Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Canadian PM says Officials only got briefing from Obama Campaign- Not Clinton! HUH?

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
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:55 AM
Original message
Canadian PM says Officials only got briefing from Obama Campaign- Not Clinton! HUH?
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 09:16 AM by KoKo01
PMO: Canadian officials only got briefing from Obama campaign - not Clinton

21 hours ago

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

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

After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for - or received - any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday.

"The answer is no, they did not," said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.

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

The so-called NAFTA-gate affair took a bizarre twist this week that threatened to ensnare Clinton after having already damaged Obama at a critical phase of the U.S. election.

Obama had stinging criticism for the North American Free Trade Agreement while campaigning two weeks ago in Ohio. That rust belt state has lost thousands of jobs and the unions courted by Obama have blamed the trade pact for their job losses. Clinton was also unsparing in her criticism of NAFTA, stating flatly that the United States should withdraw from the agreement if it could not be renegotiated.

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

The Associated Press obtained a Canadian government memo that suggested Austan Goolsbee, Obama's senior economic policy adviser, met Canadian diplomats the consulate in Chicago last month.

It was revealed this week that Harper's chief of staff Ian Brodie initially tipped off a television news station to the story on Feb. 26, when in an off-the-cuff conversation he suggested Clinton's attacks on NAFTA were less than sincere.

After investigating the story, a television news station reported the next day that the Clinton and Obama campaigns had both offered Canada assurances that they would leave NAFTA untouched. Both camps issued denials.

But Obama's campaign was further torpedoed by the leak of the diplomatic memo. Goolsbee insists the Canadian memo mischaracterized his position.

Harper has called in an investigation unit to find out who leaked the document to the American media - a probe that will see government employees interviewed and their electronic records searched.

more.....
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNMJKvj5e...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. I can no longer make any sense of
what's going on here.

I think we should ALL forget about this nonsense. We'll never know what really happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pdxmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I agree with you completely. This story has been through so many
changes and at this point, all I can tell is that the Canadian government has stuck its fingers into the Democratic Primary in some way and that I can't believe a word that comes out of there. Oh, and I've learned that the Canadian press is no better than the American press at getting it right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. That's the way Clinton orchestrated it. First make an outlandish lie, the obfuscate the facts
That's the Clintons' campaign MO. Scorched earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
22. oh go away
You spew nothing but innuendo and cheap smears. I can go to FreeRepublic to read that shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abacus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. agreed. /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. This has been posted elsewhere...what it boils down to is Obama lied...
...got caught, his supporters are looking for someone to blame, and even Keith Olberman decided to join in the pile-on of the lying about Hilary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. And that source is the same Canadian Gov that lied in the first place. (Fuck Canada)
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 09:18 AM by thunder rising
Hillary is counting on delayed responsibility to get the short term gain and deal with the long term consequences later (or never)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. News flash: Goolsbee meet with Canadian officials...Obama said
it never happened, then had to backtrack and admit it had...if he had been upfront this wouldn't be an issue, but he couldn't be honest and is going to pay for it...sorry you can't accept reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'm so confused...
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 09:11 AM by TwoSparkles
I thought the initial Obama story was vetted, and finally resolved as being untrue.

I didn't know what was going on with Clinton.

The way this story reads, Clinton didn't, but Obama did. Is that right?

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

That quote is key---Notice that Harper didn't say Obama did , but he's saying Clinton definitely didn't
but doesn't say Obama didn't . He says that Obama is "alleged" which certainly implies that Obama's actions
were worse than Clinton's.

It's as if the story has been deliberately re-packaged---to suggest that Clinton didn't and Obama might have .

Interesting that Harper issues this two days after the hoopla. Clinton wants to continue using the tidbit that
Obama did and dovetail that into an argument about him being weak on foreign policy.

This version was only issued, after it became apparent that there were questions swirling around Clinton's behavior
in this matter--and after the Obama camp had demonstrated that they didn't . This smells like a
very deliberate repackaging of this issue--so Clinton could continue to question and degrade Obama's behavior.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. Clintons' BIG lie strategy. Confused is where she wants you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. I'm not confused...it's obvious she's lying...
...and that she's enlisted Canadian officials to help her out on this one.

It's telling that the Canadian leader issued this statement---letting Hillary off the hook and
suggesting that Obama is guilty---days after this incident.

Hillary wants to continue saying that Obama did this, because she thinks it's effective. She's been
using this to demonstrate that Obama would be bad on foreign policy.

Lately, it was said that Clinton contacted Canada, and others have debunked that Obama did this.

Now---after her argument is weakened--she needed something to beef up the fable again.

That's why this is such an obvious lie to me. She'll do anything to win--including lying and having
others lie for her. That's what we're seeing.

Expect more of it, and then some--from her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Obama admitted Goolsbee met with Candian officials!!!
God, what part of that don't you understand???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. I was not aware that Hillary had so much influence over Canadian officials!
Some could interpret that as meaning that she does have that foreign policy experience that she claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheozone Donating Member (839 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #15
26. Well, that would be a brilliant damn plan on her part!
So she is just who we need in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RDANGELO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
5. This is not the results from the investigation.
This is a statement from the Prime Ministers office. There is still an ongoing investigation, but the whole thing stinks. Why did the Canadian officials get involved in this ,and why did they lie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bad Thoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
24. You're right
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 10:07 AM by Bad Thoughts
We need to see the documents, not further opinion/spin. The Canadian government's reputation has already been sullied in this affair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
6. Any DUers ready to offer a mea culpa? *NT*
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 09:09 AM by lewis_in_fw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
21. I hope you're not holding your breath or anything like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
7. That asshat Canadian Gov needs to be investigated by the United Nations for election tampering
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
23. That's not tampering
And just above, you said this was orchestrated by Clinton. Now it's the Canadian government's fault?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sueragingroz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
10. we've been posting this for a couple of days.....
This is old news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ameridem Donating Member (60 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Looks like Canada trying to
stick their noses in something it doesn't belong. The U.S. election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sueragingroz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. You have no idea what impact this leak is having on Canadian politics do you?
Before you start bashing Canada and Canadians, read this first:

NAFTA leak reveals U.S.-Canada divide

In Ottawa this week, the politics of hope runs smack into the politics of cynicism

March 08, 2008
Susan Delacourt
national affairs writer

OTTAWASeveral weeks ago, as the U.S. presidential race was growing more fascinating by the day, ChaptersIndigo warned its Canadian online customers that Barack Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, was on back order delivery would be delayed by weeks.

It was one small indication of the fascination in this country with the Illinois senator blazing through the race for the Democratic nomination. There are tributes and Canadian fan groups on Facebook, too, and one earnest little YouTube ballad called "Canada Loves Obama."

After this week, however, it's not clear that Obama would say he returns the sentiment at least not as far as it extends to Canada's Conservative government.

Either accidentally or deliberately and that's at the nub of the controversy Prime Minister Stephen Harper's administration stands accused this week of leaking information that hurt Obama, specifically in Ohio, where free trade is a burning issue. In brief, word emerged from this country that Obama was saying one thing about NAFTA on the campaign trail and another behind the scenes to Canadian consular officials.

Hillary Clinton won Ohio handily on Tuesday and her advisers candidly admitted in the aftermath that Obama had been wounded by the so-called Canada controversy.

This is all interesting in itself, but then there was the bombshell revelation Wednesday night that the origin of all this Obama trouble was Harper's own chief of staff, Ian Brodie, who was talking off the cuff to journalists during a federal budget lockup in Canada. An internal investigation is still under way in Ottawa about the leak, but there now seems little question that the very highest office in Canada played a part in this whole episode.

Perhaps, when Obama wants to write the sequel to his much sought-after book, he might want to call this chapter "Audacity versus Hope." It isn't often you see Canada in the news at all in the U.S., let alone cast as a sleeper agent in a bid to rattle the Democrats.

There are many ways to analyze NAFTAgate, or Canada-bama, or whatever one wants to call it.

But perhaps the most fascinating aspect is through the lens of political culture and how this whole episode has highlighted the cultural differences between Obama's campaign and Harper's Ottawa. Where is Canada's Obama? Nowhere in sight on the current federal scene, and certainly not in the current power regime.

On one side is Obama's oratorical inspiration; his appeal to citizen empowerment "Yes We Can." On the other side of the political-culture divide, and the 49th parallel, is the strict, all-discipline-all-the-time regime of politics, Harper-style call it "No You Can't." Some might cast this distinction as navet versus realism. Others might say it's hope versus cynicism big ambitions versus small, low-expectations government.

And then there's the issue of whether Harper is just another Republican foe for Obama and Democrats in general. A recent Canadian Press-Harris Decima poll showed that 49 per cent of Canadians would cast their ballots for the Democrats if they had a vote in the U.S. election and only 12 per cent for Republicans which only makes it more paradoxical that our government would be seen to be playing for the other side.

Yesterday, yet another Canadian Press-Harris Decima survey showed if Obama led either Canadian party, he would double its public support.
It's probably not a surprise that some of Obama's biggest fans in Canada are opponents of Harper. Liberal MP Navdeep Bains, the party's critic on Canada-U.S. relations, says that by his estimate, Liberals are pretty evenly divided in support for Clinton and Obama, with much of the younger generation of Liberals more attracted to Obama's message. Bains himself won't say where he stands unlike Deputy leader Michael Ignatieff, for instance, who's been unabashed and open in his admiration for the Obama campaign. Liberal Leader Stphane Dion, talking to the Star's editorial board yesterday, said he's impressed by how many people are following the race closely, but he remained tactful about who he favours.


http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/Ideas/article/326295

BTW: I'm among the minority of Canadians who see Hillary as the best choice in November...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cogito ergo doleo Donating Member (382 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. Interesting perspective and commentary. Thanks for posting.
The NaftaGate story itself has become so corrupted it's no longer newsworthy; there is no way to see the truth in its ever-changing face. Just as rush had motivation and benefit in trying to influence the Democratic primary and caucus, so had Canada. Considering that, this story is necessarily over, no matter whose candidate it's propping up on a given day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Somehow, Hillary Clinton...
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 09:43 AM by TwoSparkles
...has convinced many people--including the Canadian PM, the news media and many
Republicans--that she is definitely going to win this election.

The media has completely pivoted. It's not that they're running glowing pieces on
Clinton and tearing down Obama. They're practically ignoring him. It's obvious
that some top-down decision has been made to place Obama on the back burner.

Clinton has been trying to get the media to play her way since this contest began.
The media has often talked about her "conference calls" with them, in which she
incessantly complains about Obama's coverage and tells them what to cover and how
to cover it. She's bullied them.

They didn't listen to her for a while, but for some reason--now they are. The media
is totally kow towing to her. It's as if the MSM is now Clinton's PR agency. You
can barely find an obama story on CNN's front page. MSNBC and CNN both covered
a Bill Clinton speech, while Obama was giving a speech in WY. The media continues to
say that Clinton won Texas, and use Texas to suggest that she had massive wins that day.
According to the Texas caucus results--Obama won Texas. How many people understand that?

The media used to kow tow to Hillary when she first arrived in Iowa. Many of our media members
reported that she was brazen and bullying--insisting that she would be the nominee and that was that.
The Des Moines Register reported that when they asked her, "Why should we endorse you?" she replied,
"Because I am going to be the nominee."

She's somehow convinced everyone--media, Republicans, foreign leaders that she will be the nominee
and that's that.

That's why this election has tilted on its axis. The minions are once again falling in line behind
her, as they did before. We all saw what happened with the media, when she started losing--first with
Iowa. The media really hates her. However, they're afraid of. her, and if they think she's going to
win they will kiss her ass to avoid her wrath. We're seeing the media convinced of Hillary's "inevitability"
again.

She's obviously shared with them how she plans to steal or strongarm or manipulate the election to her
favor. I wish she's also share her plans with us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmperorHasNoClothes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
17. The source of all the problems in this campaign? BLAME CANADA!
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 Sat Apr 19th 2014, 06:34 PM
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