[VIDEO UPDATE x2 +UPDATE 3] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reveals Fake Stand on NAFTA

Must-see VIDEO UPDATE [and second video update just below the fold]:

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Canadian media reveal Obama's posture on NAFTA is solely "campaign rhetoric." Via CTA.ca News article, "Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric":

... 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.

Update [2008-2-28 13:12:56 by susanhu]: #3: So one person for the right Canadian government -- a single official -- issues a public denial to Politico, and that's it? Even though the entire Canadian media is all over this story? Nationwide? And it's the top story in Canada?

REMEDIAL POLITICS/GOVERNMENT 101: How many times has the Bush administration denied everything? (Along with every governnent on the face of the earth, thousands of times?)

And you've believed Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld -- and every "official" government statement around the world -- every time? Really? From a single official? Really?

Do I have a bridge for you!

(Politico's Ben Smith: It's he who quoted the always authoritative David Axelrod the other day saying that of course Bill Ayers and Obama know each other because their kids go to the same school. Ben Smith, who doesn't ask the obvious: Uh, how do Ayers' grown adult children go to school with Obama's elementary-age children? A Guardian blogger and I asked, with the actual AGES. I looked up all the ages at Wikipedia. The Guardian blogger went to summer camp when he was a child with Ayers' children, so he happens to know. Ben Smith unquestioningly quotes whatever ANYBODY says -- including the spinning Axelrod -- and doesn't ask FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS. Sorry excuse for a reporter. Leave it to Bob to think his single call to a single official, without any apparent follow-ups or hard questions, will suffice. The Canadian media will pursue this further.)

Then there's a tip-off in Smith's earlier story on this that quotes an Obama spokesman: "'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." The word INACCURATE is a tip-off. The Obama campaign has not said the Canadian news stories, across the nation of Canada, are a lie. Has not said that.

BACK TO SECOND video update:

(Original) Oh, that bamboozler.  Imagine, for a moment, that you're the head of state or diplomatic corps, or one of the chief politicians or government officials, for the hundreds of nations across the world. Wouldn't you read this article and wonder WHICH OBAMA you'll be dealing with, and IF he means anything he says?

The article contains quotes critical of both candidates' stands on NAFTA.  But it is only Sen. Obama's senior staff who called Canada's ambassador to the United States to -- wink, wink -- let him in on the real deal:  That his campaign rhetoric, especially in states like Ohio devastated by NAFTA agreements, was just that.  ALL TALK.  No cattle.

Imagine that YOU are one of those union members or factory workers whose jobs have gone overseas.  Imagine that you're hanging on to Barack Obama's "rhetoric" about NAFTA.  Imagine how you'll feel when you find out that -- wink, wink -- it was just campaign talk.

I'd be heartbroken.  I would feel utterly betrayed.

Remember the Machinists' Union president?  Do you recall his outrage at Sen. Obama's promises -- to the faces of machinists from whom he took hard-earned campaign donations -- to save Maytag jobs only to find out that Obama never spoke out for those workers.  And that Obama took donations from the top owners of Maytag and never once mentioned the workers' plight to those executives.

I found the February 2, 2008 article from McClatchyChicago Tribune to which Buffenbarger refers, "Obama's fundraising, rhetoric collide: Union says senator did little to save jobs":

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

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

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

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

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

Aide: Didn't know of tie

Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, said late Thursday that the senator did not know Crown sat on Maytag's board until the Tribune noted it last September in a story about the closing of the Maytag headquarters in Newton, Iowa. ... READ ALL.

Did not know.  Did not care?

So much for the workers affected by NAFTA.  Wink, wink. Obama thinks he can tell them one thing, and then do either nothing, or something else entirely.  Wink, wink.

We have written numerous articles at No Quarter on Sen. Obama's many misleading, or outright falsehoods, about NAFTA, including:

Lastly, I will leave you with Hillary Clinton's statement on NAFTA tonight in her extended interview aired on PBS Newshour's "Newsmaker" segment:

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, as you know, a lot of the blame for losing these jobs has been focused on NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. You talked about it at length in the debate last night.

You've said that you've long opposed it. Your critics say, well, it really hasn't been that long. Help us understand, when did you decide that NAFTA was not a good thing?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I had my doubts about it way back at the beginning of Bill's term, but I was working on health care. But David Gergen and others have apparently remembered a lot of the meetings we were in where I raised a lot of questions.

But it's hard to argue with the economic success overall of the Clinton years: 22.7 million new jobs, family income up $7,000 on average, more people lifted out of poverty than at any time.

So the impact of NAFTA and other trade agreements was not so obvious in the economy at large until the Bush administration, because they stopped enforcing trade agreements. They really stopped going to bat to try to keep jobs in this country. They gave more and more tax breaks to, you know, people who were not committed to growing the economy and jobs here.

So since I've been in the Senate, I have raised a lot of serious questions. And I've said, look, I have a plan to fix it. We've got to get core labor and environmental standards in the agreement. We've got to get better enforcement mechanisms. And we have to end the ability of foreign companies to sue over laws we passed to protect our workers.

There's no wink, wink in her statements. There's just the promise of a REAL plan -- not faux rhetoric -- to fix the problems.  And the recognition that a lot of hard work will need to be done.  Along with countless complex negotiations and cooperation with all affected parties, and countries.

There's no behind-the-curtains promise to an ambassador "that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value."

If I were one of those international leaders -- or I were one of those workers who'd lost his or her job, future, retirement, health care, and family stability to NAFTA -- I'd trust President Hillary Clinton to roll up her sleeves and get to work to help cure the complex problems of NAFTA.

President Clinton. Elect her because she'll work for the American worker.

Tags: ambassador to the United States, Barack Obama, Canada, Hillary Clinton, Maytag, NAFTA, Ohio, workers (all tags)

Comments

209 Comments

Re: Shocker: Obama Campaign Reveals Fake NAFTA

Your comments and recommendations are most welcome.

Wonder if I can get the Machinists' Union video to show up here.

by susanhu 2008-02-27 07:58PM | 0 recs
by susanhu 2008-02-28 02:32AM | 0 recs
He Is SUCH a LIAR!

First he lies to the people of Ohio about Hillary's NAFTA record, and now it turns he lied to everyone in that last debate about his own plans for NAFTA..

Now who's willing to do ANYTHING to get elected?

How anyone can trust that liar after all this is beyond me!

by alegre 2008-02-28 04:35AM | 0 recs
will you support the Democratic nominee?
Pretty basic question. Shocked to say that with you and Larry Johnson and SusanHu I honestly do not know the answer.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 04:46AM | 0 recs
I will support Hillary if she wins
Will you and the rest of the Hillary supporters here at MYDD say unequivocally that they will do the same if Barack wins the Democratic nomination? Pretty easy question as far as questions go. I would have thought it would be a pretty easy answer as well...
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 05:37AM | 0 recs
your silence is deafening
How do you reply to this part of the article, miraculously not added by the Clinton supporters on MYDD: "Clinton campaign officials strongly denied similar allegations." So Clinton's camp did the EXACT same thing as Barack's, and yet this is supposed to be something other than the media not wanting the primary to be over so over-emphasizing that Barack's people did xyz but not mentioning that Hillary's people did THE EXACT SAME THING? Interesting indeed...
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 05:43AM | 0 recs
everything? really?
So far we have: Accusations from one side. denials from both sides. A diarist with a history of racial incendiary and divisive language against one side. a group of Hillary supporters who refuse to agree, unlike the Obama supporters, that they will support the Democratic nominee. Oh, and for the cherry on top, no one has yet said how Hillary and Barack actually differ on the way they would handle NAFTA, the only difference is that Hillary was a clear supporter of NAFTA during her husband's administration. That about sum it up?
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 05:51AM | 0 recs
why is river103 TRing my comments?
i am kinda new here. is Troll Rating on this site pretty common? Is it cool to TR someone just for disagreeing with them? Just curious about how it works here. Thanks to the community ahead of time for the clarification.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?

Before some of the rabble rousers joined this site, Troll Rating was reserved for offensive and derogatory comments. All bets are off now that the inmates are running the asylum.

I uprated you because of the ridiculous TR'ing going on here.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 06:27AM | 0 recs
Moderators, please have a look

Rampant TR abuse going on here.  Much appreciated.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-28 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?

I have just two questions:

First of all:

A diarist with a history of racial incendiary and divisive language against one side

What language are you referring to?

Second:

a group of Hillary supporters who refuse to agree, unlike the Obama supporters, that they will support the Democratic nominee.

How do you presume to speak for "the Obama supporters"? I have heard so many Obama supporters voice their intention not to vote for Hillary should she become the nominee. In fact, just a few days ago, the number 1 recommended diary on dKos had a title that read (I'm paraphrasing since I don't remember the exact title, but I remember it was by Delaware Dem--apparently he has since deleted it): "That Does It! I won't Vote for Hillary if She's the Nominee!"

I wouldn't have troll-rated you, but you also have to understand that this site does not have a binary system like dKos does, and a 1 rating is not mean the same as a zero rating. I've noticed that many people here use the 1 rating as a short-hand for "You're full of crap." You may not like it, but that's the way it is around here. I've gotten a few 1's here that I didn't think were justified, but honestly, what the hell does it matter?

by Inky 2008-02-28 06:54AM | 0 recs
it was for clarification purposes nothing more
I am new to this site and trying to figure out what the community standards are. I happen to think that the answers to your questions about my points are self-explanatory (susanhu's craptastic diary yesterday citing to the hate-mongerer Debbie Schussel), and my repeated requests on multiple ocassions on this thread for Hillary supporters to agree to support Barack being ignored, denied, or insulted. reference to a different blog (i.e., your reference to the "Great Orange Satan") as evidence of anything on this blog is a strawman.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: it was for clarification purposes nothing more

You still haven't pointed out that language you were referring to--in fact, I still don't know what you are talking about.

Second, I've stated my willingness to vote for the Democratic nominee in the GE, but I don't presume to speak for others. So I ask you again, what gives you the right to speak for "the Obama supporters"? You certainly don't speak for the Obama supporters whom I interact with on a daily basis.

by Inky 2008-02-28 07:14AM | 0 recs
the diary was DELETED by the MODS
I cant give you the language from Susanhu's grotesque cut/paste from the hate-monger Debbie Schussel from yesterday because one of the Mods here at MYDD decided that her diary was for some reason or other unacceptable and deleted in its entirety (including all comments thereto, mine included). I am referring specifically to the Hillary supporters (90%+) on this site and the Barack supporters on this site. That is all I am referring to. This site. Not your personal anecdotal evidence, or the posters on DKos. The Hillary supporters on this site.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: the diary was DELETED by the MODS

And have you taken a poll of the Hillary supporters and Obama supporters on this site? Your evidence is just as anecdotal as mine and I suspect that your numbers are way off.

Anyway, there appears to be a lot of diary deletion going on these days by moderators and embarrassed partisans on both sides.

by Inky 2008-02-28 07:42AM | 0 recs
see below - Hillary supporter votes for McCain
no need to look any further than this thread to see how much loyalty some Hillary supporters have to the Democratic party.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?

This most be the standard tactic of Hillary supporters in the face of incriminating evidence: blame the others, say that they are doing the same thing and that they do it even more often. How many times have I heard this? The eternal victim strategy. It makes me sick.

by marcotom 2008-02-28 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?
And nobody does troll rate at DKos based merely on candidate preference. If they do, they are give donuts themselves, if not banned. The rules for TR'ing and HR'ing at DKos are clear and are enforced regularly.
by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?
Link?
by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?

Kevvboy 's posts, from what I recall, are never substantive. He generalizes all Obama supporters as cultists, as evidenced by the diary you are referring to.

He is the very definition of a troll.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?

I won't argue with your point re: satire.

However, when your satire denigrates and generalizes an entire group of people, they have every right to let you know they don't like it.

And when your satire reinforces GOP talking points, then you wander precariously into "troll" territory.

BTW, did you get my Vista note?

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?

But see, when you slammed the Reagan supporters it was for the words of those supporters. The "tough talk" his supporters engaged in made them fair targets for criticism, right or wrong. (BTW, you were 100% right about those people).

However, when Kevv slams Obama supporters it is for no other reason than simply being Obama supporters. That's is not fair, and I believe its TR worthy.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?

I agree. I myself rec'd a comment that characterized Obama as "Richie Cunningham, the Community Organizer" because I thought it was funny, even though I disagreed.

But I don't happen to find Kevv's diaries and comments to be funny or agreeable.

But when something is actually funny, I can appreciate it.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?

On a side note, go into your control panel> security settings> and disable User Account Controls (UAC). Then you wont get any more pop-ups telling you  you need to  "cancel" or "allow".

I use Vista, and I have denounced (and rejected) UAC.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?
Heh. Mojo for denouncing and rejecting.
by sricki 2008-02-28 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?
The fact that someone disagrees with you doesn't automatically give them a right to TR you. That River person TRs anyone who says anything nice about Obama or anything even slightly critical about Hillary. Someone should report him/her, just for being so incredibly annoying.
by sricki 2008-02-28 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: why is river103 TRing my comments?

It's TR abuse plain and simple.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-28 11:16AM | 0 recs
My apologies....

I think I got a little too TR happy yesterday. I normally only TR when a comment is over the top, trying to bait, a lie, or is attacking. I will try to do better. Of course, I reserve the right to TR BJ because he (as has been discussed here and elsewhere) defines what a troll is, attempting to bait Clinton supporters ad nauseum.

by River103 2008-02-28 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: everything? really?

Actually...it has been proven from multiple sources that she was very much AGAINST her husband even signng NAFTA or spending time on it. She never supported it.

This is clouding the issue. Did Obama really think that he could contact a Canadian official an no one would find out? The Canadians would not lie about this, they have no reason to.

by americanincanada 2008-02-28 06:56AM | 0 recs
Occam's Razor answers your question
of course Barack didnt think he could call a Canadian official and get away with it, as you have posited. Therefore, it is more likely than not that Barack did not make such a call.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 07:06AM | 0 recs
so you will support the Democratic Nominee
I am happy to hear that. As are hundreds of millions of Americans and other citizens of the world.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 05:46AM | 0 recs
Obama responds
"The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama's consistent position on trade. 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," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 05:54AM | 0 recs
huh?

We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy,

That's weird. If someone says I talked to X, when I never talked to X, would I need to call X to tell them I never talked to them?
That's muddying the waters.

by votermom 2008-02-28 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: I will support Hillary if she wins

Good. Because you can't be sure she won't win the nomination.

Just as you can't be sure that if Obama's the nominee, he'll win in November.

Just as you can't be sure that if Obama does win the nomination, and he wins in November, that he'll even be a DEMOCRATIC president.

From what I've seen, Obama is a Republican Stalking Horse Candidate. He's been supported by Republicans during the Democratic Primary race; and Obama's DEMOCRAT FOR A DAY campaign has publicly endorsed Republicans switching parties to vote for him in the Democratic Party primaries, arguing that they can switch back in the general!

So, supporting the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE will require a bit of proof that Obama is actually a DEMOCRAT.

by Tennessean 2008-02-28 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: your question has no relevance.

Sorry, gotta call bullshit on that one. I post at DailyKos all the time, and occasionally someone says they'd vote rethug - but whenever they do they are TR'd and given donuts and basically shamed off the site.

Don't make bullshit allegations unless you can actually substantiate proof, my friend.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 06:46AM | 0 recs
Shame shortage

March 4th can't come fast enough.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-28 07:23AM | 0 recs
Your distractive spamming of this thread

is doing you or your candidate no favors. Please address the topic of the diary and stop it with the spamming!

by Rumarhazzit 2008-02-28 07:47AM | 0 recs
Canadian Embassy has denied this story today.

here's the link

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 208/Canadians_deny_Obama_call.html

by ksh 2008-02-28 08:03AM | 0 recs
Let's see if the diarist

has the honesty to update their diary with this fact.

by fladem 2008-02-28 08:09AM | 0 recs
Sad, Alegre, very sad

And so are her disciples here(Gabby, Alegre and the rest of the gang) and on 'Larry's Place of Misinformation and Xenophobia'.

In fact, the story she links to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/st ory/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/2 0080227?hub=CTVNewsAt11 to 'prove' Obama staffers made the call that the Canadian Embassy calls untrue, also claims the Clinton campaign called and made the same promises.

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

Shocking! LOL!

by Dave Dial 2008-02-28 09:15AM | 0 recs
Thanks, Susan...

Yet again, we see that Obama's actions don't match his rhetoric. When will he learn? At least someone here is brave enough to call this out.

by atdleft 2008-02-28 03:45AM | 0 recs
OBAMA RESPONDS
"The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama's consistent position on trade. 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," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: OBAMA RESPONDS

It doesn't matter what Obama says... Susan Hu would rather believe a Canadian conservative pro-NAFTA politician with a vested interest in defeating any anti-NAFTA movements.

by dantes 2008-02-28 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: OBAMA RESPONDS

Correct what? That he never expected the ambassador to say anything to the press?!

by americanincanada 2008-02-28 06:57AM | 0 recs
Canada Responds - story is a LIE
ABC News' Jennifer Parker Reports: A senior Canadian Embassy official in Washington, D.C. disputes a report by the CTV Canadian television network that an Obama campaign staffer telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, to reassure him that campaign rhetoric against NAFTA should not be taken seriously. "It didn't happen," said Roy Norton, who heads up the congressional, public and intergovernmental affairs portfolio for the Canadian embassy. Norton said none of the three campaigns for Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, or Sen. John McCain have contacted the embassy. "Neither before the Ohio debate nor since has any of the U.S. presidential campaigns called Ambassador Wilson or the Canadian embassy to raise NAFTA," he said.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 07:39AM | 0 recs
Canadian Embassy responds

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 208/Canadians_deny_Obama_call.html

A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta.

"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta," Landry said.

He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.

"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.

"There is no story as far as we're concerned," he said.

by BriVT 2008-02-28 07:37AM | 0 recs
What happened to your vile diary from yesterday?
you know, the one where you cite favorably to notorious and vile hate-monger Debbie Schusel? Who deleted it? Was it you or the Mods? My only question is why you do not have the personal integrity to be ashamed of yourself.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 04:23AM | 0 recs
Gee... No Comment On This Diary?

No?

Ok then - SEEYA!

by alegre 2008-02-28 04:42AM | 0 recs
when someone posts vileness one day
they dont get to pop up the next day as if nothing ever happened. pretty basic concept as far as I can tell. you cut/paste vile words from Debbie Schussel the hate-mongerer you dont get to wake up the next day and hope that no one remembers...
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Gee... No Comment On This Diary?

Absolutely.  Susan lacks credibility unless she addresses yesterday's vile diary.

by ChrisR 2008-02-28 05:26AM | 0 recs
river103 gave this comment a 0?
again, as a new member of this community unfamiliar with its ideas about ratings, what constitutes acceptable hiding ratings? is river103 saying by giving my comment a zero that Susanhu's diary which cut/pastes from known hate-monger Debbie Schussel, which was deleted by the MODERATERS of MYDD, was an acceptable diary, can he/she please reply to my comment evidencing same rather than these handing out these drive-by zero ratings? much appreciated.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 07:10AM | 0 recs
will you support McCain or Barack?
If/when Hillary graciously steps aside and pledges to support Barack, will you do the same? Or will you support "100+ years more war in Iraq" McCain? Please answer this question, it is essential for this community to know your stance in this matter.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 04:27AM | 0 recs
Sick and tired

This is a community dedicated to the cause of the Democratic party.  There is not one Obama supporter who will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, as much as she has run a despicable and incompetent campaign, because McCain is a dangerous lunatic.  I notice a few of the more virulent posters have been banned in the last few days.  I say, let the cleanup comtinue.  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-28 07:12AM | 0 recs
then you are not a progressive or a Dem
and find yourself on the wrong blog.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 07:40AM | 0 recs
as expected
just checkin'.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Shocker: Obama Campaign Reveals Fake NAFTA

What is Lou Dobbs contact info?

by annefrank 2008-02-28 06:23AM | 0 recs
Susan Hu

Will you support Barack obama in Novemeber if he is the nominee, yes or no?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-28 07:07AM | 0 recs
nicely done comparing Canada to Bush admin
didnt think you would go there knowing how obtuse it would make you seem, but you did. well done.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 08:18AM | 0 recs
Wow
These videos should be posted everywhere. Now Byron Dorgan, one of the great heroes in the Senate on trade, globalization, who just endorsed Obama has got a hell of a lot of explaining to do. I think he just made a premature error.
by Robert Oak 2008-02-28 08:45AM | 0 recs
Will you update your diary?

This has been disproven.  Please update the diary.

Getting a little tired of you Clinton people dragging this once great site into the gutter.

by Sean Robertson 2008-02-28 09:24AM | 0 recs
Did you delete your diary from yesterday,

or did admins delete it because it was racist filth?

by CarolinaNumber23 2008-02-27 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you delete your diary from yesterday,

The moderators do the deleting.  

My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that there may be some suspicion based on the speed and volume of information in her diaries, is that she may well be a paid operative.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-27 08:33PM | 0 recs
She actually used to be a

pretty good writer over at Daily Kos, until her habits of lying and rebranding rightwing propaganda caused her to be persona non grata over there.

by CarolinaNumber23 2008-02-27 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: She actually used to be a

This comment is not appropriate.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-27 10:16PM | 0 recs
Re: She actually used to be a

How come? It's the truth!

by marcotom 2008-02-28 02:55AM | 0 recs
Re: She actually used to be a

That's so funny.

I long ago learned the trick for being a popular diarist at Daily Kos;  TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR, and stick to the "safe" subjects.

As long as I wrote about torture, rendition, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Bucca, etc., it was so cool.

But dare to break their narrow mindset about their favored candidate?  Punishable!

Someone needs to widely distribute Hoffer's "True Believers" to this crowd.  Deprogramming is badly needed.

by susanhu 2008-02-28 04:30AM | 0 recs
accusing tens of millions of Americans
of being in need of "deprogramming" in likely not the best way to move this country forward. I understand that it's S.O.P. for you, but if you think it has any chance of convincing people to support Hillary, well, I just don't see it.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you obsessed or paid?

I would say that the intensity and frequency with which you use Republican "swift-boat" tactics in your attack diaries against Obama suggests that you may benefit from some "deprogramming" of your own.

by upper left 2008-02-28 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: She actually used to be a

I can't believe one gets troll-rated here for supporting DKOS. You know, as a matter of fact you don't get thrown out of DKOS for nothing and the diarist has done everything to deserve it. Now troll-rate this.

by marcotom 2008-02-28 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: She actually used to be a

Typical Rovian tactic of character assassination. If you do not like the message, just kill the messenger. Do not even bother to discuss the content of the messege. Very good. Karl will give you an A+.

by praxis1 2008-02-28 05:19AM | 0 recs
HUH?!

My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that there may be some suspicion based on the speed and volume of information in her diaries, is that she may well be a paid operative.

And who's whispering this in your ear? How the hell is Susan a "paid operative"? And why do so many Obama folks here and on Kos feel so "audacious" to accuse so many of us of being "paid operatives" when we all donate our time and efforts to blog here? It's really an insult that you shouldn't be throwing around lightly.

by atdleft 2008-02-28 03:43AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH?!

I WISH!  

I could use the income.  

I'm just an unsolicited volunteer aided by good people -- like my daughter and a couple friends, including the regulars at NoQuarter -- who are always alerting me to stuff.  Since there's no way I can keep up on it all.

My daughter always finds time to send me 4-5 links per day.  It's a big help.

Oh, and I am a rational supporter of Hillary Clinton who does not find her perfect but infinitely better than the other faux choices.

by susanhu 2008-02-28 05:14AM | 0 recs
forgot to mention certain material aspects
of the article. Such as: Clinton campaign officials strongly denied similar allegations. So Barack's people and Hillary's people say and do the EXACT SAME THING and yet you only mention 1 side and not the other. Dishonest race-baiting drivel one day, dishonest one-sided distortions about a candidate's record the next. Quite a record your amassing there Susan.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH?!

Forgive me if I think 'rational" is a stretch.  

Also forgive me for believing anyone who thinks one of our democratic candidates is a faux Democrat, is, well.. less than an honorable.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-28 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH?!

First,  I only speak for myself , so you cannot bring up any other candidates supporter in reference to a comment I made.  especially when you lump me into a group, whose candidate is not my candidate.

Being a paid operative is an insult?   Tell that to Mark Penn and David Axelrod, or consider revising your statement, or not being so defensive about nothing.

Who is whispering in my ear....???

Just saying.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-28 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Did you delete your diary from yesterday,

And this comment deserves a troll rating ...WHY..???  Please point to the TOS that has been violated?  Or uprate it please.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-28 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Did you delete your diary from yesterday,

I was offended by it.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-27 08:52PM | 0 recs
I too found it offensive
as were 99% of Democrats, 95% of Indys, and a vast majority of sentient human beings (i.e., not the 29% who continue to approve of the current administration).
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Did you delete your diary from yesterday,

Ignore that twice in that diary, I said I had no idea if those allegations were true.  And that I said I showed it as an instance of what the GOP will do to Obama in the general -- and that it won't matter to the GOP if it's true or not!

I could provide countless more instances of the filth being spewed about Obama out there ...

BUT KNOW THIS:  Many people are deeply offended by the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan.  The Southern Poverty Law Center, gasp, lists them as a "hate group."

That's sad for the Southern Poverty Law Center.  They'll probably now be subjected to torrents of e-mails from angry Obama-ites.

by susanhu 2008-02-28 04:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Did you delete your diary from yesterday,

"I said I had no idea if those allegations were true."

I have no idea why I should read anything you write.  It was vile, disgusting race-bating.  Until you address this, I wonder how much credibility you have.

For example, I can write that Susan Hu occasionally writes diaries as a race-baiting demagogue.  

Of course, I have no idea if any of those allegations are true.

by ChrisR 2008-02-28 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Did you delete your diary from yesterday,

Good thing that they have nothing to do with Obama, then.

You're baiting, Susan.  Bringing up rumors and then pretending that you aren't spreading them.  You ARE spreading them, even if you say 'I don't know if this is true...'

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-28 07:16AM | 0 recs
"Some people say"

Anything at all.  And "some people" will repeat the anything at all.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-28 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Shocker: Obama Campaign

From the article...

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.

By the standards applied to the Clinton campaign a couple days ago when it came to that completely innocuous photo, the failure of the Obama campaign to categorically deny they said such a thing is conclusive evidence that they did.

Also, if that line from the spokesperson is correct, I expect that Obama will indeed accept public financing for the general election.

by OrangeFur 2008-02-27 10:20PM | 0 recs
No, he will opt out

The political hit is better than being restricted from re-raising the 200 million he'll raise during the primary.

by bigdcdem 2008-02-27 11:46PM | 0 recs
Re: No, he will opt out

Obama has a slippery tongue and will say and do whatever it takes to win.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23378039

Obamabots bashed Edwards for taking public financing.

Will Obamabots hold Obama to the same standard?
ha!

by annefrank 2008-02-28 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: No, he will opt out

What a pure and hopeful and different campaign Obama is running ...

by plf1953 2008-02-28 07:14AM | 0 recs
I think that this is a very good point!

When Drudge published the picture of Obama in native African costume, and said that it was "circulated" by Clinton staffers. The Clinton campaign immediately said that they didn't know anything about it and that they didn't see anything wrong with it anyway.

The alliance of the main stream media (MSM) and the Obama campaign [Which is only go to last a few more weeks until the Dems get a nominee...but that's another story] immediately went into high dudgeon attack mode saying that the denial wasn't a good enough denial and it was very suspicious and even rascist. A "non-denial denial" was what it was called.

Let's remember that the source for the story was none other than slimemaster Drudge and the MSM/Obama alliance decided to take that on faith and discount a straightforward denial from Clinton.

Now we have a sourced story from a major Canadian news network that the Obama campaign contacted the Canadian ambassador and said that he was going to be blowing smoke about NAFTA, but it was just rhetoric. His campaign seems to admit the contact was made, but say--I guess--that he was misinterpreted.

It is very tempting for Clinton supporters to turn the tables back on Obama and scream "NON-DENIAL DENIAL" I am sure.

BUT LETS NOT DO THAT!

In Picturegate, it now seems certain that the Clinton campaign had nothing to do with 'circulating' the picture. Obama's rush to judgement and over the top response now seems ham handed and naive with repect to how to handle the right wing slime machine (as I write about here: Amazing Isn't It?.

Clinton needs to react calmly and not rush to judgement in this matter. The Obama campaign has issued a statement. The statement seems to leave some questions left unanswered, and they deserve to be able to fully and completely explain themselves, before any lauches any attacks.

That is how you deal with the media. With the truth. Let's get to the truth. What was said to whom?

It is not time to trade accusations it is time to demand a full and complete accounting of what happened:

- How did this story get on Canadian television?

- Who was the "high level Obama staffer?"

- On what authority was he making the contact?

- Did Obama tell him to contact the Canadian official?"

There is still a lot of information that needs to come out before wild accusations start to fly, but it is certainly time to start asking some questions.

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 07:10AM | 0 recs
Canada responds to drivel
ABC News' Jennifer Parker Reports: A senior Canadian Embassy official in Washington, D.C. disputes a report by the CTV Canadian television network that an Obama campaign staffer telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, to reassure him that campaign rhetoric against NAFTA should not be taken seriously. "It didn't happen," said Roy Norton, who heads up the congressional, public and intergovernmental affairs portfolio for the Canadian embassy. Norton said none of the three campaigns for Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, or Sen. John McCain have contacted the embassy. "Neither before the Ohio debate nor since has any of the U.S. presidential campaigns called Ambassador Wilson or the Canadian embassy to raise NAFTA," he said.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Shocker: Obama Campaign Reveals Fake Stand on

Here's a video of the report on CTV.

You know, Canadian coverage of our election is clearer and better than our own coverage.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/obama- staffer-gave-warning-of-nafta-rhetoric/2 913981055

by OrangeFur 2008-02-27 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Shocker: Obama Campaign Reveals Fake Stand on

That link does not work. I carefully pasted it.  Please try again, or use TinyURL.  I want to see the video.  Thank you.

by susanhu 2008-02-28 02:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Shocker: Obama Campaign Reveals Fake Stand on

Got it.  It's up at YouTube.... and it's at the top of my diary.

by susanhu 2008-02-28 04:33AM | 0 recs
Easily deniable

Nobody knows who this rogue staffer is.

by bigdcdem 2008-02-27 11:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Easily deniable

Uh, then why did the news story say that the Obama campaign DID NOT deny it?

Huh.

by susanhu 2008-02-28 02:28AM | 0 recs
I'm speechless

What's happened to the concept of national leaders putting national interests first?

by votermom 2008-02-28 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reveals

Superb diary Susan. Another hard hitting right for the jugular piece. I just LOVE it.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

And thank you for finding this and putting it up so quickly.

by Fleaflicker 2008-02-28 04:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Smear Machiners Getting Desperate

Yawn.  5 more days until the Clinton smear machine is done for good.

by NJIndependent 2008-02-28 04:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Smear Machiners Getting Desperate

We speak truth and you call that a smear. I think you should wake up from the dream you are supporting.

by Fleaflicker 2008-02-28 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Smear Machiners Getting Desperate

What smear machine? Canadian goverment?

by praxis1 2008-02-28 04:57AM | 0 recs
Canadian government not referenced
"anonymous source" is referenced. thanks for your concern.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Canadian government not referenced

Did you even warch the news? The Canadian Ambassador Wilson confirmed this story. OBAMA campaign did NOT deny it.

by praxis1 2008-02-28 05:16AM | 0 recs
confirmed the anonymous source?
or confirmed the veracity of the accusation of the anonymous source?
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Canadian government not referenced

They denied in the meantime...

by marcotom 2008-02-28 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Smear Machiners Getting Desperate

Snort!

(Ajax, check what I wrote.  Watch the videos.  Innumerable Canadian media outlets are reporting on this, and also checking out the sources.)

by susanhu 2008-02-28 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Smear Machiners Getting Desperate

A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta.

"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta," Landry said.

He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.

"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.

"There is no story as far as we're concerned," he said.

Link

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 07:26AM | 0 recs
Bold Faced Lie

Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, said late Thursday that the senator did not know Crown sat on Maytag's board until the Tribune noted it last September in a story about the closing of the Maytag headquarters in Newton, Iowa.

This is without a doubt the biggest lie I have heard coming out of Axelrod's mouth.

by Fleaflicker 2008-02-28 04:56AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reve

Once again, you get to the truth. Thanks for digging into Obama's NAFTA deception. What other lies is he is he telling the American people? There is no way he is getting my vote. Ever! He is a liar and a fraud.  

by grlpatriot 2008-02-28 04:58AM | 0 recs
He's not a man of principle

He is an opportunist who exploits circumstances to gain immediate advantage rather than being guided by consistent principles.

by JoeySky18 2008-02-28 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: He's not a man of principle

As opposed to Hillary, who voted for the invasion of Iraq.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-28 07:17AM | 0 recs
How to push this story?

This is a very important story that every worker in this country should know. So far, no MSM is covering this (as usual with anything negative about Obama).

How could we push MSM to cover this story? Massive email? I am emailing this to Lou Dobb (I can not stand him as a Latino but his hatred toward NAFTA might work to bring this story to MSM).

by praxis1 2008-02-28 05:02AM | 0 recs
by annefrank 2008-02-28 06:02AM | 0 recs
Politico posted Obama's NAFTA deal w/Canada

susanhu - Politico's, Ben Smith, has the story up too. Go defend the story.

by grlpatriot 2008-02-28 06:16AM | 0 recs
I am happy to see this...

I would rather have the presumptive frontrunner be a liar and a demagogue than have him be a protectionist !!

by SevenStrings 2008-02-28 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reve

Oh, you got that "bamboozeler" now, Susanhu!!

Or not....

Response from Obama Campaign:

"The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama's consistent position on trade. 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," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reve

your diary would carry more weight if, no surprise, you hadn't omitted this part of the article:

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

by haystax calhoun 2008-02-28 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reve

It's in the video clip.

by Dave B 2008-02-28 06:47AM | 0 recs
Exactly!

By her twisted logic the Clinton campaing's denial must be true but the Obama campaign must be lying. The hypocrisy is unbearable.

I can't wait for this thing to be over. All this time and energy wasted on smearing our likely nominee. Because MacCain will be sooo much better on NAFTA, health care and Iraq...Arghh!

by Sopianae 2008-02-28 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly!

The Obama campaign didn't deny anything. They didn't deny that contact had taken place. They simply said it seemed implausible that something like that would have been said. Accoding to Obama rules, unless it is a flt denial, it must be the truth.

Except...wait...Clinton's camp DID in fact, and I quote...

"a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim."

by americanincanada 2008-02-28 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly!

I assume that you are being consistent about what constitutes a "denial" and when it is merited.

OR,

we can go back and look at your comments regarding the Obama photo flap, and the HRC campaign's non-denial...but I'm sure you're being consistent;)

by haystax calhoun 2008-02-28 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly!

You might want to watch that video again...where the Obama spokeperson won't deny that contact had been made but Clinton's did and gave the CTV network, who was not the only one covering the story, the permission and freedomd to publish the name of any supposed staffer who called the Canadian government. They are sure the no one did.

I do not buy any claims to the contrary now...none...especially anything that has been told to Politico. I live in Canada...it is all over the news here. We also get feeds from Ohio and Michigan...it's all over the news there as well.

by americanincanada 2008-02-28 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly!

The Canadian embassy denied that it had ever happened! I am sure that doesn't count by your calculation. Gee! But the Clinton campaing's denial must be true. The hypocrisy is getting more and more ridiculous by the minute.

by Sopianae 2008-02-28 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reve

And so it begins, the great unraveling. Why am I not surprised?

by superetendar 2008-02-28 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reve

because you believe everything negative that is spread about Obama?

by marcotom 2008-02-28 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reve

Are you now exporting Obamamania and challenging the journalistic veracity of the esteemed Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? This isn't America's cut-and-paste broken down MSM Banana Republic no-standards style journalism. Don't expect Canadians to drink the Kool Aid any time soon.

by superetendar 2008-02-28 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reve

Ermmm.  This wasn't the CBC, this was on CTV, which is attached to one of the main multi-media congolmerates.  CTV news is laughably corporatist in their coverage of main events and news selection.

Michael Wilson was Canada's former Conservative finance minister, appointed by the current Conservative government.  

Nothing has been sourced at all here.

by thewrath 2008-02-28 07:46AM | 0 recs
i like that

people here are so willing to accept a badly-sourced story generated by Stephen Harper's administration.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/28/ 103344/863/160/465620

good lord people, you'd accept anything negative about Obama if it came from Dubya's mouth!

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-28 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: i like that

I will take CTB news over Daily Kos any day.

by praxis1 2008-02-28 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: i like that

Precisely. KOS is an Internet propaganda wing of the Obama campaign. That slippery outfit long ago gave up all pretense of encouraging democratic debate, which it clearly found way to strenuous a standard. Verbal thuggery is the order of the at KOS, I'm afraid. Trying to compare the venerable Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to KOS is well, like, casting genuine pearls....well you know how the saying goes.

by superetendar 2008-02-28 07:19AM | 0 recs
if that's the case

then MyDD is the home of the Clinton Cult.

all of the recommended diaries are incredibly caustic, BADLY SOURCED/NON-CREDIBLE pieces attacking Obama.

let's have a reasoned debate but let's not OUTRIGHT LIE about candidates just to try to get an edge.  that damages the Democrats as a whole.

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-28 07:53AM | 0 recs
interesting analysis
perhaps that's a interest parallel between MYDD and DKos as compared to Barack and Hillary, i.e., MYDD has about 100 people and DKos has about 100,000. seems about correct in terms of number of supporters. good point.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 09:41AM | 0 recs
hundreds of millions in the cult
biggest cult ever. Another word for the cult is...America. Ever heard of it?
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 10:44AM | 0 recs
disagreement = TR? interesting...
Just so we're on the same page redchicken, on this site, when you disagree with people's opinions, you TR? is that pretty standard, or is that just your take on things or what? just curious. oh, and when your best defense of your candidate is accusing me (35 yr. old white male corporate attorney) and literally tens of millions of Obama supporters in this country of being "in a cult", well, I guess you really are in your last throes...
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 11:54AM | 0 recs
How about

The Canadian government?

They've now flatly denied the story to Politico.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 208/Canadians_deny_Obama_call.html

The Canadian Embassy says the story is baseless.

Sooo....

Who do you need to hear from?

God?

by zonk 2008-02-28 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: i like that

The news story uses unnamed sources.  What are named Canadian government officials saying?  

The suggested premise seems ridiculous.  We are to believe that the Obama campaign is going around saying "hey Canada we're going to lie to the American people, but don't worry Canada we're really on your side."  Any campaign dumb enough to make mistakes like that would have been out of this race before they even started.

This is going to be another situation like the story where BHO mentioned the US was using captured equipment in Afghanistan.  When the dust settles we'll find out that this Canadian story doesn't hold up.

by 1jpb 2008-02-28 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reve

The Obama campaign is vehemently denying the story.  Sounds like the "staffer" spoke out of turn.

by Drummond 2008-02-28 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reve

sounds like no staffer made calls on NAFTA to the Canadians at all.

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-28 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reve

It's an anti-Clinton conspiracy, and now the Canadians are in on it!

by Drummond 2008-02-28 04:28PM | 0 recs
BREAKING: Canadian embassy says story is not true.

Sorry to ruin your buzz, Susan, but the Canadian embassy is saying the story is a load of bull:

A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta.

"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta," Landry said.

He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.

"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.

"There is no story as far as we're concerned," he said.

But don't let that stop you.

by Bob Johnson 2008-02-28 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Canadian embassy says story is not t

aaaannnnd CUT!  It'a a wrap.  Thanks everybody!

end of diary

by haystax calhoun 2008-02-28 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Canadian embassy says story is not t

Oh, no. I just posted a diary about this and one Clinton backer is suggesting that the Canadian embassy spokesperson, Tristan Landry, is just making this up.

Seriously.

by Bob Johnson 2008-02-28 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Canadian embassy says story is not t

Yes, some of them are quite entertaining.  I'll have to go visit for some yuks.

by haystax calhoun 2008-02-28 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Canadian embassy says story is not t

Bob... Susan didn't make this up. It was a semi-major story, that was run on CTV and picked up by major media outlets.

It has now apparently been denied by the Canadian embassy.

New facts are still coming out.

Before we start throwing around personal attacks... No, just stop throwing around personal attacks. Let's have a civil discussion.

There are still questions that need to be answered:

Where did this story come from?

How does CTV come to report something like this?

Who was their source?

Clearly this injects a lot of divisiveness into the Dem primary. What's really going on here?

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: Canadian embassy says story is not t

I didn't say Susan made it up. I said a poster in my diary (not Suan) claimed the spokesperson was just making this up.

by Bob Johnson 2008-02-28 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: CTV STANDS BY STORY

"The facts of our story are accurate." - Greg McIsaac, Communications Manager, News Information and Current Affairs, CTV

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

by Tennessean 2008-02-28 11:02AM | 0 recs
Let's Watch The Tone Here

Here is my appeal to Clinton supporters!

LET'S WATCH THE TONE HERE!

These are some very powerful charges against Obama campaign. However, at this stage they are only charges, and the Obama campaign has issued a statement saying that the charges misrepresent the truth of what occured.

BEFORE ANYONE RUSHES TO JUDGEMENT LET'S GET THE FULL FACTS OUT!

This week, I think the Obama campaign got a lot on egg on it's face by jumping on the goofy Drudge Picturegate story. That was not the mature media savy thing to do.

The campaign is heated now, but overreacting before the truth is known can backfire as we saw. In any case it is unprofessional.

Demand the truth. Demand details. Yes.

But cool it down. The characteristic of the Obama campaign that allienates many is the froth and anger of their supporters. That is not the way. Let's find out what is going on here, before sounding off.

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's Watch The Tone Here

I don't think anything will come of it until the media's love affair with Obama is over.  He could dangle a baby over a balconey or his wife could step out of a car without undies on and the media would swoon.  (and no my remarks are not racist I was just trying to come up with some recent pop culture references to use for comparison)

by JustJennifer 2008-02-28 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's Watch The Tone Here

Here's my appeal to Obama supporters!

LET'S WATCH THE TONE HERE!

It now seems that the Canadian Embassy is flatly denying that any contact was made. Already the accusation and vitriol are flying against SusanHu.

Susan did not make up this story. It was a CTV piece, the largest private broadcaster in Canada. The story was picked up by many major media outlets.

The rush to judgement, anger and lack of regard for the truth that goes on by both camp's supporters is very destructive.

Both this story and the Picturegate matter from earlier this week should be a reminder that we need to tone it down, and make sure we are dealing with facts rather than froth.

There are still questions that need to be answered here:

- How did the story get on CTV?

- Who was the source?

I'm beginning to smell another right wing rat.

This is how they play the game. Right now both sides of the Democrat's primary campaign are screaming at each other.  Who do you think benefits from this?

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's Watch The Tone Here

SusanHu has a history though. Sometimes, like yesterday, her diaries get deleted because of racist innuendo, sometimes they are just ordinary hit-pieces. But it's hard to believe that they always make it to the recommended diary list.

by marcotom 2008-02-28 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's Watch The Tone Here

I understand.

I am not defending anyone's right to engage in rascist, sexist or ad hominem attacks.

I'm asking everyone to cool it down, and focus more on the truth and facts, and to have a more substantive discussion of the issues.

Something really strange has happened here.

How did CTV get this story? Why did they run it?

That's what I think we should be asking. Not throwing mud.

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 07:54AM | 0 recs
Even more information that

debunks the false allegations being promoted by SusanHu:

A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta.

"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta," Landry said.

He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.

"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.

"There is no story as far as we're concerned," he said.

Link

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Even more information that

susanhu, queen of the vile Clinton smear machine, posting baseless lies smearing Obama, AGAIN (and again and again and again and again...)?!?  Say it ain't so, Joe, say it ain't so...

5 more days until the Clinton smear machine is gone for good.

by NJIndependent 2008-02-28 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Even more information that

Yes, but if you ask her, she thinks that since she wrote diaries in the past on topics that we all agreed on (torture, rendition, etc) that it somehow makes it ok for her to spread smears.

And when she is called out for passing on false info, her argument is "well, I said I didn't know if it was true or not".

So, in the spirit of SusanHu's diaries, I have the following comment to share:

I have heard that Hillary Clinton likes to boil puppies and feed them to her husband with a side of fried bunny ears. Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but if Hillary wins the nomination you can be sure that she will be subject to these kinds of attacks!

Am I right?

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2] Shocker: Obama Campaign Reve

This story has been debunked by the Canadian Embassy. Susan, I'm sure, with your interest in fairness and balance, you'll be updating this diary shortly....right?

by animated 2008-02-28 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's wait and see...

It has only been debunked, suppoedly, by Tristan E. Landry, Consul and Head of Public Affairs, Consulate General of Canada in San Francisco. Not to mention it has only been debunked on Politico, not in Canada on any news source and not anywhere else that I can find.

by americanincanada 2008-02-28 07:37AM | 0 recs
Exactly...

See my post's above...

Let's let the facts come out, before anyone says anything else they might regret later.

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 07:40AM | 0 recs
"Before anyone says anything..."
yeah, like this diary, for instance.
Don't pretend that you only want what's fair and balanced, and then try to keep this weak thing of diary alive by equivocating.  
by haystax calhoun 2008-02-28 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: "Before anyone says anything..."

Look. This diary is exactly my point.

I don't think a story like this should have been presented in this manner.

It is a raw breaking story and it should be presented as such without a lot of other stuff thrown in. In that sense I agree with you.

Just like I think people jumped to unwarranted conclusions in the Picturegate controversy, and wound up with egg on their face. If we tone down the hate rhetoric on both sides and look to the facts and the truth, it will serve both candidates much better, not to mention the Democratic Party.

Rather than try to cut Susan up in little bits, why aren't both sides asking how this story got into the main stream CTV story. It had to happen somehow. I smell a rat somewhere.

Let's keep digging for the truth, and then have a real conversation about what it means.

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: "Before anyone says anything..."

OK, agreed..but you're still equivocating.

The diarist was incomplete in reporting the story, and omitted a statement that more or less poked HRC with the same accusation.  That's plainly irresponsible of the diarist, and they need to be called on it, not apologized for.

by haystax calhoun 2008-02-28 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: "Before anyone says anything..."

Fine...

What do you think is going on here?

My completely unfounded speculation is that someone is trying to sow dissension in the Dem ranks.

Seem familiar?

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: "Before anyone says anything..."

Yes, I think that is happening like you say, but it's hard to say what shoe fits what foot.

We have good reason to be paranoid.

by haystax calhoun 2008-02-28 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's wait and see...

I see....so it's only been debunked by a news source that "doesn't count," eh?;)

by animated 2008-02-28 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's wait and see...

No...

It seems to have been debunked, but more news is still coming out. There is certainly more to learn about this.

For instance, my question at this stage is:

How did this story get run on CTV?

Who was the source?

This is why I've been asking everyone to cool it down, and find out what is going on here before taking out the long knives.

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's wait and see...

The source was clearly Taylor Marsh.

by NJIndependent 2008-02-28 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's wait and see...

How is that helpful?

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 08:17AM | 0 recs
I will...

never vote for a Republican.  I will be 40 years old this year and I have never done so yet, even when my own father was running for a local public position (he is a Republican).  Of course I won't switch sides over the party's nominee.  I was as big of a Dean supporter in '04 as I am Hillary's now but I voted for Kerry and I will vote for Obama if it comes to that.  That being said, I am alarmed and dismayed at the stuff that is coming out about Obama - first because I have never thought he was the better candidate and second I think it's a preview of what is to come in November.

by JustJennifer 2008-02-28 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I will...

At least as far as this hit-piece is concerned, I can relieve you in saying that it has been debunked. The Canadian embassy denies getting any calls.

by marcotom 2008-02-28 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I will...

Don't believe the hype from susanhu or the other classless Clinton smear machiners on this site.  I don't think that she's ever posted anything that wasn't a baseless character assassination hit piece against Obama (and once Obama is the presumptive nominee, she will be banned from this site for sure...).

Again, this is not meant as a repudiation of all Clinton supporters, just the dozen or so Marshites who have taken advantage of this site's pro-Clinton staff to baselessly smear Obama on a daily basis.

by NJIndependent 2008-02-28 08:01AM | 0 recs
by the mollusk 2008-02-28 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm....

Susan Hu you stupid libelous moron...

i hear the National Enquirer has some open positions.  with your resume you should be a shoo-in.

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-28 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm....

1) she had reason to believe it was true

Personal attacks are uncalled for, if that's what you want to traffic in, then it's best you shut up.

by MNPundit 2008-02-28 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm....

Why?  That never stopped her before...

by NJIndependent 2008-02-28 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmm....

she had nothing, very much like her other vitrolic, substance-free posts.

if there's anything the Clinton camp has taught us, it's that you fight fire with fire.  i thought a lot of you would appreciate that.

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-28 08:06AM | 0 recs
by MNPundit 2008-02-28 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: More denials by Canada

Interesting though that the deniel is slightly different. This one claims there is often contact with the cmpaigns. So, which is it? and why did Obama's camp say they were reaching out to the Canadians to "correct any misconceptions if they never called anyone to begin with?!

~~

The Canadian embassy is proactively reaching out to the campaigns "all the time," Norton said, to try to meet with aides who might form the foreign and economic policy teams of any future administration.

"We talk about the whole range of Canada-U.S. issues which we think it's critically important that the presidential candidates be aware of including the number of jobs that depend in the United States on Canada-U.S. trade."

The Canadian Embassy says there are more than seven million jobs in the U.S. that depend on trade with Canada.

"We discuss our view that NAFTA has been very good for all three participating countries and has made the continent more competitive in the face of China, India, Brazil," Norton said.

by americanincanada 2008-02-28 08:05AM | 0 recs
All we seem to know...

CTV ran the piece, and now the Canadians are denying it.

What is the truth behind the CTV piece?

Who is the source?

What's going on here?

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: More denials by Canada
Man, I could go through your comments and propobaly find about 1,000 similar comments once a lie about Obama is exposed. It's always "interesting.... but do we really know what the truth is"?

Never once is it "Oh, I guess I was wrong to pass on the obviously false smears against Obama".

Your act is lame and wearing very thin.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: More denials by Canada

Actually you could not.

I post here for my candidate and do so more politely than most Obama supporters do and more politely than you. I don't personally insult other posters. You obviously have no problem with that. too bad.

I have also defended Obama on other blogs as well as being very outspoken against the smears against him in e-mails as well as yesterday from that asshole radio wingnut.

Be careful when you start accusing people of stuff that you obviously have no problem doing yourself.

by americanincanada 2008-02-28 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: More denials by Canada

Are you daring me? Because I know I've seen it from you. You aren't outspoken against any Obama smears, and when the smear is revealed to be a lie, you STILL refuse to give it up.

Get real. If you want me to go through your comments and find all the hypocrisy and advancement of false smears, just say the word.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 08:34AM | 0 recs
What is going on here!

OK... Looks like it didn't happen...

It is now coming out that the Canadian's are denying the call took place.

BIG QUESTION THOUGH!

What the heck is going on here?

Who sourced the CTV story?

Where did it come from?

Look people, this is a big deal. Someone is putting out false stories the effect of which is to get the Democrats at each other's throats.

Rather than oblige them, perhaps we should ask:

Who the heck is doing this?

Where did this story come from?

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 08:12AM | 0 recs
Paging Susan Hu

You can take down your diary.  Canadian embassy strongly denies any contact.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-02-28 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Paging Susan Hu

Don't hold your breath. She found time to UPDATE x2 SHOCKER, but I imagine she'll find better things to do now that the actual truth is out there.

Of course I'd be very pleased to be proven wrong.

Susan?

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2 +UPDATE 3] Shocker: Obama Cam
Story is dead:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 208/Canadians_deny_Obama_call.html
by supsupsup 2008-02-28 08:21AM | 0 recs
Update 3?

so let me get this straight, Susan Hu.

you're willing to accept the word of CTV, the Canadian analogue to Fox News, on a report with an unnamed source, over the direct statement from a Canadian consular official confirming that neither of the campaigns contacted Canada about NAFTA?

you're stretching this story beyond the bounds of reality and credibility.

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-28 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Update 3?

Is this true?

Is CTV the Canadian equivalent of Fox News?

If so, I find this very interesting.  As, I have been peading to both sides here, we need to take a deep breath and rather than simply yelling and screaming at one another we need to ask ourselves:

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?

CTV ran this story. It had to come from somewhere.

The possibilities are:

1. They made it up.

2. Someone planted it.

So, which is it?

Right now both Dem camps are screaming at it other, and this adds more fuelk to the fire. Rather than play along, maybe we should be asking who stands most to gain from creating this controversy?

Or is it just more satisfying to keep beating the hell out of each other.

What I want to know is who is behind this stuff!

by MediaFreeze 2008-02-28 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re:

The Clinton camp gave both CTV and the Canadian gov. "blanket immunity" to go ahead and revealthe names of anyone who may have called them.

This will be easy to clear up once and for all. Will Barack Obama's team also give "blanket immunity" to CTV and the Canadian government, as Cinton's team did, to release the name of the person who called them to say the criticisms are only campaign rhetoric, so don't take them at face value? will they allow CTV to reveal the source?

by americanincanada 2008-02-28 08:27AM | 0 recs
Top story?

Here's another blow to the credibility of this "story."

From Susan, "Even though the entire Canadian media is all over this story? Nationwide? And it's the top story in Canada?"

CTV's top stories:

Prince Harry serving on front line in Afghanistan
CIBC posts loss of $1.46B in first quarter
Crowded cribs linked to baby deaths in U.S.
Leasing companies sue over vehicle import rules
Baby survives fall from train moments after birth

The story is the 4th one under the politics subheading.  Not exactly the top story here.

by thezzyzx 2008-02-28 08:33AM | 0 recs
Is this some sort of contest...

... to see how many diaries in a row you can get deleted by the mods? Posting the initial story is one thing, continuing the defend it after the Candadian Embassy flatly denied it is absurd.

by Purplepeople 2008-02-28 08:46AM | 0 recs
by the mollusk 2008-02-28 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Moonlighting?

Red State?

Very telling, mollusk the RNC plant.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Moonlighting?

Sorry mollusk. I misread your post. Somebody tr me for my idiocy! lol

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Moonlighting?

Troll-rating, m'ah.

It's interesting, though, that the criticisms of Obama on the right-wing blogs are not substantially different than those on the left-wing blogs.  I think they're floating trial balloons at this point and are currently just riffing off of what has already been said.  Not terribly surprising I guess.  But it is perhaps a window into how the right-wing noise machine will start gearing up.

by the mollusk 2008-02-28 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Moonlighting?

No doubt theres RNC plants here floating trial baloons.

The real sad part is that some otherwise respectable people are buying into the lies simply because they support the "other" Democratic candidate.

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 10:11AM | 0 recs
Susanhu is an idiot

and has no class for leaving this diary up.

by bigdcdem 2008-02-28 09:09AM | 0 recs
Please remove the diary

This claim has been proven false.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 208/Canadians_deny_Obama_call.html

by jkfp2004 2008-02-28 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign on NAFTA

Unfortunately, the story, true or not, gained instant credibility because Obama has established a history that is not so easily erased.  He promised the Illinois voters that if they elected him to the US Senate, he would not run for president.  He even went so far as to suggest he felt he was not ready to be president.  He broke his word and is running.

He pledged, in writing, to abide by the rules of campaign public financing for the general election.  Now he is disavowing that pledge and wants to "negotiate other terms."  

He said he had no close relationship with Tony Rezko.  Now he has been named in Rezko's indictment.  He has returned some of the money Rezko gave him, but there are millions unaccounted for.

The media has turned a blind eye to this candidate's lack of truthfulness.  One can hope this is about to end and we might get some of the background information on this candidate that has sorely been lacking.  

by miriam 2008-02-28 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign on NAFTA

"Unfortunately, the story, true or not, gained instant credibility because Obama has established a history that is not so easily erased.  He promised the Illinois voters that if they elected him to the US Senate, he would not run for president.  He even went so far as to suggest he felt he was not ready to be president.  He broke his word and is running."

a twist of the truth.  he LATER pledge to not run for President after he was elected to the Senate.  he changed his mind only after seeing so many Americans asking him to run while he was touring with his book.

"He pledged, in writing, to abide by the rules of campaign public financing for the general election.  Now he is disavowing that pledge and wants to "negotiate other terms." "

what?  he pledged that if the Republican opponent agreed to public financing AND attacked the activities of outside groups, he would do the same.  there's no way in hell the Dem candidate will get swift boated this year by 527s, not this time.

"He said he had no close relationship with Tony Rezko.  Now he has been named in Rezko's indictment."

outright lie.  it was Gov. Blagojevich who was named in the indictment as "Public Official A".

"He has returned some of the money Rezko gave him, but there are millions unaccounted for."

what the fark?  the donations from Rezko amounted at MOST in thousands, and the Obama campaign has given all of the Rezko identified donations away.

"The media has turned a blind eye to this candidate's lack of truthfulness.  One can hope this is about to end and we might get some of the background information on this candidate that has sorely been lacking."

no, the media's been doing its job for the most part, only following stories that have credibility.  unfortunately now, they are also willing to push narratives that have no evidence or truth behind them either.

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-28 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign on NAFTA

Free Republic: 1/23/08

"Last weekend, the Sun-Times broke a story that Obama was the unnamed "political candidate" who received a $10,000 contribution for his 2004 U.S. Senate run from a person who allegedly got the money through a Rezko-connected scheme. Also, Rezko may have improperly used straw donors to funnel Senate campaign cash to Obama.

After the story ran, the Obama campaign Saturday announced a $40,000 charitable donation in Rezko-related money. Earlier, the Senate fund donated $44,000 in Rezko-connected cash. The Sun-Times estimates Rezko raised at least $168,000. However, the extent of Rezko's help in raising Senate money for Obama isn't known."

by miriam 2008-02-28 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Got credulity? Stop sucking up muck.

Susanhu is what she is:  an unrepentant die-hard.  She has substantial skill, but has demonstrated a consistent lack of honesty and integrity.

What is more disturbing is the willingness, even eagerness, of so many HRC supporters to continue  swallowing her swill.  A little credulity is in order.  When some one posts repeated attack diaries, and when those diaries use Republican frames, questionable sources, and are repeatedly shown to contain unsupported and false accusations, it is time to approach her work with a few tons of salt.

Everyone on both sides of this fight has a tendency to believe what we want to believe.  We instantly accept any criticism of the other candidate, and passionately defend our preferred candidate even when criticisms are proven to be valid.  We all need to slow down a bit, and exercise a bit of reason and judgment.

After all, no matter who wins on our side, there is an election coming in November and the stakes are enormous.

by upper left 2008-02-28 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: [VIDEO UPDATE x2 +UPDATE 3] Shocker: Obama Cam

Still no correction to the false smears contained in this Diary?

Shame on you!  lol

by John in Chicago 2008-02-28 09:44AM | 0 recs
by Scan 2008-02-28 10:43AM | 0 recs
Taylor Marsh!
About as much veracity found there as found over at RedState. Good stuff.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-02-28 10:46AM | 0 recs
by Scan 2008-02-28 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Its a story now....sorry Bob.

both links also report that the Canadians flat out say that no calls from the Obama campaign were made.

and now apparently the Repubs are going to push on a story that's already been disproved.  GREAT. :|

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-28 11:13AM | 0 recs
Ben Smith

I'm not going to join you in condemning Obama here until I know more because I'm always skeptical of sources that rely on an anonymous source (not just accepting of those stories when they help my candidate or worldview).

However, I will join your update in condemning Ben Smith.

Remember, he's the reporter who botched the Andrew Cuomo "Shuck and jive" story.  First, he claimed that Cuomo was referring to Obama's win in New Hampshire.

Then, after Cuomo's staff played Ben Smith the entire tape, Smith was forced to retract, admitting that Cuomo was not referring to Obama at all, but rather to the retail nature of both IA and NH.

The problem was that people only remember Smith's original screw up and still cite it all the time as an example of the Clinton campaign race-baiting.  

In face, I'm not sure any single reporter, except maybe Jake Tapper (with his bogus thing about Clinton wanting to shrink the economy), has done more to spread misinformation and influence this campaign.

by dcg2 2008-02-28 11:17AM | 0 recs
Point to Consider

According to Taylor Marsh, CTV is standing by the story. Someone isn't telling the truth. Taylor makes an interesting point on the subject. "...since when do we automatically believe 'spokes people?' Scott McClellan during the Scooter Libby trial comes to mind. Dana Perino on, well, just about any subject does too. There are all sorts of things that go on back channel, with a spokesperson the last one to know. As for McIsaac at CTV, the network stands by the facts in the story they reported."

by grlpatriot 2008-02-28 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Point to Consider

and you believe Taylor "I lie about things to win arguments" Marsh?

i'm sorry, but i'm going to find the Canadian Embassy itself a hell of a lot more credible, and here's what they have to say: http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/wa shington/menu-en.asp

"Washington, D.C., February 28, 2008 -- The Canadian Embassy confirms that at no time has any member of a Presidential campaign called the Canadian Ambassador or any official at the Embassy to discuss NAFTA. Last night the Canadian television network, CTV, falsely reported that such calls had been made. That story is untrue. Neither before nor since the Ohio debate has any Presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson or the Embassy to raise NAFTA."

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-28 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Point to Consider

I find the NAMED source at CTV more cridible than any conservative, right-wing government spokeman who will only say what he is told to say to prevent an international incident.

by americanincanada 2008-02-28 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Point to Consider

i'd really love to see the article you're reading, because the one SusanHuh links to in her hit piece...i mean "diary" doesn't name the source AT ALL.

by fightinfilipino 2008-02-28 04:22PM | 0 recs
No Proof

Lets not forget that this video also reports the Clinton campaign is also accused of the same thing. And as of now, there is no evidence that neither the Obama camp nor the Clinton camp made these comments.

by rjx 2008-02-28 04:29PM | 0 recs
Here is a link

Canada Says TV Story on Obama NAFTA Deception is 'Untrue'
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11569532/

Personally I think this false story favors John McCain since he favors NAFTA

by rjx 2008-02-28 04:56PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads