‘NAFTA-gate’ story takes unexpected turn

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[metta 0]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

With no source, no substantiation?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

With no source, no substantiation?

In case you weren't aware, all the text that is underlined is hypertext (clickable to a link) - just move your pointer over the clickable text.

[metta 0]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

With no source, no substantiation?

In case you weren't aware, all the text that is underlined is hypertext (clickable to a link) - just move your pointer over the clickable text.

I sure did go to carpetbaggerreport and read the actual article. The article made a blatant conjecture without naming a source or what made this semi-accusation plausible in the least.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I sure did go to carpetbaggerreport and read the actual article. The article made a blatant conjecture without naming a source or what made this semi-accusation plausible in the least.

Right. And how much confirmation did Hillary need before she used it as a talking point with the media? Cuts both ways, brother.

[metta 0]

Obama has himself to blame for his campaign's inept handling of the whole affair. His advisor did meet the Canadian diplomat whose memo was leaked . Obama then denied to the press that that was not true.

Ten Reasons Obama Slipped (http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=114371)

1. NAFTA Flap

When Obama’s leading economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with a Canadian official and allegedly told him that Obama’s stated views on NAFTA during the campaign amounted to “political posturing,” this was a huge blunder. It undercut Obama’s attack on Clinton for NAFTA, where she was vulnerable, especially in Ohio. It raised serious issues about Obama’s credibility with the American public, which is just getting to know him. (Especially since Obama first denied that the comment was ever made.) And the NAFTA flap called into question his leadership abilities. As I’ve been saying for days, and as Paul Begala said Tuesday night on CNN, as soon as this story surfaced, Obama should have said that Goolsbee was not speaking for the campaign and should have given Goolsbee the heave-ho. Instead, the Goolsbee comment keeps stinging him.

2. Rezko

It certainly didn’t help the Obama campaign that Tony Rezko’s trial began on Monday. The Rezko story has been lying around like a pulled hand grenade next to Obama’s headquarters for months now. Rezko is the Chicago wheeler-dealer who stands accused of money laundering and extorting bribes. He’s a longtime friend, funder, and supporter of Obama’s. And he helped Obama buy his house in Chicago. The Rezko ties, which the media finally began digging into, cast a shadow not only on Obama’s judgment but on his claim to want to clean up government.

3. A Blunder in the Last Debate

The Clinton camp wisely picked up on an Obama error in the Cleveland debate. Clinton had criticized him for never holding an oversight hearing on NATO’s role in Pakistan, even though he chairs a subcommittee on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that deals with NATO. All Obama could say to that was, “I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.” He all but admitted he shirked his duties to run for President! Clinton used this footage of Obama’s answer in an effective ad against him in the final week.

4. The Red Phone Ad

Negative advertising often works. That’s why we see it so much. And the “red phone” ad, I’m betting, did a lot to sow doubts in voters’ minds. Clinton almost split the male vote in Ohio and Texas, which is a huge switch for her. This ad helped position her as the “tough” candidate.

5. No Effective Counterpunch to Clinton’s “Fighter” Image

In the last debate, and in her speeches in the final week, Clinton stressed that she was a fighter not only for herself but for people in need. This resonated with the public, who admire her if for no other reason than she’s taken a lot of hits but keeps coming out of her corner with her head high. And this image contrasts well with Obama in two ways: First, it suggests that he’s all talk and no action. And second, it hints that his cool, low-key demeanor may not be steely enough either to take on McCain or to represent the country.

6. A Weak Economic Message

With the economy sliding deeper and deeper downward, Obama needs to strengthen his economic message. Throughout the campaign, Clinton has been beating him on the urgent issue of home foreclosures (calling for a moratorium, and a freeze on interest rates). He’s been slow to respond.

7. Too much time in Ohio

In the two weeks after the Wisconsin primary, Obama spent an inordinate amount of time in Ohio when all he needed to do, as Bill Clinton himself recognized, was to win either Texas or Ohio. As it became clearer that Ohio was going to be the tougher nut, Obama should have concentrated more of his time in Texas.

8. An Improvident Trip to Rhode Island

For some ridiculous reason, Obama went to Rhode Island on Saturday to campaign. By all accounts, he was always going to lose Rhode Island. And he needed that day—just three days before the primaries—to round up more Texas voters.

9. Failure to Bring Bill Richardson and John Edwards on Board

On Sunday on “Face the Nation,” Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico was one breath away from endorsing Barack Obama. Had Obama grabbed his endorsement (even in exchange for serious V.P. consideration, which Richardson was salivating about), Richardson could have done Obama a world of good with Latino voters in Texas. Similarly, Obama has been unable to seal the deal with John Edwards, who seemed such a natural fit with Obama during the debates. Obama needed to get Edwards’s endorsement for help among working class white voters. And it would have been of enormous help in Ohio.

10. SNL, Jon Stewart, Letterman

“Saturday Night Live” helped Clinton out two weeks in a row by showing the media as biased in favor of a hapless Obama. And Clinton made a conscious effort to inject some warmth into her personality by appearing on the show last Saturday, and by appearing on Jon Stewart Monday night. She also has done herself well by being cozy with David Letterman.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

metta, you're a riot. First you complain that Carptebagger's assertions were unsubstantiated and then you post that ####### above. You love the mud, don't you?

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Do you think it's possible Obama is talking out of both sides of their mouths on NAFTA? I do. Do is it change my opinion of him? Not really - it's politics! I jsut would like his supporters to acknowledge the same. Of course he's going to amp up the rhetoric in Ohio with the Democratic labor base. But unless he's a complete idiot, he isn't going to want to upset our biggest trading partner, Canada, and he knows that NAFTA isn't going away any time soon.

Incidentally, I think both Democratic candidates are full of $hit when it comes to NAFTA. If the eventual candidate continue their protectionist rhetoric (news flash: America doens't have all the leverage when it comes to free trade), I will have to take a serious look at John McCain.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do you think it's possible Obama is talking out of both sides of their mouths on NAFTA? I do. Do is it change my opinion of him? Not really - it's politics! I jsut would like his supporters to acknowledge the same. Of course he's going to amp up the rhetoric in Ohio with the Democratic labor base. But unless he's a complete idiot, he isn't going to want to upset our biggest trading partner, Canada, and he knows that NAFTA isn't going away any time soon.

Incidentally, I think both Democratic candidates are full of $hit when it comes to NAFTA. If the eventual candidate continue their protectionist rhetoric (news flash: America doens't have all the leverage when it comes to free trade), I will have to take a serious look at John McCain.

Robin, you only need to look at Obama's record against NAFTA to know where he really stands on the issue. This is smear tactics of the worst kind. I know that most people aren't going to bother to dig deep enough into his past to realize that, but come on...this just shows how easy it is to inject enough doubt in people's mind about Obama.

I'll dig up his record though if that's what it takes to convince some of you here. This is ridiculous.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[no name 1]

Do you think it's possible Obama is talking out of both sides of their mouths on NAFTA? I do. Do is it change my opinion of him? Not really - it's politics! I jsut would like his supporters to acknowledge the same. Of course he's going to amp up the rhetoric in Ohio with the Democratic labor base. But unless he's a complete idiot, he isn't going to want to upset our biggest trading partner, Canada, and he knows that NAFTA isn't going away any time soon.

Incidentally, I think both Democratic candidates are full of $hit when it comes to NAFTA. If the eventual candidate continue their protectionist rhetoric (news flash: America doens't have all the leverage when it comes to free trade), I will have to take a serious look at John McCain.

Robin, you only need to look at Obama's record against NAFTA to know where he really stands on the issue. This is smear tactics of the worst kind. I know that most people aren't going to bother to dig deep enough into his past to realize that, but come on...this just shows how easy it is to inject enough doubt in people's mind about Obama.

I'll dig up his record though if that's what it takes to convince some of you here. This is ridiculous.

Pull up that oh-so-full Senate record too, while you're at it.

[metta 0]

metta, you're a riot. First you complain that Carptebagger's assertions were unsubstantiated and then you post that ####### above. You love the mud, don't you?

hey Stevie, that's not mud. It came from none other than http://www.progressive.org/

Check it out

If you're frustrated about Hillary defying the daily obits on her issued by the media punditry, yoou're not alone.

Here's one by Robert "the Dark prince" Novak in WashPo

Why Clinton Isn't Dead

By Robert D. Novak Thursday, March 6, 2008; Page A21

The scope of Hillary Clinton's latest resurrection can be appreciated only in light of the elaborate preparations that had been made for her expeditious burial. That she is very much alive can be attributed to her true grit but also to the revelation that Barack Obama is not a miraculously perfect candidate after all.

Assuming that Clinton would at best eke out a victory in Ohio on Tuesday to end her long losing streak, prominent Democrats were organizing a major private intervention. A posse of party leaders would plead with her to end her campaign and recognize Obama as the Democratic standard-bearer. To buttress this argument, several elite unelected superdelegates (including previous Clinton supporters) were ready to come out for Obama. Those plans went on hold Tuesday night.

Clinton's transformation of the political climate with her decisive victory in Ohio and unexpected narrow win in Texas coincided with Obama facing adversity for the first time in his magical candidacy, and he did not handle it well. The result is not only the prospect of seven weeks of fierce campaigning by the two candidates, stretching out to the next primary showdown April 22 in Pennsylvania, but also perhaps what Democratic leaders feared but never really thought possible until now: a contested national convention in Denver the last week of August.

By chance, this critical week for Obama began Monday with jury selection in the Chicago corruption trial of his former friend and fundraiser Tony Rezko. For the first time, the story of this political fixer's connections with the Democratic Party's golden boy spread beyond the Chicago media. In a contentious news conference, Obama was uncommunicative. He ended the session by walking out and announcing that eight questions were enough.

Less obvious than his Rezko performance but more disturbing to insiders was Obama's handling of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

With NAFTA having become an expletive in economically depressed northern Ohio, the two Democratic candidates competed with each other in pandering -- denouncing the trade agreement that was a jewel in President Bill Clinton's crown. The trouble began when Canadian television reported that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had visited Canada's consulate in Chicago to reassure officials there.

Old Democratic hands cringed when both Clinton and Obama in their Cleveland debate last month blithely advocated the (dangerous) renegotiation of NAFTA. They were really disturbed by what happened next. Obama denied the Goolsbee mission, then had to back down after a Canadian diplomat's memo confirmed the visit. A longtime Democratic political operative, not aligned with either Obama or Clinton, told me that this was a serious misstep in what he had considered a flawless performance by a political neophyte.

This week, Obama lent credence to longtime claims by the Clinton camp that the young challenger would melt under Republican heat. Now he must face weeks of struggle against a revitalized Clinton, and there's no sign when it will end.

A month ago, before the Obama boom really began, his number-crunchers plotted a probable outcome wherein Clinton would win both Ohio and Texas on March 4 and still fall short of a delegate majority at the convention. To avoid carnage in Denver, Democrats have been telling me for weeks that a majority of delegates would somehow align themselves behind whichever candidate has the momentum.

But who has the momentum? Clinton will claim it, particularly if she wins in Pennsylvania, which would give her every major state except Illinois. But Obama will point to his advantage in the number of states and delegates won. A showdown in Denver may be unavoidable.

Such a showdown would reveal the consequences of eight years of Democratic procedural decisions that made no sense save for the premise that Hillary Clinton, as she expected, would be handed the nomination on Super Tuesday. That the convention will be held unusually late raises the prospect of not knowing the identity of the Democratic nominee until shortly before Labor Day. The decision to deprive Michigan and Florida of delegates because their primaries were scheduled too early cannot stand in a contested convention. That Hillary Clinton's candidacy still lives forces Democrats to cope with their mistakes.

© 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.

[no name 1]

metta, you're a riot. First you complain that Carptebagger's assertions were unsubstantiated and then you post that ####### above. You love the mud, don't you?

So you can post ####### from carpetbagger (as a credible source) but no one else can?

Edited March 6, 2008 by illumine

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do you think it's possible Obama is talking out of both sides of their mouths on NAFTA? I do. Do is it change my opinion of him? Not really - it's politics! I jsut would like his supporters to acknowledge the same. Of course he's going to amp up the rhetoric in Ohio with the Democratic labor base. But unless he's a complete idiot, he isn't going to want to upset our biggest trading partner, Canada, and he knows that NAFTA isn't going away any time soon.

Incidentally, I think both Democratic candidates are full of $hit when it comes to NAFTA. If the eventual candidate continue their protectionist rhetoric (news flash: America doens't have all the leverage when it comes to free trade), I will have to take a serious look at John McCain.

Robin, you only need to look at Obama's record against NAFTA to know where he really stands on the issue. This is smear tactics of the worst kind. I know that most people aren't going to bother to dig deep enough into his past to realize that, but come on...this just shows how easy it is to inject enough doubt in people's mind about Obama.

I'll dig up his record though if that's what it takes to convince some of you here. This is ridiculous.

Pull up that oh-so-full Senate record too, while you're at it.

Let's stay focused. The implication of this supposed leaked memo is that Obama doesn't really stand against NAFTA. Feel free to dig up anything about Obama and NAFTA you like.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[no name 1]

Do you think it's possible Obama is talking out of both sides of their mouths on NAFTA? I do. Do is it change my opinion of him? Not really - it's politics! I jsut would like his supporters to acknowledge the same. Of course he's going to amp up the rhetoric in Ohio with the Democratic labor base. But unless he's a complete idiot, he isn't going to want to upset our biggest trading partner, Canada, and he knows that NAFTA isn't going away any time soon.

Incidentally, I think both Democratic candidates are full of $hit when it comes to NAFTA. If the eventual candidate continue their protectionist rhetoric (news flash: America doens't have all the leverage when it comes to free trade), I will have to take a serious look at John McCain.

Robin, you only need to look at Obama's record against NAFTA to know where he really stands on the issue. This is smear tactics of the worst kind. I know that most people aren't going to bother to dig deep enough into his past to realize that, but come on...this just shows how easy it is to inject enough doubt in people's mind about Obama.

I'll dig up his record though if that's what it takes to convince some of you here. This is ridiculous.

Pull up that oh-so-full Senate record too, while you're at it.

Let's stay focused. The implication of this supposed leaked memo is that Obama doesn't really stand against NAFTA. Feel free to dig up anything about Obama and NAFTA you like.

And you said you'd dig it up. I'm waiting.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Robin, you only need to look at Obama's record against NAFTA to know where he really stands on the issue. This is smear tactics of the worst kind. I know that most people aren't going to bother to dig deep enough into his past to realize that, but come on...this just shows how easy it is to inject enough doubt in people's mind about Obama.

I'll dig up his record though if that's what it takes to convince some of you here. This is ridiculous.

Do you think President Obama should or would scrap NAFTA?