PDA

View Full Version : Looks like the NAFTA story is about to blow up in Clinton's face...


jAZ
03-06-2008, 12:04 AM
Wow.

Watch this CBC News segment...

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

According to this report, Obama's camp NEVER "reached out" to Canada ever. Obama's denial ("nobody reached out") was completely accurate it seems.

Instead, Canada "pleaded for a meeting with... Goolsbee" (not the other way around) and now is admitting "that it may have misrepresented the Obama advisor's position".


Add this to the fact that according to Globe & Mail...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home

"(Canadian PM's Chief of Staff Ian Brodie) said (to CTV Reporters that) someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.

It would seem that Obama's camp didn't approach Canadians... Clinton's Camp DID. And Obama told the truth in his denials... Clinton LIED in hers.

I wonder if the American Press will cover this tomorrow? If so, the whole issue would blow up in Hillary's face, Obama will have a very strong issue to use against Hillary and there might be a huge controversy about to explode in Canada.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 07:17 AM
Most of this has already been addressed. It doesn't matter whether Obama's camp was right about the narrow issue of who originally contacted who. What matters is the double talk that came out of the campaign when the meeting did occur. Nothing in this report changes that.

Remember, at first, the Obama campaign was trying to give the impression that the meeting didn't even take place. When that was blown up, they fell back to the irrelevant denial that they had initiated the contact.

And lets not forget the disingenuous effort by TeamObama to claim that Goolsbee met with the Canadians as a college professor not as a representative of the Obama campaign which was quickly exposed as false when the Canadians explained that this sort of contact was sought with all the campaigns.

Ultra Peanut
03-06-2008, 07:27 AM
Most of this has already been addressed. It doesn't matter whether Obama's camp was right about the narrow issue of who originally contacted who. What matters is the double talk that came out of the campaign when the meeting did occur. Nothing in this report changes that.

Remember, at first, the Obama campaign was trying to give the impression that the meeting didn't even take place. When that was blown up, they fell back to the irrelevant denial that they had initiated the contact.

And lets not forget the disingenuous effort by TeamObama to claim that Goolsbee met with the Canadians as a college professor not as a representative of the Obama campaign which was quickly exposed as false when the Canadians explained that this sort of contact was sought with all the campaigns.
http://i26.tinypic.com/2zo97hg.jpghttp://i26.tinypic.com/2zo97hg.jpghttp://i26.tinypic.com/2zo97hg.jpg
http://i26.tinypic.com/2zo97hg.jpghttp://i26.tinypic.com/2zo97hg.jpghttp://i26.tinypic.com/2zo97hg.jpg

pikesome
03-06-2008, 08:06 AM
Political debate at it's finest.

FD
03-06-2008, 08:10 AM
That whole thing was pretty targeted at Ohio and wasn't going to be used later on, whether its true or not is no longer relevant. (Except for people on message boards who like to argue about these things.)

patteeu
03-06-2008, 08:40 AM
That whole thing was pretty targeted at Ohio and wasn't going to be used later on, whether its true or not is no longer relevant. (Except for people on message boards who like to argue about these things.)

Yeah, there's no ongoing relevance to information that indicates that a candidate is telling voters he'll do one thing but privately indicating to others that he plans to govern in a different way.

FD
03-06-2008, 09:00 AM
Yeah, there's no ongoing relevance to information that indicates that a candidate is telling voters he'll do one thing but privately indicating to others that he plans to govern in a different way.

Maybe there are wild-eyed idealists out there who don't think every politician does this. If so (and I suspect there actually are some Obama supporters like this) by all means keep it going.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 09:24 AM
Maybe there are wild-eyed idealists out there who don't think every politician does this. If so (and I suspect there actually are some Obama supporters like this) by all means keep it going.

To begin with, this is a particularly blatant example of this sort of political duplicity. But even more importantly, Obama has attempted to convince people that he's not a typical politician in this regard and he's been surprisingly effective at convincing some of his believers. The bold part of your statement indicates that you understand this.

pikesome
03-06-2008, 09:33 AM
To begin with, this is a particularly blatant example of this sort of political duplicity. But even more importantly, Obama has attempted to convince people that he's not a typical politician in this regard and he's been surprisingly effective at convincing some of his believers. The bold part of your statement indicates that you understand this.

There's a real good point here, you can't take the high road and then quit because of political expediency. Especially if your using it to differentiate yourself from Clinton. She's got a patent filled for that maneuver.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 10:39 AM
Yeah, there's no ongoing relevance to information that indicates that a candidate is telling voters he'll do one thing but privately indicating to others that he plans to govern in a different way.

So now there is proof that Obama did not reach out to the Canadians but Hillary DID. She is doing exactly what you have falsely accused Obama of doing, yet you continue down this road?

Mr. Laz
03-06-2008, 10:44 AM
too late ...... damage done


political mud slinging at it's finest ... by the time the truth comes out the damage is done.

i may have to go McCain if Clinton pulls this out.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 10:44 AM
Remember, at first, the Obama campaign was trying to give the impression that the meeting didn't even take place. When that was blown up, they fell back to the irrelevant denial that they had initiated the contact.

And lets not forget the disingenuous effort by TeamObama to claim that Goolsbee met with the Canadians as a college professor not as a representative of the Obama campaign which was quickly exposed as false when the Canadians explained that this sort of contact was sought with all the campaigns.

Yep. I was kind of surprised to see dishonesty emerge like this from a campaign supposedly sitting on a bumper crop of scruples

patteeu
03-06-2008, 10:49 AM
So now there is proof that Obama did not reach out to the Canadians but Hillary DID. She is doing exactly what you have falsely accused Obama of doing, yet you continue down this road?

:spock: I'm not sure what you've got in your mind because I haven't falsely accused Obama of anything. In addition to that, I pointed out that Hillary was supposedly implicated in the same kind of doubletalk as Obama well before you apparently picked up on it.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 10:50 AM
too late ...... damage done


political mud slinging at it's finest ... by the time the truth comes out the damage is done.

i may have to go McCain if Clinton pulls this out.

Unfortunately for Obama and his faithful followers, the truth is what has done the damage.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 10:54 AM
Yep. I was kind of surprised to see dishonesty emerge like this from a campaign supposedly sitting on a bumper crop of scruples

And while Obama can't really be blamed for this, it's pretty amazing to watch some of the ChiefsPlanet Obama supporters digging deep into their politics-as-usual bag of spin and obsfuscation as well as slinging some of the most vitriolic namecalling we've seen around here in some time.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 10:59 AM
:spock: I'm not sure what you've got in your mind because I haven't falsely accused Obama of anything. In addition to that, I pointed out that Hillary was supposedly implicated in the same kind of doubletalk as Obama well before you apparently picked up on it.

Where is the double speak?

When asked if his camp had contacted the Canadians to privately reassure them that this was not his stance on NAFTA, he accurately stated that no such meeting had taken place.

Then it comes out that the Canadians had begged for a meeting with Goolsbee and had then mis represented the content of that meeting.

pikesome
03-06-2008, 10:59 AM
And while Obama can't really be blamed for this, it's pretty amazing to watch some of the ChiefsPlanet Obama supporters digging deep into their politics-as-usual bag of spin and obsfuscation as well as slinging some of the most vitriolic namecalling we've seen around here in some time.

If your political candidate loses it mean that your value as a person drops. The best way to validate yourself and your existence is to have your candidate/party win and/or look good.


Obama's fans aren't the only ones doing this either, it's part and parcel for almost all modern politics.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 11:26 AM
Where is the double speak?

When asked if his camp had contacted the Canadians to privately reassure them that this was not his stance on NAFTA, he accurately stated that no such meeting had taken place.

Then it comes out that the Canadians had begged for a meeting with Goolsbee and had then mis represented the content of that meeting.

It's not accurate to say that a meeting didn't take place when one actually did take place. Hiding behind the "no such meeting" language on the theory that there wasn't a meeting instigated by the Obama campaign but instead a different kind of meeting instigated by the Canadians is disingenuous to say the least. That would be almost as bad as the double talking pandering that you're trying to mask.

There's very little reason to believe that the contents of the meeting were misrepresented.

The doubletalk is when Obama publicly says one thing but then, through a surrogate, privately reassures the Canadian government that he doesn't really mean what he's saying in public. There's a lot of Obama chaff in the air, but it's really not that hard to follow if you concentrate. I've summarized the events and the various misstatements and nondenial denials that have come from the Obama propaganda department here (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=181140).

patteeu
03-06-2008, 11:28 AM
If your political candidate loses it mean that your value as a person drops. The best way to validate yourself and your existence is to have your candidate/party win and/or look good.


Obama's fans aren't the only ones doing this either, it's part and parcel for almost all modern politics.

I agree, but I've been told that Obama is the exception to that rule.

NewChief
03-06-2008, 11:31 AM
I agree, but I've been told that Obama is the exception to that rule.

You've been told that Obama is the exception to people's self worth being tied up in the candidate? :spock:

To me, it's even more likely with Obama because people identify with him on a very personal level. I realize you'll probably want to make some bullshit messiah/religion comment in response to that and use my words against me as proof of the cultishness of Obama's following but...whatever.

pikesome
03-06-2008, 11:41 AM
I agree, but I've been told that Obama is the exception to that rule.

Don't listen to people saying that, they're idiots. And self-deluded.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 11:49 AM
Pat: "The doubletalk is when Obama publicly says one thing but then, through a surrogate, privately reassures the Canadian government that he doesn't really mean what he's saying in public."

Obama himself, his staff and now the Canadian government have said that was not what was said or what happened.
If you choose to ignore the facts to hang on to the notion that he has publicly stated one thing and privately said another, nothing will convince you.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 11:51 AM
Don't listen to people saying that, they're idiots. And self-deluded.

When your message is 'new tone', 'honest', 'smile and personality'... that kind of stuff matters a lot more.

Carlota69
03-06-2008, 11:53 AM
Pat: "The doubletalk is when Obama publicly says one thing but then, through a surrogate, privately reassures the Canadian government that he doesn't really mean what he's saying in public."

Obama himself, his staff and now the Canadian government have said that was not what was said or what happened.
If you choose to ignore the facts to hang on to the notion that he has publicly stated one thing and privately said another, nothing will convince you.

Didn't Goolsbee (or whatever) say that it did indeed happen , and the Canadian governement said it did as well? Then retracted that statement yesterday?

So when did they tell the truth and when did they lie?

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 11:59 AM
Didn't Goolsbee (or whatever) say that it did indeed happen , and the Canadian governement said it did as well? Then retracted that statement yesterday?

So when did they tell the truth and when did they lie?


Goolsbee stated that the Canadian Govt contacted him, begged him to meet with them. He did not say that Obamas opinion on NAFTA was only for public consumption. The Canadians stated they misrepresented the content of the meeting. Obama nor his staff have said what he said in public was not what his stance is.

Carlota69
03-06-2008, 12:05 PM
Goolsbee stated that the Canadian Govt contacted him, begged him to meet with them. He did not say that Obamas opinion on NAFTA was only for public consumption. The Canadians stated they misrepresented the content of the meeting. Obama nor his staff have said what he said in public was not what his stance is.

See, this is politics at it's finest. I still dont know what to believe, or who to believe--meaning, it worked.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 12:07 PM
See, this is politics at it's finest. I still dont know what to believe, or who to believe--meaning, it worked.

True. This is one of the games that Obama isnt as good at. That is part of his appeal.

pikesome
03-06-2008, 12:08 PM
When your message is 'new tone', 'honest', 'smile and personality'... that kind of stuff matters a lot more.

True, but there's a limit to the amount of "new" any one's going to be able to bring.

Obama is still a lying, conniving, multi-faced hack, who employs people even worse, they all are without exception. Some are just worse than others. Look at both McCain and Hillary.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 12:13 PM
You've been told that Obama is the exception to people's self worth being tied up in the candidate? :spock:

You're right. My comment didn't make much sense in connection to pike's comment. The "rule" that I had in mind had more to do with my previous post to which pikesome was responding. It was a reference to the rule that it's common across the political landscape for people to be divisive, disingenuous, and vitriolic. Obama supporters have been as bad or worse than most around here lately despite the fact that Obama's campaign is supposed to be based, to some extent, on getting away from that.

And while Obama can't really be blamed for this, it's pretty amazing to watch some of the ChiefsPlanet Obama supporters digging deep into their politics-as-usual bag of spin and obsfuscation as well as slinging some of the most vitriolic namecalling we've seen around here in some time.

IOW, i've been told that Obama's campaign is about a different way of behaving regardless of how much or how little people's self worth is tied into the prospects of their candidate.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 12:31 PM
Pat: "The doubletalk is when Obama publicly says one thing but then, through a surrogate, privately reassures the Canadian government that he doesn't really mean what he's saying in public."

Obama himself, his staff and now the Canadian government have said that was not what was said or what happened.
If you choose to ignore the facts to hang on to the notion that he has publicly stated one thing and privately said another, nothing will convince you.

Not that Obama and his staff would have any credibility on this subject in any event (self-serving comments from political operatives and candidates generally don't), but Obama and his staff have said a number of things on this issue, several of which have been proven to be false and/or have been conceded to be false by Obama and his staff.

The people from the Canadian government who were participants in the meeting support my version of the facts. Those who weren't participants have the same problem that Obama and his staff have. They've established a history of making false statements about this issue. On top of that, they don't directly reject the substance contained in the damning memo (which was written to summarize the meeting) and their motives are certainly in question given that they would have to deal with Obama should he end up winning the election in November.

While we can never know for sure what was said in that meeting, the series of demonstrably false statements on the side of those trying to acquit Obama and the lack of the same type of credibilty damaging behavior on the side of my version of events seems to be a pretty substantial headwind into which you're trying to spit. :shrug: