Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAGate

NAFTA-Gate first broke about a week ago and since that time we've seen flat out denials from Hillary's team regarding allegations that they discussed NAFTA with Canadian officials.  Today, the Canadian Press ran a story which confirms those denials...

OTTAWA -- Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday.

With the NAFTA affair swirling over the U.S. election and Canadian officials skittish about saying anything else that might influence the race, it took the PMO two days to deliver the information.

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.

<bold>"The answer is no, they did not," </bold> said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.


The Canadian Press goes on to report...

That response will come as a relief to the Clinton campaign, which has angrily denied that it has engaged in the kind of double-talking hypocrisy of which it accuses Obama.

Suggestions of hypocrisy cost Obama critical votes in the Ohio and Texas primary - both of which were won by Clinton - and put a stop to his streak of a dozen straight primary wins.

Goolsbee's chat with the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago was memorialized in this write up by Joseph DeMora HERE.  Now the memo itself isn't all that damning I'll admit - the problem is in the way Camp Obama handled the whole affair.  Parsing and denials were the order of the day.  DeMora's memo surfaced on March 3rd, and Hillary's campaign posted the following on it's Fact Hub...

Over the last few days, the Obama campaign has made a number of false claims about its communication with the Canadian government regarding Sen. Obama's position on NAFTA.

We now find that there is a memo from the Canadian government that makes clear that the Obama campaign did in fact communicate with the government, making assurances to the Canadian government that are different from what he has told voters.

The following is a compilation of the false denials:

2/27/08 - "Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue." [CTV, 2/29/08]

2/28/08 - Burton: "Again, this story is not true. 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." [ABC, 2/29/08]

2/28/08 - Rice: "There had been no contact. There had been no discussions on NAFTA." [MSNBC, 2/28/08]

2/29/08 -- Anchor: "So, completely inaccurate, did not happen, end of discussion." Sen. Obama: "It did not happen." [WKYC TV, 2/29/08]

2/29/08 - Goolsbee: "It is a totally inaccurate story...I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office." [New York Observer, 2/29/08]

2/29/08 - Burton: "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." [Politico, 2/29/08]


(Click here for links to original sources)

The following day Politico writer Carrie Budoff Brown posted a report about NAFTA-Gate in which an Obama aide admitted they knew the whole story when it initially broke, and yet they issued denial after denial on it.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Monday night that the campaign had known of the meeting between adviser Austan Goolsbee and Canada's consul general in Chicago since a Canadian television network, CTV, first reported the interaction last Wednesday.

"When they reported it, we were aware of it at that point," Burton said.

Three days later, reporters were still asking Hillary's campaign about the claim that they also contacted the Canadian government and the posted the following on Fact Hub...

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from.  The Obama campaign has given a variety of misleading answers to the press and the public about its top economic adviser's contacts with the Canadian government and should come clean about why they did so." - Campaign spokesperson, Phil Singer

Last week, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama's campaign called the Canadian embassy, reassuring officials that Sen. Obama's talk on NAFTA was just campaign rhetoric. The initial report carried a strong denial of similar low-level meetings with the Clinton campaign:

"Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim."
The Clinton campaign also offered blanket immunity to any Canadian official who could provide names of any initiators or recipients of such contacts.

In contrast, the Obama campaign refused to confirm or deny the initial report. But over the next two days, Sen. Obama and his campaign made a series of false denials about its communication with the Canadian government about NAFTA. A memo from the Canadian government established that the Obama campaign did have a meeting, making assurances contrary to what Sen. Obama has told voters. A sample of misleading comments from the Obama campaign:

2/28/08 - Burton: "Again, this story is not true. 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." [ABC, 2/29/08]

2/28/08 - Rice: "There had been no contact. There had been no discussions on NAFTA." [MSNBC, 2/28/08]

2/29/08 -- Anchor: "So, completely inaccurate, did not happen, end of discussion." Sen. Obama: "It did not happen." [WKYC TV, 2/29/08]

2/29/08 - Goolsbee: "It is a totally inaccurate story...I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office." [New York Observer, 2/29/08]

(Click here for links to original sourcing)

I'm glad they cleared up the part about Hillary.  Her campaign did not contact Canadian officials, were not contacted by the Canadian officials and in no way discussed NAFTA with Canadian officials.  

No if's, ands or buts.

Meanwhile, last I heard Goolsbee is still trying to deny that he discussed NAFTA during that meeting in Chicago.

Ya know I like that Canadian Press report so much I think it's worth repeating...

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.

Maybe now the press and media will stop bothering Hillary's team about this, and focus on why Obama's camp can't get their story straight when it comes to NAFTA-Gate.



Display:


Sure Glad They Cleared That Up (2.00 / 9)

Now if we could only get some straight answers out of Obama's camp.  The folks back home in the Rust Belt deserve nothing less.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:19:59 PM EST

Re: Sure Glad They Cleared That Up (none / 0)

Yawn.  The communication between Goolsbee and the Canucks took place months ago.   This isn't much of an issue.

How about a debate of.. oh, I don't know.. policy?  Substance?   Something other than continual character assassination?


"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."
by Setrak on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've Got News To You (2.00 / 4)

Lies and duplicity about NAFTA is a huge deal in the Rust Belt.  That's why BO lost Ohio and it's why he'll lose a re-vote if they force Michigan Democrats to go back to the polls.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:34:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've Got News To You (none / 0)

It's only a lie if it's the INTENTIONAL mistelling of the truth.  Given the circumstances, it is entirely possible that something was miscommunicated.  I'd appreciate it if you'd stop "poisoning the well".

You're going for the candidate who claims to offer solutions and not rhetoric, while all you offer in this diary is negative rhetoric and defense against some previous news story that most people don't care too much about.

As for Ohio, funny you should mention that..  http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/5/20392 3/2712#readmore


"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."
by Setrak on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:41:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You (2.00 / 2)

are going for the candidate who offers rhetoric and not solutions yet you say you want debate on policy and substance.

hm.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've Got News To You (2.00 / 3)

Did you even READ the diary?

If you had you would have seen the bit from Politico where BO's advisor admitted they knew about the meeting but still issued one denial after another - until that pesky memo surfaced.

Don't know what kind of dictionary you're using, but in my book that's a bold-faced lie.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:22:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Policy and Substance (2.00 / 5)

Good idea. That is why I went to Hillary Clinton after John Edwards because Obama was NOT speaking policy and substance but Hillary was and is.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:56:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Policy and Substance (none / 0)

Here's the beef;  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/ 164117/783/290/461422


"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."
by Setrak on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:58:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heres the deal (2.00 / 3)

Why not have him be ON record SAYING what he will do?!

Hm?


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:00:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres the deal (none / 0)

..what does that even mean?  Whatever, here you are!   http://www.barackobama.com/issues/


"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."
by Setrak on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:05:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres the deal (2.00 / 2)

I can send links also http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Can you get Obama to actually SAY something of substance?


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:15:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres the deal (none / 0)

See, the difference between us is that I don't dispute that Hillary has ideas and substance.  The fact that you continue to say Obama has no substance is, at best, wishful thinking.


"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."
by Setrak on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:21:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Does he speak it? (2.00 / 1)


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:16:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres the deal (2.00 / 8)

It's probably a mistake for me to reply to this, because I don't have time to follow up.  I have to go and do volunteer work for HRC.

But you are missing the point about the difference between HRC and Obama.  Almost Obama's entire appeal is based on a cult of personality and not on substance.  We know he has advisers and position papers and a Web site.  But that's not what he's using to get followers.  And "followers" is the right word.  He is asking people to "believe in" him.  That is the core of his campaign, and I find it very scary.  Politics is not religion and should not be.  In the U.S. and around the world we have seen how damaging it is when the two are combined.

And when you couple it with behind-the-scenes machinations such as the one we're talking about here, where he says one thing publicly and something else privately, we call that demagoguery.

Two posts appeared just recently (one by Perlstein in Huffington and one by Baratunde Thurston)  threatening violence if Obama doesn't win and I have seen similar comments in blog threads.  We call that fascism.

Hillary is not speaking in code, or in tongues, with vague language designed to appeal to the emotions and not to the brain.  Barack is.  Bypassing the brain is not a good thing, and neither is blind "inspiration."  On the contrary, it puts thugs in the streets.


by PlainWords on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres the deal (2.00 / 2)

You are exactly right.  A big part of the problem is the propaganda of Obama being the candidate of small donors/supporters.  That is simply not true..although I don't have the link now...  I was amazed that the candidate who is supposed to be so inspiring and refreshingly honest is using sales of buttons and bumperstickers at $1 each to dilute his maxed-out donors.  It is dishonest and is typical of so much of what he preaches.


by macmcd on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:24:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He gets most of his MONEY by far from big donors.. (none / 0)

but the NUMBER of small donors is much larger.. Many people give just a few dollars.. many less, but still a large number, gave the maximum.. which added up to more.. BUT THATS NOT WHAT I THOUGHT HE SAID.. it turns out I was wrong.. he said that most of his DONORS were small donors..

So, they feel that he was not deceptive in the debates because what he said was that 'most of his donors are small donors' and thats what he meant.

I was wrong to think that he meant that most of his MONEY came from small donors..

....

I don't know.. I think he should have made it clearer..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:48:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So... (2.00 / 1)

Now it did happen? What is this days answer from the Obama camp on the Nafta crap? Everyday it seems to be a different spin from the Obama supporters.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have mixed feelings.. (none / 0)

Its a complicated situation, and one with no easy answers..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:51:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure Glad They Cleared That Up (2.00 / 1)

The only problem is Obama he doesn't like debates.
How about a series of town hall formats on specific issues where the public asks the questions? I don't see Obama going for that one do you? He might actually have to know something.
by coolofthenight on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:22:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

he doesn't seem to like unstructured situations.. (none / 0)

This applies to his campaign headquarters in various cities.. Hillary tends to not mind as much if the media drop in at any time..

Obama's folks seem much less willing to be observed..

At least this is what Ive read several times in the press.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: policy/substance debate (2.00 / 2)

o.k.

BHO's plan to help someone facing foreclosure:  give them a five hundred dollar tax rebate.

BHO's health plan:  if an uninsured person has to go to emergency room, give that person a fine.

Sen Obama voted yes to Bush/Cheney energy bill.

Sen. Obama will not ban mercenary groups like Blackwater.

Sen. Obama endorsed Liebermann in the last Senate race.

that's enough for now.


by moevaughn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:47:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But if they come up with the money... (none / 0)

whatever the insurance companies want so they don't lose money on someone..

It might be $5000 a month MOR MORE for some people.. people with pre-existing conditions.

But they wont be able to turn them away..

As long as they have that money, they will be able to buy inurance.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.. (none / 0)

NOBODY is expecting them to lose money.

They are in the business to make money, the health insurance companies.

Their administrative costs are high.. especially if someone has a lot of medical issues..

Or, "medical losses" as they call them.

Their CEOS make millions of dollars a year..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:00:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

Dupe.

Also, Obama didn't lie. You can post a whole lot of quotes, but you're taking them completely out of context as has been explained eleventybillion times.


by mattw on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:38:29 PM EST

Out of context? (2.00 / 3)

Like you and others have been doing with things Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have said?


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:55:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out of context? (none / 0)

Example?


by mattw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:23:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out of context? (2.00 / 1)

Remember the Clinton flap about LBJ and MLK... Here's the truth from media matters
http://mediamatters.org/items/2008011200 03
by devil on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:14:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out of context? (none / 0)

I have never, in any place, said anything about Hillary and that quote. I thought it was completely overblown, and I don't believe Obama said word one about it other than to say he was sure Hillary was not a racist.

I agree that Hillary was treated unfairly by some sources in the media over that quote, and it was a nonstory that became way too much of one.

Anyone care to admit the same about Obama's denial? Or post the timeline that shows him denying it AFTER Goolsbee was mentioned and it became reasonable for him to know what they were talking about?


by mattw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (2.00 / 1)

Awww... you didn't read the diary - did you?

Hint: Take a look at that Politico bit.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:24:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

The Politico reporter is actually confused. CTV first reported the "phone call" story Wednesday; Goolsbee was not mentioned in it. Tongue-tied Burton is referring to when they actually mentioned Goolsbee, which was after most/all of the denials. (I did research this very extensively; it's very hard to time what happened on the day Goolsbee was first mentioned because there are literally denials and reports of Goolsbee's name being mentioned the same day, and not every story has a timestamp.)

This has been one of my major points all along - a lot of media has been confused by the timing because so many DIFFERENT versions of this story came out so fast. So Obama is denying an earlier story and CTV is changing the facts materially at the time. Then Obama gets the new facts, checks with Goolsbee, and then the tune changes - but meanwhile, the new story and the denial are both getting published, making people think he's denying the 2nd story, which after a memo comes out, makes him look like a liar.

I had a long conversation with Paul Loeb about this before he published his piece in HuffPo, because I was genuinely trying to be sure that I had my facts straight. I know we're all partisan and don't believe each other here... but let's actually look for the truth here. If you think your candidate can win on her merits, then you're doing a disservice using hyperbole or misrepresentation.

So here's my challenge, such as it were:

Find the original CTV reports (I recommend using google news or Lexis if you have access, since CTV puts a "last updated" but not a "first published" date.)   Find the first break of the story. Find the first mention of Goolsbee. Find the first mention of the memo.

Assume with me for a moment - even if you don't agree - that when Obama is denying the original Michael Wilson phonecall story, that he's not omitting Goolsbee intentionally. Once Goolsbee comes up in the press, then possibly exempting a small window of a half day or such for Obama to learn about the new story, then there are two possible timelines:

Original Story
Blanket Denials
Goolsbee Mentioned
Denials about content of meeting
Memo
Denials of Memo Accuracy

In that order, Obama is, in my mind at least, vindicated.

The other order, and this is what Hillary supporters tout as fact and I dispute, would be:

Original Story
Blanket Denials
Goolsbee Mentioned
Blanket Denials
Memo
Denials about content/interpretation/accuracy

In this case, Obama looks like a liar. Contingent on the timing and who is saying what, the latter scenario looks like Obama settled on blanket denial even though he DID know of Goolsbee's meeting, and lied because he thought he wouldn't get caught.

So, again, I researched this extensively. I spent about 10 hours digging through news to try to be sure I had original sources. Heh, amusingly, I even referenced susanhu's articles several times because she was pretty prompt dishing the dirt and making updates.

Ultimately, my conclusion was the first series of events was the accurate one.

At that point, the only question is: is the memo accurate?  CBC reported a Canadian investigation found it "may have misrepresented" Goolsbee. The memo wasn't all that damning to begin with, and I think a staffer framing something slightly different than Goolsbee intended is an easy thing to happen - so that's a nonissue.

So the place where Obama is culpable is: Did he deny Goolsbee met with the Canadians AFTER Goolsbee's name was mentioned, but BEFORE the memo was released? (And 30 minutes after Goolsbee's name breaks isn't sufficient since Obama isn't necessarily going to know immediately on the hectic campaign trail)

I did a lot of work to prove the first scenario. If you can find contradicting evidence, even I want to know. You might stop me from donating to Obama, and I've given him hundreds of dollars so far and will likely give more, so if you really believe you're right, you could net the Clinton campaign a lot.

I really am big on honesty. It's a major reason I'm a Democrat. (Well, let's say a blue-committed Indy.)

I'll add that I respect Hillary quite a bit, and now that I'm inured a bit to the various bits of mud flying around, I think I can see the forest for the trees. I've committed to vote for the nominee. If you're serious about the discourse and your candidate, prove the second scenario, or leave off saying Obama lied about NAFTA.

Incidentally, I am about the truth here. Interpretation I might argue - but even though I posted the Brodie story about Clinton and NAFTA, as soon as I read the denial, I stopped. It's not that I couldn't argue that their denial is saving face/backtracking for political reasons, but to be fair, it wasn't that strong to start, and after a denial, it's not fair. If I were a bitter partisan bent on smearing Hillary, I'd continue to post it and say something like, "of COURSE they deny it now! He let it slip, but he doesn't want to risk offending a potential President!"

No. Instead, I posted, "I'm glad that was cleared up" in the first "hillary exonerated" thread.


by mattw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:18:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (2.00 / 1)

It does not matter if the memo is completely accurate. Substantially it is indeed accurate.

Did Obama try bo dismiss this by say there was no meeting: It did not happen

He's a liar... that's what we are learning...


by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:28:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

Did you actually read what I wrote? Your TV clip was from before Goolsbee was mentioned.


by mattw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:32:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

OK... I am rereading now... sorry for being so dismissive...


by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:50:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (2.00 / 2)

So the place where Obama is culpable is: Did he deny Goolsbee met with the Canadians AFTER Goolsbee's name was mentioned, but BEFORE the memo was released? (And 30 minutes after Goolsbee's name breaks isn't sufficient since Obama isn't necessarily going to know immediately on the hectic campaign trail)

Yes.

It is that simple. It simply does not matter if he KNOWS the perp is guilty. Just like the Rezko matter, if you see someone headed into the weeds, you need to distance yourself from the briarpatch. It is not enough to say, "they were not in the weeds yet." In politics at the national level everything is fair game, and everything matters. Everything that Goolsbee and Samantha Powers says matters because it reflects on on Obama. Everything in this case matters...


by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (2.00 / 2)

It boils down to a "hectic campaign" arguement, and I don't think that flies. Maybe I'm wrong, but then please tell me what I missed?  I'll answer tomorrow, 'cause I'm going to bed...

peace brother.. we want the same thing...


by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:05:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

Okay, can you show me some sort of evidence that indicates that Goolsbee is brought up BEFORE he denies?

It's very clear that there were a LOT of denials by Obama's crack response team when the first CTV story broke, which was the wildly inaccurate one. I have yet to find him denying in an interview or such after Goolsbee breaks.

As far as inferring things, that's just not good enough. With all the scrutiny, they'll find something bad about everyone - it's just as easy to read things into Clinton's tax returns, her husband's nuclear/charity deal, comments her team made comparing Obama to Rove, her validation of McCain, etc. All those things currently reflect badly on her. None of them rise to the level of outright intentional deception, and if you want to slap that label on Obama - show some evidence. The video you keep posting was, as far as I know, from a morning news interview on the day the Goolsbee story broke; so Obama hadn't associated any of the nafta fuss with him at that time.


by mattw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

How many senior economic advisors are there?  What is the chance Axelrod didn't immediately contact them all?


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:14:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

Thank you for being about the truth.  I believe you are mistaken about Obama and what he was denying and when he was denying it; however, I respect your integrity.


by macmcd on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:56:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Let me be clear: if the Goolsbee story broke on the morning of 2/29, and on 3/1, Obama flat-out denied the nafta story, I'd agree he was lying. I don't think anyone CAN show that, because I researched it extensively and as far as I can tell, once Goolsbee was connected to the story, Obama's camp realized what was going on and stopped denying contact in a blanket way.


by mattw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:28:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

Ouch mattw.... busted...

I really think he did...


by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:19:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lie that is... (none / 0)

I think he does it all the time, with impunity

Obama didn't lie

Yes he did...

It did not happen

It did indeed happen. He lied.


by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:42:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lie that is... (none / 0)

You did not get his point. According to him Obama cannot possibly lie. The world is out of whack if it did not agree with Obama


by devil on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:17:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lie that is... (none / 0)

Once again - when is that interview from, and what is he denying? I can't take things out of context to. In order for this to be bad for Obama, you have to show the Goolsbee story was already in the news at the time of the interview. It was not. Obama is denying a phone call to the embassy, not some meeting his advisor had in chicago that he didn't know about.


by mattw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:22:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we think his explanations are bullshit (none / 0)

In short, you think anything bad for Obama must be true, and whatever is bad for Hillary must be false.

That's fine.


by mattw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks!!! (2.00 / 4)

Thanks Alegre!!!


by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:02:40 AM EST

Re: Canadian Press: (2.00 / 1)

This story just keeps dogging Obama doesn't it? It seems everyday lately Obama has another problem.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:39:24 AM EST

Re: Canadian Press: (none / 0)

It's the oooopsie express...


by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:17:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So now the Canadians change their story so that... (none / 0)

So now the Canadians change their story so that they can bail out of nasty international scandal without seeming to try to influence the American election.

Not too surprising, really, since Harper is a conservative and would like to see a NAFTA-fan like Hillary in the WH.

This would also fit with the diplomatic phrasings from Canada when the Clinton campaign started trying to make political hay:

But the Canadian Embassy in Washington released a statement essentially backing up the Obama camp's version of the meeting between adviser Austan Goolsbee and officials at the Canadian consulate 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," the embassy statement said. "We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

Remember that the original story said that numerous reporters heard Harper's chief of staff Ian Brodie say that the Clinton campaign first contacted the Canadian government to ignore her criticism of of NAFTA.

Now Brodie has developed a foggy memory of that incident, too.
Hillary's Dream Team: McCain/Clinton 08
by Carolina Liberal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:45:13 AM EST

"Numerous reporters" indeed (2.00 / 2)

"Remember that the original story said that numerous reporters heard Harper's chief of staff Ian Brodie say that the Clinton campaign first contacted the Canadian government to ignore her criticism of of NAFTA.

"Now Brodie has developed a foggy memory of that incident, too."

That "original story" is a crock. Brodie supposedly said that Clinton's stafft contacted him about NAFTA in a crowded room, full, as you say, of "numerous reporters." But not one of those "numerous reporters," nor anyone else who was in that crowded room, has gone on the record as a named source for the alleged Brodie quote. And neither the Candadian government nor anyone else has confirmed the Brodie statement either.


by freemansfarm on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:04:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hearsay (2.00 / 2)

If you have independend sources then you can begin to make a case, as it is they have Keith Olbermann and the wind.

Lesson #1 when you go to slay a giant. Have a big sword, and the facts on your side. This arguement has neither.


by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:35:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAGate (2.00 / 2)

Rock on Hillary...

Debunking is the name of the game this week...'

Truth hurts...


by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:12:04 AM EST

Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAGate (2.00 / 3)

So we can expect Keith Olberman to apologize tomorrow?

Hello... Keith...???


by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:57:58 AM EST

Re: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAGate (2.00 / 3)

Excuse me Keith... I didn't hear you...

You certainly flogged the complete bullshit story, so I'd imagine your journalistic integrity would reguire you to make a big mea culpa splash tomorrow. We will be watching. Knock yourself out big bunny...


by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:02:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: (none / 0)

When the Canadian government issued a similar statement during the Obama incident, I didn't see the same acceptance in the diaries on this site.


by shalca on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:16:29 AM EST

Re: Try this chronology on fer size (2.00 / 1)

Please make sure you've actually read the whole memo.  

http://www.nytimes.com/images/promos/pol itics/blog/20070303canmemo.pdf

And here's another chronology I'd like to suggest, which, to me, is much more plausible:
1. Original Story

2. Knowing how damaging the story could be, immediate high level discussions ensue in Camp Obama.  He has based his whole campaign on the fact that his judgment and integrity make up for his lack of foreign policy experience, and he has sent anti-Hillary NAFTA mailers out.

3. There are only a small number of "senior foreign policy advisors," and there is only one Canada.  The advisors are contacted immediately by Axelrod, and it appears clear the story is about Goolsbee.  Goolsbee remembers there was a notetaker.

4. Seeing a tiny opening in the fact that a couple of details were inaccurate, they risk an immediate full court denial.  They have to.  It's Ohio.  He could lose his best chance to finish Hillary off.

5. The gamble is that the Canadian government will be embarrassed and stifle any additional leaking.   At the same time, the campaign is on ready/launch for phase one damage control to discredit everything and anyone in the path: the Canadians, CTV, Hillary-was-the-one, kitchen sink, monster.

6. They also prepare damage control phase two, in the unlikely event the Canadians are stupid enough to name names. Their firewall will be to say, oh, THAT advisor in THAT city, how could we have known.

7. They also prepare damage control phase three in the unlikely case the Canadians are stupid enough to leak the memo.  It's inaccurate, mistaken, intended to damage the candidate, does not reflect the actual exchange, he's just a history professor not representing the campaign (why the diplomatic meeting??), Hillary's-the-one, where are her taxes, kitchen sink, even more monstrous.

4. Goolsbee is named.  

5.  Damage control moves to phase 2.

6. The memo comes out.  It has the unfortunate ring of everyday bureaucratic truth.  Fortunately, few actually read it, choosing instead to spin and be spun to.

7. Damage control phase 3 is launched.  Hasta la vista, Ohio.


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:35:11 AM EST

Hillary Not Involved (2.00 / 2)

Thanks, Alegre, the truth is important. Thanks for clearly pointing that out. Hillary is my candidate!!!


by susanclare on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:09:43 AM EST

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (1.66 / 3)

Clinton     1462      13,575,548
Obama       1570      13,570,501

FYI as of today HILLARY is ahead in POPULAR vote and by the time it's over (with Puerto Rico NOW having a primary) her lead will be substantial and his delegate lead will be small!

http://abcnews.go.com/politics

spread the word

Hillary08
Obama12


by CarolinaDawn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:47:12 AM EST

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

Unfortunately, ABC's total includes both Michigan and Florida.  Without them, she does not have the lead in the popular vote.  It seems to me that abcnews should put an asterisk next to those numbers.


by shalca on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:32:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

GUESS WHAT??  LOL  They will count in the end.

This is a case started last August challenging the DNC's decision to not seat Florida's delegates. Although the case was originally dismissed, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will be hearing an appeal of the lower court's decision to dismiss the case.

Oral argument is scheduled for March 17th, 2008. Here is a link to all the pleadings etc.  

DiMaio v. Democratic National Committee

(page last updated March 7, 2008 at 1:28 PM)

Case Information
Current Court: U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 07-14816)
All Courts: U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (Case 8:07-cv-01552); U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 07-14816)
Topic(s): Primary Election Dates
State: Florida
Date Filed: August 30, 2007

Issue: Whether the Democratic National Committee violated federal law or national party rules by deciding to take away Florida's votes in the national presidential nominating convention, as a result of the State moving its primary election up to January 29, 2008.

Status: Complaint filed on 8/30/07. Judgment in favor of defendants entered 10/9/07. Notice of appeal to 11th Circuit filed 10/10/07. Oral argument is scheduled before the 11th Circuit on 3/17/08.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/lit igation/DiMaiov.DemocraticNationalCommit tee.php


by CarolinaDawn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

Also, those do not include votes from 4 states which do not report their totals. Because those states include Washington, even a conservative estimate of Obama's votes in those states puts him ahead again.


by mattw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

I just posted the LINK

make ALL the excuses you want

and we KNOW It's a fluid race but as of this minute the ONLY reputable news agency I found was that one.  CNN has totals too but I have not checked them.  After Puerto Rico it will be more obvious.

That's just my opinion.

June Baby!

out


by CarolinaDawn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:47:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

Those totals don't include:

(1) Uncommitted vote in MI, which was clearly predominantly for Obama
(2) Does not include totals from Iowa, Nevada, Washington, or Maine; all of which Obama won in delegates. He was clearly ahead in votes for all but Nevada, and he may have won the popular vote there.

Therefore, if those were totaled, Obama would gain a large margin and take the lead.


by mattw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:53:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian Press: Hillary Not Involved in NAFTAG (none / 0)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l

There's a link, though I'm not sure if realclearpolitics is reputable enough for you.


by shalca on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:18:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pass this information on to (none / 0)

ROFLOL

indeed!  way too much barackoolaid!

just KIDDIN!!  (wink, wink)


by CarolinaDawn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:45:08 PM EST


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.