Just as much as his hypocritical NAFTA stance, it's his LYING that is a problem for BHO.

[MoonRiver]

He lied about his position on NAFTA. PERIOD. CASE CLOSED. He can scream and yell all he wants that Clintons were pro-NAFTA, but he's the one caught lying. Besides Hillary has a long record of being ambivalent about NAFTA, and has publically stated she would demand a renegotiation of NAFTA after being sworn in.

Then, he lies on camera numerous times stating that the meeting with Goolsbee and Canadian officials didn't take place.

Then, he claims he's just arguing that it didn't take place the way the original leak stated it did. So he's calling the Canadian official in the meeting who leaked the information a liar. Yeah, right.

Now, they're trying to claim that Goolsbee doesn't speak for Obama. OK, then why was he in a meeting with Canadian officials, sent by Obama specifically to discuss and obviously relieve anxiety about, Obama's NAFTA position.

Obama is a liar. THAT is what voters will reject.

[mmonk]

1. That's it. I'm out of here.

[Labors of Hercules]

47. All it took was adding the "H" to know this one's a troll.

Hello ignore.

[anonymous171]

2. I think I called this shift in talking points.

[anonymous171]

12. Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4838116&mesg_id=4838289

[quinnox]

3. K & R Obama is not trustworthy

He has pulled the wool over the eyes of the people. He is a typical politician just like everyone else, say one thing and do another. There is nothing novel or unique about Obama.

[virtualobserver]

8. that is the main hillary talking point.....

he's just as bad as me.

[StClone]

4. The sooner this is over the better

I hope this party isn't splintered by some of the most rancorous in-fighting that I can recall. Most of it baseless and over-dramatized.

[Lucinda]

5. That's what I've been hearing on the tele all day long...

[Benhurst]

6. No way! Chicago politicians don't lie.

[Little Star]

7. Sounds like he is turning to glue finally. Now he is going

negative. You know, the new type politician that he is. People have been played for suckers by all that crap. Now lets vet the sucker for real!!!!!

[Liberal Veteran]

9. Wow. Who needs right wingers when we have each other?

The scorched earth politics of the Hillbots is starting to grate on my nerves.

[Liberal Veteran]

10. Voters may also reject the scorched earth politics of the Hillbots.

[DJ13]

11. You represent the WORST of the Hillary supporters

And Im being kind.

[MoonRiver]

13. Truth hurts.

Try looking at your candidate with a grain of reality.

[DJ13]

16. Truth? From a Hillary supporter?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Bake]

36. Regardless of who points it out

Why don't you try responding to the FACTS???? Instead of pointing the finger at somebody else. Shooting the messenger. Respond to the FACTS.

Oh. That's hard, isn't it. It does appear that BHO was less than up-front about this.

Bake

[tabasco]

18. You probably believe Hillary didn't have time to release her tax info.

Hillary thanks you for your gullibility. She is relying on voters like you!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

14. The worst thing about Hillary is that some of her supporters make her look bad

by posting the same bullshit over and over and over after it has already been proven wrong, and claiming it's news.

[bunnies]

15. Yep. The Clinton are pillars of TRUTH.

:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

17. Hillary jumped on a lie that has been debunked because she was caught in a lie during the debate

Video of http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com">Member of Canadian Parliament debunking the story and mentioning Canada's apology

News from the Embassy of Canada

Statement by the Canadian Embassy

Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008 — The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.

Obama's position on NAFTA isn't a secret. He opposed the Clintons' horrible NAFTA bill, but he isn't opposed to free trade. He also made his position clear during the last debate:

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you did, in 2004, talk to farmers and suggest that NAFTA had been helpful. The Associated Press today ran a story about NAFTA saying that you have been consistently ambivalent towards the issue.

A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this has not worked for us, we are out?

OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.

And that is not what has been happening so far. That is something that I have been consistent about.

I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, you know, when I ran for the United States Senate, the "Chicago Tribune," which was adamantly pro-NAFTA noted that in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA. And that conversation that I had with the Farm Bureau, I was not ambivalent at all.

What I said was that NAFTA and other trade deals can be beneficial to the United States, because I believe every U.S. worker is as productive as any worker around the world. And we can compete with anybody.

And we can't shy away from globalization. We can't draw a moat around us. But what I did say in that same quote, if you look at it, was that the problem is we've been negotiating just looking at corporate profits and what's good for multinationals, and we haven't been looking at what's good for communities here in Ohio, in my home state of Illinois, and across the country. And as president, what I want to be is an advocate on behalf of workers.

Look, you know, when I go to these plants, I meet people who are proud of their jobs. They are proud of the products that they have created. They have built brands and profits for their companies. And when they see jobs shipped overseas and suddenly they're left not just without a job, but without health care, without a pension, and are having to look for seven-buck-an-hour jobs at the local fast-food joint, that is devastating on them, but it's also devastating on the community.

That's not the way that we're going to prosper as we move forward.

link

Neither is the fact that Hillary was caught in a lie:

RUSSERT: I want to ask you both about NAFTA, because the record I think is clear, and I want -- Senator Clinton, Senator Obama said that you did say in 2004, that on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America. You did say that.

When President Clinton signed this bill -- and this was after he negotiated two new side agreements for labor and environment -- President Clinton said it would be a force for economic growth and social progress. You said in '96 it was proving its worth as free and fair trade. You said that in 2000, it was a good idea that took political courage.

So your record is pretty clear. Based on that -- and what you're now expressing your discomfort with it -- in the debate that Al Gore had with Ross Perot, Al Gore said the following: "If you don't like NAFTA and what it's done, we can get out of it in six months. The president can say to Canada and Mexico, we are out. This has not been a good agreement."

link

Video: Hillary Clinton in support of NAFTA

[Birthmark]

19. Don't be ridiculous

Messiahs can't lie. It's in the Bible.

Of course, that *could* mean that Obama *isn't* the Messiah after all. That will come as a blow to some people.

[MoonRiver]

21. Oh noes, now you have me all confused!

Is he or isn't he?

WAIT!

I know! I know! :think:

[Birthmark]

23. Step 1:

Does he weigh more than a duck?

That will eliminate at least one nasty possibility.

[MoonRiver]

34. I dunno. Have you weighed him?

Is this a 12 step program for recovering Obamatons? :shrug:

[Hoof Hearted]

49. .

:rofl:

[mojowork_n]

20. Don't let any facts get in your way, please.

First off, it's "Goolsbee", not "Goolsby," and while he may be a senior adviser, all he did was have a conversation with a guy from the Canadian consulate, who then wrote a memo, which was then leaked to the A-P.

But first fact first, Barack Obama made no statements, himself, to the Canadian (or any other) consulate, defending NAFTA.

I posted most of this in another thread, but it bears repeating. Prof. Goolsbee, the Obama adviser, may just have been leery about having too much read into his statements, in the first place, since he may not have been in a position to be making "clear articulation of policy plans."

It was two guys walking across campus having a conversation that both may have remembered differently.

From CNN:

"...The AP obtained a memo from a Canadian diplomat saying an Obama adviser had told Canada's government the candidate's criticism of NAFTA was "more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

But Austan Goolsbee, the Obama adviser, told the AP his statements were mischaracterized.

Clinton said Monday the memo should raise doubts about Obama's criticism of NAFTA, which is highly unpopular in Ohio after a large loss of manufacturing jobs there in recent years..."

link:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/03/democrats.primaries/?iref=hpmostpop

The CNN piece goes on to include a response from the campaign manager:

"...Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Goolsbee's comments came during an informal conversation on a walking tour of the University of Chicago, where the adviser is a professor. Plouffe described the AP report as overblown and inaccurate.

"This is being reported as if somehow this is an official meeting of an Obama representative and the Canadian government," Plouffe said. "That was not the case. He was essentially doing a walking tour and was essentially having a casual conversation and the report on that conversation was not accurate."

You'd never know that was the case from reading Reuters truncated synopsis, which goes on to change the wording and say the Canadian Consulate wrote a 'report' (not a mere memo):

"...Key Obama economic advisor Austan Goolsbee discussed his candidate's policies with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, which wrote a report suggesting Obama's words on NAFTA were designed for a political audience and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

The report was leaked to the U.S. media, prompting some Democrats to accuse Canada's right-leaning Conservative government of trying to interfere in the election -- a charge dismissed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper..."


http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0338038720080303

The really ironic aspect of all of this, for me, is that on the day before the most important primary election, Hillary Clinton (let's not forget whose administration brought us NAFTA, in the first place) is cast as NAFTA's "true" opponent, at least in terms of "the latest breaking news" media narrative, and she's magically absolved from any (shared) responsibility she may have had, in originally supporting it. Or for ever having spoken out publicly, in favor of it.

Makes you proud to be a North American.

There's more, at CNN, where Goolsbee names his accuser, and denies making the statements mis-quoted in the Canadian "memo":

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/03/obama.nafta.ap/index.html?iref=werecommend

Except, *darn it all*, I just realized from looking at the text of both those CNN links -- one is from the 'most popular' list, the other's from the 'we recommend' list. Tomorrow both links will probably be gone. I looked around on the page, but couldn't find a permanent link to either story.

[BlackVelvet04]

22. they won't be able to refute this so they will attack Hillary....

nothing is ever about Obama, nothing is ever his fault, he can do no wrong even if he lies, it's all the Clinton's fault.

What a bunch of lemmings.

[Quixote1818]

24. Several people did refute it above. nt

[MoonRiver]

40. Nobody refuted it.

They copied and pasted a diplomatic form letter from the Canadian government. Canada doesn't want to get in the middle of our primaries, and is trying to distance itself from same. That doesn't change the contents of the ORIGINAL MEMO which states that Obama's economic adviser Goolsbee met with Canadian officials and REASSURED them that OBAMA was NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING IN NAFTA AND THAT OBAMA WAS THE LEAST PROTECTIONIST OF ALL THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES, i.e. Hillary Clinton.

[BlackVelvet04]

45. No they didn't

they tried to twist it and turn it.

[Bake]

37. That's usually the way it is with the Jim Jones types.

I'm sure they've got the final vat of KoolAid ready.

Bake

[jody]

25. I strongly disagree, BO preaches change, what you call LYING is really CHANGE. n/t

[MoonRiver]

27. Exactly!

He changes his positions from one statement to the next! Viva la change! :D

[sueragingroz]

35. that's a gooder

[Bake]

38. Exactly. It's a change from the TRUTH.

Maybe it's, I dunno, "truthiness."

Bake

[sniffa]

26. Just responding to kick this and get it on My DU

I have a feeling it's going places. :popcorn:

[MojoMojoMojo]

28. I knew he was a liar when he said he doesnt take Lobby or PAC money

He implies he doesnt take money from big business.
"90% donations from small donors" reinforces this same lie.
When he actually takes as much money from corporations as Hillary.(And BTW he does take money from lobbyists and PACs)

[blm]

29. Clintons lie AND PROTECT the Bushes and powerful elite. THAT'S what you are voting for.

Whether you cop to it or not.

[Auntie Bush]

30. Yes, Obama is a liar! How many times now has he had to come back to the mike

and explain what he really meant...not what he said?

I'd like to know what else is he lying about? What other change does he plan not to really ,wink, wink make? That is what I'd like to know. We just have to believe him...but how can we do that if he lies about what he really plans on doing?

[MojoMojoMojo]

31. He may be lying about withdrawal of "combat" troops

Hes specific about "combat" because he may leave support forces and 100,000 mercenaries.That lie would hurt ouch.

[indimuse]

32. k&r

he's the worst kind...habitual. Then he starts to believe them..then his fans believe them. Scary. Just like Bush.

[CATagious]

42. name one lie!

you can't.

[emilyg]

33. k/r

[cascadiance]

39. So does she support American workers more than Obama? She'd be LYING if she says she does!

She wants to hire more Indians and other H1B Visa workers than we currently do at our expense!

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/hillary-clinton-pushes-for-more-h1b-visas-and-outsourcing/2207101325

She's also a head of the Indian lobby group that are championing this sort of sellout of our jobs!

[jody]

41. Who knows who BO supports, he preaches CHANGE so his position can change from day to day depending

on which direction the political winds are blowing.

BO is a political chameleon who adopts whatever position serves to advance his political career at the moment.

Chameleons are predators that survive by camouflaging themselves so they can prey on unsuspecting morsels -- particularly voters.

[cascadiance]

46. That's silly...

He's already came out in a Wisconsin speech and said that he feels NAFTA is flawed and needs "work".

And as far as H1B goes, Hillary shows me through her words that she is a KNOWN bad quantity on that issue. Why should I favore a KNOWN bad quantity over someone who might go forward and do the right thing. Common sense has one vote in the order as following:

1) Someone you know is championing the right thing (for me that was Edwards)
2) Someone you're not sure whether they will be good or bad, but tend to think they might be good.
3) Someone who's already spoken against what you want, and has a history to show problems with it (Her on H1B Visas, her money ties to the corporate world, and her husbands' championing of NAFTA and her mixed statements on NAFTA).

I just really can't see how one votes for item 3 if one really values a person's positions on issues before supporting them.

[ruiner4u]

43. mmmhmmm.. Change you shouldn't believe in. n/t

[MoonRiver]

44. Ding,ding!

You nailed it ruiner4u.

[Hoof Hearted]

48. He stood there and LIED. Said there was no meeting. Said it didn't happen.

Lied through his perfect teeth.