Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Heres Obamas official response on the silly nafta accusations

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
blocker Donating Member (265 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:48 PM
Original message
Heres Obamas official response on the silly nafta accusations
Here come the hillymaniacs in 3-2-1...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obama_on_Ca...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Welcome to DU. You Hate Hillary, eh?
23.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blocker Donating Member (265 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. why do you care, but if you want my opinion.
Edited on Mon Mar-03-08 02:55 PM by blocker
Hillary was my choice after edwards, but her dirty politcs, brainwashing her supporters has turned me away from her. Thats only my opinion so don't take it personal if i don't support your candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Alerted.
Stop trying to flame bait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. The flame bait Kitty, is in the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. But he lied the first time and said there was NO meeting
Now, he is backpeddling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blocker Donating Member (265 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. did you read the article?
It wasn't an official meeting. maybe it happened in the canadian embassy bathroom for all i know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. No lie.
There was no phone call from the Obama campaign to the Canadian ambassador as originally reported by CTV. One of Obama's advisors had a meeting with the Canadian Consulate in Chicago and CTV changed their story after the fact without ever admitting that their original report was 100% incorrect in the details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Why didn't Obama
tell the truth? IE - it wasn't w/the Embassy, it was w/the Consulate. This kind of hair-splitting is unconvincing. Obama's own defense isn't as good as his supporters - he claims he was misinformed. He should've just gone straight to the Bush double-think: "We never denied what you thought we denied".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Did Obama ever even address this directly until recently?
Let's review:

- CTV says unnamed "obama staffer telephones Canadian embassy to say 'don't take our campaign at face value'"

- The Obama campaign says that they didn't think that ever happened

- The Canadian Embassy says that it definitely didn't happen.

- CTV revises their story to say that it was the Canadian Consulate in Chicago and names an Obama Advisor

- The advisor says he did meet with them but that they mischaracterized his words

- Memo comes out with a paraphrased summary of the meeting. It doesn't contain anything even close to "don't take our campaign at face value" and in fact contains some quotes that sound exactly like the kind of thing Obama has been saying on the campaign trail.

- Obama advisor says, yes I met with these people, this part of the quote sounds accurate, this other part is inaccurate, etc.

- Now that Obama knows what happened he sums it up and again rebunks the ridiculous insinuation that he's lying in his opinion on NAFTA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Let's review:
Your post a week ago -

"Ugh, this sucks.
I think this CTV story sounds like bullshit but why oh why would Obama have a Chicago School guy as an economic adviser. This is not good."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

So you yourself didn't believe that Obama had ever met w/Canadian officials about NAFTA. But you expressed concern that Obama would have a Chicago Friedmanite as his top advisor.

But now, the memo confirms that Goolsbee did meet w/Canadian officials. How can you claim that the Obama camp admitted this all along when you thought it was BS a week ago? Doesn't it bother you that the Obama campaign never admitted to the meeting up-front? Why are you no longer concerned that Obama has a neoliberal economic advisor that basically went behind the voter's backs to say that Obama's NAFTA rhetoric was just "political posturing"? Finally, doesn't it concern you that Goolsbee seems to be following the Chicago-style economic approach while Obama talks about progressive ideas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
27. Timeline

CTV reports Obama advisor met with Canadian official to reassure them on NAFTA.

Obama says he did no such thing.

Goolsbee tells Obama that a Canadian official did call him, but that he did not say what the CTV report claims he did.

Obama says his advisor told him that a Canadian official did call the advisor, but that he did not say what the CTV report claims he did.


So he didn't lie the first time. He didn't know about the meeting as he did not send Goolsbee to reassure Canada on NAFTA which is what this story was supposed to be about.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. I see "Ignored" is here already!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peace13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Don't worry you aren't missing anything.! : ) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. OMG He Stunned Me! Why, Why, I Was Expecting Him To Come Right Out And Say "You're Right. We Lied"
I'm STUNNED that he denied it! I mean, there's NO WAY that story can be true now!!!11111!!!!!!11111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. he lied, then lied about lying, then said the thing he lied about never happend so his lie is true?
Some days it must really hurt the brains of DUbamas to be what they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Do you have a quote of Obama's lie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. The lie can be found in the following link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. OK, so which part of this is a lie?
I see no lie there. Can you be more specific?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. You only see what you want to see, 0-Bot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moobu2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
12. And we should trust this why?
Obama hasnt exactly been honest about very much of anything yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
13. Admission of one lie and the retelling of another
Edited on Mon Mar-03-08 03:01 PM by rinsd
Let me just be absolutely clear what happened, when I gave you that information, that was the information I had at the time.

I was lying but its my campaign's fault.

"The Canadian Consulate in Chicago contacted one of my advisers, Austan Goolsbee, on their own initiative, invited them down to meet with them. He met with them as a courtesy. At some point they strated talking about trade and Nafta and the Canadian Embassy confirmed that he said exactly what I have been saying on the campaign trail."

The same Canadian embassy which first claimed zero contact.

Notice the attempt to distance himself from Goolsbee while saying that Goolsbee stayed on message.

So this notion that Senator Clinton is peddling that somehow there is contradictions, or winks and nods, has been disputed by all the parties involved. What has not been disputed is that Senator Clinton and her husband championed Nafta, worked on behalf of Nafta, called it a victory, called it "good for America," until she started running for president.

Hillary did not champion NAFTA or work on its behalf.


We find that a mailer criticizing her position on trade is indeed misleading. One that attacks her health care plan we have previously described as straining the facts, though not exactly "false."

* Trade: A mailer showing a locked plant gate quotes Clinton as saying she believed NAFTA was "a boon" to the economy. Those are not her words and Obama was wrong to put quote marks around them. In fact, she's been described by a biographer as privately opposing NAFTA in the White House.


We frankly find Clinton's past position on NAFTA to be ambivalent

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. Lies, lies, everywhere
Let me just be absolutely clear what happened, when I gave you that information, that was the information I had at the time.

This could be a lie. We have no way to really know. He could have genuinely not known that Goolsbee had a meeting with the Consulate. The original report's inaccuracy in saying that it was a phone call to the embassy could have confused the issue and slowed the campaigns response.

The same Canadian embassy which first claimed zero contact.

The Embassy probably put out the memo now because they were dragged into this whole thing and asked the Consulate in Chicago what the hell was going on.

Notice the attempt to distance himself from Goolsbee while saying that Goolsbee stayed on message.

I think that's perfectly fair actually. Most of what Goolsbee said is in fact the same as what Obama says on the campaign trail. And yet, Goolsbee was not officially there on the campaign's behalf.

Hillary did not champion NAFTA or work on its behalf.

Maybe not but she can't simultaneously run from NAFTA and try to count her husband's presidency as part of her "experience." So it may not be 100% accurate to say that Clinton has always supported NAFTA but it's a useful tactic to press the issue and make her distance herself from Bill's presidency. I think this it's a valid thing to do since she's trying to have it both ways by running on her "experience" but running away from the actual consequences of the Clinton years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
15. Refused to take questions
No surprise there. "Let me just be absolutely clear what happened, when I gave you that information, that was the information I had at the time." Shouldn't he maybe have conferred w/Goolsbee first before issuing a misleading statement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. Goolsbee wasn't even named in the initial report! -nt-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
16. Funny ...
ANYTHING that ANY of Hillary's surrogates say in error is held against her as her own deep conviction. And the smallest lapses are taken as prima facie proof of The Evil One's duplicity, malice, and treachery.

But ...

If an Obama surrogate screws up badly, it's "not an official meeting". And there's a conspiracy against Obama. And Hillary gets the blame "just because".

And oh-by-the-way, Hillary promoted NAFTA when she was the President in the 1990s. (Bill? She controlled him telepathically.)

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. you hit all those nails on the head, P
It's a funny place, this DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
21. I am not a Clinton supporter, but Obama seems unable to make these
lies into the truth. He should come clean and get this behind him. He is pro-NAFTA - he should admit it and not try to pull any more wool over any more people's eyes. If he can't handle this sort of thing any better than this, he is gonna have hell in the fall...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 11th 2014, 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC