,000,000,000 percent.

        Because my salary is zero.

        Carolyn Kay

  •  Here's a thought (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Instead of saying "regular old politician" in every single comment you post (caution: may be hyperbole, I haven't checked them all). Maybe you'd like to make an actual case.

    If the common sense approach to Iraq described in the Powers quote you cite (but not, I notice, in the portion of the quote you give -- sloppy) directly contradicts what Obama has said on the campaign trail, show us the quote. In context.
    My feeling, however, is that you can't without stretching semantics to the breaking point.
    Powers said he'll get the best advice, then try to follow the best possible course. If it's your proposition that Hillary will do something different (and, if it's any comfort, I agree with you on that), then please explain what makes that approach better.

    As for the NAFTA issue, please remember:

    Hillary has been pro-NAFTA in the past. If her reasoning has changed, she can explain it. Otherwise, it seems like a politically expedient conversion.
    The original story was reported by the tabloid-like CTV. The more vetted version (which clears the Obama campaign, but potentially implicates Hillary's) came through the more reputable CBC. And if you'll listen to a neo-con, even a Canadian one, then yes, your credulity is suspect. Just because you can find a source that says what you want to hear, it doesn't mean they're right. That's what real investigation, weighing of evidence and assessing of credibility are supposed to determine.
    You're sounding like George Tenent. Maybe you could tell us the Obama NAFTA scandal is a "slam dunk". Just for the chuckles.

    The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David Friedman

    by Jaxpagan on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:48:33 PM PST

  •  On the licenses for illegal immigrants... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbetz, pgm 01, davepez

    ...Hillary took the lead and contradicted herself!  Who needs advisers?

  •  Hillary says one thing about legislation... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...and the sponsors and co-sponsors say something else entirely!  Like the Levin Amendment.  Hillary says it ceded U.S. Sovereignty to the U.N. security council.  Everyone else said "WFT?"

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site