What Fresh Hell Is This?

April 16, 2008


The P-G Endorsement, Part I

Today, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for the Pennsylvania primary election. The first eleven paragraphs note the similarity of both candidates on the issues and how they are both "uncommonly smart, thoughtful and very well-versed in the issues . . . care about people . . . care about the workings of government . . . are prepared."


So why do they endorse Obama over Clinton? This paragraph seems to be the primary reason given:
This editorial began by observing that one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new.
So, I guess that means that if Sen. Obama had heaped "litany of criticisms" on Sen. Clinton -- simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans -- the P-G might have gone the other way, or called it a draw, right?

Say, if as far back as last year, if Obama and his top campaign people had called Hillary "disingenuous"; or had repeatedly labeled her untruthful in November of 2007 and January of 2008 (taking off time for Christmas); or if at the end of January in an interview Barack had called her "divisive" and "calculating", or maybe accusing her of "saying and doing anything to win", or, hell, saying that she was "too polarizing to win"; or maybe if in March the Obama Campaign had tried to throw out there that she was "one of the most secretive politicians in America"; or a day later they had said that Hillary was "attempting to deceive the American people" or, Jesus, what if they had claimed that she was "playing politics with war"; or if they had said, again, a week later that she was "literally willing to do anything to win" -- that would be a bad thing, no?

I guess if Barack had used these kinds of character attacks, the Post-Gazette Editorial Board would be peeved or something. They wouldn't buy into the Right's/Obama's meme and repeat it bysuggesting that she was "suspect and shifty," would they?

And, what if the Obama Camp had not stopped there, but had gone on to attack the last Democratic President?

I mean, that sounds kind of Republican, no?

What if they had put out a false story that President Bill Clinton was making money on a speech to Asia on the anniversary of 9/11? That would be a pretty crappy thing to do I'm thinking, especially if it had somehow ended up on The Drudge Report.

Or, say, if Obama had praised Ronnie Reagan at the expense of Bill Clinton or had talked about the loss of jobs over the past twenty-five years (mentioning Clinton and Bush, but never Reagan and leaving out how well the middle class did under Clinton). That would kind of suck, no?

It might be called the cynical responses of the old politics to the new -- that is if Obama would have done anything like that.

And, speaking of using the Right's own talking points, can you imagine how supremely cynical it would have been if the Obama Campaign had slammed Hillary's healthcare program by mimicking the old Harry and Louise lies and fearmongering? I mean, it was the Right's Harry and Louise ads that helped to deny Americans any kind of healthcare aid for DECADES so no Democrat would possibly go there.

And, I'm thinking it would have been oh-so-cynical and old school if Obama had used false quotes against Clinton on NAFTA in a mailer or if he had made completely misleading claims in a TV ad.

I mean, I'm sure if Obama had actually done any of that, the Post-Gazette would have sat up and taken notice.



Anonymous said...

The difference is those things said by Obama and surrogates are accurate.
Obama is not an elitist, at least no more than Hillary.
Obama didn't pretend to be under sniper fire... so he's not a bald faced liar.
I know you're obsessed with a woman becoming president. Mo Dowd was right. We could use a woman. Just not this one.

Maria said...

Yes, Obama is 100% honest -- except when he isn't:

"Somehow though, a resulting "honesty" issue is only Hillary's problem. Barack Obama can misremember the circumstances of his birth. He can misstate the role Kennedy played in his family's journey to America. He can keep revising upward how much money his campaign accepted from Tony Rezko. He can blame his old Illinois Senate campaign staff for incorrectly stating his positions regarding issues on a questionnaire he turned in during one of his Chicago political races, until evidence emerged in Obama's own handwriting showing Obama worked on those answers himself. Obama can take credit in speeches for passing nuclear related legislation that didn't actually pass the Senate. Obama campaigned saying his campaign had nothing to do with lobbyists until it came out that a lobbyist was a key part of his own campaign in a state he was hotly contesting (NH), at which point Obama simply said that he meant Federal, not State, lobbyists only."

Anonymous said...

Even before she entered the race, we knew that she would. I hoped that despite the huge institutional advantages that she had, she wouldn't get the nomination as reality is aligned to have a leader clean up the GOP mess and the one thing that would definitely negate the Democratic advantage would be Hillary as the nominee.

It would be a disaster. Fortunately she was right in one regard, after the Feb 5th primaries this would be done and it was... Obama won the nomination that day.

It's a great situation. We don't have a disaster in Hillary running and we also have an inspirational and sharp candidate in Obama -who is bringing many new Democrats to the voting booths.

Schultz said...

Maria (whiner) - embellishing and flat out lying are two different things. All candidates embellish their roles and their stories - that is politics. Just like all job candidates embellish on their resume - lying is on your resume is different though.

Bram Reichbaum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

John K. says: Isn't Operation Chaos great?

Bram Reichbaum said...

When you follow some of the links, you provided, you only get to some news stories that describe in even greater detail why Clinton is the less preferable choice for office. And the quote you link to, above, seems to be just one random persons' opinion, some of which are about issues I don't recall even hearing in the campaign.

I don't hold Obama to super-high standards. I believe he has vastly superior political ability to Hillary Clinton. I also believe he has more often gotten it right in the clutch. And when you get down to it, the trouble he gets into is more often the result of his telling truths rather than falsehoods.

Go Barack! Hope you enjoy watching the debate tonight, and I hope to find you on the bandwagon come summertime.

EARLY summertime.

Fillippelli the Cook said...

Also, from what I can tell, all - or nearly all - of those Obama "attacks" are in response to a Clinton campaign statement. They are not unprovoked attacks with shaky factual underpinnings.

They are responses to statements made about the Clinton campaign about policy issues or about Obama himself.

What the hell is he supposed to do, Maria, roll over and beg for some freakin' vaseline?!

His imperfections and all, what Obama is proving is that he can take the attacks, respond in kind, and maintain his momentum.

All Hillary has proven is that, if she chose, she'd fit right in on the other side of the aisle.

Anonymous said...

keeping score is sooooo exhausting. Can we do this all summer? In the end we all loose because no candidate will be left with a shred of dignity, nor their supporters. Maybe we all say more than we need to hear. This disection will only prove they all are nothing more than Humans Be-ing.

I've been reading and watched C-span when Bloomberg was speaking. Could we get him to step into this circus ring? We need another choice!

Anonymous said...

The PG is enamored of his pretty smile, his good looks, and his "charisma."

And Mrs. Clinton is, gasp, an older woman.

I'm a guy, but I find that in a strange way, the cult of Obama is somewhat sexist. Mrs. Clinton will never exude that macho charisma that surrounds him; she'll never electrify a crowd as he can with his deep, booming voice. His charisma is a very masculine charisma.

But seriously, this may be the only chance in the foreseeable future to elect a president whose gender matches the majority of Americans -- there are, quite frankly, few other major women players on the national political scene right now.

Are the women of America -- and men -- passing up this chance because of -- dare I say it? -- charisma?

And isn't that, well, shallow?

Fillippelli the Cook said...

Hey, how did Tweety Matthews make it on to this board? His "masculine charisma"? Is that like Rudy Giuliani and his "tough cop"/"daddy" persona, Chris?

Bram Reichbaum said...

"The PG is enamored of his pretty smile, his good looks, and his "charisma." "

You've GOT to be kidding me. You can concede NO rational reason for preferring Barack Obama besides superficial idiocy.

"But seriously, this may be the only chance in the foreseeable future to elect a president whose gender matches the majority of Americans"

Now, why would you say a thing like that? Hillary Clinton is not going to be the last of the Mohicans.

Maria said...

I get it:

1) If Clinton says anything positive about herself, she is not helping Obama to win so that must mean that she's attacking him unfairly.
2) If Clinton says anything critical of Obama, she is not helping Obama to win so that must mean that she's attacking him unfairly.
3) If Obama says anything critical or false about her or Bill, it's OK because she is not helping Obama to win so that must mean that she's attacking him unfairly.
4) If Clinton objects to Obama's attacks on her or Bill, it's NOT OK because she is not helping Obama to win so that must mean that she's attacking him unfairly.

Nice little system you got going there!

Anonymous said...

No, Bram, I don't GOT to be kidding you. You said it right -- "superficial idiocy." Thank you.

And, Maria, you are correct. How dare Hillary stand in the way of the Obama express. And his indignant followers, like Bram, and their superficial idiocy.

Anonymous said...

*shrugs* I was planning on voting for Barack Obama before any newspaper endoresements came out and I plan on voting for him now - after the various newspaper endorsements came out. Point being, that while I'm pleased my guy got the endorsement, I'm not sure it has really made a difference since, oh, the 70s.

- Shawn

Anonymous said...

we gotta look elsewhere! We've scewered them all.

Bram Reichbaum said...

Hmmmmm, we have two candidates whose positions on the issues are nearly identical -- but one deserves our vote, and the other one is only duping people with his glamor.

Look -- Reagan is remembered as the Great Communicator for a reason. There is a reason Democrats are to this day forced to run against Reagan and what he stood for. He knew how to communicate big ideas to a broad and diverse country, and turn that into governing leverage.

Hillary Clinton's negatives ratings are persistently enormous. You may think this is only because of all the money spent against her ... you may think it is because she lacks a "masculine" charm that a country full of sexist voters require ... but honestly, the fact that you can not leave an iota of room to acknowledge your candidates own shortcomings as political figure (when is the last time she was frank and honest about a difficult issue?) shows me that you closed yourself off from considering any other candidates, possibly for two years or more now.

Don't stop thinkin' about tomorrow!

Anonymous said...

There is a fallacy out there that Senator Obama's intention to run a positive campaign necessarily translated into Senator Obama's inability to either respond to any attack, or call for his opponent to disclose information, or point out the ways in which he differs from his opponent. Senator Obama never said he would not campaign for the Presidency; he said he would do so positively. With very few exceptions, he has done so. He certainly has not used republican talking points.

Senator Obama did call Senator Clinton disingenuous for her repeated claim to "experience" during her terms as First Lady, while concurrently failing to turn over White House records to support that claim. I note that the only reason we have any of these records is thanks to a court order. This is not a negative attack-- this is a call to put up or stop claiming unsubstantiated experience.

Linking to Senator Clinton's website (i.e. for the "untruthful" statement) is hardly helpful. Shall I link to Senator Obama's in defense?

Senator Obama neither used "republican talking points" nor negative campaigning when he said that Senator Clinton was divisive or polarizing. Indeed, Senator Obama's statement echoed Molly Ivins (and no-one would call her a Republican). This comment was also made in response to Senator Clinton's repeated claim that she "was ready on day one" which obviously suggested that somebody else (Senator Obama?) was not.


(The above link is to Molly Ivins)

Senator Obama did say Senator Clinton was secretive in response to the copious redactions being requested by President Clinton of the White House papers and the failure to release tax returns, library donor records, earmark requests, and relevant White House records. I note that as of this date, we still don't have this information except for a public schedule from the White House years and the tax returns (and we are still missing 2007 returns).

The last statements listed were all made in response to the "kitchen sink" strategy that the campaign of Senator Clinton threw at Senator Obama. Perhaps these are less civil than I would like, but when you have a kitchen sink coming at your head, civility is not the first thing that comes to mind.


Anonymous said...

Senator Obama cannot misremember the circumstances of his birth unless he is truly extraordinary and can actually remember his birth.

It is a myth that Senator Obama (and Caroline Kennedy) were incorrect about Senator John Kennedy's involvement in Senator Obama's arrival in the U.S.


Specifically, [I]t is true that Senator John F. Kennedy, shortly before being elected President, arranged a grant for a scholarship program to bring Kenyan students to American colleges."

Senator Obama always said federal lobbyists -- at least as far back as last summer. Ordinary people (some wealthy, some not) bundle for him -- I could do it if I was so inclined. This does not give us the power of federal lobbyists.


Anonymous said...

Well, who can guarantee me that my high insurance premiums will give me help for an Austic kid?... Millions are collected by the big shots, while I have some kid on the phone telling me that treatment for my Austic son doesn't qualify. Let's talk reality here. Not American Idol. . Let's stop all this altrustic bull-shit and get down to someething concrete. No one has come forward with anything realistic. We are blinded by our own egos.

C.H. said...

Those of you on the Clinton side who are as opposed to a Barack Obama presidency as us Mccain supporters could always jump ship and come support Mccain when this Democratic civil war winds down.

Mccain embraces the ability to reach out to everyone, instead of just the extreme left. Hillary was consistent with her positions just like Mccain until poll numbers got in the way...which is why its no surprise that a growing number of her supporters would prefer Mccain over Obama.

That being said, I think that an Obama presidency would lead to a disaster. Look at the cute little meeting between the Hamas murderers and Jimmy Carter...that's a preview of what an Obama admin will bring us. I could just see it now, the leader of the free world sipping tea and giving happy talk to Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and their surrogates as the centrifuges spin, Mookie's supply lines are reloaded in southern Iraq, and the Iranian axis of terror wraps itself deeper into the Middle East.

Kumbaya, anyone?

Anonymous said...

And don't forget that he would also force us all the have gay muslim abortion sex while standing on top of King James Bible wrapped in the American flag while flipping the bird to Jesus with one while using the other to hold the phone while he whispered state secrets to Osama bin Laden.

Yinz've been warned!

- Shawn

Bram Reichbaum said...

Aside from the tea, how is that any different than what's going on right now?

Or are you suggesting that McCain would bomb Iran? Bomb, bomb Iran?

No one's voting for the guy who understands everything except foreign policy and domestic policy. Time to get comfortable out in the hinterlands of American politics.

Infinonymous said...

Yeah, that cute little meeting between our former president and Hamas has been a disaster.

How does it compare to that cute little meeting (in Iraq) between the delusions of our current president and those unfortunate enough to be governed by his orders?

There was some happy talk in that episode, too . . . "mission accomplished" . . . "bring it on" . . . "dead or alive" . . . "final throes" . . . "we will not rest until bin Laden is brought to justice" . . . "the war will pay for itself" . . . "greeted as liberators" . . .

Another Bush term, anyone?

Anonymous said...

Retired millhunk says:
I told you so roll up your pant legs there goes Maria whining, whining, whining. Hillary votes for the Iraq War, votes for Kyl Lieberman amendment to let Bush expand war into Iran, votes for bankruptcy bill that sides with credit card industry (lobbyists),helps hubby push NAFTA through costing 100's of thousands of good paying jobs. Ergo Maria is for the taking of American lives the taking of Americans livlihoods, the taking of Americans financial well being.

Maria said...

Obama voted against the war (hypothetically) and voted with Clinton on a dozen other Iraq votes, he refused to vote against a cap on credit card interest rates, his staff tells Canada to just ignore whatever he says on NAFTA cause he doesn't really mean it and he lies in his lit about what Clinton said about it. Ergo Retired millhunk is for the taking of American lives the taking of Americans livelihoods, the taking of Americans financial well being.

Bill said...

This blog is a pretty good example of what's happened to the Democratic Party. And it's depressing.

Maria said...

"Senator Obama cannot misremember the circumstances of his birth unless he is truly extraordinary and can actually remember his birth"

One assumes that he can remember the date of his birth and that when he claimed that the "march across the bridge" in Selma gave his parents the courage to get married and have a child, he can also remember that the first of the three marches occurred in 1965 and that he was born in 1961.

"Specifically, [I]t is true that Senator John F. Kennedy, shortly before being elected President, arranged a grant for a scholarship program to bring Kenyan students to American colleges."

The snopes article you site states that Mboya (who initiated the program) did not met Kennedy until 1960 and then persuaded him to help in funding the project. Barack's father came to the US in 1959.

Perhaps Barack's just bad at math or getting that whole space-time continuum thingy.

Anonymous said...

I am thoroughly tested
He is not vetted
I am entitled
He has no right to be
challenging me.

This is my party
You are not listening
You have an obligation
To give me this nation

I am bristling
I am furious
Hell hath no fury
As when you dont see
my glory

You MUST pick me
For I am Hillary
I put up with Bill
And anointed the MAN's shill.

Anonymous said...

and'm anointed...

I am inevitable
You are incredible
Back to the bus we must go,
Shouldn't this we all know?

Anonymous said...

Maria -- Do read the Snopes article again. I didn't get it wrong. Senator Kennedy did this through a private foundation, not the federal government (as Carolyn Kennedy said).

Also, I suppose we should hold Senator Clinton to this same nit-picking standard about family history? Because we know her grandfather did not build that summer home all alone only with his own hands and we know that her mother did not name her after Sir Edmund Hillary.

To me, the above is nothing more than the repetition of family myth. However, it appears critical to you. I don't look to closely at my own family's myths and certainly would not want the press doing so. But, if you truly think this is relevant, do remember that Senator Clinton has some explaining to do of her own regarding inaccurate family myth.

I think this is nonsense applied to ANY candidate. But then we need to discuss flag pins, too, for another hour or so -- that is what is really important, right???
That and heck, a discussion of what your parents told you, why they told you it and when they told you it... very important.

Anonymous said...

Also, I wonder about anyone still mentioning NAFTA. Ian Brodie (Chief of Staff to Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister) told folks that the Clinton campaign reached out to tell them to take Senator Clinton's comments "with a grain of salt."


But then since Senator Clinton's vague, indefinite call for "a time out from trade" is strikingly ambiguous, we already know to take her position on NAFTA with a grain of salt.

Also Mr. Goolsbee (Senator Obama's unpaid economic adviser who met with a Canadian AT THE REQUEST of the Canadians) has said that the Canadians misinterpreted his remarks -- (and one has to wonder why, you can watch Prime Minister Questions to get an idea of what the Canadian parliament thinks-- many think someone deliberately created this whole mess to try and get Senator Clinton elected... if you don't believe me, watch the Questions on c-span -- they argue about this at least twice a week).


(Above is link to Mr. Goolsbee).

The Bag of Health and Politics said...

Clinton voted for the war "on the best evidence available at the time." She didn't bother to read the NIE. Once upon a time that would've bothered Maria. It's really sad to see so many people ruin their reputations on this campaign.

Anonymous said...

My grandmother used to date a warlord in Central American and join him on missions to run guns between Panama and Nicaragua...

Does this mean I can no longer run for public office?

Fillippelli the Cook said...

Yes, C.H., McCain has been remarkably consistent. And Paris Hilton is a virgin.

Schultz said...

McCain? Talk about out of touch. A few months back he said this about keeping our troops in Iraq:

"I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for one hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years."

Not permanently though, he said, but 10,000 years - yeah sure, why not?

Schultz said...

Anon 1:09 - your grandmother dated Ollie North???!!

Bram Reichbaum said...

Maria -- just because it seems like such a significant issue to many -- DO YOU have an answer for why Clinton voted to give the president the authority to go to war, based on the intelligence available at the time? Because she never seemed to speak clearly on this.

Anonymous said...

Retired millhunk says:
How can Senator Clinton state based on the best intellligence available for going into a war with Iraq. Senator Clinton never read the NIE, which she admits. How can you vote for someone who can't even read a NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE and votes for war, and then says based on the best intelligence available. Like I said, Maria could care less for over 4,000 American deaths, 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and along with the bankrupting of our nation. I would hope Anon 12:40 entry on NAFTA will enlighten you but I doubt it. Maria why do you hate the working man.Your candidate has been exposed for what she is. Maria why so full of hate?

Anonymous said...

Keep swingin' away at him folks. It won't stop him, he'll just "brush the dirt from his shoulders" and keep movin'. ;)

- Shawn

Anonymous said...

It would be one thing Maria if Hillary were bringing up the things you use(which I can't vouch for because I haven't had the chance to look over them yet), but she's not.

But confusing memories about his childhood? You've never done that? That's a bit different than repeatedly telling a gross exaggeration of a tale that only took place several years ago, during your adult life, which you wrote about it.

And many of the examples you cite are after we had Bob Kerrey "coincidentally" bringing up the madrassa smear. After that scum Bill Shaheen in NH "wondered" if Obama might not have also been a drug dealer(that's not a loaded statement at all...right.) After the Clinton camp sent out fliers distorting Obama's position on Social Security, Health care, a women's right to choose, guns...if I'm not mistaken, aren't those wedge issues? And we all know who likes to use social wedge issues to divide.

And the Reagan thing? Jesus...poor little Bill Clinton's ego. But during Reagan, Republicans grew stronger. Under Clinton, as the party was converted as a vessel to serve the Clinton's ambitions(we all know the only reason she ran for Senate was so she could run for President), Democrats lost a lot of governors, the House, a lot of state legislature, Senate seats. See the difference? Do you get what he was saying? Reagan reshaped the electoral map in a way that Bill Clinton didn't.

And that's another huge difference - attacking Hillary on Tuzla is completely in bounds. If she's going to tout her experience, then she should expect questions. I mean, she told us she has nothing to hide, that she's been vetted, that she's faced it; but we find out she has a lot we don't know, that she's never, NEVER won a competitive election and that her resiliency is seriously belied by the simple fact she's losing and will lose the nominating contest.
She's digging in on Wright. She attacks Obama for sending secret messages to the Canadians(a government controlled by the rightwing Stephen Harper, whose chief of staff originally leaked the story) and then we learn her chief strategist is working for the Columbians on a trade deal!

Raising questions about the Clinton Presidency and her husband is in bounds. If she didn't want that, then she shouldn't have chosen to base all the evidence of her vast experience on those eight years and Bill should have been her husband, not an attack dog and co-competitor for the restoration of the "dual" presidency.

One of the reasons her health care initiative failed was because members of her own party opposed it; many of them grew weary of the secret meetings she held, the minutes of which were only released after a court order.

But, see, we've been told that Hillary could handle this, that Hillary was ready on "day one."

So, shouldn't she stand by her words, suck it up and deal with it?

If she's truly been vetted, if she truly can stand the worst that Republicans can throw at her(which she's constantly reminding us that Obama can't) this should be no big deal, right?

Of course, we know the long history of Hillary having trouble with her words, when she decides to let us hear them, but maybe I expect too much.

Anonymous said...

Bag of Health:It's really sad to see so many people ruin their reputations on this campaign.

Does this mean that anyone who doesnt vote your preference should never appear in public again? That is childishly rediculous.

Maria said...

'Also, I wonder about anyone still mentioning NAFTA. Ian Brodie (Chief of Staff to Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister) told folks that the Clinton campaign reached out to tell them to take Senator Clinton's comments "with a grain of salt."'

Wow! Is that you, Keith Olbermann?

I only ask because, like Olbermann, you only 'report' on negative things about Clinton, and then, when the facts come out, you ignore them.

Since this isn't the Countdown show, we'll remind everyone that according to the Prime Minister's Office:

Clinton didn't brief Canadian officials on NAFTA stand: PMO

Hillary Clinton's campaign team has never told any Canadian officials that their candidate's anti-NAFTA statements are just political posturing, the Prime Minister's Office said Friday.

In the midst of the so-called NAFTA-gate affair, the PMO clarified — two days after it was first asked a question about the matter — that Canadian officials never requested, nor received, a private briefing from Clinton's aides on her position on the continental trade treaty.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, reportedly told journalists that both U.S. Democratic presidential candidates had privately downplayed their anti-NAFTA rhetoric, but he now says he can't recall his exact statement.
(Tom Hanson/Canadian Press) "The answer is no, they did not," Sandra Buckler, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said Friday.


Obama's team also initially denied that they had played down their NAFTA rhetoric to Canadian officials, but this week, the Illinois senator was firmly in the hot seat when someone leaked a diplomatic memo that seemed to confirm CTV's story.

The memo, written by a Canadian diplomat, outlined a Feb. 8 meeting between Austan Goolsbee, one of Obama's economic advisers, and officials at Canada's consulate in Chicago.

The document says Goolsbee reassured Canadian consular staff that the NAFTA comments were to be seen as "more reflective of political manoeuvring than policy."

Obama's campaign team now acknowledges that Goolsbee met with Canadian officials, but they said the memo gravely mischaracterizes his comments.

Harper has vowed to launch a wide-sweeping federal probe into the affair that will include the Prime Minister's Office.

Anonymous said...


Are not you tired of defending the indefensible?

Maria said...

You're hatred is palpable. Sounds like someone has Mommy issues...

Anonymous said...

My hatred is Palpatine, myself.

- Shawn

Anonymous said...

Maria-- I wasn't aware Mr. Olberman covered this.

I read it in MacClean's (the link I set forth). MacClean's is a Canadian magazine like our Time or Newsweek. I don't know where you get that Ian Brodie leaked that "both" campaigns said this. Here is the actual quote from MacClean's magazine:

"At the end of an extended conversation, Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.

Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Obama and Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

Brodie downplayed those concerns.
"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.

"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place."

Note that Ian Brodie said "someone from [Senator] Clinton's campaign" and there is no mention of Senator Obama. Also note, the end "Government officials did not deny the conversation took place."


Do watch Prime Minister's Questions on C-span from Canada. As I said, they discuss this often, usually accusing Prime Minister Harper or the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. (who by the way is a F.O.B.-- Friend of President Bill Clinton) of setting up the meeting with Mr. Goulsbee specifically to twist his words and aim those words at Senator Obama.

I have no idea why anyone in the Canadian government would say any of this. I know that it makes no sense that the Canadians did this to "help" Senator Obama. One has to wonder why it was done, especially since the original (unintentional) leak about this came from Ian Brodie informing us that Senator Clinton's campaign said to take her statements on NAFTA with a "grain of salt."

Finally, any thoughts on what "a time out from trade" might possibly mean?

RogerVeritas said...

You cannot trust Obama to change his republican talking point plagarist style. Heck test and retest it.
That hasn't had and answer he didn't change. His answers usually are non answers. He has more Teflon the Ronald Reagan and is slicker than George Wallace. It is clear he is for change since he his always changing his answers and asking the swooning press to edit their headlines to better suit his mood.
Here are top nons.

My racist anti-semitic mentor of 20 years wasn't really my mentor.
My terrorist friend did sit with me on a board but he isn't really my friend.
My fund raising friend was involved in systematically stealing from the voters of Chicago and he did sell me some property in a sweetheart deal but he isn't really my friend.
By the way he held numerous parties that I attended and he did a lot of drugs but I never smoked any crack that I can remember.
I remember some strange inspirational hallucinations of my childhood but they really weren't my memories. I worked with republicans to change things in Washington but I never actually went to any meetings and I never contributed anything of record substance.
I do know I will ask you not what I can do for your country but I will ask you to do a lot more than you can imagine. You will pay a lot and I will blame it on my critics who want to call B*&&S*#@ on me.

Oh I might have met LarrySinclair0926 and Oprah knows all about my affairs on the Down low.

Maria said...

Aon. 3:29,

You keep pointing back to the same old articles and ignoring later developments in this story.

Kind of like pointing to an old book that states that the earth is flat. That was considered factual at the time too.

Anonymous said...


"It sounds like you have "Mommy" issues."

Does that explain why your candidate is losing? Maybe the whole country needs to work through its attachment disorders. And since when did you put a sign up to practice clinical psychology?

I can say just as easily: It sounds like you have "Daddy" issues.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Grammar,

"You're hatred is palpable. Sounds like someone has Mommy issues..."

Shame on you!

Anonymous said...

Here is something brand new on NAFTA:

More NAFTA news. Apparently what MacClean's reported about the campaign of Senator Clinton telling Ian Brodie (chief of staff for Stephen Harper, Canadian Prime Minister) to take what Senator Clinton was saying about NAFTA with a grain of salt -- is true.


Apparently, James Blanchard told the Canadians not to take Senator Clinton seriously.

Who is Mr. Blanchard? (From the link above--)

Blanchard, former Governor of Michigan, is a Michigan state co-chair of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, one of her major "HillRaiser" fundraisers, and served as US Ambassador to Canada during the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

The original MacClean's story about Ian Brodie's comments can be read at:


I don't know if Mr. Blanchard is speaking Senator Clinton's mind or not, but I DO know that Senator Clinton held Senator Obama responsible for Mr. Goulsbee's words (dubiously reported from a "leak"), an unpaid adviser who denied he made the statements reported.

Also, what in the heck does "time out from trade mean?"

Finally, you did see that the government has not denied the conversation in the MacClean's article took place?

I guess perhaps you are reading the book where the earth is still flat. I don't know for certain. I do know that Senator Clinton praises NAFTA in her book, praised it to get it passed and praised it until she began running for office.

Anonymous said...

Retired millhunk says:
Damn it I already told you people not to state any facts to Maria. She is fully capable of making her own facts. Why didn't Hillary go back to DC to vote on the telecommunication amnesty bill. Obama voted on it. It couldn't be that the telecom giants are giving bookoo bucks to Hillary is it? No she wouldn't sell out for money would she?

Anonymous said...

I think retiredmillhunk has a crush on Maria, he keeps yanking her hair, you know like a lttle 8 year old. Good thing he's retired, sounds like he's regressed into childhood.

Anonymous said...

I think you have a crush on retired steelhunk and are just jealous.