OK, so it really was the Obama campaign the told Canadians that all the NAFTA stuff was just political posturing, but someone erroneously stated it was the Clinton campaign? Still trying to follow this. Stephanie Miller was all over Clinton for bad-mouthing Obama for something she really did herself. Wonder if she'll have her story straight on Monday.
Posted by CG at March 8, 2008 08:27 AMDon't be surprised if the Harper government finds some other way to "accidentally" help McCain before November.
Posted by herbal tee at March 8, 2008 08:35 AMOr, Eriposte, maybe your interpretation is completely wrong. Maybe Canadian PM Harper's chief of staff had conversations about NAFTA with Clinton's people AND Obama's people. There's more than just the possibilities you present. Moreover, Obama's campaign says they did not offer assurances about NAFTA, and even Harper's office has conceded Obama would want some changes, which dovetails with Obama's position on NAFTA as well as what he has stated publicly.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 08:41 AMBrian, don't you think opening a discussion with "you're WRONG!" might not be the best way to ensure positive feedback and pleasant conversation? I've seen you do it a couple times; it might explain the hostility you seem to feel from others here.
Anyhow, it seems to me that eriposte just followed back the links used by the people pushing the story and found that Brodie had stated that Clinton's team had contacted Canadian officials. Clinton said "No way, if one of my people did that, you have my permission to name them," and suddenly, Canada's saying they don't know why Brodie said it was Clinton, when it was really Obama who made the call. As far as I'm concerned, eriposte has put the NAFTA story to bed. It was boring, anyhow, so I'm glad I don't have to pretend to care about it anymore.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 8, 2008 09:15 AMI could care less about positive feedback, Coyote. I am much more concerned with the continuing volume of Hillary propaganda flowing from this blog, which used to be just a blog in favor of Democratic things in general. I mean, for God's sake, Eriposte is attempting to make up talking points that the Republicans could use against the likely Democratic nominee? How screwed up is that, really? A lot of readers who used to come around here don't even show up anymore. Of course, for all I know, maybe page views and visits are up, so maybe this kind of crap plays well for Left Coaster and maybe I ought to give up on thinking that a former favorite blog of mine is ever going to right itself.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 09:30 AMAnother fine example of demotwits' insincerity and bumbling incompetence. Leadership swirling round the S-bend.
Posted by onar at March 8, 2008 10:00 AMThank you. The Clinton double standards are killing me. Let the shrieking from the rabid Clinton haters commence!
I swear, if Clinton said 2+2=4 and Obama said that it was 22, they would buy it. They absolutely believe the nonsense they're spewing; it's insane. I don't know whether it's misogynistic bigotry, power madness, or both. Again, thanks for continuing to post evidence, facts, rationality in this primary storm of utter hysteria and projection.
Posted by Nathan at March 8, 2008 10:43 AMOf course Obama has to say this. He's a weak minded fool, and Harper will laugh in his face if he tried to pull any stunts.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at March 8, 2008 12:46 PMObama supporters will take any flimsy excuse to ignore the obvious. Here is quote from a comment I read somewhere else. According to this idiot, Obama won the popular vote in TX. The support for that statement is done with phony arithmetic (add primary votes and caucus votes) from DialyKos:
And Obama is right. If only because we know now that he WON Texas; not only in pledged delegates but also in the total popular vote. I quote from DailyKos: Let's do a little math (Primary vote totals from ABC News): TX Primary Result Clinton 1,459,814 Obama 1,358,785 TX Caucus Result Not formally tabulated but if we derive from the available totals we have good approximate numbers Clinton 440,000 Obama 560,000 Grand Popular Vote Totals (Primary + Caucus) Clinton 1,469,814 + 440,000 = 1,909,814 Obama 1,358,785 + 560,000 = 1,918,785 http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/7/11339/50182/559/471347 So according to Bill, it's now over for Hillary. Let us please get the brilliant Samantha Power back and move forward.
Posted by Prabhata at March 8, 2008 01:01 PMPrabhata, how would you measure the popular vote in Texas? It's a split system, so I'm not sure there is any other way than to add caucuses and primaries together.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 01:32 PMWeird how the leftist in Canada is demanding Canada apologize for Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth on NAFTA
Posted by scream er at March 8, 2008 03:24 PMIs there anyone who thinks there is any daylight between what Obama and Clinton would do regarding NAFTA once in office?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 8, 2008 11:28 PMWhen you consider that Harper is our very own Bush and Sandra Buckler is our very own Condy your might want to think about it a little more.
or
Maybe that's too painful.
Posted by me myself and I at March 9, 2008 11:06 AM