That inconvenient memo [UPDATED . NEW CTV Video]

Update [2008-3-4 11:52:13 by susanhu]: Canadian commentators on CTV have a good chuckle over Barack Obama and his panderbear Bob Shrum who made comments on Obama's behalf on Sunday's Meet The Press. They also do some fact-telling on NAFTA.

(Uh, is Shrum a paid operative these days, or just trying out for a job?)

ORIGINAL STORY: Along with Newsday and Chicago Sun-Times news stories, the transcript of the new Clinton radio ad running in Ohio, and the expressed rage of union leaders (all below), here's the latest report from CTV.ca news, which broke the story last week on the "wink, wink" meeting between Obama senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and Canadian diplomats to signal that while Obama would talk tough on NAFTA, the Canadians shouldn't worry because it's just "campaign rhetoric" -- with the Obama campaign's emphatic denials (including Obama's own flat-out false denial) obliterated by the "smoking gun" Canadian memorandum. Thanks to Hill Vet for the link:

Here's more on the tell-tale press conference in which Obama pathetically dodged and weaved reporters' questions, then walked out on them.  The story comes from intrepid Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet today: "Obama talks a lot, but answers little | Senator hounded by Rezko questions":

SAN ANTONIO -- As Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) closed a combative press conference on Monday, where he was thrown seriously off message being asked about influence peddler Tony Rezko and why his campaign at first denied his economic adviser Austan Goolsbee met the Canadian consul in Chicago and talked about NAFTA, some reporters -- me included -- wanted him to take more questions.

"Guys," said Obama, who is campaigning on a platform that there should be more government transparency. "I mean come on. I just answered like eight questions," he said as he waved and left to a chorus of shouted questions.

I could see why Obama wanted to wrap it up. On the day before crucial votes in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont that could make him the Democratic presidential nominee, Obama, for the first time in his campaign, was facing two potential landmines. ... (Also read Sweet's account of efforts to nail Obama down on his long relationship with Tony Rezko, now on trial in Chicago's federal court for bilking taxpayers and pension funds out of millions.)

Newsday uses the "integrity" word -- which is fair given Obama's constant refrain that he'll change "politics as usual".  Newsday also notes, that in his on-camera denial last week, "Obama appeared at best uninformed when asked why he had appeared to deny a report last week that such a meeting had taken place."  

On the eve of contests he hopes will force Hillary Rodham Clinton from the presidential race, Barack Obama faced a barrage of attacks Monday about his integrity, foremost among them whether he engaged in double-speak about his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Much of the criticism was initiated by Clinton. But it assumed a life of its own as Obama struggled to explain why a Canadian government memo quoted one of his aides as saying Obama's opposition to NAFTA was for political show.

He also fended off accusations he has withheld information about his relationship with real estate developer Antoin Rezko, who went on trial in Chicago Monday charged with federal corruption. [...]

Obama has made honesty and transparency a cornerstone of his campaign to change "politics as usual" in Washington. ...  (Read all of Newsday's "Obama faces tough questions on NAFTA, integrity.")

Newsday, like the rest of the national media, is reporting the Obama press conference in San Antonio, which has clearly set off the media like no other incident involving Obama -- particularly since every reporter knows that Obama has not been forthcoming, in any way, on his long association with Tony Rezko, whom famed U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has put on trial:

Obama prompted angry cries from reporters when he insisted he had shared all "pertinent" information on his links with Rezko and complained that media requests "can go on forever." Among other dealings, Obama in 2006 bought a strip of land from Rezko to expand his yard.

Reporters retorted that he has repeatedly failed to answer such questions as how many fundraisers Rezko held for him and who attended.

A quick search of Google News shows that there are 3,162 stories on NAFTA-gate.

The Facthub notes that "Top Obama Campaign Surrogate Still Flatly Denying NAFTA Meeting Took Place."  That would be Sen. Dick Durbin.  It's pathetic to see these "public servants" on television flat out lying to protect their candidate.

Here is the Clinton campaign's new radio ad that is running in Ohio -- which, ironically, the Obama campaign provided to Time magazine's Mark Halperin (why?):

This is an election news update with a major news story reported by the AP.  While Senator Obama has crisscrossed Ohio giving speeches attacking NAFTA, his top economic advisor was telling the Canadians that was all just political maneuvering.  A newly released document from the Canadian government shows that Obama's senior economic advisor met with the Canadian Consul General and made clear that Obama's attack on NAFTA were just, quote, "political maneuvering," not policy.  Political maneuvering, not policy.  In fact, the document shows that Obama's advisor also assured the Canadians that these attacks against NAFTA would not continue.  Obama would not want to be, quote, "fundamentally changing the agreement."  As Senator Obama was telling one story to Ohio, his campaign was telling a very different story to Canada.  How will Ohioans decide whether they can believe Senator Obama's words?  We'll find that out on election day.  Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President.

Rage -- from the frontlines of the struggle to keep U.S. manufacturing jobs -- is warranted. Here is the Feb. 2 article from McClatchy/Chicago Tribune to which Machinist Union president Buffenbarger referred in his blistering attack on Obama recently, "Obama's fundraising, rhetoric collide: Union says senator did little to save jobs."

Maytag workers whose jobs were shipped to Mexico serve as consistent characters in Barack Obama's stump speech. He employs their stories in railing against corporations that use trade pacts to replace well-paid union workers with low-cost foreign ones.

It is a ready applause line for the Illinois presidential hopeful, one that he has been reciting almost verbatim since he was a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2004, when appliance giant Maytag was in the process of shutting a refrigerator plant here, putting 1,600 people out of work.

But the union that represented most of those Galesburg workers isn't impressed with Obama's advocacy and has endorsed his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. Its leaders say they wish he had done more about their members' plight.

What rankles some is what Obama did not do even as he expressed solidarity four years ago with workers mounting a desperate fight to save their jobs.

Obama had a special connection to Maytag: Lester Crown, one of the company's directors and biggest investors whose family, records show, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama's campaigns since 2003. But Crown says Obama never raised the fate of the Galesburg plant with him, and the billionaire industrialist insists any jawboning would have been futile. [BUT OBAMA COULD HAVE TRIED, DAMMIT.]

Aide: Didn't know of tie

Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, said late Thursday that the senator did not know Crown sat on Maytag's board until the Tribune noted it last September in a story about the closing of the Maytag headquarters in Newton, Iowa. ... READ ALL of "Obama's fundraising, rhetoric collide: Union says senator did little to save jobs.."

And here's Mr. Buffenbarger's press release on February 28:

Obama Telegraphs Pro-NAFTA Position
Thu Feb 28, 11:17 AM ET
To: POLITICAL EDITORS

Contact: Rick Sloan, IAMAW, +1-301-967-4520 (office), +1-202-297-2941 (cell)

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 PRNewswire-USNewswire -- The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) is urging all union members to take a second look at Sen. Barack Obamas (D-IL) position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), following news reports he assured Canadas ambassador to the U.S. that his opposition to NAFTA was just campaign rhetoric.

According to a report on CTV Television Network, a senior member of Sen. Barack Obamas (D-IL) campaign staff contacted Canadas ambassador to the U.S. earlier this month and warned him that the senator would be taking strong positions against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but that it was only campaign rhetoric and should not be taken seriously.

I am appalled but not surprised by this report, said IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger. Working families cannot trust a candidate who telegraphs his real position to a foreign government and then dissembles in a nationally televised debate.

The full CTV report is now posted on YouTube, and provides additional details, including a statement that an Obama campaign spokesperson confirmed that contact with the U.S. ambassador had been made during the past month.

NAFTA is an incendiary issue in Ohio, where tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been destroyed since NAFTA was signed into law. Voters in Ohio and Texas have been deluged with Obama campaign ads suggesting he would revisit the trade pact to negotiate new environment and labor standards.

Then IAM is among the nation's largest trade unions, representing nearly 720,000 active and retired members in manufacturing, aerospace, shipbuilding, transportation and defense-related industries. For more information, visit www.goiam.org.

SOURCE International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

SEE ALSO, my March 3rd story below, updated with a timeline of the Obama campaign's denials: "Obama Nailed on Nafta-gate."

These issues matter to millions of American workers and their families.  The "wink, wink" to Canadian officials is pouring salt in a deep open wound.



Display:


Re: That inconvenient memo (1.90 / 11)

Your comments are most welcome.

OF NOTE: I am unable to erase the first version of this diary, just below, because I had put in an MSNBC video that, only when I clicked the Publish button, created problems.  There was no "warning" that the video code wasn't accepted.  But, when published, all of the rest of the text + the ability to comment disappeared.  Along with my ability to edit or delete the first diary.  (I hope the administrators see this, and erase the first version since I am unable to do so.)


by susanhu on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:59:26 AM EST

Re: That inconvenient memo (2.00 / 0)

Again, all of this is BS

read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/pol itics/04nafta.html?em&ex=1204779600& amp;en=bc1674b80a8eb1e3&ei=5087%0A


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:05:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That inconvenient memo (2.00 / 0)

The memo says that Goolsbee told the Canadians Obama wanted to change NAFTA to strengthen the environmental and labor provisions.

This is exactly what Obama has said publicly.


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:23:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Propaganda (2.00 / 1)

You're engaging in propaganda by cherry-picking the stories most slanted against Obama in tone, not publishing the various parties who have confirmed Obama's story - including the Canadian apology because their conservatives arranged for a staffer's memo to leak.

The whole thing glosses over the fact that this hit the press as "Obama's campaign calls embassy to warn them" was the initial CTV story. It was neither confirmed nor retracted that I know of, but it was never substantiated. Instead, they released a new, toned down story AFTER the initial one generated a ton of outrage. The new story now has an unrelated "get to know you" meeting with a brief touch on NAFTA, into an internal memo as translated by a staffer to a consulate official. Basically, you're promulgating outrage based on the way a Canadian secretary decided to summarize Goolsbee's remarks. And if you're Goolsbee and nervous Canadians have cornered you into talking about NAFTA, what are you going to do? "Less about fundamentally changing the agreement, and more about adding labor and environmental protections and making them part of the core agreement."

Wow, scandalous. But not really. The IAM press release and the youtube msnbc video are the debunked "phone call to the Michael Wilson" that everyone - including Michael Wilson - has denied. The story is so completely different from the Goolsbee memo they don't even belong mentioned in the same breath. One is scandalous, the other is a minor nit over phrasing.

Meanwhile, Rezko is at trial and Obama is not on the witness list. There has never been any impropriety, and how much Rezko raised at a fundraiser for Obama before his darker deeds were known is largely irrelevant. If we're going to crucify our politicians for everyone who gives them money who turns out to be a sleazeball, then Clinton needs to line up for her turn as the Tam Family raises tens of thousands of dollars for her, and also helped funnel millions of dollars to Abramoff. The Tams were apparently eager to set up a sweatshop in Guam, which gives them something else in common with another of Hillary's sleazy fundraisers, Norman Hsu. But according to you, Susan, it's okay to excoriate Obama for his ties to Rezko while giving Clinton a pass.

I quote Mediamatters:

As Media Matters for America has documented, several media outlets have cast the Obama-Rezko land deal as a "scandal," despite the complete absence of evidence of impropriety or allegation of wrongdoing.

I don't know if you're being intentionally deceptive or if you've got blinders on, but either way, the only people who believe Obama has done anything wrong thusfar are people who are desperate to find something wrong with him because they're desperate for Hillary to find a way to come back.


by mattw on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Propaganda (2.00 / 0)

It is purposefully propaganda.

The new memo shows that the original CTV report was wrong about who, where, when, who initiated, and what was said.  So the Obama campaign was correct to deny that story because it was all wrong.

The memo is being selectively quoted:  

The memo says: "...more reflective of political maneuvering than policy"

Which is contradicted by the same memo when it says: "'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."  This is exactly what Obama has openly stated.

Every public and private (including conversations with Canadians in Chicago) statement from the Obama campaign (including Goolsbee) before and since the CTV story has consistently stated that Obama wants to change NAFTA by adding stronger provisions for labor and the environment.

The Obama campaign was correct to deny the CTV story becasue it has been shown to be wrong, it claimed a meeting that never happened (call (wrong) from (wrong) Obama person to (wrong) DC Canadian Embassy (wrong) saying ignore public
statements(wrong).)

All evidence indicates that Obama and his campaign have always said he wants to change NAFTA for environmental and labor improvements.  This is indisputable.


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's his judgement (2.00 / 1)

he had no benefit from assuring the Canadians he supports NAFTA, Canadians aren't his base.  Whatever he did, doing anything makes him look like a patsy to special Canadian interests.  


just say it: Medicare for All
by anna shane on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That inconvenient memo (2.00 / 7)

susan - I'm here in Houston on my way out to the polls (from ca) working for Hillary...

THANK YOU for excellent and relentless reporting on this...

They have brought up the nafta things several times on the local news (along with rezko) and I have a feeling that both TX and OH will be delivered to hillary today....


by nikkid on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:12:15 AM EST

today's NYT (2.00 / 1)

LINK:
Mr. Obama, the Illinois Democrat who is battling for the Democratic presidential nomination, was not included on a list of potential witnesses for the trial, which involves charges of influence-peddling in state government. And while his name is likely to surface at some point, if only because $10,000 of the money that Mr. Rezko is accused of extorting wound up in Mr. Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, there is no sign that the senator was involved in any wrongdoing or will otherwise be caught up in the case.

by Adam B on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:14:02 AM EST

Re: today's NYT (2.00 / 3)

Adam - why did Obama involve Rezko in his house deal?  He had to know Rezko was the target of a federal investigation because it had been in Chicago papers for 6 months.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:59:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: today's NYT (2.00 / 2)

Rezko is Obama's Ken Lay. Strange how good friends become complete strangers sometimes... Bought houses next door to each other, in concert with each other, after the Fed Investigation had started.  Seriously bad judgment.


by Catriley sez on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:21:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: today's NYT (2.00 / 1)

But hasn't Obama based his campaign on his "good judgment" on the war when he couldn't vote?
But when he could vote - he reached out to Rezko WHILE he was under federal investigation.

Obama didn't have access to the 2002 NIE - but he did have access to Chicago newspapers reporting the feds investigation of Rezko.

Obama is very deceptive.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:26:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rezko is a non story (2.00 / 0)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/200802 18/pl_bloomberg/ar8nlioqedc4

Sorry to spoil your anti-Obama fun.  Maybe the HRC team will plant more fake stories like the madrassa claim.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/o bama.madrassa/

Does supporting this kind of sleaze bother any of the HRC supporters?  Is there anything that would be considered unacceptable?  If there is nothing that is considered too low, then do you stand for anything?


--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--
by 1jpb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:54:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: today's NYT (2.00 / 2)

Then why hasn't he answered the standing questions of the Chicago Sun Times reporters?  He keeps Hillary on mot releasing her taxes (which I agree with, BTW), and he is all for transparency, but not when it comes to his dealings with a fundraiser who is now on trial in federal court.

This goes to his lack of "good judgment."


by cmugirl90 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:02:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That inconvenient memo (none / 0)

Well... if the MSM reports it then it MUST be true. They have been soooo fair up to now LOL


by IndyRobin on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:24:13 AM EST

Re: That inconvenient memo (2.00 / 3)

Narrative vs. Narrative, we all fall down.

What a series of irrelevancies.

Senator Obama has run a great campaign that has involved millions of new people in a unique, organized way.

Senator Clinton's campaign has not been as innovative, but she's shown she's tough and indefatigable.

But we've fallen for it yet AGAIN, participating in and thus validating "narrative" fights.

They've been used against Senator Clinton ("shrill"; everybody hates her; fake crying; etc.) and now against Senator Obama ("all talk"; "defend his relationship"; etc.)

This is about the media taking the power to determine the presidency, not about voters and their interests.


Fight the Counter-Revolution Build a movement.
by chicagolife on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:19:18 AM EST

transparent : function - adjective. 1. free from (2.00 / 3)

pretense or deceit. 2.easily detected or seen through  3.characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices.

"Words mean something," except when they don't...

I hope the superdelegates are paying attention.


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:41:54 AM EST

Republican Hoops, Democrats Jumping (2.00 / 1)

Surprise, surprise it looks like the head of Canada's "Republican" government was responsible for leaking that "memo".  It has been reported that Ian Brodie, Harper's cheif of staff, is responsible.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

http://thestar.blogs.com/polit...

Harper has pulled this sort of stunt before, but last time in reverse, it was Bush's U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins doing the favor for Harper in his contest against then Prime Minister Martin (a Liberal).

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada...

The Canadian Conservative Party and the Republican party in many ways are tightly integrated, they use the same polling firms and political operatives.  And as reported in the original CTV McCain recently made a trip to Canadian to visit with Harper . . .  wonder what they talked about?  Did you notice the bizarre attack McCain leveled at both Cinton and Obama on NAFTA, makes sense now doesn't it?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...

So here's the skinny (and if you were left with any doubt which candidate the Republicans and Conservatives want to run against)

   Analysts in Canada believe Harper does not want a Democrat in the White House, a development that could encourage Canadian voters to cast their ballots for a more liberal government in an election that will be held before 2010.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap...

So, are you comfortable with Democrats using elaborate attacks and smears created by a Conservative Foreign Government against a fellow Democrat?


by RuralD on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:42:31 AM EST

Re: Republican Hoops, Democrats Jumping (2.00 / 3)

It's the non-denial denial from some quarters of the campaign, and then the denial-denial from Obama himself.

As the old refrain goes, it's the COVER-UP.


by susanhu on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:52:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republican Hoops, Democrats Jumping (2.00 / 5)

So because the right-wing leaked the memo, we can pretend it doesn't exist, or that it doesn't say what it says?

Or can we pretend that these sorts of attacks will come only from Senator Clinton and villify her, because Senator McCain and his buddies will never criticize Senator Obama in the general?

Sorry, but Senator Obama screwed up on this, and rather than dissembling about it, he needs to fix it: he needs to say that the staffer (should be ex-staffer by now) was speaking out of turn and re-affirm that he says what he means. Trying to pretend it didn't happen, and trying not to answer questions about it, and pretending that it isn't a problem is only going to continue to make it worse.


by fsm on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:57:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republican Hoops, Democrats Jumping (2.00 / 1)

Then, by your logic, something damning should have also come out about the Clinton campaign.  This only appears to have affected Obama.


by cmugirl90 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republican Hoops, Democrats Jumping (none / 0)

By my logic, if Senator Clinton's campaign did something wrong, then it should come out when it's known about. [As it has in the past -- her surrogates have done a bad job sometimes, and gotten called for it. And she properly fired some of then in New Hampshire when they truly went over the line.]

But by your logic, apparently we can only talk about mistakes Democratic candidates and their staff have made if both make them and we can criticize both equally.


by fsm on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:21:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is a liar (2.00 / 3)

This goes to the heart of Obamas case to be President. That his integrity and judgement are enough to overcome his complete lack of experience. He is shown to be a liar and lacking in serious judgement in this case. And this is about a core theme of the election.


by moi moi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:47:28 AM EST

serious judgment (2.00 / 0)

Would someone who had good judgment trust Sandy Berger?


by Adam B on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:57:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That inconvenient memo (2.00 / 0)

Canada defends Obama now.

http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reut ers/2008/03/03/2008-03-04T000047Z_01_N03 391783_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-OBAMA-UPDATE-1.h tml


by dogman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:47:37 AM EST

Re: That inconvenient memo (2.00 / 6)

I just love this. The fact that it is finally getting aired and questioned is wonderful. Obama is now being seen (except by the cultists who honestly don't care) in a different light. As someone last night described him to me: He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Excellent diary!


by Fleaflicker on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:50:58 AM EST

Re: That inconvenient memo (2.00 / 5)

We have been focusing on the angle that Obama double talk to voters.  But we forgot that Canada might be wondering the same thing.  If Obama promised voters one thing, Canada probably also  wonders how much they can believe Obama's word on the issue.

It becomes an interesting question.  As it shows how much naive Obama was in handling his first foreign relation.

A double talk like this will not do him any good both way.  Voters won't believe him.  And Canada won't believe him.

And NEVER negotiate with a foreign power without State Department approval.  This is sheer stupid to discuss the internal US matters with foreign government without a discussion in congress / senate. This act will create damaging impact in the US economy or huge embarrassment as in this case.


by JoeySky18 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:07:10 AM EST

Re: That inconvenient memo [UPDATED . NEW CTV Vide (2.00 / 2)

Obama's true colors are beginning to show. Voters are taking a serious second-look at him, and not liking what they see. HC is nos seen as the more electable


Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News
by steve468 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:50:47 AM EST

Woo Hoo! (2.00 / 3)

The new video is a hoot. I enjoyed it very much. This story has legs that keep growing every day.


by Fleaflicker on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM EST

John McCain and Stephen Harper thank you (2.00 / 0)

for continuing this smear.  

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessio nid=2BF949726C0798E152A6ED991F7E1A2A?dia ryId=4317


Saxby Chambliss
by bosdcla14 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:07:59 PM EST

Re: That inconvenient memo [UPDATED . NEW CTV Vide (2.00 / 4)

Great diary. Thanks.

I feel like we've been bamboozled and I hope Ohioians and Texans and Rhode Islanders and maybe even Vermonters although not quite as hopeful with them, will help fix the mistakes of those states who have previously voted for BO.

This stuff is Bush-politics -- there's no transparency, no honesty, it's tell the public you are a compassionate conservative and then do the bait and switch. I can't stomach four more years of that.

Even if you don't like Hillary's laugh or her pantsuits you can trust her to work on ever item on her agenda and get it done. (Remember b*tches get sh*t done.) She says what she means and means what she says.

If you were a state in trouble we'd help you.
vote Hillary.


by seattlegonz on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST

Waxing Myself Eloquent (2.00 / 4)

The whole meme of Obama's campaign is that he represents change. I hear this everywhere and see it all the time in print. No one, including him can define just exactly what kind of change he means, just change.

But if I waxed my ass that would represent change. I don't think that waxing my ass would bring people together and make them suddenly stop caring about their personal issues. I mean some people might come together if I waxed my ass but I'm not so sure I want to be around those folks. Believe me, if I thought that waxing my ass would solve our nation's problems I would wax my ass tomorrow. In fact I would start an Ass Waxers Across America campaign. A regular 50 state strategy.

But you know and I know that waxing my ass, or anyone's ass for that matter, isn't going to bring about the real solutions we need in this country. So as much as I would gladly wax my ass as any patriotic American would, me and all the other ass waxers have just exactly as much chance of changing things as Obama and his undefined "change" campaign.

BTW... my ass really doesn't need waxed. At least I don't think so.

Ask not what your country can wax for you, ask what you can wax for your country.


by Fleaflicker on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:36:44 PM EST

ouch (2.00 / 2)

to ass waxing


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Waxing Myself Eloquent (2.00 / 2)

I will happily join you in ass waxiness.. because I believe in CHANGE YOU CAN FEEL!!!


by Catriley sez on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Waxing Myself Eloquent (2.00 / 0)

Hahaha. You're on!


by Fleaflicker on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ken Pollack praises Hillary (none / 0)

"But all of my experience with her when she was first lady is that this is a woman who would put our nation's interests first and any campaign promises a distant second."

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessio nid=0F6C8CA1228BE44B0F734E0F0DD0E47E?dia ryId=4331


Saxby Chambliss
by bosdcla14 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:18:25 PM EST

Re: That inconvenient memo (2.00 / 0)

Considering Hillary now has 32 Flag Officers openly endorsing her campaign and puting their trust in her judgement to keep the Country safe, and in her foreign policy skills, I have a hard time believing that Obama has a chance against McCain.   And "bonehead" moves (Obama's own word) like these really don't inspire any confidence in this created candidate.

The problems we face are grave, Americans are not going to take a chance on someone that is proving to be unreliable.


by Catriley sez on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:29:09 PM EST

How big of a hypocrite are you? (2.00 / 0)

particularly since every reporter knows that Obama has not been forthcoming, in any way, on his long association with Tony Rezko

You support a candidate for who refuses to release her tax returns and then you have the gall to criticize Obama for not being forth coming?

I used to dislike Hillary Clinton mostly for her cowardly conniving Iraq vote and then her stubborn refusal to says she regrets that vote.  Her supporters are positively are pushing me to the point where I loathe her.  The constant stream of bogus hypocritical attacks on Obama is just disgusting and it's making me ill that to think I'm a member of a political party where a huge chunk of members not only condone but enthusiastically support this kinda of gutter politics.


by Monkey In Chief on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:14:16 PM EST

Well, Monkey (none / 0)

...I hear you, but I think Clinton supporters can and are saying the same thing about Obama supporters. Many of his partisans are turning mild disatisfaction into downright disgust from Clintonites in part because of the level of discourse expressed by Obamites. In short, you have no singular claim to feeling gall. But I'm sure you know that. While I won't ever vote for Obama, I'm going to try to learn from the harsh and revealing lessons of this primary and resolve to work even harder against sexism, racism, and the shameful manipulations of the MSM.


by Soitgoes on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.