[nader2008]

ok, the Democratic Nominee (likely) has been caught lying about NAFTA...going to Ohio and saying NAFTA had to be gutted...then quietly telling the Canadians not to listen to that and that it was just "politics as usual" and would be ignored "after he is elected".....


thoughts on this?

story from Yahoo news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...nation/1293120



The Nation -- Did Barack Obama's campaign quietly contact Canadian officials to tell them not to take seriously the Illinois senator's tough talk about renegotiating trade agreements?

CTV, the well-regarded Canadian news network, reported this week that a top Obama adviser contacted the Canadian government to calm fears that the senator was serious about rewriting pro-corporate deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement to benefit workers, farmers and the environment. According to CTV, the Obama adviser told the Canadians that "when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously."

After that report aired on Wednesday, an Obama campaign spokesperson claimed in an interview with CTV that "no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated."

The problem, of course, is that CTV has a very credible source -- a a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy -- who has provided the network with details of the call and a timeline.

Of course, the source is now being pressured to tell a different story by superiors. But few serious observers of the trade debate -- with its history of back channel communications -- doubts the scenario as it was first reported.

Attempts by CTV to get the Obama camp to respond to specific questions about the conversation and the timeline in question have so far proven unsuccessful.

According to CTV, "the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago."

CTV did contact Goolsbee, but he's not cooperating.

The network reports that "(Goolsbee refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters."

It is starting to sound an awfully lot like the Obama campaign may have gotten caught telling Canada one thing and Ohio something different.

What's the bottom line on this story? According to the network: "Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position."

And what's John McCain saying?

"I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian ambassador and telling him something else," says the likely Republican nominee. "I certainly don't think that's straight talk."

On this point, McCain's right.


..........

actually Nader is right..this is why you can't trust the two party system..its all lies lies lies to get votes..then after the election..its business as usual. thoughts on Obama's duplicity?

[Chuckit]

I find the timing of this leak a little bit suspicious, and it would be in this guy's interest to try and paint Obama in a negative light. I'm not sure who's lying, but I'm not necessarily taking this at face value.

[nader2008]

well...it definately puts Obama in a negative light..but that is the issue...everyone is fawning/stumbling over themselves to portray him as the new HOPe of the world and then it turns out he's just a normal lying politician saying what he feels he needs to say to whom ever he is talking to to get votes..i.e....to factory workers in Ohio..NAFTA sucks and I'll change it day one......to the Canadians.......don't listen to that..it is just "political rhetoric". disgusting!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nader2008 

well...it definately puts Obama in a negative light..but that is the issue...everyone is fawning/stumbling over themselves to portray him as the new HOPe of the world and then it turns out he's just a normal lying politician saying what he feels he needs to say to whom ever he is talking to to get votes..i.e....to factory workers in Ohio..NAFTA sucks and I'll change it day one......to the Canadians.......don't listen to that..it is just "political rhetoric". disgusting!

Alternatively, it turns out that Obama is really frickin' serious about changing NAFTA and Canada doesn't like it, so a Canadian official "accidentally" "leaks" that Obama's a two-faced lying scumbag and you should really vote for that Hillary gal, who's a good friend of ours. These are all politicians and they're all suspect in my book — you're just believing the politician who happens to suit your bias.

[nader2008]

um.... that doesn't deal with the reality of Obama denying the meeting even took place...then AFTER the memo was released proving the meeting he changed his tune.....Obama is nothing more than a big ol' lying politics as usual politician.

[Chuckit]

It's entirely possible I missed something somewhere, but that wasn't in the OP or in any of the stories I've read on this.

[tie]

I find the whole story hard to believe. Does anyone in Canada really need convincing that it is just rhetoric?

I could live without the, "Obama is nothing more than a big ol' lying politics as usual politician." You sound like nothing more than the typical Republican in these forums as usual. ebuddy?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I do love Canada's bemused stance on this though: "Oh, you want to re-negotiate NAFTA now? Damn... well I guess we'll just have to change our policies on all this oil we've been giving you here...."

Hit 'em where it hurts....

greg

[nader2008]

sorry i thought it was all over the news about that part of the story: link:

ABC News: Obama Campaign Disputes Anti-Trade Rhetoric

[nader2008]

Originally Posted by tie 

I find the whole story hard to believe. Does anyone in Canada really need convincing that it is just rhetoric?

I could live without the, "Obama is nothing more than a big ol' lying politics as usual politician." You sound like nothing more than the typical Republican in these forums as usual. ebuddy?

are you right/left or green?

[nader2008]

Originally Posted by tie 

I find the whole story hard to believe. Does anyone in Canada really need convincing that it is just rhetoric?

I could live without the, "Obama is nothing more than a big ol' lying politics as usual politician." You sound like nothing more than the typical Republican in these forums as usual. ebuddy?

what disgusts me is how he is lying about this important issue just to get votes while saying explicitly to the Canadians that it is just political rhetoric...he's been caught red handed!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

"Right/Left or Green" is an interesting dichotomy, but at the end of the day you're still effectively saying "Right or Left."

greg

[nader2008]

from the Politico.com:

"Script of Clinton Radio Ad Provided by Obama Campaign....

This is an election news update with a major news story reported by the AP. While Senator Obama has crisscrossed Ohio giving speeches attacking NAFTA, his top economic advisor was telling the Canadians that was all just political maneuvering. A newly released document from the Canadian government shows that Obama’s senior economic advisor met with the Canadian Consul General and made clear that Obama’s attack on NAFTA were just, quote, “political maneuvering,” not policy. Political maneuvering, not policy. In fact, the document shows that Obama’s advisor also assured the Canadians that these attacks against NAFTA would not continue. Obama would not want to be, quote, “fundamentally changing the agreement.” As Senator Obama was telling one story to Ohio, his campaign was telling a very different story to Canada. How will Ohioans decide whether they can believe Senator Obama’s words? We’ll find that out on election day. Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President."

seems Hillary agrees that Obama's lies are just that...lies for political expediency for whichever audience he is speaking to at the time.

[tie]

"nader2008," if you look at the actual documents, they don't support your story. All we have is some Canadian official's paraphrasing and analysis of what an Obama campaign official said. We don't know what the campaign official said.

And I still find it very fishy that you start a new account supposedly to support Nader, but instead of giving any arguments for Nader you only use the account to attack Democrats. Buckaroo?

[nader2008]

it's ok for Obama to flat out lie that a meeting didnt' take place when in fact it did?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Alternatively, it turns out that Obama is really frickin' serious about changing NAFTA and Canada doesn't like it, so a Canadian official "accidentally" "leaks" that Obama's a two-faced lying scumbag and you should really vote for that Hillary gal, who's a good friend of ours. These are all politicians and they're all suspect in my book — you're just believing the politician who happens to suit your bias.

Canada in fact would love to see it reopened. One of the main things Canada would like to see changed is the preferential supply of oil to the U.S. so it can sell more to China.

As it stands now, during an oil crunch Canada is obliged to supply as much oil as it can to the U.S. without diluting it's own supply to itself as to cause shortages to Canada.

Maybe you better do some fact checking.

And as far as I know, the main problem is trade with China. China is causing that sucking sound Ohioans hear. In fact NAFTA/Canada supports leventy thousands of jobs in Ohio.

Facts, just the facts m'am.

Oh, and the story is all true.

[Atomic Rooster]

P.S. GO HILLARY!!11!

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Alternatively, it turns out that Obama is really frickin' serious about changing NAFTA and Canada doesn't like it, so a Canadian official "accidentally" "leaks" that Obama's a two-faced lying scumbag and you should really vote for that Hillary gal, who's a good friend of ours. These are all politicians and they're all suspect in my book — you're just believing the politician who happens to suit your bias.

That doesn't make sense, as Hillary wants to change NAFTA as well.

[Kerrigan]

Bill Clinton also said that there were problems with Nafta and that he wanted to renegotiate the treaty--like Hillary and Obama, he made these promises to please the the electorate but did nothing.

So for all of you blue-collar, protectionist, wellfare draining Democrats out there: you just have to live with it. No free-trade agreement has ever been rejected in congress, and Nafta will never be renegotiated.

It just goes to show that even though American conservatives can be pretty stupid, the democrats are just as stupid. They vote based on what their corrupt union leaders tell them, and their fellow ignorant co-partisans lend sympathetic ears. At least the Nader guys are paying attention, unlike everyone else.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I could live without the, "Obama is nothing more than a big ol' lying politics as usual politician." You sound like nothing more than the typical Republican in these forums as usual. ebuddy?

When did I say anything even remotely close to this? peeb?

[Doofy]

Forget NAFTA - you'll have the NAU in place within the next few years anyway.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When did I say anything even remotely close to this? peeb?

I was wondering if you'd get the joke. Yes, it's me, peeb.

[lpkmckenna]

Some history: PM Jean Chretien also campaigned with a promise to renegotiate NAFTA. That promise was quickly forgotten.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Forget NAFTA - you'll have the NAU in place within the next few years anyway.

Won't happen.

[tie]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Some history: PM Jean Chretien also campaigned with a promise to renegotiate NAFTA. That promise was quickly forgotten.

If you are a voter now, you'd be crazy to believe either Obama or Clinton on this. Do you really think Clinton would act to reverse her husband's agreement? She doesn't have to tell the Canadian government that she isn't serious, she's desperate.

On the other hand, voters in these states can be pretty illogical---e.g., voting for Romney in Michigan---which maybe is the biggest reason they are in so much trouble.