Canada Only Got NAFTA Briefing From Obama Advisor

By Big Tent Democrat

Because most of the Left blogs are too busy bemoaning the fact that Samantha Power had to leave the Obama campaign for making, to them, the not unreasonable statement that Hillary Clinton is a monster (no they have not gone off the deep end have they?), you are not likely to see much reporting on the fact that Canada Only Got A NAFTA Briefing From An Obama Advisor:

[Canadian] PMO: Officials only got briefing from Obama campaign

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.

. . . 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.

After a few days of great interest, conspiracy theories and excitement, most Left blogs have to remember to forget this story again. It hurts Obama again, so it must be forgotten.

< Obama's New Rules? | Obama Rules Out Being VP Candidate? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you BTD! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:47:59 AM EST
    I and others spent so much time defending HRC from being dragged down in this mess in the last few days on this blog.  So glad the truth is finally out.  

    Olbermann was reporting (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:07:18 AM EST
    the "Clinton did it first" lie as recently as last night.

    Can you jump the shark more than once?


    KO is well beyond Fonzie territory now (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:09:29 AM EST
    I wonder if KO realizes that he is now a joke? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:33:44 AM EST
    Yeah, I was thinking when I first saw this, gee, I wonder what Olbermann will have to say about this on Monday. I wonder if an apology is forthcoming. But then I remembered that I no longer watch Countdown. But I'm sure that if Monday is a frosty day in Hades and KO corrects the record, someone will let us know.

    He's not a joke (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    to the 25-54 demographic which tend to be Obama supporters.

    He could care less what the base of Democrats think as long as he can get this set.  They're his target. He's always said so.


    So you are thinking were not in that range (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EST

    I'm in that demographic. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:36:31 PM EST
    Hey! (none / 0) (#67)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:57:19 PM EST
    I'm still in that demographic, thank you very much. And I support Clinton.  

    Funny, I was never a fan. I thought (none / 0) (#55)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:14:37 PM EST
    he liked the sound of his voice WAY too much; together with his equally pompous writing style, it really diminishes the impact of his comments.

    The special comments (none / 0) (#68)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:00:21 PM EST
    used to be better. His outrage seemed real, and the vituperative language was substantive, not just a stream of insults.

    But even before he became so blatantly anti-Clinton, his special comments were beginning to go over the top.  Even my 17 year old daughter, who caught the KO habit from me, thought that KO was becoming too full of himself.

    It took me much less time to drop the Countdown habit than it did to achieve Daily Kos withdrawal. Thank goodness all addictions aren't created equal.


    Have you also left DK?? (none / 0) (#70)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:31:53 PM EST
    I know you have been there in the last couple of weeks.

    KO put done that Obamajuice start withdrawal (none / 0) (#40)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:09:15 AM EST
    I'm starting the KOP Factor factor and he gets a +10 for this one he even appeared aware that his nose was growing lordy, hmmm.

    Too bad they already did the damage... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:53:13 AM EST
    ...I was trying to debunk this story among some of my coworkers who wouldn't know the leftie blogs from  American Idol blogs so it's making the rounds via other means. Perhaps email chains from Obama supporters. Was KO reporting the Obama spin? I wouldn't know cause I can't stand to watch him anymore but perhaps that's where they got it.

    Yes Ko is a charlatan now (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    More accurate. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:36:00 AM EST
    Well, I was calling him a joke, but charlatan is probably more specific and more accurate.

    KO Is That Which He Decries... (none / 0) (#44)
    by OxyCon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:30:38 AM EST
    Fixed Noise propaganda. Twisting the facts to support an agenda. No ethics.
    Since KO is too juvenile to be able to handle an email account (MSNBC took his away when he was caught flaming emailers), you can email Dan Abrams and tell him to pass a message along to Olbermann. They'll get the picture over at MSNBC, that KO is going to start bleeding viewers because he has alienated at least half of us.

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Joelarama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:53:14 AM EST
    I can't tell you how happy I am to know there is a reality-based corner still flourishing in left blogosphere.

    I agree (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:55:05 AM EST
    I read the redmeat stuff (No Quarter, Taylor Marsh) for some satisfaction, occasionally, but this is where I go for 'normalcy'.

    I don't consider anything (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Joelarama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:57:14 AM EST
    attacking a Democrat to be red meat. (Barring obvious Lieberman-like exceptions)  I'd prefer normalcy in the primaries, among Democrats.

    It's politics, though (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    I know... (none / 0) (#69)
    by gish720 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:25:35 PM EST
    I love this blog and read it voraciously...I used to frequent Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall and some others I no longer can read.  I still like Digby because even though she's come out for Obama she's still fair. I've come to know new blog sites and this is one of my favorites. I still LOVE the dailyhower, of course.

    You know what I Like To Do? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by OxyCon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:20:37 AM EST
    Once in awhile, I'll go back to a few of the blogs that I used to participate at, before they lost their minds over Obama, and I'll post one of these articles which should enlighten reasonable people about Obama.
    The reactions are downright hilarious and frightening at the same time. It's like pulling the shades back on a Vampire.
    The one thing I'm called that is the least horrendous is a spammer by one of the bloggers. When I point out that in the past I was not only embraced for posting newsworthy material, but that they were usually used to create new posts altogether I get silence.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#2)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:48:28 AM EST
    for reporting this. When I first read the allegation, I started looking for information to support it.... and didn't find anything.

    canadian PM's statement (none / 0) (#32)
    by utahdem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:38:11 AM EST
    I believe that TPM reported this yesterday.  But they also wrote about some rumored conversation implicating HRC involvement. So, Josh had to post the new report but there was no apology for spreading the innuendo.

    In fact, Brodie mentioned Clinton to (none / 0) (#56)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:15:36 PM EST
    smear HER; it was only because the Toronto paper did  actual journalism that the disco
    ver Obama was the guilty party.

    Some Obama suppoters are claiming (none / 0) (#3)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:50:18 AM EST
    that the "paper trail" vindicates Obama.  Does anyone know what this means?

    Misprint (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    The paper trial IMPLICATES the Obama campaign.

    BTD, this is the MO of the rabid (none / 0) (#42)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:17:20 AM EST
    Obama supporter, or obamabot, or whatever term is in vogue today, is it not? Accuse others of one's own misfeasance?

    Geez, don't people realize they are both politicians? Shake hands with either, but keep your hand on your wallet.

    I am reminded of a scene in The MAginificent Seven, when Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen ride to a cabin where Charles Bronson is chopping wood for his breakfast. Bronson chops, sees them, arranges his pistol for easy access, and goes back to chopping.

    Seems appropriate here with the Obama crowd.


    Canadian Memo (none / 0) (#31)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:38:10 AM EST
    You can read the actual memo to decide for yourself what Goolsbee meant.  


    I lost the instructions on how to do the link.  Help would be appreciated. Thanks.  I'm such a maroon.


    I know this is off topic (none / 0) (#4)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:50:39 AM EST
    but Sen Obama has rules out VP according to ABC

    ABC Link

    Can we get an open thread? Or your views about this?

    Ahhh, Mr. Unityyyy (none / 0) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:54:13 AM EST
    warms the coggles of your heart, doesn't it?

    It's okay, though, because I'm sure the pro-Obama DNC would support that sentiment.


    But I do NOT (none / 0) (#13)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    read it as he will NOT be VP... I read it as he is not running for VP. That is why I thinks a good converstion on this would be interesting.

    See my take on it (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:01:48 AM EST
    New post.

    New post on it (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:01:28 AM EST
    Thanks for the tip.

    I read last night (none / 0) (#10)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:57:18 AM EST
    that Joe Scarborough said on Real Time w/ BM (or somewhere) that msnbc has been getting so many e-mails and phone calls that hosts are being told to watch what they say.  

    Now, that's laughable b/c there's no evidence of it.  But considering that KO was all over dragging HRC into this mess, maybe enough e-mails will force an apology.  I guess I'm asking for too much, huh? :)  

    I think the increasing insanity (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:10:28 AM EST
    of MSNBC is actually the result of Tweety and KO taking deep umbrage at what they see as an attempt to "muzzle" them.  So they are being more biased, not less.

    Either that, or they are gaining new Hillary-hating viewers faster than they are losing folks like me.


    Ha ha, (none / 0) (#11)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:59:54 AM EST
    ..maybe what he meant is that they have to watch that they don't say nice things about Hillary Clinton.

    And watch that they DO say (none / 0) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:03:49 AM EST
    nice things about Obama.

    Oops (none / 0) (#15)
    by MaryGM on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:00:55 AM EST
    Will KO offer a retraction to his Hillary NAFTA-gate tirade?  I'm not holding my breath.

    Yes, you're asking too much. (none / 0) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:04:53 AM EST
    After the Shuster fiasco, KO pursued a kinder-gentler Hillary bashing, then was back to his same old nonsense.

    I still can't believe (none / 0) (#26)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:15:05 AM EST
    Scarborough said it though--is Dan Abrams still a producer.  

    You're right Teresa, if we haven't seen any change  after the Shuster fiasco, I guess we should stop holding our breadth.

    I've always hoped that during Hardball/KO/Election coverage they think they've gone to commercial break and start saying the most horrible, offensive, vulgar things about HRC--only to find out they've been on the air the whole time and then all of them are forced to resign, never to be hired anywhere again!  

    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#27)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:20:29 AM EST
    TPM's David Kurtz's take on the Hillary Camp Made No Secret Assurances on NAFTA headline: This NAFTA story offers no easy answers, no obvious heroes, and a passel of possible villains pointing their fingers at each other.

    I don't see what's wrong with Kurtz's assessment (none / 0) (#37)
    by jerry on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:04:49 AM EST
    I am not a reporter, lawyer, judge, or blogger, so Kurtz's assessment and blog post seems reasonable.

    It's titled with the PMO's absolute denial.  Kurtz weighs in to say, basically, "wtf -- who do I believe they are probably all wankers", and then he includes the specific language from the Canadian Press.

    The part containing the rejection of the claim is much greater than the part containing his "wtf?"


    Except (none / 0) (#34)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:42:29 AM EST
    Brodie could have offered up a name when he initially mentioned it or whem Tom Clark started investigating

    Who knows.. maybe to Canadians Hillary and Obama advisors sound alike and he said Hillary when he meant Obama and now he's just in CYA mode.

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#35)
    by ChrisO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:59:38 AM EST
    Someone reported that they heard the Prime Minister's chief of staff tell a room full of people that the Clinton campaign had contacted them. That's not exactly definitive. Especially since no one from that room full of people has come forward to verify the story.

    None of us is in a position to vouch for the veracity of any of these Canadian politicians, but I think absent any evidence other than weak hearsay, the absolute denial is the one that has to be believed.

    But none of those (none / 0) (#36)
    by standingup on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:01:34 AM EST
    reporters who heard the chief of staff make the statement have gone on record either.  The unnamed sources are just as much of a problem in your scenario.  

    I think these are the same unnamed sources (none / 0) (#38)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:06:02 AM EST
    who "leaked" the two year old photo that the alleged and unnamed Clinton staffer emailed.

    Come on, folks.  This is journalism?


    No (none / 0) (#47)
    by Foxx on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    they didn't say it was false, they said it might have misconstrued. And there is no hard evidence of that. Obviously they are doing damage control.

    Are Obama supporters (none / 0) (#48)
    by badger on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:50:28 AM EST
    maintaining an enemies list? Seems like everybody (now including Canada) is out to get their candidate. That would be the "unity candidate" I believe.

    I'll take my self-righteousness over paranoia anyday.

    Give me a break on enemies lists (none / 0) (#50)
    by call me Ishmael on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:55:17 AM EST
    No substance (none / 0) (#49)
    by Foxx on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:53:17 AM EST
    Lots of length here but it is all about the one remark by Brodie. And the initial CTV report said that lower level sources suggest Clinton's campaign "may" have contacted the government. Almost certainly referring to the same remark. CTV went no further because there was no corroboration.

    There has been NO evidence after many days that any Clinton person (name please) made any comments to a member of the Canadian government (name please). And now the government says flatly that it didn't happen.

    this will be (none / 0) (#51)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:57:21 AM EST
    "disappeared" by the MSM and "left" bloggers. i wonder what they're all going to look like, when they wake up the morning after the night before?

    Canadian Memo (none / 0) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    I attached a link to the Canadian Memo above.  Read it for yourself to get a feeling for what the conversation was and compare it to the statements from the Obama campaign.

    I don't think the memo left any doubt as to the content of the conversation.  Have you read it?  What do you think?

    Yes I read it. (none / 0) (#65)
    by call me Ishmael on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:42:40 PM EST
    and it doesn't strike me as saying anything different than either Obama or Clinton have been saying publicly.  As for all the allegations of Obamaniacs and paranoia I happen to have been an Edwards supporter who moved marginally to support Obama in part because he isn't repeating republican talking points about how McCain can clearly be commander-in-chief but who knows about the "other democrat."  Looking over the comments here compared to some of the other sites I really wonder about people in glass houses....  

    Lots of rumors and accusations (none / 0) (#53)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    Any content or proof?

    Not at all (none / 0) (#54)
    by badger on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:07:57 PM EST
    It could be that HRC masterminded the 9/11 attacks - anything is possible. But advising us to "wait for the other shoe to drop" is clearly into conspiracy theory when you have no proof the other shoe exists or if it does, what color and style it might be.

    The problem is that lots of Obama supporters are concocting wild theories about what might happen and then asking everyone to pretend those concoctions are actually reality, without any linking or supporting evidence.

    All kinds of things might be true, and maybe someday we'll find out which of those things are (and maybe not). But at the moment you seem to have a difficult time differentiating between speculation and reality.

    Harper says Hillary wasn't involved, and you don't have a single fact to contradict him. Such a fact might exist, but until it becomes known, you're operating in the realm of speculation and fantasy, which is fine - just don't mislabel them as reality or expect us to behave as if your speculations have anything to do with the truth.

    If you're correct, you get to say "I told you so", but only on the basis of a lucky guess, not on the basis of any evidence you hold at the moment.

    you see, this shows that Brodie was (none / 0) (#57)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    trying to smear Clinton---exactly the opposite of what the Obamacons have asserted.

    Correction (none / 0) (#59)
    by AdrianLesher on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:47:54 PM EST
    should read "the Obama attacks based on the Canadian story."

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#60)
    by badger on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:03:56 PM EST
    You may be right, as I haven't kept up with the state of the memo's validity, although from what little I have read about it, it seems consistent with Goolsbee's outlook. I'd be a lot more concerned about Goolsbee's outlook and influence than I would be about what the Canadians might have thought they heard. There is evidence and linkage for that point of view.

    But in the end, the most you've demonstrated is that those attacking Obama might be fantasizing just as much as those speculating about Clinton's involvement. You want to defend your speculations on that basis? It's not much of a standard.

    Clinton has called for the release (none / 0) (#64)
    by my opinion on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    of any information about her in regards to this. None has been released. You are again implying wrong doing by HRC's campaign with no fact, only "suggestion".

    Right, when in fact Harper was trying to (none / 0) (#71)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:32:38 PM EST
    HELP Obama by lying about Clinton.