So Hillary Lied About NAFTA to Win Ohio?

  • Posted by Eric
  • March 7, 2008

Sure looks like it. It’s interesting how her 3am ad was criticized for being “Rovian” and this appears very Orwellian (a Rove favorite):

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff said someone in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign gave Canada back-channel assurances that her harsh words about the North American Free Trade Agreement were for political show, according to a report by the Canadian Press.

The report comes just days after a Canadian government memo stated Barack Obama’s senior economic adviser told Canadian officials that the Illinois senator’s own comments about NAFTA were for “political positioning.” The release of that memo helped Clinton defeat Obama decisively in Tuesday’s Democratic primary in Ohio, where the trade treaty is unpopular.

Quick. Accuse Obama of what we just did! Hurry! I’m not so sure it’s a coincidence that Hillary and McCain say essentially the same thing in response to the bogus memo.

Kumbaya? Will of the Ohio people? Ohio has spoken?

Fuck.

That.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
March 7th, 2008
4 Responses
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
2008 Elections
Hillary Clinton

Other Posts
Rendell: Racism Will Be Factor In PA
Be safe out there


Say Something!

Because we value your thoughtful opinions, you are encouraged to add a comment to this post. Don't be offended if your comment is edited for clarity or to keep out questionable material. Comments may even be deleted at the discretion of the Plundercrew. You signal your agreement to this by clicking 'Submit Comment' below. Everyone who comments here is responsible for them.

Plunderchat:

Comment Number:
1
Written by:
Modern Esquire
Posted on:
March 8, 2008 at 1:43 am

So, I guess it doesn’t matter that the Prime Minister’s office has explicitly and admantly denied this story today.

Funny how you missed that. Or how you missed the entire Canadian embassy story altogether when it involved Obama.

Or how you missed the part of Powers’s interview where she says on Iraq “He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator.”

So that’s now two issues where Obamas’s top advisors have been telling others that he isn’t planning on being tied to his platform.

Fuck. That. Indeed.

Comment Number:
2
Written by:
Eric
Posted on:
March 8, 2008 at 10:49 am

The same people that leaked the Obama memo? You don’t say! I am SHOCKED. Shocked I say!

Funny how you ignore Goolsbee’s denial that he said what the Ian Brodie leaked memo said he said. Spare me the righteous indignation and your inability to see through the Clinton game - oh, that’s right you’re playing it too! You don’t question the manner in which a memo was “leaked” and the timing of it? No. Not at all.

My guess is that the Clinton team contacted Canada with a wink and a nudge, Canada called the Obama camp for comment as well, then the games begin.

Next come the denials, the “deep regret”, and the rest of the spin spin spinning.

I’ve got no problem with the Powers quote. I don’t expect current plans to stay exactly the same throughout an administration. Do you? Of course you don’t. But spin away on this indicating he “won’t be tied to his platform”.

You and I both know that Clinton AND Obama had to do the Texas Two Step on NAFTA given that both states were voting on March 4 and one benefitted from NAFTA while the other suffered. They did the same exact thing yet somehow Obama is the only one it blew up on. Curious dontcha think?

BTW, Congrats on getting Jerid on board. That was slick. ;-)

Comment Number:
3
Written by:
Modern Esquire
Posted on:
March 8, 2008 at 6:17 pm

Didn’t get Jerid to do anything. You should see some of the contenious e-mails between us over this issue. Believe me, he isn’t supporting CLinton.

Of course Goolsbee is going to “deny” what the memo said. What is he going to say? Busted?

And if you go back and read Goolsbee “denial” you’ll realize that he denied something nobody really alleged. Nowhere in the memo suggested that Obama wouldn’t seek to do what he promised (to renegotiate NAFTA). What it did suggest, and what Goolsbee couldn’t deny is that Obama was trying to sound more protectionist than he really is. A fact further established by his own voting record.

As for “selective outrage,” I’d point out your complete lack of any post on the entire Canadian embassy on the issues such as the campaign blatantly misrepresenting that no meeting took place when it did, and then trying to spin it that it had nothing to do with the campaign when that was the express purpose.

What pull do the Clinton’s have over the conservative government in Canada? None. Your candidate screwed the pooch in how he handled it and was caught red-handed trying to present himself to be something more than he was on trade.

Yeah, there was absolutely no bloggers or press coverage on Hillary Clinton’s history with NAFTA before the primary. None at all.

Sometimes I wonder if Obama supporters really believe what they write because statements like this are so outrageous untrue it makes having a civilized conversation impossible.

Comment Number:
4
Written by:
Eric
Posted on:
March 8, 2008 at 6:55 pm

…was joking about Kurtz. Humor. You remember that, right? Our emails are fun right now too. ;-)

Goolsbee denies. Canadian government denies. Who the hell knows.

You don’t mention anywhere about the Clinton camp giving a wink and a nod, but then buy their denial. Hilarity.

I’m talking about YOU on NAFTA bro. Don’t criticize me for ignoring negative Obama stuff when you’ve done the same damned thing with Hillary.

What statement did I make that was outrageous? A guy who spouted McCain talking points to score points against Obama wants a civilized conversation now. I LOVE that!