Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

playing Ohio for fools?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:55 AM
Original message
playing Ohio for fools?
Obama was telling sincere Ohio voters how he'll help them, by renegotiating Nafta (which he is on record for praising on numerous occasions)......

while at the same time he was telling Canadians he's not serious about touching Nafta....they should not pay any attention to what he told Ohio

Pretty ghastly deceit

and....how many other times Obama been duping us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ExFreeper4Obama Donating Member (122 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Debunked
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Apparently Hillary's staff doesn't have access to forbes.com -
the article states she used the discounted info in an attack on Obama. That is so unlike her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
26. Hillary is so desperate it shows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDeathadder Donating Member (731 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
25. not Debunked, Denied
and the more people sniff around the story the more it appears to be true.

Forbes might say it's debunked but many in the media are starting to find the story to be very much true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bahala Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. Factcheck.org
The source of a story is an internal Canadian memo offering their spin on something an Obama advisor said. It did not even purport to be a quote, let alone a statement made by the Obama campaign. Are you telling me that if the Canadian government offers some internal staff memo paraphrase something said by a Clinton advisor that this is representative of Hillary's stance?

In that case, then what about the Hillary advisor who tried to bully Bill Richardson into endorsing her by saying that he "owed" the Clintons. Billary, of course, denied that the advisor was speaking on their behalf. Should we believe them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
45. HRC denied killing Vince Foster
but you seem willing to take her at her word.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcctatas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. How many more times will we have to rehash this freaking issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Last week Obama & Canada denied that it ever happened at all.
Edited on Tue Mar-04-08 02:16 AM by The_Casual_Observer
What's next?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. obama's denials mean zip
and Canada's denials are after US criticisms for interfering in US elections
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scriptor Ignotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
43. so when all parties invovled denied that it happened
you still suggest that it did.

but I suppose you know best, I mean it's not like you're some anonymous Internet poster out in the ether somewhere - you were there and saw what happened!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cooolandrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
4. Already debunked by Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
38. No It Wasn't.
It was a denial. Unless some magical spell took place while I was sleeping, that all of a sudden turned everybody into people who cannot possibly tell a lie or deceive, that's a far cry from debunking anything.

The only thing real so far about this story, is what is actually written in the memo. The words kind of speak for themselves, no matter how many expected and empty denials are given.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
5. Canadians were accused today of interfering in US elections
That's why they suddenly issued the denial.....

but it doesn't fool anyone:

Memo Gives Canada’s Account of Obama Campaign’s Meeting on Nafta

By MICHAEL LUO
Published: March 4, 2008
The denials were sweeping when Senator Barack Obama’s campaign mobilized last week to refute a report that a senior official had given back-channel reassurances to Canada soft-pedaling Mr. Obama’s tough talk on Nafta.

Senator Barack Obama’s senior economic policy adviser, Prof. Austan D. Goolsbee of the University of Chicago, met Canadians on Nafta last month at the Canadian consulate in Chicago, a memorandum says. While campaigning in Ohio, Mr. Obama has harshly criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement, which many Ohioans blame for an exodus of jobs. He agreed last week at a debate with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that the United States should consider leaving the pact if it could not be renegotiated.

On Monday, a memorandum surfaced, obtained by The Associated Press, showing that Austan D. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who is Mr. Obama’s senior economic policy adviser, met officials last month at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

It also said the professor had assured the Canadians that Mr. Obama’s language “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”

Campaign officials said the memorandum inaccurately described Professor Goolsbee’s comments, as well as Mr. Obama’s position.

“At no point did anyone in our campaign convey to anyone that there had been any backing away from Obama’s position on Nafta,” a campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, said Monday.

Mr. De Mora did not respond to requests for an interview, nor did Professor Goolsbee, who campaign officials said was unavailable for comment.

Nevertheless, the controversy, which drew fierce attacks from Mrs. Clinton and Senator John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, put Mr. Obama’s campaign on the defensive at a crucial moment. He and Mrs. Clinton are locked in a tight battle for the Ohio primary on Tuesday.

The memorandum exposed Mr. Obama to accusations of hypocrisy on a touchstone issue, although Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have engaged in posturing on Nafta as they scrapped for votes in Ohio. The two have used language that has been much more hostile in tone on free trade than the nuanced positions that they had staked out in the past.

The memorandum raises questions about the transparency and the ability of the campaign to address problems before they grow.

The controversy began last week when CTV, a Canadian television network, reported that an Obama official had called the Canadian ambassador in Washington to play down the significance of Mr. Obama’s criticism of Nafta.

The campaign and the Canadian Embassy issued denials that were, it appears, technically accurate. But they were incomplete because they did not address Mr. Goolsbee’s meeting with Canadian officials.

When WKYC-TV in Ohio asked Mr. Obama about the CTV report, he said: “I don’t have to clarify it. The Canadian Embassy already clarified it by saying the story was not true. And our office has said the story was not. And so I think it’s important for viewers to understand that it was not true.” When pressed, he said, “It did not happen.”

ABC News then reported that the Nafta conversation involved the Canadian consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux, not the ambassador. ABC News identified Professor Goolsbee as the official who met the Canadians.

Mr. Burton issued another strong denial, although he declined to respond to a question about Professor Goolsbee’s discussions with Canadian officials.

The spokesman focused instead on the CTV report and attacks from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign based on it.

“Again, this story is not true,” Mr. Burton said. “There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.”

When the memorandum emerged, it confirmed the meeting and that Nafta was discussed.

According to The A.P., the note reads, “On Nafta Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favor of strengthening/clarifying language on labor mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more ‘core’ principles of the agreement.”

On Monday, Mr. Burton stood by his earlier statements, adding that the policy articulated in the memorandum does not contradict anything that Mr. Obama has said on Nafta in the campaign.

Mr. Obama reiterated that point at a news conference in San Antonio, saying he favors free trade but wants to renegotiate existing agreements to include safeguards for the environment and labor rights.

But in Ohio, his tone has been harsher. In the debate in Cleveland, he agreed with Mrs. Clinton that he would leave Nafta unless it was renegotiated in terms more favorable to American workers. Mrs. Clinton, who has also found herself on the defensive about positive comments she has made about Nafta, has stoked the controversy.

When asked about his past denials, Mr. Obama said he had responded with what he knew.

“That was the information I had at the time,” he said.

He added that the Canadians had reached out to Professor Goolsbee and that he met them as a “courtesy.”

“At some point,” he added, “they started talking about trade and Nafta, and the Canadian Embassy confirmed that he said exactly what I have been saying on the campaign trail.” Campaign officials said Professor Goolsbee went to the consulate as a professor, not as an adviser to Mr. Obama and that other campaign officials did not know about the meeting when it was held.

In a statement, the Canadian Embassy in Washington suggested that the consulate had sought out Professor Goolsbee specifically because of his ties to Mr. Obama’s campaign.

“The Canadian Embassy and our consulates general,” the statement said, “regularly contact those involved in all of the presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials.

“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.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
17. You know what happens in a court case
where the star witness first comes out with the eye-witness account in an affidavit... but when called to testify in open court does a 180 reversal and says that it never happened?

The case is dismissed. Because you can't know if the witness was lying then or is lying now.

Usually, the witness is charged with perjury as well.

so... do you believe the Canadian government was telling the truth before and is lying now, or is it that they were lying before and telling the truth now?

You can't say for sure anymore.

Case dismissed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
6. An then there's the truth
Do you want it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. truth is Obama was playing people for fools
and the fact Canada issued the statement today means nothing

they were accused of interfering in US elections by spilling the beans about this

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ExFreeper4Obama Donating Member (122 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Did you read the article I posted?
Edited on Tue Mar-04-08 02:25 AM by ExFreeper4Obama
The fact Canada denied that they were reassured by the Obama campaign means nothing? The smear is based on the fact that Obama contacted the Canadians to reassure them about Nafta. Canda and the Obama campaign have denied this and that means nothing? Its true because Hillary says so?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
31. Truth is that your not telling the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
32. Truth is you're not telling the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
10. It's the unrequited handshake that really gets my goat. Midwesterners are so
much more pleasant than that.

Of course, that Hillary was so desperatly attempting to shake the hand of a plagairizing, almost-un-American-named suspect Christian man who would deny her her rightful thrown as emperor of the so called free world is pretty pathetic in itself and indictative of a real loser.

Personallly, I think that if either Hill or Obama had our best interests at heart, they would give their delegates to Ohio homeboy Dennis Kucinich making him the nominee and prove they really cared about NAFTA and Ohio.

Since that isn't going to happen, obviously, I guess I'm glad that Obama has gathered together such a big lead that Hillary will never catch him and sooner than later this non-sense will be over.

Then we can focus on vanquishing McCain and bringing about some changes in our country and the world.

Have a good day!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
12. Haven't We Had Enough Lies The Last 7 Years?
Is this what we can expect from Hillary for the next four if, heaven help us, she get elected? Thanks for keeping the BS going!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. lies, lies, lies
you're accusing the wrong individual

Canada was criticized for potentially interfering in US elections....hence they issued their recent statement

given Obama's long time positive assessment of Nafta.....his statement that the US has benefited enormously from Nafta.....wellll....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. It Wasn't Obama You Ass
It was a campaign spokesperson who said his comments were misconstrued. At least get your LIES straight.

By the way, what did happen to Vince Foster?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. ha ha ha Obama's campaign spokesman said it was a lie? how convenient
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Comprehension Problem? It Was The Campaign Spokesman
that talked to the Canadians and he said they got it wrong!!

Now, about Vince...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. Of course, you leave out that
Edited on Tue Mar-04-08 02:53 AM by lapfog_1
Hillary has been on record (read back to her by Tim Russert in the last debate) as saying SHE thinks NAFTA has been "good for New York and good for the nation"... not only that, but the same leaked report also stated that Hillary's people had very similar meetings with Canadian foreign diplomats.

This one is a non-story, except for the poo-flinging flying monkey brigade trying to tear down Obama... again.

I repeat, was Canada lying before or are they lying now? And if you say one or the other, how can anyone give that any credence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
15. Actually, it's Hillary trying to play Ohio for fools
It's the ultimate hypocrisy for Hillary to tell Ohio she would change NAFTA after consistently voting for it as well as pushing to raise the H1B VISA limits. I'm stunned they fell for her deceit. Shame shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Hillary has always worked for workers' rights
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lligrd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Yeah, She Worked To Give Their Rights And Jobs Away
In fact, by supporting *'s bills, she worked to give all our privacy rights away. Good going Hillary!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. Tell me who it is that wants to increase the number of H1B
visas so that American firms can import more low wage high tech workers? Which candidate is that again? Oh yeah... might it be THIS ONE?



Compare Hillary's position on this versus Obama.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/realitycheck/archives/2008/02/the_three_presi.html

Yup, that Hillary, all for worker's rights! Just not American workers rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Berry Cool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #24
33. OMG, that backdrop is real.
Someone misspelled "tomorrow" all over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. LOL n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #18
40. Same like she really, really worked the Night Shift?
You buy THAT lying bullshit from her, too? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
44. Even when she was a lawyer for Walmart?
I find that a little hard to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
21. It's the audacity of fucking up and getting all pissy when you get called on it
This is part one of the fall of THE ONE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
22. And then there's this....
"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," the embassy statement said. "We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

Enough said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:07 AM
Response to Original message
27. let's not forget nuclear contamination of Illinois drinking water
thanks to Obama's weakening the nuclear waste bill for Exelon, a big supporter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riverman Donating Member (759 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:39 AM
Response to Original message
28. This is How. the Clintons got their reputation as Unitors not..
Oh, I forgot that was the other lying sack of steaming crap - W. Hilary and Bill will do anything for power including throwing the kitchen sink at Obama, or anyone who threatens to get in their way, with all the filthy dishwater and scum scrapped from pots of garbage and moldy slim that they have let ferment from their sick minds. God I want to neve hear their voices or see their pictures again almost as bad I want to never see a Bush in elected office again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Obama: let's unite around the kool aid while the US burns
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillrockin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
35. That is NOT TRUE. Stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
36. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #36
41. How Has It Been Debunked?
Oh, wait, let me guess: Cause someone said so?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That counts as debunking these days? ROFLMAO!!!

Bbbbbbbut they denied it! They've just gotssssss to be telling the truth!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
37. Definitely A Concerning Story.
As with any campaign though, the truth of the rhetoric can only be seen once the term is underway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnionPatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
39. But we are to trust
Hillary, who stood in front of a bunch of Indian businessmen and told them not to worry, that outsourcing will continue?

I don't like either of their stands on NAFTA and free trade, but Obama is no worse than Hillary, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
42. Obama himself did not tell the Canadians anything
I don't know what his adviser told them, but he was not sent to meet with them by the Obama campaign, and I believe Obama initially said the meeting had not taken place because he didn't know about it. The meeting was initiated by the Canadians, and there is no transcript, only second-hand accounts of what was said, which have been disputed.

Your post (and a lot of the coverage of this) made it seem as though Obama went out of his way to warn the Canadians, which is ridiculous. What would be the incentive for him to do that?

In the same CTV article, it also said the Clinton campaign had given the Canadians similar reassurances, though they had done so indirectly. I am appalled that there has been no reporting of that in the media.

I don't know what Obama's adviser said, because I wasn't there, and I have not heard a recording of the meeting. I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that he could have said it was just campaign rhetoric, but there is no proof of that, and Obama's adviser said that he merely sought to reassure the Canadians that he wanted to mend NAFTA by improving the environmental and labor standards, not end it. That is consistent with what Obama has said publicly.

The Canadian government has backed up the Obama campaign's account, saying that they in no way intended to imply that Obama had told them anything that was inconsistent with his rhetoric on the campaign trail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC