CTV News: Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric

[Metric System]

***The (Obama) staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.***


My sister in Toronto called me tonight and told me that this was one of the top stories on CTV National News tonight in Canada. Here's the article I found on CTV.ca:


Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric

Updated Wed. Feb. 27 2008 10:26 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have ratcheted up their attacks on NAFTA, but senior members of their campaign teams have told Canadian officials not to take the criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.

The Democratic rivals have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said.

Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.

More at link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227?hub=TopStories

My sister said the story centered around the Obama campaign more than the Clinton campaign. During the broadcast report, the reporter stated that the Clinton camp has not only denied to CTV News that any conversation with Canadian officials took place but that blanket immunity has been given so the source with their camp could be revealed, if there is one. So far, no source.

Edit: I removed BREAKING in the title because some Obama supporters were focusing all their attention on that rather than the actual issue. One of them even created a thread making fun of me over it! Cool.

[GoldieAZ49]

1. NAFTA "criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric"

Great, Obama is another politician that just tells voters what they want to hear.

So much for "Change you can believe in" :puke:

[lastliberalintexas]

7. Yes, Obama is another politician

And so is Clinton, by the way. Why anyone would be surprised by this is beyond me. I was only initially surprised that it was actually being reported (again, about both campaigns), and then I saw that it was being discussed in Canadian media. :shrug:

[GoldieAZ49]

17. It disgusts me that they would give a heads up as to what they would say

in the debate.

It doesn't surprise me if Clinton did it, we all know how 'honest' they are.

Obama is the one positioning himself as above the fray of old politics. Sounds like he has old politics down to a fine art.

[mckeown1128]

2. Do we know if this anonymous staffer worked for Obama...

or Clinton... because my money is on the latter. What a great way to try to sink a campaign based on honesty the week before an important election than to send out a call from an "anonymous staffer."




Edited to change the word former to latter.... sheesh... it changes what the meaning is.

[Metric System]

3. My money's on the former too.

[BenDavid]

4. "Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric"

[FrenchieCat]

6. but......since,

Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.



Guess it's all about Obama. Clinton spokesperson "denies" flatly......just like Hillary denied flatly that she was never for NAFTA till her quotes were read back to her. OK. :eyes:

[GoldieAZ49]

5. from the article

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

[ProSense]

13. That makes no sense! Obama has been speaking out publicly against NAFTA for years. n/t

[GoldieAZ49]

18. What was the question last night about the farmers in IL

something about NAFTA, O said that it was good for some business' but not for others.


What bothers me is the call saying it was 'just campaign rhetoric" ... that is what voters are going to make decisions on... campaign rhetoric?

[ProSense]

20. The story is bogus with questionable sources. Obama has been speaking out against NAFTA for years

What kind of ridiculous rumor monger would try to imply that Canada was just made aware of this recently?

Breaking? Stupid!

[GoldieAZ49]

27. Did you read the comments on the article from the Canadians?

Interesting to read their perspective, not exactly demo friendly tho.

[Metric System]

29. Which is interesting because I've seen a few different polls out of Canada showing that Canadians

prefer Democrats like 4 to 1 in this election. And they really hate Bush there too.

[TheDoorbellRang]

36. No kidding. This "it's only campaign rhetoric" attack is the second one I've seen here

This time thru an anonymous staffer (uh huh, must be gospel truth).

Makes it more suspicious because supposedly Obama's economic advisor has been attributed as saying that no one in the financial community should worry about Obama's plans there because it's only campaign rhetoric. Both times I've seen and challenged it, as the smear was posted with no link to substantiate it, and the OP's in both cases never came back with one.

Sooo interesting how suddenly Obama's staff/advisors are busily running all over creation telling everyone to ignore his "campaign rhetoric." Gee, I wonder who came up with this new ploy, Penn or Icky?

[Redstone]

8. BREAKING: Who gives a flying fuck? This "story" will be forgotten by tomorrow, if it even

stays on anyone's radar THAT long.

Redstone

[anamandujano]

22. It's really inspirational to get away with deceiving voters as long as

the MSM buries the story.

Is he trying to inspire a new generation of smash and grab men?

[Redstone]

34. Whatever the HELL that's supposed to mean. I'm sorry, I don't have my

Gibberish-to-English dictionary close to hand, so I can't answer your post.

Redstone

[anamandujano]

41. You as good as said it doesn't matter what Obama's intentions are

concerning NAFTA, that even though he's been outed as a fraud on this issue, the story will not get traction, so it's alright.

You probably won't understand that either but one does one's best.

[Leopolds Ghost]

32. You're right. Dems, even Hillary dems, are happy to let Obama decieve them on an issue like CFR

Because they are too embarrassed to admit that their candidates are both
conspiring to do what's in the interests of the party, not the country,
and that is to abandon Campaign Finance Reform (an issue only McCain now
cares about) and embrace NAFTA, an issue their biggest donors (and Obama
and Clinton both have plenty of $1000 donors, people who do NOT give and
get their co-workers to all give equal $1000 amounts for nothing)
care deeply about.

In short, Obama is lying to his supporters whereas Hillary is openly
broadcasting her cynicism and the cynicism of her supporters and
media flacks (Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow etc.) on this issue.

So who should we vote for, the open liar who will not touch any of the
damage her husband did to the country (electricity deregulation, telecom
deregulation, the whole undoing of the Great Society and the New Deal)
or the guy who promises transformational change while the same vampires
who ran the Clinton White House gradually move into his offices and
start making phone calls overseas to reassure wealthy investors that
all the talk of change was just campaign rhetoric, the exact same way
Lula Da Silva's guys did when he was elected as a socialist in Brazil?

[Redstone]

35. Nice to see that Ralph Nader is posting here at DU.

Redstone

[Leopolds Ghost]

38. So only Ralph Nader supports Campaign Finance Reform and opposes NAFTA?

To support CFR and oppose NAFTA (and oppose, say, warrantless wiretaps)
and hold any Dem candidate to a hard-and-fast red line standard on this
just like the Republican voters do for their candidates on their issues,
is now an act of treason. Wow.



Taken from: http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/53

[anamandujano]

43. So now Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow are Hillary's media flacks?

Will someone please tell them they need to find another vocation.

[Leopolds Ghost]

65. They aren't doing a good job of hiding their desire to see both candidates move

right economically and left on social issues, which is more in line with
the center-left attitudes of their brie-and-cheese set.

Unfortunately, social liberalism without social justice is mere
country club Republicanism.

[anamandujano]

67. In other words, they are NOT Hillary's flacks, in fact employed by GE.

[jasmine621]

111. No, it won't die. Just wait until Sept. Oct and Nov. nt

[ProSense]

9. What a BS story. There isn't even any credible angle to it, and it features a quote from the AEI

Rovian BS!

[Johnny__Motown]

10. Breaking... Bumper sticker political tactics do not go into details on their opponent"s positions

Everything was accurate.


He may have been setting a trap for her. If he did she fell for it. The word "Boon" was retracted but it still represented her stance on NAFTA.

When she attacked him on that word it opened the door for him to use her direct quotes against her, and they are much more damaging than simply the word "Boon". She should have just let it go or put out her own mailers to refute his. She had plenty of time to get mailers out before next week's election.

If she fell for a trap then that is her own fault. She would just fall for another one against McCain if she had won the nomination.

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. Another lie from Hilary and Obama. I predicted this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4785957

Lawrence O'Donnell (angrily) on Dan Abrams:

"The two candidates are being absolutely silly on (both health care and)
NAFTA. There is no chance, none, that these proposals will be sent to
Congress, and no chance that they would pass. NAFTA has been nothing but
good for Canada, Mexico and the United States. I was Hillary Clinton's
person on the Hill when NAFTA was passed and I promise you she was not
opposed to NAFTA, only thought her health care bill should have priority.
I promise you that neither of these candidates will DO A THING to touch
NAFTA once they are elected. I know what Hillary thinks on this issue."

[Johnny__Motown]

16. HA, there it is, her stance on NAFTA from her "person on the hill" at the time

This is beautiful. Thanks for posting it. I hope Barack has time to put that into a commercial in Ohio before the election.


I was Hillary Clinton's
person on the Hill when NAFTA was passed and I promise you she was not
opposed to NAFTA



OMG that is just beautiful

[anamandujano]

44. Let's give Lawrence O'Donnell and David Gergen lie detector tests.

Since O'Donnell is now an MSNBC toadie, I think he'll fail.

[jackson_dem]

55. O'Donnel supports Obama. Gergen is neutral

O'Donnell even wrote a vicious article demanding that Edwards quit in order to make way for the coronation of Obama. Who is more credible? I'll take Gergen and Hill's biographers over a rabid Obamite.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

60. And Carl Bernstein wrote a largely negative book about Hillary, but supports her on this question

while we're questioning who works for who, and all...

(Though I cannot say whether Gergen was a source for the book)

[Leopolds Ghost]

63. A rabid Obamite who is rabidly free trade, used to work as Hill's Hill whip on NAFTA and

Assures us VITUPERATIVELY (as a rabid freetrader) that BOTH candidates are
"stupidly pandering to the American voter" on an issue that he assures
us through personal experience, neither intends to do anything except make
worse (through further trade agreements). If Hillary wants a time out
on trade, I will certainly take that but I have to assume at this point
that both of them were lying. I was giving Obama the benifit of the doubt
this whole time because Hillary was running on her husband's (vituperative
pro-free trade) record and I can't bear to see another 8 years of
corporate deregulation and removal/restructuring of New Deal programs.
But now I am solidly convinced that the people, the consultants and
wise men that infiltrated and destroyed the Clinton administration by
getting Bill to repudiate the platform of the Democratic party on issue
after issue have now moved on, hung Hillary on the bedpost like a used
piece of clothing and moved on to their next willing and impressionable
target: Obama.

[Johnny__Motown]

97. Works for me, lie detector tests all around.Since we have so many other quotes from Hillary praising

NAFTA her claim to have been against it at the time was always suspect. Now her "person on the hill" is on the record that she never opposed it.

I only wish we could hook both Hillary and O'Donnell to lie detectors and ask them both about NAFTA. That would be fun as hell.

[bigtree]

120. I saw him last night claim to be 'working with' Hillary Clinton on health care

But, all I saw during that period was O'Donnell with his lips fixed to Moynihan's behind as they worked together to defeat Hillary's attempt at national health care coverage. He was the 'Senate Counsel' at the time, but always he seemed to be directly behind Moynihan in the hearings and in his ear the entire time.

So, I don't know what game he's playing now that he's a high paid media hack, but I don't trust his word that he was "Hillary Clinton's person on the Hill when NAFTA was passed." There's no reason to.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. It's like a magic show... being fooled is half the fun!

I don't mind at all that Obama is just another political opportunist. They all are.

I do mind that so many Dems are so hungry for fantasy that he has somehow convinced them he isn't.

It is cruel to see idealistic or desperate people deceived like that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

21. I'm a realist. I won't vote for any candidate who supports NAFTA.

The reason Obama has inspired such fervor is because people imagine him
to be transformational. Opposition to NAFTA is transformational because
it takes a movement to keep a figure of Obama's or Clinton's stature from
opposing the media and corporate interests on this (thanks to Clinton's
telecom monopoly bill of 1997) without being utterly destroyed and
character assassinated using overt and covert propaganda tactics.

(note the absurdity of even mentioning Clinton's name in the context of
repealing Clinton's Reaganite policies which did more to destroy the
New Deal than Reagan could have ever dreamed of, as a famous conservative
once said.)

If Obama is lying about this, then he has deceived the American people and
cemented the Democratic Party's allegiance to Free Trade by convincing the
Liberal Base, blacks and students, that ONLY HE can deliver them MORE FREE
TRADE and that is what his movement is about and that is what they will be
taught is the right thing for the country now that they are involved in the
political process.

It is all about clever propaganda to ensure a false dilemma
between two opposing political parties with meaningless disagreements.

Like Hillary's expert propaganda to convince Democrats that
"Mandates", a right wing concept employed in Bush's Soc. Security
deregulation, are the "Liberal" solution to Health Care, that
"Mandates are Universal" and single payer is socialistic.
Single Payer is what she promises to GET RID OF when she brings
the hammer down on Cuba, remember.

[anamandujano]

71. So now you're working against health care.

The old Repuke can't be done so let's not try.

[Leopolds Ghost]

79. No, I'm just against mandating the current system and renaming it single-payer

Through cosmetic adjustments and subsidies of the current broken system to
ensure "public private competition" just like the DLC did to electricity
deregulation, telecom deregulation, Bush's Social Security privatization
plan which certain Dems actually advocated for, etc. etc. etc.

I believe in either reform the current system or universal (single payer)
health insurance. I am fervently opposed to passing a law requiring
Americans to buy into the current broken and profit-oriented health care
system. It is a false premise to assert that "deadbeats" are the problem
with our health care and that inflated costs are the only issue, not
huge insurance industry profits, lack of price controls, or an expectation
of specialty care that is 10x more expensive than what most nations can
afford without taxing the extremely rich to pay for everyone's healthcare.

On Edit: But lying to voters about their intentions is even more
repulsive. Hillary is quite honest about her health care plan. I don't
see either candidate honestly saying "we need to do something about NAFTA,
I'll have to fight people in my own party and former colleagues who
disagree with me and support NAFTA." No, they both are lying about NAFTA.
I have an excellent bullshit detector on this trade talk nonsense.
What's really bad is the open gall of the Obama and possibly Clinton camp
in casting themselves as the workingman's candidate here if they are
actually
lying and planning to install another Reich, another Rubin, another Zoellick.

[anamandujano]

82. I understand now, you're extremely rich and worried about taxes.

[Leopolds Ghost]

86. Uh... no. See my posts about um, NAFTA

The extremely rich are dancing Obama around like a marionette on NAFTA,
if this Canadian report is to be believed. If so, then I, personally,
have been decieved on this "too good to be true" candidate :cry:

And it may turn out to be he WAS that good, was picked out early and
groomed for leadership, like a lot of Harvard and Yale graduates who
end up as President and somehow have all these wealthy people that
know them from way back in Harvard and Yale (and it's never explained
where all the wealth came from or how it relates to them rising thru
the ranks to become president with a little help and encouragement
from their friends.)

Hillary doesn't need to be manipulated by the wealthy on NAFTA, she's
backed into a corner by the policies of her husband's administration.
Which is why the media has this love-hate relationship with her. I
truly believe Hillary thought SHE could use her relationship with these
wealthy and powerful donors, who groomed her husband just like Obama,
to influence THEM to advance HER sincerely held policy ideas about
health care etc. She made a big mistake. Those big money guys expect
a return on their investment, not a lecture on what the money will be
used for once Clinton or Obama are in office.

[anamandujano]

91. I don't agree she's backed into a corner, but we'll see.

[Cogito ergo doleo]

14. Consider the source?

"Michael Wilson - our Quisling ambassador to the US

February 15, 2006

If Stephen Harper wanted to send a signal to the US that he was willing to hand over our nation to the US empire he could not have chose a more appropriate person that Michael Wilson. Mulroney’s finance minister (who started the slashing of social programs and UI that Paul Martin continued), a dedicated free trade and NAFTA supporter, the father of the hated GST, and until now, the chair the Canadian Council for Public Private Partnerships - the Bay Street organization lobbying relentlessly for the privatization of our hospitals, bridges, roads and sewer and water systems.

But perhaps equally disturbing is Wilson’ role in the deep integration initiative of big business. The initiative was formally launched by the tri-lateral Task Force on the Future of North America. Two of the heavy hitters on the six member Canadian contingent(the TF had Canadian, US and Mexican reps) of the Task Force are John Manley and Michael Wilson. It also includes former Quebec Premier Pierre Mark Johnson. Two of the six Canadian members are energy CEOs - just to indicate to George Bush that the oil companies run Canada, too.

It is important to expose Harper’s agenda hidden within this appointment for it signals that he is even more committed to deep integration than the political party which first promoted it.

If you haven’t written a letter recently, or haven’t had one published, write a short letter highlighting Wilson’s most recent roles: privatizing our public services (many of which are being bid on by US corporations) and the treasonous deep integration initiative."

http://www.canadians.org/wordwarriors/2006/feb-15.html

Quisling: : traitor 2, collaborator (Websters)

[Leopolds Ghost]

45. Yep, which is whu Obama's wise old men (former Clinton heads) must suck up to him.

Note all this "tri-lateral" talk. It is evidence of deep and abiding skill
at media and image manipulation on a professional scale that these guys have
succeeded in making sure any and all talk of "Tri-lateral Commissions"
is banished from the media, and ignored on Blogs, as "tinfoil conspiracy talk"
even when the talking heads know exactly which longstanding trade entities,
backed by a rotating club of the world's wealthiest investors, are being referred to.

They consider themselves the world's rulers, and one only has to take a course in
real estate development in the New York metropolitan area to understand
the scope of the separate and unseen society these folks live in.

Politicians exist to be bought and sold by them -- legally, which is why
even Dems now ignore Campaign Finance Reform because all that is
important is access to the media. Recall when Andrea Mitchell declared
on TV that by winning the money race "Obama has now shown himself to be
a viable candidate and an alternative to Clinton".

The whole "world city" movement to "reclaim the streets" of investment banking centers
like New York is a movement to recast them as another Zurich for the international elite --
a group of people who in my studies and publications that I read are consistently described
as the innovators of tomorrow -- stateless, not bound to local jurisdiction, the city
exists to cater to them in competition with other centers for the wealthiest
millionaires and billionaires around the world.

The "world cities" of investment wealth generated by NAFTA are clusters
of blood vessels generated by cancerous growths of multinational investor
elites who employ nobody on these shores except servants and shopkeepers
and advertisers and truckers and call center employees, and the
trickle-down income that entails.

[Occam Bandage]

15. Yeah. No shit that both of them are playing up their anti-NAFTA "cred" for Ohio.

And no shit that they're trying to assure Canada and Mexico that they recognize that trade policy is more complex than a bumper sticker.

[Leopolds Ghost]

40. NAFTA did not exist before Clinton, so your rhetoric is absolute bullshit.

NAFTA was created by a Democrat, has failed, and will be rescinded.

Your "progressive" notion that trade policy is absolute and constantly
"marching forward" into new realms of massively wasteful corporate
overseas outsourcing, with the US importing tomatoes from whoever grows
them the cheapest in the most quantity, is the logic of the cancer cell --
the logic of the plantation state.

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. The people behind BOTH the Obama and Clinton camps are the SAME on this issue.

They are a PERMANENT GOVERNMENT of representatives of the wealthy
Democratic foreign and domestic policy elite, representing a shadowy
aristocracy of billionaires that has roots in both the Democratic
and Republican Parties... figures like Rockefeller and Mellon families.

Families like the Clintons, Kennedys, ex-CIA "movement conservatives"
like Bush and William Buckley are mere footsoldiers in partisan
warfare. The guys up the food chain can insinuate themselves into
ANY administration and PROMISE them that if they take certain courses
of action, they will be destroyed by "our friends in the media".

They completely own the candidacy of any campaign that is allowed to
get this far in the process without being destroyed from within by
disruptors and media propaganda. The Media have vetted Obama behind
the scenes and are reassured that he will lie, he will front if
necessary to preserve NAFTA. That is what they mean by "what kind
of change are we talking about here, are Americans ready for change?"

Like I said, these media wars guys, the big families who actually
run for office, the CIA spokesmen, the former CIA director who said
"we own everyone of importance in the media" are mere foot soldiers
acting in the interests of the "people who determine what is best
for America and its economy." Those people are immensely wealthy
and they inherit a say in what Americans are allowed to do when they
join a select few clubs and are groomed through a select few schools.

[anamandujano]

23. Well, why not just ask ourselves WHO is being destroyed in the media.

"PROMISE them that if they take certain courses
of action, they will be destroyed by "our friends in the media"."

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. Larry O'Donnell says both candidates are playing Ohio voters for fools on NAFTA

And Dems here on DU are buying it. I heartily agree.

Larry O'Donnell should know, since he was Hillary's Hill aide
in charge of whipping Democratic politicians to vote for both
NAFTA and Health Care reform in 1993.

I trust Hillary and Obama not one bit on this issue and
if this allegation is true, I will certainly not vote for
Obama or any pro-NAFTA candidate from any party that makes
it onto the fall ballot. (Pro-warrantless wiretapping is
another red line I will not cross.)

[TheDoorbellRang]

42. And can this allegation be proven or disproven?

Why do they tell all the damning "evidence" revealed by this staffer but hold back the staffer's name. Why hold the name back? Why not give a transcription of the conversation that occurred?

Sorry. I smell political smear job all over this one.

[anamandujano]

48. O'Donnell can eat sh*t. It's his word against Gergen's.

Not to mention, that was then, this is now. She is going to do something about it.

We now have proof that Obama is lying.

O'Donnell is now working for the man and helping destroy Hillary. That's what's in store for anyone who really intends to change something.

[anamandujano]

24. The Obama staffer gave the heads up and this thread has turned it

into a criticism of Hillary.

Good work men.

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. Obama has decieved the American people. He is a tool of corporate interests

The people he surrounded himself with at Harvard, the ones who encouraged

him to go into public office and promised to support him if he did.

The kingmakers.

The notion that Hilary will overturn NAFTA is similarly laughable.

As Lawrence O'Donnell said, both he and his boss Hillary were staunchly
in favor of NAFTA and will not do a thing to touch it in any way shape
or form if they are elected.

Meanwhile both candidates sent their Wise Old Men -- their scions of
billionaire foreign relations families, their sons and grandsons of
ambassadors -- to reassure Canada that NAFTA was a third rail that
would not be touched and to WARN THEM THAT OBAMA WAS GOING TO LIE
ABOUT IT and that the media, which supports NAFTA, would accept it
as a lie and move on, trusting that the American people are too dumb
and easily frightened to know the truth -- that NAFTA is necessary
medicine and that the American working class is overpaid and obsolete.

[anamandujano]

46. Lawrence O'Donnell is not working for Hillary, he is working for the

MSM, presently working to destroy Hillary.

You are really trying to cloud the issue here. Obama's staffers on on record for this story. Hillary has denied it. You are trying to make it look like they are the same, the way Obama tries to make his health care plan the same as Hillary's.

It took me this long to realize that you are an Obama supporter.

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. I don't support Obama, I question Hillary on any issue involving Clinton's legacy BUT

(And this is a big but) I refuse to support any candidate that would
decieve the American people on NAFTA. Now you could be right.
Hillary may have changed her mind on this issue and told folks around
her, like Lawrence, that she intended to govern from the "left" once
elected, and repudiate her husband's right-of-Reagan policies on
issue after issue (electricity dereg, telecom dereg, banking dereg,
NAFTA). Which would of course prompt them to utterly destroy her
and pump up Obama as a more easily-controllable alternative.
But I sincerely doubt it. More likely, they want a candidate they
can control, are happy with BOTH of them but figure Obama has a better
chance of winning in the fall (note how the Media and big business
Repubs have ALLOWED McCain to be percieved as unpopular instead of
puffing him up as the de facto front runner like they did against
Kerry in 04. Because McCain can't be controlled and neither could
Kerry.) They figure Obama can be controlled and if he doesn't come
out and repudiate the staffer who told Canada's ambassador this, we
will know that he is a liar and a stuffed shirt. If he DOES come
out and repudiate the staffer / Wise Old Man who said this on his
behalf, you can be assured he will have to fly commercial for the
duration of campaign season.

[anamandujano]

53. Excuse me, you keep saying that O'Donnell is around Hillary, like um,

working for her now?

You keep quoting the dumb fuck as an insider telling the truth about his boss, even though it might embarrass said boss and fuck up her campaign in Ohio.

What are you saying?

Is O'Donnell NOW working for Hillary?
Is O'Donnell NOW working for MSNBC?

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. He's working for MSNBC and rabidly denouncing anyone who would attack NAFTA

And assuring us that Hillary will not touch NAFTA and that neither
Hillary's nor Obama's health care plans have a chance of passage on
the Hill and that "everyone" on the Hill knows that. The fact that
he was Hillary's whip on the Hill when NAFTA was being pushed says
something, however. If Hillary changed her mind on NAFTA, she did
not do so publically or openly nor did she repudiate what she told
O'Donnell at the time, he says she had no objections whatsoever to
NAFTA and was merely focused more on domestic policy, like many
Clinton (and Obama) supporters who do not spend any time at all
questioning NAFTA today.

[anamandujano]

72. For the last time, this is an attempt to make Obama look less the liar by

distorting Hillary's position on the issue.

We know O'Donnell is for Obama. Obama has been outed as a liar on NAFTA. Solution? Let's pretend that Hillary would do likewise just because a guy who used to work for her says so.

You know of course that Tweety is on our side, is perfectly objective when he trashes Democrats, because he used to work for Tip O'Neill.

[Leopolds Ghost]

84. Alright, let's focus on Obama since he seems to be the presumptive nominee here.

I say unfortunately the presumptive nominee because much as I love to
see the first black president, I think we are seeing a repeat of JFK here
-- a center-right Dem who succeeds in mobilizing huge, idealistic crowds
of young voters who liberal Dems failed to educate or connect with, and
convinces them that a new day is dawning even if that new day ends up
being totally constrained by the policy positions of the 1990s and the
last Clinton administration, when the media never rested in telling us
what liberals would and would not be allowed to do.

I totally agree with you that this is devastating for Obama which means
that we are probably screwed on NAFTA and possibly other issues. :cry:

The silver lining is that Obama has a chance to repudiate this allegation
and join forces with Hillary here to say "enough of this bullshit, DEMS
PASSED NAFTA AND DEMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO RESCIND IT IF IT DOESN'T WORK OUT
FOR AMERICA!"

Whereupon the Media will hand-wave and say "more pandering, gosh will
the lies never stop! We all know you can't get this high in politics
and oppose NAFTA, the donors will not stand for it and neither should we!"

But at least if they joined forces on the issue we would know that they
were either both lying on the issue or both sincerely pushing back
against the party establishment on the issue, which is defiantly
pro-trade.

[anamandujano]

85. Yeah right, Hillary is going to join forces and help pull his lying @ss

out of the soup. After he turns everything against her? That's just not going to happen.

Maybe Jesse Jackson Jr. could make a plea to her. He's always been on the up and up.

edit to add--Let him repudiate it all by his lonesome.
:nopity:

[Leopolds Ghost]

87. If he repudiates it by his lonesome I am more likely to believe the media will use it as an

opportunity to make an example of anyone in either campaign -- anyone at
all -- who willingly and openly declares war on NAFTA and make sure that
person's career in public policy is destroyed.

It takes a village to destroy a meme. In this case it means the
candidates are either conspiring to lie to us about NAFTA or they
have the opportunity to conspire to defeat the media on NAFTA.

The media line is that NAFTA is now an untouchable third rail.

[anamandujano]

89. The only way he can repudiate is if the sources in Canada back down.

Hillary does not have to repudiate, it is Obama's problemo.

She can stand by and let him twist in the wind.

As I've already said a few times, the media is already attempting to destroy Hillary, so they must suspect she means business about fixing NAFTA.

[Leopolds Ghost]

93. One thing I will say about Hillary is that she doesn't take orders from others.

Maybe the media hates her because she's trying to reverse the typical
power relationship which is "tell us why we, the media, should deem
you fit to rule." Followed by a list of policies they are expected
to endorse if they wish to be embraced by the corporate media,
like a League of Women Voters questionnaire. (no offense to the LWV
but you get the idea.) Hillary reverses that and says "I know what
has to be done to lead the country, and I expect the media to follow suit
and advocate for the candidate that best expresses this sensible change."
For better or for worse.

I myself am not sure if I prefer either approach.

I prefer the populist approach Edwards and Obama have tapped into but I have to
admit it is all too easily exploitable by hypocrites and demagogues (possibly
including Edwards and Obama, it's hard to tell) to the point where I don't think
the media take populist candidates seriously, even in their own minds...

they find it impossible to believe all but the most gadfly-ish and unpopular
politician actually believes in radically progressive improvements to the status quo.

(what they consider to be radical destruction of the accomplishments
of the post-Reagan era.)

[Marie26]

113. Matthews pointed this out.

They all laughed about it - he said "oh, Obama will have to pander on NAFTA in Ohio". The OH state legislator started earnestly talking about why NAFTA was a bad thing, & Matthews interrupted by laughing & saying "so he'll pander on it". Andrea Mitchell joined in about how all "educated people" know NAFTA is a good thing. It was infuriating, but at least they were telling the truth. The rich & powerful all know NAFTA is a good thing, and Obama supports it too - he'll just have to pander & lie until the Ohio primary.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

56. Fuckin' clown party up in here

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. Prediction: This will lead the news tomorrow in Ohio and be near the top nationally

Because Clinton will pitch a fit in the morning sufficiently intemperate that the news will have to lead with it.

That's how it's done...

[Johnny__Motown]

28. I hope O'Donnell's quote is included.

I was Hillary Clinton's
person on the Hill when NAFTA was passed and I promise you she was not
opposed to NAFTA



I just can't get enough of that

[anamandujano]

49. as well as Gergen's who is on record saying the opposite of O' f'ing Donnell.

[Johnny__Motown]

98. sure, lets hash it all out, It will look like he is just carrying water for Hillary. Plus all her

other quotes praising NAFTA would bury her.

[anamandujano]

99. I guess you didn't watch the debate. She made her position crystal clear.

She got her points across to the voters, in spite of Timmy and Brian.

I sympathize that your guy was dumb enough to show his cards and lost a big pot. That's just the way it goes sometime.

[Johnny__Motown]

100. I watched it, the point is she is not being truthful. Sorry but that is obvious and can be proven

[anamandujano]

102. Obama just got caught in a lie. Deal.

[Johnny__Motown]

104. what lie is that?

[Leopolds Ghost]

105. To be fair, I don't see how this revelation helps Hillary.

We have to assume Obama will be the nominee given the math, irrespective
of who we rooted for. As such, it's time for the slow gears of justice
in the party to begin turning slowly but exceeding fine around this NAFTA
issue. We must not let the Wise Old Men simply sneak into the back door
of Obama campaign headquarters and begin to run the Obama campaign as a
compromised, centralized, pro-corporate, pro-NAFTA in-house operation --
discard one brand for another for the sake of party unity -- the way they
hobbled Kerry. Something has to be done about this.

Something does not need to be done about Hillary's putative support for
NAFTA because Hillary is not the likely nominee. The relevant issue is
what the likely nominee will not just make his policy for the next
4-8 years, but set the LEFT END OF THE SPECTRUM for acceptable
national discourse for the next 20 years, like Clinton did when he
endorsed NAFTA and welfare reform in the first place:



So, what can be done to challenge Obama to show his sincerity on this issue?

What can be done to show up this asshole right-wing Canadian?

Let's not forget that what's considered right-wing in other countries
is considered liberalism here -- and they are openly endorsed by liberal
intellectuals here. Carville and Penn advocating for the right-wing
Bolivian leader's privatization of the water supply, for instance.

Reagan actually organized a campaign across Eastern Europe to build up
"liberal" Westernization movements after Glasnost -- modeled after
Reaganism, of course. In many of these countries, "liberal" means
someone like Mitt Romney.

I am not surprised if someone in the Obama camp is dealing with right
wingers in Canada and Mexico to assure them that Obama and Clinton are
merely experiencing a bout of irrational exuberance.

The question is, can these losers be exposed and discredited and forced
to go back to their West Hamptons chateaux? There to write angry memoirs
about how the Obama campaign went left and refused to listen to them?

Obama is the issue here, because barring something drastic, he is the presumptive nominee, not Hillary.

(I do not count this as something drastic since the average American
clearly does not know or care about free trade and globalization, or
they would have given more support for candidates like Edwards. It is
the old frog in a pot of water theory... most Americans are too young
to remember a time when America made things and did not rely on
just-in-time delivery of overseas made consumer products paid for on
plastic electronic petro-credit.)

[Johnny__Motown]

106. 50,000 lost jobs due to NAFTA in Ohio alone, I think some people in Ohio know and care about NAFTA

[Leopolds Ghost]

107. And yet Ohio is about to split their vote between two candidates who waited until recently

to say a bad word about NAFTA. My bullshit alert is sounding when I hear
them speak about this.

Don't you think that the person who said this to the Canadian right wing ambassador needs to be
found out??!?!

Obama needs to put this to bed and do something to demonstrate that he is
serious about his newfound
commitment to "reforming" as he put it, NAFTA.

Such as coming out and denouncing whoever told the Canadian ambassador that.

[Johnny__Motown]

108. If you say so., I was focused on Hillary's lies, Every quote I have seen or heard from Obama

has him trying to reform NAFTA but not repeal it. If you have more information than I do I will admit I am wrong about it.

Again, I was focused on Hillary's statement that she was against NAFTA when it was being signed into law. She had made multiple statement praising it, wrote about it in her book and now her "person on the hill" says she was never against it. To me that part should be put to bed, she never was against NAFTA, and every time she says she was she is not being honest.

[Leopolds Ghost]

109. What Hillary thinks is irrelevant. She is unlikely to be the nominee

And if it is by some miracle that she wins, it certanly will not be
because she moved to the left and won over Ohio voters and the media
by becoming a populist. Populists in this campaign have been consistently
demonized to the point where Obama refuses to even SOUND populist and
prides himself on an anti-populist, "Morning in America" approach.

My only interest is in not electing a candidate who will extend NAFTA
and further entrench the influence of multinational corporations,
increasing our dependence on imported goods until we are merely a
plantation state for multinational investors, dependent on imported goods
produced with slave labor overseas -- like the "prosperous" citizens
of ancient Rome.

If Obama's aides told Canadian ambassador he is willing to lie about NAFTA,
to "comfort" overseas investors that he is a liar like the rest of thme,

that is FAR more troubling than what Hillary Clinton thinks.

Clinton is a known quantity with an established policy reputation
who is unlikely to be nominated.

If anamandujano is right and Clinton is actually a misunderstood advocate
for social justice for the working man, then obviously a great tragedy is
about to unfurl because Clinton's on the verge of losing the nomination
in a race where both candidates seem to be conspiring to avoid the NAFTA
issue by mouthing half-assed sounding promises that they cynically know to be a lie.

So back to the point, are we going to call Obama to account on this or not?
He is our presumptive nominee.

[Johnny__Motown]

116. Yes, if you can verify that claim. It sounds like hear say right now. His advisers told the Canadian

It is possible that his advisers misrepresented his position to the ambassador. I honestly don't know.

If he is being dishonest about any position he needs to be confronted on it. I don't have any double standard here. I want a president who I can trust, this is one reason I can't consider supporting a Clinton.

Also, I am not a one issue voter. You stated that "My only interest is in not electing a candidate who will extend NAFTA". Excuse me if I misunderstood you but that seems to put you into the one issue category.

Unfortunately no viable candidate is running on repealing NAFTA. To my knowledge Sen. Obama has always voiced the same opinion on NAFTA. Clinton has clearly held multiple positions. I don't know how you can consider her a known quantity when her opinion changes and there are claims from insiders that she is being dishonest about her claims to have opposed it. Obama's consistent statements appear to me to be the known quantity. This one piece of hear say evidence to the contrary isn't overwhelming to me.


But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."


This just means he will renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards. I don't think Canada is the problem with either labor or environmental standards. If he told Mexico not to worry about these things it would worry me a bit more. I live in Detroit Michigan, as I type this I am less than 3 miles from Canada. The major reason jobs move across the boarder here is the health care costs in Canada are far less than they are in America. Lowering these costs will help keep some jobs in the U.S., not a silver bullet but a step in the right direction.

[GoldieAZ49]

118. I am a one issue voter - the issue is: TRUST

I may not agree on everything with the candidate, that is fine, they know more than I do at their level.

Just say so, I am an adult, I can handle the truth.

Obama is running on Change of the old divisive politics, Hope for a better way for America, so HE raised the standard he wants us to hold him to. Fine.

Now we know he is just bullshitting us for votes.

If we are the ones we have been waiting for, what are we going to do with a candidate that is not what he presents himself to be?? Hmmmmm?

[MadBadger]

31. Canada leads the way?

[Mme. Defarge]

33. If all else fails,

throw a tantrum. And vote for her because the women and girls of America need a role model to boost their self-esteem.

[anamandujano]

52. Self defense is a good thing. You seem to want to encourage women

to take the punch and shut the fuck up.

[anamandujano]

51. Obama needs to pitch a fit. There is no proof Hillary's staffers have

reassured anyone.

[Leopolds Ghost]

68. If Obama does NOT pitch a fit, we will know he has decieved the American voters

And is in the pocket of monied interests who will not countenance
him turning into another Edwards (remember the declaration of war
by the US Chamber of Commerce on Edwards? such a thing has not
happened since 100 years ago.)

Hillary, however, merely needs to come out and say "I repudiate
many of the policies my husband enacted in the 1990s, such as
NAFTA. He was pressured by Newt Gingrich and a series of
Republican advisers to vote for a series of bad bills endorsed
by the most extreme right wing, and we have seen how the negative
effects of those bills have been magnified in time of crisis
when you remove a good economy and replace it with the disaster
of George Bush, with little in the way of regulation or a
social service net to protect us from Bush's mistakes, thanks
to the deregulation and pro-corporate re-regulation of the 1990s
Republican Revolution."

[anamandujano]

74. She has essentially said that, except that she is the supreme diplomat, unlike

you or me. :)

[ContinentalOp]

37. Why on earth would Obama worry about the opinion of the Canadian ambassador?

At this point in the campaign does the opinion or support of the Canadian ambassador to the US have any weight or relevance to any of the candidates? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. The same reason "transformational populist" Lula Da Silva did in Brazil

When he was compelled by his national finance advisors to make calls to
all the foreign ambassadors and trade viziers in the Northern Hemisphere
to "reassure" them that his talk of protectionism and social policy was
"campaign rhetoric" not to be taken seriously, and to work with
international financiers to "tone down" his proposed monetary and fiscal
plans for the great state of Brazil in order to keep the international
finance guys from "punishing" Brazil for electing a "socialist".

Obama is compelled to do what the international finance guys in New York,
London, Singapore say because we owe even more money than the most
indebted Third World country owes US. And that is why these international
finance guys will have a "man in Washington" that our President will have
on speed dial no matter WHO gets elected.

[ContinentalOp]

47. That sort of makes sense but why now?

What does he stand to gain or lose during the actual election? Will Canadian corporations donate money to the campaign or pull strings behind the scenes?

And if you believe that the candidates all pander to these international finance guys, then wouldn't it all happen behind closed doors? If these people expect to have the President on speed dial then wouldn't Obama have already spoken to people directly? Why would some low level campaign staffer call the Canadian ambassador? And if there were these kind of reassurances going on behind the scenes then wouldn't it be in the best interest of both sides to keep it hush hush? Why blab about it to the media? The whole story makes no sense.

[Leopolds Ghost]

59. People make mistakes. The media talks about NAFTA all the time like we aren't in the room.

Finance journals (Finance newspapers, Economist and more esoteric
foreign trade / policy journals) are even worse. They openly talk
about massaging the public opinion on issues that "us educated economic
wise men" (so to speak) know can only be resolved in a certain way --
in the best interests of the people who are reading these publications.

The few hoi polloi who bother to read these publications or respond
when Tweety and Andrea Mitchell (Greenspan's wife, a fact I was not
even aware of) go on about "don't worry, they are just pandering to
uneducated Ohio voters, we won't hear about this after the election
thank god" -- it is as if they know most people won't catch the
off-hand references that are being made.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4785957

In the worst example of this "talking as if we're not listening, but
being circumspect anyhow" I've ever heard, tonight, One journalist even USED
a code word to REFER to these off-hand references, saying that Obama
or Hillary (I forget the phrase they used but it was extremely coded
-- "floating a red baloon" or some such) was basically lying to the
voters and that we (the people who are knowledgeable enough to parse
this guy's code-words) should be grateful that it is not what they
actually believe or what is actually going to happen when they're elected.

Bottom line is, these guys have created a shroud of "relativism"
and "anti-intellectual" and "shallow, competition focused" discourse
around every subject simply in order to allow them to speak in coded
language about stuff that the American populace is uncomfortable with,
lie about what liberals believe (liberals believe in latte and wine
drinking, not beer -- consumerist lifestyle battles over what to wear
and what to think, instead of beliefs and factual opinions) so that,
those of us who bother to CHALLENGE them when they openly ENCOURAGE
our candidates to LIE and PANDER to us on issue after issue that they
say is "important only to experts like us" while focusing everyone
else's attention on surface disagreements like the "sanctity of
marriage", wine vs. beer, trailers vs. tract homes, those of us who
say "cut the crap, this issue is more important and you are encouraging
our candidates to lie on behalf of YOUR economic interests in the media"
we can be dismissed as gadflies who are over-intellectualizing.

[GoldieAZ49]

76. It was a high level campaign staffer that called

and it is a Canadian newspaper letting the Canadians know not to worry about what is said in the debates. They are all watching too, NAFTA affects their countries economy too.

We are not only electing the POTUS but the leader of the free world, who that person is will effect nations around the world.


And personally, if a candidate tells me he is going to run a transparent government, and change the politics in Washington, and work for the best interest of the people in this country with their help, change NAFTA for the benefit of the American workers then turns around and tells Canada not to worry it is "just campaign rhetoric, that is just bullshit.

Hope?
Change we can believe in?
Yes We Can?

The more I read this the angrier I get. If this is the 'new politics of change' well, he can kiss my ass.


There better be coverage of this in the US, I have been emailing the story to the cable news outlets, and will start calling them tomorrow.

[anamandujano]

78. Dear God, please let this blow his lying @ss out of the H20.

[ContinentalOp]

83. There is no chance in hell this is a true reflection of Obama's position.

Again, why would he risk this before the primary is even over? How does it help his campaign to "let the Canadians know not to worry"? They don't have any effect on our primaries. Why not just let his string of victories play out and then do an evil corporate about face once in office?

It's just more Rovian BS from the Clinton campaign to try to influence Ohio voters on the NAFTA issue.

[Leopolds Ghost]

88. It could be that there are liberals in BOTH camps who sincerely want to reform or end NAFTA

And "wise old men" in BOTH camps who will not even bother to ask their candidate
before assuring foriegn leaders of what the future Obama / Clinton administration
will and won't be allowed to remain part of the "investors club".

Like making sure the free trade agenda is not threatened,
regardless of what liberal activists in the campaign staff think.

This Obama staffer could be part of the "wise old men" trying to "send a signal".

Once elected, the new President will sit down and be instantly constrained
by what his/her most influential and well-connected aides and allies tell
him/her it is possible / desirable for him or her to actually do, "now that
campaign season is over".

[anamandujano]

90. Nice try. Obama has a history of pro globalization. A worker bee

here at du got the goods for us.

The tread is titled "Why has the Obama campaign scrubbed his pro-globalization positions from his website?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4664208

Let's give it up for Harvey Korman!

[Leopolds Ghost]

94. Thanks for the link

Not sure anything can be done about it at this point except force Obama to
hold him to his word and repudiate the his private and in-print statements
and remarks.

It's been done. McCain was forced to move leftwards to honor his
newfound supporters in the late 1990s and early 2000s who saw him
as a "sensible" Republican and wanted him to run against Bush.

When his ambitions in that direction ceased, his need to move leftwards ceased.

What most Reagan Democrats remember about Reagan was he fought Japanese
investment in the US with his totally fake "made in the USA" acts. They
don't realize he massively accelerated the disinvestment in US manufacturing
that occurred after the US oil shock, when the US oil supply peaked.
That's because Reagan was "the great communicator".

[anamandujano]

101. We can send him back to the senate. That's what can be done about it.

This thread is about the fact that he does not intend to honor his newfound supporters.

[BrightKnight]

54. Free trade with Canada is not a problem .

I don't have a problem with core labor and environmental standards. We don't have much room to complain about Canada.

[jackson_dem]

57. This is what we deserve for booting fair trader Edwards for two "free" traders

"Change we can believe in", "I will tell you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear", "my opponent is cynism" :rofl:

At least everyone knows what Hillary is. Obama is using smoke and mirrors to mislead many folks. If he wins I can't wait to see the cries "He fooled us!".

[Straight Shooter]

62. They won't cry, "He fooled us!"

They'll find a way to blame it on Hillary.

[anamandujano]

75. or go crazy trying

[anamandujano]

66. "If he wins I can't wait to see the cries "He fooled us!"."

That's going to be the only comfort I have to wake me from this nightmare.

[Leopolds Ghost]

73. I will have no comfort in it.

Then again, I can't support Hillary because I can't envision her going
against her husband's legacy of deregulation -- and free trade. Heck,
were she elected Dean would probably be fired. Now I know some will
claim that Dean's an ex-DLC center-left brie and cheese internet liberal
and a free trader like the rest of them, that a lot of people who talk
about fair trade don't really want to see those industrial jobs come back
because they weren't "green" enough (never mind that the new smokestacks
in China and India are far more polluting than the ones that got closed
down.) But the reality is that we know where Hillary stands on the issue
-- but most American's don't. They think of her, Obama, Kerry, Dean as
undifferentiated "liberal's liberals." And they will be just as outraged
and her working class supporters will feel just as decieved when she
decides to continue her husband's policies on issue after issue just as
Obama seems compelled to do.

[anamandujano]

77. She does not have to go against her husband's legacy. She's going to fix it.

Don't you think the hubby is on board with it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

92. Well, I do realize Hillary is considered more liberal than Bill on many issues.

And I suppose you could say that a lot of great presidents went back and
fixed earlier ...ahem... works in progress.

It's sort of like "true church" Christianity, I suppose. We're going to
restore the true faith and rescue all those bills that Republicans wrote
in the 1990s. It could be done. Maybe Hillary would even be in a unique
position to do it, if she and her husband have actually decided "true,
unreconstructed pre-1994 Clintonism" is possible and desirable, if it
exists. I mean, Obama will not be allowed by a Dem congress to reform
or repeal the 1990's deregulation bills, I don't think. Hillary would
have the ability to "go to China" on this issue, that's for sure.

I question the notion that she is the anti-globalization candidate here
and Obama is the rabid free trader here, however. It seems to me like
both these candidates are sending a subtle message -- "we mostly agree
on the issues and shame on my opponent for suggesting otherwise.
Regardless of what we say on the campaign trail, when we get in office
expect bipartisanship and change 'we can believe in', not radical or
drastic revisions to earlier mistakes now held sacrosanct. Nothing
that would upset the investor community, like repealing NAFTA. Bush
has done enough to upset investors, LAAAAWD knows!"

As if. Bush has been an unmitigated success for Wall Street.
They just don't want to admit that Wall Street does not have
the interest of Main Street.

I mean, Kerry said "no permanent bases in Iraq" and as Tom Hayden pointed out,
all three leading Dem candidates this year endorsed permanent non-combat troop presence
in Iraq. We just don't care anymore.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

58. Did the RNC get a similar warning?

[amborin]

61. Obama has spoken on record in favor of the recent trade accord with Peru

which will devastate Peru's small farmers.....

and harm some US workers, as well

so let's stop the hypocrisy

[Leopolds Ghost]

103. What happened to the last populist in the Senate? I recall small planes had something to do w/ it.

:cry:

[thoughtcrime1984]

69. This shit is tired, bring on March 5th!

The day of reckoning for some, the day that America began to get its' wings back for most!!!

[Leopolds Ghost]

95. Tired? I guess you're tired of hearing about the evils of NAFTA...Were you alive when it was passed?

I was hoping Obama staff and supporters would at least respond with:

"Sorry, I don't THINK so! Obama is definitely not some kind of free-trader!"

[thoughtcrime1984]

121. Yes, I was alive when NAFTA was passed.

I am tired of these supposed "Obama supporters leaked this and that" stories.

[cooolandrew]

70. Barack now has so many new voters on his case he will have to deliver that's the great thing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. As I argued vs. Clinton, it's pretty much done deal that Obama's the one who must be pressured

Because it looks like he will almost certainly win the delegates needed
for nomination, but at what cost? Are these superdelegates rushing to
him for the wrong reasons, i.e. because they trust him to continue the
failed free-trade policies of the past and not make any "major mis-steps"
and not do anything rash?

In other words, Obama is the presumptive nominee, are all these new voters
willing to hold him to his word and repudiate this Canadian policy creep?

Even if he's inclined to agree with the Canadian creep (he's already gone back
on the Campaign Finance Reform pledge, a historic first when we could have had
two major candidates beat the system, and absolutely no one seems to be upset)

Or are they mostly mindless supporters who will say "yawn, this is a distraction,
it's morning in America again when Obama gets elected."

"Liberal? Who said anything about liberal? Obama doesn't need to be
liberal, I trust him to create an entirely new politics! He will bring
together free traders and fair traders to create free trade deals that
are fair! he will bring together wolves and sheep to create sheepskins
that wolves can wear!" I hope that is not the "new politics" that these
new voters are buying into. Post-liberal, post-Reagan, post everything.
"It's gotta be good if it's better than Bush, and NAFTA was signed by a
democrat so clearly it's better than Bush!" "Why would Obama want to go
back on the successes of the Clinton administration which Bush reversed?"
I see a lot of this with younger activists, even so-called "radical" activists.

[SammyWinstonJack]

115. ...

:silly:

[anamandujano]

80. Almost forgot, REC!

[casus belli]

81. Riiiight. n/t

[GoldieAZ49]

110. kick

[Marie26]

112. Edwards wouldn't have done this.

Just saying. This is essentially tricking Ohio voters - promising them one thing in loud rhetoric while whispering another to the real power. If Obama or Clinton ar pro-free trade, that's fine, but they should run on that platform & let the voters decide if they want the President who has that position. This lying just undermines the whole point of the democratic process.

[Freida5]

114. So who is Obama misleading now-Canada or America

[GoldieAZ49]

117. The American voters - tell them what they want to hear

and letting Canada know it is "just campaign rhetoric'

how is that for "Change you can believe in"?

I feel duped!

I already voted for Obama on Feb 5th for him.

This is a very good reason NOT to have a national primary, this kind of politics is nothing new, it damn sure doesn't sound like HOPE to be.

He got my last vote for him on February 5th.

[ProSense]

119. Sorry to disappoint, the Obama campaign confirms that the story is BS!

The sourcing is blind, and I've got a call into the embassy for their take. The Obama campaign is denying it.

"?The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama?s consistent position on trade," says Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy -- that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy."

link

Amazing that people are salivating over as story that claims "Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources."

Is there a disconnect that causes people to not see the idiocy of that time frame? Obama has been speaking out publicly against NAFTA for years. A story quoting a person from Rove's AEI claiming the somehow Canada needed to be warned this month about something that's been going on for several years is beyond ridiculous.