No NAFTA briefing from Clinton campaign

[ACanadianLiberal]

Remember couple of days ago, those Obama supporters here chanted around about Clinton behind the NAFTAgate, Clinton camp making same assurance to the Canadian official as well. Now this has been denouced by the Canadian official, Sandra Buckler, the spokeswoman for prime minister Stephan Harper.

"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.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home

Read it, you crazy Obama worshipper?

Now, can we conclude?

Obama Owns NAFTAgate Totally

[shraby]

1. Actually, who gives a shit?

Obama is the winner. Live with it.

[ACanadianLiberal]

4. So, your attitiude is whatever as long as it helps Obama to win.

Right? Right! You are insanely pathetic. How could same pool of people here have charged Clintons "will do anything to win".

Now you people are shamelessly proud of yourself shameless.

No matter what, Obama wins.

Wait a minut,

has he won so far?
No.

Has he won the GE yet?
No.

[DJ13]

2. "The answer is no, they did not," said Harper spokeswoman

Oh thats a credible source.

Not.

Neocon Harper doesnt want to lose his favorite advisor.

You expect a neocon politician to tell the truth?

:rofl:

[Buzz Clik]

3. Nice try, CanadiaLiberal, but your cherry picking has exposed you.

The revelations about Mr. Brodie's conversation with CTV have left a key unanswered question that holds some implications for the U.S. election.

Sources who overheard that conversation say he specifically mentioned that Canadian diplomats did get assurances from the Clinton camp — and he never raised Mr. Obama's name.

Why the fuck did you not include that portion of the article? Why? Because you are trying to interfere with what's happening here.

You paint an interesting picture, but the medium you've chosen is pure bullshit.

[ACanadianLiberal]

6. So, you trust more on overheard than official statement from a spokeswoman.

Is there an English word called "delusional"?

You are quite delusional. You do not need anything to back up your charge actually. All you need is to listen to the heart pump in your chest. Everything will work out for you beautifully.

[Buzz Clik]

7. LOL! You don't speak English in Canada? Here's an English word for you: twit.

This entire controversy is about inuendo and overheard conversations. There is not one report in first person. Not one.

[ACanadianLiberal]

9. You want people to believe all were overheard

How conveniently wishfull you are! Have we all known there is a memo somewhere? A memo is a record, stupid.

[Buzz Clik]

11. One thing is becoming clear about Canada: you speak English but don't read it.

I cannot help you.

[ACanadianLiberal]

12. What kind of English do you want me to use, YOUR English?

"Sources who overheard that conversation say he specifically mentioned that Canadian diplomats did get assurances from the Clinton camp — and he never raised Mr. Obama's name".

"That begs the question: why was Ms. Clinton's name raised at all"?

"Mr. Brodie does not deny downplaying the Democrats' anti-NAFTA rhetoric in a conversation with CTV, but he says he cannot recall mentioning any specific presidential candidate".

"Ms. Clinton's team reacted furiously to the Brodie story and offered the Canadian government "blanket immunity" to publicly release the name of any campaign official who might have offered such back-channel assurances".

Is this the very ENGLISH you are talking about?

[TwilightGardener]

5. Nope--this was all planned to hurt Obama. The Clintons are fucking liars.

[ACanadianLiberal]

8. Now you man has been exposed as a liar, it's all Clinton's fault.

Surely it works for you.

Good try.

[mod mom]

10. GO TO THE DLC website-Look whose picture is on the leadership team & read their policy

on trade: FREE TRADE!

[AtomicKitten]

13. Neither was there one from Barack -- THERE WAS NO SUCH BRIEFING!!!

The head of the Canadian Broadcast Co. was on Washington Journal last night and said neither candidate said anything of the sort and that Hillary was in essence a political opportunist in blaming this on Obama.

Like we didn't already know that.

[AdHocSolver]

14. Reality check. Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA through Congress. The Clintons own NAFTA.

If she really was at all involved in policy when she lived in the White House, if she had any worthwhile experience there, the public would have heard about her opposing NAFTA. NAFTA is NOT "free trade". It is a corporate-sponsored trade agreement to prevent free trade, that is, to prevent competition. It is designed to carve up trade areas for a cartel of corporations. Stop using corporate propaganda in discussing this issue.

Moreover, this was Clinton's project from day one. Many Congressional Democrats opposed NAFTA. Clinton twisted their arms to get it pushed through Congress. He considered it one of his major accomplishments. Why any union member would believe that Clinton was on their side is beyond belief.

Moreover, Clinton pushed through Republican-designed "welfare reform". This was supposed to get those lazy "welfare queens" who sponged off of the taxpayers to put their kids in day-care and get "jobs". Why women would look upon a former Republican from an upper middle class background whose husband bragged about pushing through policies that made women's lives more difficult as their preferred candidate also mystifies me.

Bill Clinton also drove the stake into the Glass-Steagall Act, a part of FDR's New Deal, which was designed to prevent the kind of scams that led to the mortgage meltdown we see today. The Clintons are NO populists, and no friends of labor.

If people are going to discuss the relative merits between the candidates, let us at least consider their historical actions, and not just their campaign rhetoric.

One last rant about Clinton. When Joe Lieberman endorsed John McCain, there was a flurry of condemnation. Hillary's de facto endorsement of McCain over another Democrat, Obama, has brought forth unusual silence on DU. Party loyalty does not seem to be a major issue for Democrats. Could that have any bearing on why the Democrats have trouble winning?