home

Canada Apologizes To Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:30:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Marc Ambinder, this is funny:

The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

Um, Canada? There was no inference. It is what your memo says happened. And let's not be idiots, of course it happened. And of course it is true. Politics is politics people.

< Empty Threats | Obama Touts His Having Lived Overseas as Experience >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Canada Apologizes To Obama | 132 comments (132 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The Canadian government (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    should not be getting involved in American domestic politics and I suspect that there was some diplomatic blowback about this entire matter.

    But we can get involved in other countries? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:27:58 PM EST
    Of course they had to apologize to Obama.  He may become president.

    Parent
    this still does not negate (none / 0) (#61)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:17:40 PM EST
    the fact that the Obama camp stated, quite clearly, that there was no contact between them and the Canadian government.  Then, when this was disproved, they stated that the Canadian government did not talk to their guy in an official capacity as a representative of the campaign.

    And now this, which basically is a non-denial.

    I'm sure Russert and co are on this like a tick on a hound dog.  We need only wait for the nightly news to show us the determined investigation of our active and mighty press!

    Parent

    I think the memo (none / 0) (#137)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:39:25 AM EST
    got widely distributed (over 1000 people).  There is a chance that one of them leaked the story, and later the memo.

    I don't know how you conclude that Canadian government did that.  Of course, the government is run by conservatives, so on second thought...

    Parent

    Well, at least Obama has someone to (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    blame for his losses tomorrow.


    Eh, (none / 0) (#38)
    by marcellus on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:53:24 PM EST
    Politics is politics.  If you get caught you take the blame.

    Parent
    Politics is politics (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:19:33 PM EST
    and diplomacy is diplomacy.  Of course they're going to say this, for the same reason that it was bad form to let the leaks take place in the first instance.

    If Obama is the next President, does any Canadian diplomat want to be held responsible for the fact that the new President has a chilly attitude towards Canada?

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:30:49 PM EST


    Parent
    If anyone thinks this (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    was a case of some inept miscommunication or miscue by the Obama camp instead of deliberate sandbagging I'd suggest think again.

    Ambassador Michael Wilson - Tory PM Mulroney's Minister of Finance, one of the negotiators and signers of NAFTA, member of the Task Force on the Future of North America which is pushing the "Deep Integration" of Canada into the U.S. against the will of Canadians - is obviously nothing but the most objective and purely disinterested party in all this...

    Parent

    Huh? n/t (none / 0) (#62)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:17:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Who was the person (none / 0) (#73)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:25:45 PM EST
    key to the entire flap? CTV:

    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.



    Parent
    Eh (none / 0) (#90)
    by spit on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:34:40 PM EST
    This whole thing looks bad for Obama. Assertions about shady conservative tactics in the Canadian government really aren't going to help him, at least in my eyes, and probably not in terms of the politics of the moment, either.

    The poor political handling of the situation has had the effect of making it more serious than it was, and I thought it was fairly bad (if true, which it seems to be, more or less) before this memo came out.

    It's not that it's impossible that the conservatives in Canada have decided to meddle, but it takes more tinfoil than I've got at the moment, sorry. And this seems a strange way for them to go about meddling, anyway -- sinking him partly because he's not actually anti-NAFTA enough? Nah. Barring more evidence than the current assertions, I just don't see it.

    Parent

    This is purely my read on it (none / 0) (#105)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:51:21 PM EST
    I live in Canada and see how NAFTA, SPP, Deep Integration, etc are being pushed along under the radar here, against the overwhelming opposition of the people.

    Parent
    Sure, I don't disagree (none / 0) (#109)
    by spit on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:07:06 PM EST
    and you can have whatever read on it, of course, but it just doesn't make sense to me that the pro-NAFTA forces in the Canadian government would try to sink a presidential candidate by leaking stuff that makes him appear too pro-NAFTA for his base, forcing the democratic debate into one about who's genuinely anti-NAFTA enough.

    And especially not in the primary -- it might make more sense if we were already in the general election, and they wanted McCain to win, but the timing and basis of the thing both point me away from some intentional media-baiting by Canadian conservatives.

    I've seen this sort of thing asserted now quite a few times, but until I see something akin to actual facts pointing that direction, I just don't see what the motivation would be.

    And a good chunk of the story is about lying, too, which has really nothing to do with the Canadian government -- Goolsbee's statement the other day, and the statements from the campaign earlier, now look like political CYA-speak. Amusingly, they're essentially debating what the definition of "is" is. Even if I'm charitable and say there was possibly some misinterpretation at the consulate, the Obama response has made it far, far worse.

    Occam's razor isn't always right, but it's also a good rule of thumb to apply here, IMO. Particularly without any facts so far to the contrary that would imply some intentional plan by somebody in the Canadian Consulate.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#119)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:28:13 PM EST
    I have no intention to be some kind of apologist for the Obama camp on this - to me the issue itself is the important thing. As for the goals here, see my comment 114 to Warren T.

    Parent
    No, but (none / 0) (#138)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:46:52 AM EST
    a few objectives could be served:

    1- to put democrats, as a whole, on defensive about NAFTA.

    2- to make candidates' trustworthiness, and not NAFTA, the focus.

    3- to stop the campaign rhetoric from creating a genuine ground force against NAFTA.

    I said above, anyone (of 1000 people) could have leaked that, not necessarily the official forces.  But then again, the conservatives are like Bush: they are amateurs in diplomacy, which still doesn't prevent them from trying the grand stroke, and f*%ing up everything in the process.


    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#112)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:08:26 PM EST
    it's a real "crisis" that has been handled very poorly.

    And, with all due respect to the Canadians here, the average American does not give one fiddle-dee-dee- about Canadian politics and cares even less about Canadian politicians.  The story is going to be however the news spins it, and what you're going to see is Obama being angry and glib (going by what I saw on CNN earlier)

    You know, the thing is that I think Obama actually believes his story about living overseas and being a man of the world and bringing people together.  I think when stuff like this bites him in the butt, his outrage is genuine.  Sort of a "do you know who I am?" moment.

    I see this a lot in my business where folks get successful really fast, and they start to believe their own press.  No one tells them otherwise because their lives are tied up in supporting the "talent."  It's not that they discourage hearing the truth, but there is no one there willing to stand up, risk their paycheck, and tell it.

    Parent

    I'm sure no matter what happened (none / 0) (#118)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:26:18 PM EST
    you'd think it's been handled very poorly by Obama.

    As an American living in Canada, I thought people might be interested in some of the machinations underlying this incident that might not be so apparent to people within the US. If your interest goes no further than new and better ways to bash Obama, so be it.

    Parent

    But what is your point? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:34:56 PM EST
    That Canada is trying to torpedo Obama's candidacy because he's really against NAFTA? Or that Canada is trying to force Obama to become pro-NAFTA?

    You need to elaborate, instead of just implying.

    But I find neither theory compelling.

    Parent

    Trying to kill NAFTA as (none / 0) (#102)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:47:24 PM EST
    the powerful issue it should be.

    Parent
    Seems to me the key person (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:37:35 PM EST
    was Austan Goolsbee.

    Parent
    "nothing to the story" (none / 0) (#115)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:21:03 PM EST
    According to Obama supporters, Canada apologized.
    Nothing there. End of story.
    It was all rigged by Hillary.


    Parent
    I don't know about that (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    but this much I know, if Canada couldn't be trusted to keep the communication under wraps, then it was indeed a miscue to have a conversation with them in the first place.

    Parent
    Or perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:44:13 PM EST
    someone in the Canadian Embassy didn't like the idea that Obama was lying to Canada. I think the lying was the miscue.

    Parent
    There is a lot more than (none / 0) (#99)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:43:55 PM EST
    U.S. election politics going on in this.

    Whose agenda has been served by derailing serious public discussion, at a time when people are actually listening, of the actual pros and cons of NAFTA for the population, in favor of a scandal about who really said what?

    Parent

    I can't agree (none / 0) (#101)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:45:24 PM EST
    that this incident is 'derailing' discussion of NAFTA.

    Parent
    It is - of the economic aspects of it (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:54:45 PM EST
    Leaving just the gossip and scandal - distraction from the real issues.

    Parent
    So the memo is (none / 0) (#107)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    a fabrication of the Canadian government? Or what? What are you saying?

    (Why am I asking?)

    Parent

    The point (none / 0) (#114)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:17:08 PM EST
    Only Sen Clinton's supporters are concerned about trying to turn those regular informal contacts and discussions into some issue of "secret meetings" and "behind the scenes" deals. By doing so they are playing into another agenda which may not be clear to those not familiar with the Canadian situation re NAFTA.

    My point is not "the memo - is it real" or anything like that. It is that as soon as real public discussion emerged on what the true impact of NAFTA has been, that it is something that can be backtracked from, and in fact should be backtracked from if it can't be fixed, magically this "scandal" emerged.

    The loser? All of us who are not the elites of Bay Street and Wall Street. The real issues will not be discussed now, only this nonsense. It has kneecapped the issue for Obama's campaign. They will no longer be competing with one another to be tough on this issue.

    Parent

    Please accept our apologies (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by frankly0 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:20:05 PM EST
    for opening the barn door, which we will now close, though the horse has already bolted.

    I Sure Hope (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by zfran on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:21:05 PM EST
    the "media" is looking into this. I've not heard a word since early this morning on CNN about this. If it were Senator Clinton, we would have heard about this all day. The media is supposed to report what is out there, not what they think we want to hear! I hear Sen. Clinton speak of this earlier today...I hope she keeps it up. He's not squeaky clean people!!!!

    Here in NYC (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:26:29 PM EST
    no one seems to have heard about it.  The national media has its coastal biases, and they don't appreciate that NAFTA is a much more serious issue in the Rust Belt than it is out here.

    Parent
    NAFTA? (none / 0) (#54)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    National Association For Theater Actors?

    Parent
    It was on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by magster on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    with video from Canadian Parliament.

    Parent
    The media is supposed to report . . (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:43:08 PM EST
    . . what is out there, not what they think we want to hear!
    thats so cute.  its endearing, really.
    but you have it wrong they believe their job is to report what they think we need to hear. not what they think we want to hear.


    Parent
    Clinton Did The Same Thing (none / 0) (#48)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    CTV says Clinton DID say her NAFTA criticisms were for political purposes only:

    CTV also reported last week that sources said the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton's words. The Clinton camp denied the claim.

    Yet she is getting none of the heat for it. Seems like it is Clinton who is getting special treatment in the media.

    Parent

    Two key differences (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:06:35 PM EST
    1. The Clinton campaign has issued a flat denial, which Obama did not;

    2. No corroborating evidence has been produced regarding the Clinton claim.


    Parent
    Canadian Embassy (none / 0) (#76)
    by marcellus on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:27:47 PM EST
    the Canadian embassy says that they "regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns".  So it seems likely they contacted Obama, McCain, and Clinton campaigns.  The Obama got caught because of the memo and have to pay the political consequences

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:34:10 PM EST
    but the idea that Canada reached out to the Clinton campaign at some point says nothing about whether there were discussions concerning NAFTA, let alone discussions where Clinton suggested her campaign rhetoric was not genuine.

    Parent
    this is what bothers me most (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by IndyRobin on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:23:12 PM EST
    This is what bothers me the most. I have yet to see a single obama supporter ADMIT he has made a single mistake EVER. It is always manipulated back to Clinton. This I believe feeds the theory
    about the whole cult following stuff. It is not rational to expect any human being to be perfect
    yet every Obama supporter will fight to the death to defend his every move. Scary

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:47:15 PM EST
    I have yet to see a single obama supporter ADMIT he has made a single mistake EVER.
    Obviously you have not been reading TL. BTD, an Obama supporter,  has admitted mistakes plenty of times.

    You, on the other hand sound like the kind of extremist you depict, just saying...

    Parent

    ah (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:06:36 PM EST
    so even canada is giving Obama a pass for something they both did.


    Parent
    Yes, quite the handy (none / 0) (#125)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    apology ...

    Intended to immunize both evil doers from their evil deeds.

    Hmm ... sounds like something GWB would do ...

    Parent

    ROTFL (none / 0) (#52)
    by mexboy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:06:39 PM EST


    Parent
    oh the mccain people and swift boaters (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:52:18 PM EST
    are taking notes i'm sure.

    Parent
    This little (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Lena on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:34:37 PM EST
    letter of regret seems to be the most damning evidence of all to directly refute Obama's claims that the conversation never happened.

    Note that the letter says nothing about it NOT happening. It just says "sorry for inserting ourselves in the middle of your election."

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:37:37 PM EST


    Parent
    And NAFTA is still (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:43:58 PM EST
    trickle down b.s in a different package.

    Parent
    Actually it does (none / 0) (#27)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:44:51 PM EST
    Heck, read the memo, the letter and the Goolsbee's admission (that the parts about wanting to strengthen trade and enviromental laws, mentioned in the mem are true) and it comes across pretty clearly that Obama's for fair trade, and that this is position presented to the Canadians.

    Parent
    was the memo released? (none / 0) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:05:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Yep AP got it (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:22:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#108)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:00:12 PM EST
    The original story by CTV said that Obama assured the Canadian Ambassador that he had no plans to change NAFTA.

    First he didn't talk to the Ambassador.

    Second I fail to see how this statement....

    On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more "core" principles of the agreement. Should Obama win the White House, Goolsbee figures to remain a close advisor.

    Is any different than Obama's claim that he will look to renegotiate NAFTA.

    What bothers me personally about all of this NAFTA angst is that it is just so much BS by ALL the candidates.   They aren't getting rid of NAFTA.  None of them. They are all pandering.

    There won't be any change in labor mobility or environmental standards.  Heck the LAST thing the US wants to do is abide by Canadian labor and environmental practices.

    But once again we have a situation where politicians are giving no choice but to lie and say that they hate NAFTA and they want to get rid of it.  I doubt even Mr. Populist John Edwards would actually do anything to change the agreement.  But they all have to lie because the American people won't tolerate the truth.

    Parent

    Standard Obama Supporter Defense Tactic (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:29:38 PM EST
    It doesn't matter that Obama did this because, you know, Hillary did it too.  In fact, eveybody does it.

    Bullsh*t! I say.

    Obama and his campaign did this - lied to the voters.

    There's absolutely no evidence that Hillary did ... not even some internal Canadian consulate meeting memo that documents her alleged secret ulterior position.

    Besides, as has been said a thousand times (to you, Flyerhawk), Hillary hasn't claimed to be a pure "new kind of politician" who's above all this "standard political bullsh*t."  

    Only Obama has claimed this.

    Hence the lies and hypocrisy.

    Parent

    Well there goes (none / 0) (#110)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:07:13 PM EST
    my hope. I should have known better than to have such audacity. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth.

    Parent
    Is he admitting that much? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:38:58 PM EST
    Seems to me he's blaming the voters for giving politicians like Obama no choice but to lie to them. The American people won't tolerate the truth, after all. Shame on them. It's not really Obama's fault. I just hope the American people will tolerate the truth of Obama's greatness :-D

    Parent
    You are absolutely correct (none / 0) (#123)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:06:36 PM EST
    This has nothing to do with Obama being special or getting special exemption for lying.

    They ALL lie because we give them NO CHOICE.

    We need to either make massive cuts in Federal spending or somehow make massive increases in Federal revenues.  This is a clear fact that is known to just about anyone who pays even a little attention.  

    So what do the politicians do?  The Republicans continue on with the lie that lower taxes will yield higher tax revenues and the Democrats lie and say that only the rich will get taxed.  

    God forbid they simply tell us that we will need to raise everyone's taxes.  Because politicians that say that quickly become ex-politicians.  

    And the list goes on and on.  Farm subsidies.  Defense spending.  

    Try and find a professional economist who thinks that NAFTA is a bad deal for America.  But, as with all other economic policies, there are always winners and losers and the losers will blame the politicians if the politicians don't lie and say "ooohhh.  Trade policy X is the devil!"

    This applies to EVERY SINGLE ELECTED politician.   Watch McCain dance around on taxes.  Watch Hillary dodge the real world implications of enforcing mandates.  This is the way the game is played.

     

    Parent

    Seems (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by tek on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    like a bad omen that Obama is already playing cover-up and he isn't even the nominee!  HILLARY '08!

    "Um, Canada" Catchy new lyrics to (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    Canadian national anthem.

    Obama campaign lied! (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by mexboy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:13:50 PM EST
    That is the point. Not who released the memo or why.

    Obama's campaign  said the meeting never took place, then that NAFTA was never discussed, and after that pesky little memo came out had to say, well, ok. It happened, but...

    In my part of the country that is called a LIE!

    This from the leader of a new and enlightened way of doing politics? where is the change? Where is the transparency and hope?

    You can spin it any way you want, it still lands on LIE.

    CTV Says Hillary Lied (none / 0) (#60)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:17:03 PM EST
    It would appear that Clinton lied, unless you are saying that the CTV source the Clintonites thought was so trustworthy a few days ago is bunk.

    Parent
    Not sure (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:20:07 PM EST
    The memo does not mention Hillary though.

    Parent
    I don't know that she lied, (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by mexboy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:49:06 PM EST
    But if you have a memo about it I'd love to take a read at it.

    The point that seems to be missed in all this is this: Barak Obama claims to be a new kind of candidate. He wants to change politics from the old ways (back-room deals, lies, old politics. etc.) to one of harmony and honesty.

    This goes to the core of his credibility and the core of his campaign.

    I do expect him to lead by example and do what he preaches. If he says one thing and then does the opposite. Why should I support him?

    I know we don't like it when the candidate we support blows it, and we want to rationalize it away, but how does that serve our best interest?

    Parent

    The magic lie accusation (none / 0) (#72)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:24:25 PM EST
    is there anything it can't do?  

    Say it over and over enough and it doesn't even matter what the alleged lie was about.

    Much better to stick to the deny everything no matter what approach embraced by the Clintons.

    Parent

    Looks like Obama agrees (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:34:47 PM EST


    Parent
    There you go again ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:40:19 PM EST
    The "Magic Lie" accusation, so sayeth Flyerhawk.

    You are incredibly insulting to the majority of people who frequent this blog.

    Virtually everything you write is a denial of reality or facts - facts that are well documented here, if not elsewhere - and an insult to commenters here.

    We take your denials or spin, refute them with hard data, and you then change the subject, blame Hillary, blame the rest of the world, blame and insult the other the commenters.

    What is your problem?  Can't take the heat?  Can't take everyone disagreeing with you? Nervous about your candidate?

    If it were my blog, I'd invite you to move along.

    Parent

    Pretty impressive (none / 0) (#135)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:36:48 PM EST
    Interesting that you spent that much time creating all sorts of imagery about me.

    I am incredibly insulting to a number of people on this blog because I don't accept your views as gospel.  Some people here seem to confuse agreed wisdom with incontrovertible fact.  

    I don't get insulted when I am called naive or foolish or biased or bitter or any of the litany of other names some of you like to bandy about.  

    I do say I find this part of your post highly amusing...

    What is your problem?  Can't take the heat?  Can't take everyone disagreeing with you? Nervous about your candidate?

    If it were my blog, I'd invite you to move along.

    Yes.  Clearly I am the one who can't take people disagreeing with me.

    Parent

    Of Course It Happened And It's True? (none / 0) (#4)
    by rdandrea on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    That's not what the Canadians just wrote.
    They confirmed (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:30:24 PM EST
    the memo's existence.

    The memo says it happens.

    Weasel word like inferences are rather ridiculous once you have confirmed the authenticity of the memo.

    Which says it happened. The memo was written by a guy actually in the meeting.

    The bureacratic CYA is just funny now.

    Parent

    What the letter said, and what you posted... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by rdandrea on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:39:24 PM EST
    "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private"

    That's clear enough.  I don't call it "weasel words" at all--that's your opinion, not a fact.  And it's a pejorative.  The words are the official position of Canada, released through the Canadian Embassy.

    End of story.

    Parent

    "no intention to convey" (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    means "we didn't mean to leak it".

    It's 100% weasel words, i.e. diplomacy.

    End of story.

    Parent

    Your opinion, not fact (none / 0) (#33)
    by rdandrea on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:49:47 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    From the Canadian Embassy (none / 0) (#36)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:51:26 PM EST
    to God's ears.

    Parent
    Note the words (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by frankly0 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    no intention to convey

    Of course, that can be perfectly true even when the memo is conveying precisely what it does convey.

    Parent

    They are weasel words (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:48:11 PM EST
    Of course they didn't intend to convey it, because they didn't intend to leak it. They aren't disputing what the memo said, just that they didn't intend for it to be public.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    The United States also has a great many "official positions" that are total BS.  The US not being China or North Korea, we're allowed to call those positions what they are.

    Parent
    The US may not be. . . (none / 0) (#44)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:01:50 PM EST
    North Korea and neither, of course, is the Obama campaign.  However, am I the only one who detects a certain amount of "Dear Leaderism" among Obama's most enthusiastic supporters?

    Parent
    It's just you (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:03:22 PM EST
    Their reaction if this were the Clinton campaign would be entirely consistent. Look at Kid Oakland.

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:03:40 PM EST
    you are not

    Parent
    Can't resist. U.S. not in N. Korea, (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:13:58 PM EST
    but NY Phil. is.  

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:59:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Quite clear. (none / 0) (#43)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:00:27 PM EST
    there was no intention to convey

    The intention was (or, at least, in this communication is) to obfuscate what happened.

    Parent

    CYA is just funny now (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:44:59 PM EST
    funny it is but I have a sinking feeling it may be all we get from the MSM.


    Parent
    the biggest casualty in this entire campaign (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:23:40 PM EST
    has been reading comprehension.  Because Obama tends to speak from both sides of his mouth, whole weeks are devoted to "What Obama Really Meant."

    Anyone off the street of normal intelligence reading this statement and not knowing a thing about the issue to which it pertains would say that the LEAK is the thing regretted, not what was said in the leak.

    But because it pertains to Obama, suddenly, it is read with enormous benefit of the doubt.

    Parent

    Did they just call (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:26:42 PM EST
    CTV liars?

    Nope (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:28:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes we must certainly not (none / 0) (#11)
    by Joike on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:30:04 PM EST
    allow Canada to interfere in the domestic politics of other nations.

    Everyone knows that it is our job to do the meddling in the affairs of other nations.  If Canada were to be actively involved in our domestic politics, we run the risk of enacting universal health care.  The horror!

    run the risk (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by tek on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    of having a bona fide democracy, Oh My!

    Parent
    Visions of South Park (none / 0) (#19)
    by kmblue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:42:24 PM EST
    dancing through my head ;)

    the Baldwins (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:50:53 PM EST
    should temporarily relocate

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#37)
    by kmblue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:51:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Apology accepted (none / 0) (#32)
    by 1jane on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:48:20 PM EST
    The apology is clear, simple and regretful and too late.

    Why is it too late? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:57:18 PM EST
    Obama could still be president. In which case this 'apology' might pay big dividends for Canada.

    Parent
    I'll give the Obama campaign ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:50:04 PM EST
    a pass on how they handled the story.  Since the original story was technically not true, I don't think they were obliged to volunteer the facts. And, frankly, I don't know how they would have done that.

    But what they actually did via Goolsbee is less forgivable.  Politics as usual, maybe.  But after their demagoguing on the issue, it shows a cynicism that hurts Obama's image.

    Will HRC campaign get an ad (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:56:27 PM EST
    out on this b/4 tomorrow?

    Yes (none / 0) (#41)
    by Claw on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:57:47 PM EST
    and it will have wolves...

    god (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:02:57 PM EST
    I HOPE so

    Parent
    actually... (none / 0) (#55)
    by myed2x on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:11:01 PM EST
    I wouldn't be too sure that it actually did happen....

    We have a very corrupt Conservative government up here that is tied at the hip to the neo-cons down south.

    It wouldn't surprise me in the least that Harper and his minions up here we just carrying water for Bushco/Republicans.  They've done it before (Bali conference) and they'll do it again.

    Moderate and left of center Canadians are ready to ignite over their latest fiasco's and past undemocratic behaviour.

    They are a minority government and are trying to bully the opposition constantly with non-confidence votes and underhanded smears and divisive politics.  They have imported the same consultants that the Republicans use for PR etc.

    We are in a battle up here to prevent them from taking a majority...however, the more time they spend in control (thankfully as a minority) the more people up here are wising up to their behaviour.

    Its sort of cute when canadians say (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    they have a conservative government.
    I recently spent most of two years in Canada working.  you may have some conservative politicians but it will take them years (or generations) to produce a conservative government.


    Parent
    again, actually (none / 0) (#82)
    by myed2x on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:31:39 PM EST
    the merging of the old Progressive Conservative and Reform Party (the party our current PM is from) resulted in a dramatic shift to the right.

    Canada, as a historically liberal country is just starting to wake up to that fact...

    The conservative politicians you speak of are the ones in ministerial positions, Harper has a muzzle on the rest...it's quite fascinating but frightening at the same time as a resident.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:21:51 PM EST
    You go with that if you want.

    Parent
    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by myed2x on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:28:32 PM EST
    I just know the government we have, and this is something they would do....

    Parent
    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:35:52 PM EST
    For some reason you do not think the Obama campaign is capable of lying to you. Boy are you going to be shocked if Obama becomes President.

    And yes, Hillary will lie to you too.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#121)
    by myed2x on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:43:36 PM EST
    I'm a little more open minded than that actually.

    I'd rather not have McCain than anything else.

    Parent

    Obama has been consistent (none / 0) (#56)
    by AF on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:12:22 PM EST
    Assuring Canada that he is not trying to scuttle free trade is perfectly consistent with his position that NAFTA and other trade agreements should contain environmental and labor standards.

    Canada would meet those standards.  Mexico would not.  

    The real travesty is that this memo got leaked.  Since when can you not make routine diplomatic assurances to an ally without having them injected into a presidential campaign?  The Canadian government had better apologize.

    see (none / 0) (#111)
    by Nasarius on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:07:27 PM EST
    Now that's thoroughly believable spin. So why hasn't that been the message from the campaign?

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#113)
    by AF on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    I think.

    Parent
    Does anyone HAVE the memo? (none / 0) (#57)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    Perhaps it might shed light on Clinton's attempts to mollify the Canadian government.

    AP has it (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    Nothing about Clinton in it.

    Parent
    Here's Obama's statement on the matter (none / 0) (#64)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:19:20 PM EST
    Politico has Obama's take on this:

    Obama on Canada

    My colleague Carrie Budoff Brown emails notes from Obama's press conference in San Antonio today, where he answered questions about the Canadian memo, and defended his own past statements and continued to deny the substance of the conversation at issue:

    Let me just be absolutely clear what happened, when I gave you that information, that was the information I had at the time. 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.

    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.

    I know the Clinton campaign has been true to its word in employing a kitchen sink strategy. ... It doesn't change the facts.

    Brown adds that Obama, who will usually take a few more questions after his aides yell "last question," abided by the order and left from the podium as reporters yelled questions.

    "I just answered like eight questions," Obama said as he walked



    Heh (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:21:06 PM EST
    Sorry Barack, the memo utterly contradicts your statements and those of your campaign.

    Parent
    People never get (none / 0) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    tired of gotcha politics.

    And then they become surprised when politicians deflect everything.  

    Parent

    What can I tell you? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    I am not surprised OR upset and I doubt this has lasting effected.

    Frankly, my real humor is directed at the vociferous Obama supporters on this.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#104)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:49:21 PM EST
    Lots of loud supporters on both sides.  They tend to overreact to almost everything.

    Parent
    "I just answered like eight questions," (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:22:28 PM EST
    well
    that should totally be, like, enough.


    Parent
    maybe he'll answer them on his website (none / 0) (#78)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:28:47 PM EST
    Am I making this up?  They denied the meeting even took place.  Then, they said that Goolsebee (sp?) met with them, but not as a member of the campaign, and NOW they are saying that the Canadians initiated the contact, they met with them as a courtesy and that's what they have been telling us all along so shut up and vote.

    It boggles the mind.

    Parent

    its understandable really (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:32:45 PM EST
    it has worked for W for 7 and 1/2 years after all.


    Parent
    Hush Howdy! (none / 0) (#93)
    by kmblue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:35:06 PM EST
    Obama is playing to his base. ;)

    Parent
    you know something (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:40:34 PM EST
    its one thing, even understandable maybe, in a primary election.
    but the idea that it could, and I see not evidence that it could not, extend into a possible Obama presidency is just scary.


    Parent
    Once again ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    he plays the "blame Clinton" card.

    Maybe if he gets the nom, he will name her as Veep, so he can blame her for everyone of his errors in office.

    "You'll need to consult the Vice President's office, she handled that one."

    Parent

    In fact ... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:29:28 PM EST
    I was willing to give Obama a pass on how he handled this story, until he trotted that blame Clinton thing out again.

    How does this help him unify the party, again?

    Parent

    because she is so divisive and polarizing (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    that everyone in the party has united behind Obama.  Except for about 50% of the party, but that's really not the point here.

    Good Lord!  Someone need only do a timeline of the Obama campaign's statements to trap them in lies.  The issue regarding NATO doesn't even have to enter the equation.  Just compare their statements and you'll see where they outright lied.

    Parent

    Why can't Obama ever ... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:36:02 PM EST
    take responsibility for anything?

    Even a weaselly "I understand how it could have been misconstrued" would have been something.

    No, instead it's the evil Clinton "peddling" lies about my noble "movement."

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    exactly, no responsibility! (none / 0) (#132)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:00:13 PM EST
    i am so sick of the buck doesn't stop with me crowd. if this was the hillary campaign, the obama supporters would be down at lowe's buying pitch forks.

    Parent
    Pitch Forks? (none / 0) (#133)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:04:43 PM EST
    They still sell those things?

    Parent
    i'm not sure, that's a good question. (none / 0) (#134)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:27:47 PM EST
    i'll check tonight to see. i always think about frankenstein and the villagers with their pitchforks. it brings a smile.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#83)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:31:51 PM EST
    "The Canadian Embassy confirmed that he said exactly what I have been saying on the campaign trail."

    I mean, we have a WRITTEN DOCUMENT that says what the Canadian Embassy ACTUALLY confirmed.

    Does Obama actually believe he can create his own reality?

    Parent

    he can create his own reality (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    you have to admit it has worked so far

    Parent
    Pay no attention to ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:41:15 PM EST
    the man behind the curtain.

    Parent
    You're right, of course, Barack ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:55:43 PM EST
    You're always right ...

    What Hillary said doesn't change the facts that you have lied through your teeth about all this.

    (btw, those are our real teeth aren't they?  Very nice.)

    Parent

    Obama caught in a bald faced lie. This along with (none / 0) (#124)
    by DemBillC on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:10:45 PM EST
    Obama contributer Rezco being linked to Obama by a land transaction. Obama bought a very expensive Georgian Mansion in Chicago (I want to say $1.6 million) and on the same day Rezco bought an empty plot of land abutting the house from the same buyer. The implication is that Rezco overpaid for the plot of land so Obama could get the house cheaper as part of a package deal. Obama paid for landscaping and upkeep on the lot, and eventually bought 10 foot strip of the lot.

    What? (none / 0) (#136)
    by ghost2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:37:15 AM EST
    Maybe there is something to BTD's argument of Obama and press.

    That apology reminds me of the guy whom Cheney shot, apologizing to Cheney for being in his way.

    Wake up! Its the CONSERVATIVE Canadian govt. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Independence33 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:31:51 AM EST
    How many times have I heard how Obama is repeating Republican talking points and using Karl Roves playbook. All being nonsense of course. Now Sen. Clinton is using a conservative government that Bush supported to attack Obama. Hilarious. This was released by this right wing govt. to help JOHN MCCAIN. The Canadian Embassy has APOLOGIZED and denied that this was Goolsbee intent and Goolsbee has said that he was mis-quoted. It would be like repeating attacks that George Bush himself had used. Oh yeah she already did that when she said Obama would attack Pakistan. She was at that debate and I hope you people were watching too since its your job, but he clearly said he would attack Al-Qeada which is what we are doing right now with great success. I wish you could understand that by promoting every little bit of crap that goes out against Obama that you are the ones who will let a Republican win again. You even had the guts to put up the Farrakhan garbage but where is all the dirty Clinton donors that she hasnt rejected or denounced.

    Canada Apologizes To Obama | 132 comments (132 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment