maybe they denied it because he wasn't acting on the campaigns behalf, and therefore there was no reason for them to be aware of it. Then when they heard it actually did happen, they looked into it, got more details and admitted it happened, but there were more details to the whole thing including that he wasn't speaking on behalf of obama, and it was taken out of context.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 12:20 PM. Reason : i'm just playing devils advocate here.]

3/4/2008 12:16:44 PM

^YEAH

and eyedrb, that was a SICK BURN DUDE

but anyway, how do you spend so much time on TWW in these endless debates? what is it that you do for a living? Are you sitting on a trust fund? or do you have a real job?

3/4/2008 12:21:18 PM

I attend obama rallies all day.

I find it comical you have to ask what I do. Par for the course.

nacstate, thats very plausible. However, the timing of it all is very suspicious you would have to admit. I honestly, think he was sent. He knows we cant pull out of NAFTA, but needs to use it to get elected. I think this was just away to assure the canadians we arent pulling out of it anytime soon.

3/4/2008 12:33:04 PM

Watch the video "Rezko Trial May Call on Obama":

http://abcnews.go.com/wn

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4377680&page=1

And one thing's for sure: Obama is ducking and dodging the press about Resko and NAFTA:

Quote :

"Obama prompted angry cries from reporters when he insisted he had shared all 'pertinent' information on his links with Rezko and complained that media requests 'can go on forever.' Among other dealings, Obama in 2006 bought a strip of land from Rezko to expand his yard. Reporters retorted that he has repeatedly failed to answer such questions as how many fundraisers Rezko held for him and who attended [emphasis added]."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usobam045601121mar04,0,993467.story

Quote :

"Obama, however, wouldn't disclose how many fundraising events Rezko hosted for him or who attended, saying such requests 'can just go on forever.' As his news conference came to an end, reporters continued to shout questions about Rezko but Obama walked out, saying the campaign was 'running late' [emphasis added]."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-campaign_04mar04,0,5412950.story

Welcome to the party, pal--that coolness is just about to wear off, I'd say. Well, Obama, you can always "hope" that the media coverage will "change."

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

3/4/2008 12:40:38 PM

You guys are getting your talking points wrong.
If you're going to try and repeat what Obama is saying, here's how he said it:

Quote :

"When I gave you that information, that was the information that I had at the time," Obama said. "It turned out that the Canadian consulate in Chicago contacted one of my advisers, Austan Goolsbee, on their initiative. Invited him down to meet with them. He went down there as a courtesy and at some point they started talking about trade and NAFTA.""

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/823895,CST-NWS-camp04.article

In other words, AT THE LEAST, Obama's saying his SENIOR ECONOMIC ADVISER is meeting with representatives of foreign governments without getting permission to do so or getting permission without Obama knowing about it. That's the only way you can square this circle.

That seems like a mis-run campaign to me. Not one in free-fall, sure. But certainly one that does not live up to terpball's hype.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM. Reason : ``]

3/4/2008 12:40:57 PM

^ I don't see that he was meeting with them on behalf of Obama. They could have very well wanted to meet with him because he's an expert on economics, not because he's obama's advisor.

3/4/2008 1:07:33 PM

^ You're missing the point. Saying AG was not visiting on behalf of the campaign only saves Obama from admitting he lied. It doesn't save Obama from the fact that his senior economic advisor opines about his boss' political positions to representatives of foreign governments without authorization. And I would say that would be a characteristic of a poorly run campaign.

Oddly enough, that's actually the story the Obama campaign is going with. That the Canadians misrepresented the conversation (for what purpose?) and that AG was speaking to them without authorization.

Quote :

"Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Goolsbee's visit was not as an emissary from the campaign, but as a professor from the University of Chicago. He was not authorized to share any messages from the campaign, Burton said."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrFPkleRZmbmPtPxHBGNAPSzfUtwD8V5OLP00

Yet he did anyways.
Oh well. I guess it really doesn't matter. Obama's supporters would sooner believe that the Canadians are lying than admit that their messiah is flawed in any way. Everyone knows the Canadians are evil anyways.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 2:02 PM. Reason : hahahahhahhahah Obamaniacs will believe any fucking thing. ]

3/4/2008 1:59:08 PM

Quote :

"Obama's supporters detractors would sooner believe that the Canadians are Obama is lying than admit that their messiah the story is flawed in any way"

goes both ways.

and it doesn't seem like its the "obama campaigns" story. The guy himself is coming out and saying "thats not what happened, here's what I actually said"

but of course he's a liar too right?

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

3/4/2008 2:12:24 PM

^ Actually that statement is only true in one direction. I have posted exact quotes here and interuprted them to the letter. You really only have TWO honest options.

1) That Obama Lied

2) That his Senior Economic Adviser had an meeting with representatives of America's largest trading partner and made unauthorized remarks about Obama's policies--signaling a weakness in the Obama campaign structure. Amazingly, this is answer Obama's campaign has officially offered. (see quote above).

Now you're wanting to say that it really isn't as bad as all that because the Canadian representative lied about misrepresented Goolsbee's remarks? You are explicitly 100% willing to accuse a Canadian of lying about misrepresenting Goolsbee. Why? The Canadian has NOTHING to gain from it!!!

Just 10 posts ago, terpball was holding up Canadians as the acme of objectivity on this issue!!! Now that you realize the implications of the position you're folding? Like I said. Obamaniacs will sooner accuse Canada of lying for no reason before they admit their candidate or his campaign his flawed.

Man I love being right.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ``]

3/4/2008 3:04:11 PM

Quote :

"Just 10 posts ago, terpball was holding up Canadians as the acme of objectivity on this issue!!! "

wrong, I said they have no incentive, dumbass. Don't try to twist my fuckin words.

p.s. - way to use a bunch of extra exclamation points you faggot

3/4/2008 3:06:38 PM

^ So are you saying they lied misrepresented Goolsbee's remarks? If so, what was their incentive to do so? If not, can you explain how this is not at least an indication of poor message management by the campaign?

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ``]

3/4/2008 3:09:00 PM

I heard Socks`` jerks off on Krugman's columns so he can come back here and spit that shit word for word to us philistines.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

3/4/2008 3:24:45 PM

man socks has recently skyrocketed and bypassed the combined might of chance + treetwista for most annoying poster ever.

3/4/2008 3:30:21 PM

Quote :

"Now that you realize the implications of the position you're folding? Like I said. Obamaniacs will sooner accuse Canada of lying for no reason before they admit their candidate or his campaign his flawed."

I never said who's side I was on, I'm just playing devils advocate to those that just want to attack obama, but whatever, take it as you will.

Maybe he did lie, who really knows. At this point its all he said she said. There's this memo floating around that has some guy saying that goolsbee said this. Gooslbee says, no I didn't say that, i said this. How the fuck am I or YOU to really know.

So my statement is still true. Obama's detractors would sooner believe that he's lying than to realize they don't know the whole truth in the matter, or find any other reason they can *ahem* campaign mismanagement *ahem* to blast him.

Quote :

"So are you saying they lied misrepresented Goolsbee's remarks? If so, what was their incentive to do so? If not, can you explain how this is not at least an indication of poor message management by the campaign?"

No, I'm saying its possible that they MISUNDERSTOOD. Therefore they would not need an incentive, since its would not be a purposful misrepresentation, and therefore would have no relation to the campaign or its management.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 3:39 PM. Reason : POSSIBLE]

3/4/2008 3:34:05 PM

^ actually that still would not help matters. You would still have a senior adviser opining on Obama's trade policy to foreign officals without authorization. It "just so happens" they misunderstood what Goolsbee (who likely supports free-trade) was saying. That is really just as bad. If Goolsbee had simply declined to answer their questions about his candidate's policy, none of this mess would have happened.

This is EXACTLY why message control is important.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ``]

3/4/2008 3:54:51 PM

so now the matter isn't so much is what he said true/false, its that he shouldn't have talked about it at all since it wasn't an official statement.

WELL HOLY SHIT THERE'S NO WAY OBAMA IS QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT NOW! HE CAN'T EVEN KEEP ONE GUY FROM HAVING ONE CONVERSATION AND IT POSSIBLY (PROBABLY) BEING MISUNDERSTOOD AND A MOUNTAIN MADE OUT OF A MOLEHILL.


[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 4:08 PM. Reason : CAPS]

3/4/2008 4:03:47 PM

And the last horse crosses the finish line.....

That's what it's ALWAYS been about. It was option #2. The fact that senior members of Obama's camapign cannot grasp message control is a weakness of the camapign. Like I said 30 posts ago, it's not an indication of a campaign in free-fall (ala Howard Dean in '04), but it's certainly an indication that it is not the well-oiled machine people like terp have made it out to be.

And considering several people in this thread have offered Obama's campaign management as an indication of executive skill, I would hope this would at least make them re-consider that position. I mean, if his subordinates are sending HUGE mixed-signals like this to people that speak English, just imagine what could happen if a similar mishap happened with China or North Korea.

But I'm sure that would never happen. This is Obama we're talking about.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 4:20 PM. Reason : ``]

3/4/2008 4:13:23 PM

Yeah it was option 2, the first being a little more defamatory. I was just trying to offer that there was a good chance he wasn't lying.

and I'm still not agreeing that its bad management, just that your options are really just knocked down to one.

mountain out of a molehill, man.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 4:25 PM. Reason : .]

3/4/2008 4:21:40 PM

My list is a list of policies based on the Obama campaign's responce. If you believe what they're saying, you're left with #2. If not, you're left with #2. After all, it is at least POSSIBLE he was and is lying. And isn't that what you were trying to stress earlier? The POSSIBILITIES.

But obviously nothing Obama does or says will shed a poor light on his ability to lead. I mostly just keep active because it's hilarious to watch the Obamaniacs contort themselves to preserve their delusions.

Oh to be young again.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 4:52 PM. Reason : ``]

3/4/2008 4:51:53 PM

3/4/2008 4:56:45 PM

Well you can't control what everyone does and says all of the time.

I'm honestly more concerned if he lied or not. If he lied, then I'd be seriously worried. But I can't make judgement on that.

If its all just a misunderstanding, I really don't think its a huge deal. There are bigger things to worry about in this election, despite what Hillary may want people to believe.

3/4/2008 5:01:54 PM

Yah, how we can expect a President to control his subordiantes when they're meeting our largest trading partner and discussing trade policy?

3/4/2008 8:10:22 PM

well, goolsbee isn't an official member of obama's staff AND it was a member of the chicago canadian consulate who approached him and talked for a few minutes about trade policy in a lengthy conversation (the content of which is disputed)

3/4/2008 8:36:46 PM

I had always just assumed that both Cliton's and Obama's rhetoric on pulling out of NAFTA was complete bullshit (and still believe this actually), and I find it somewhat hilarious that one of Obama's people went around blabbing about it.

Jon Stewart kind of touched on this point (not NAFTA but political bullshitting in general) when he asked Clinton how every 4 years candidates whore themselves out to Ohio voters, then just ignore them when they get elected.

3/4/2008 8:55:29 PM

^^ excellent defense.
Senior campaign advisor's unauthorized discussion of a candidate's trade position during a meeting with foreign officals, leads to a huge misunderstanding with America's largest trading power. However, this should not reflect poorly on the candidate because his senior advisor is only a senior advisor and his remarks were not authorized to begin with.

hmmmm. Funny. Your reason for why we shouldn't care actually sounds like the reason we should care.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 9:13 PM. Reason : ``]

3/4/2008 9:13:09 PM

its not that it doesn't reflect badly, it obviously leaves things up to question (granted who really believes that everything a candidate says about their policy actually holds after they're president), but jesus you're making it sound like a fucking travesty.

Hey guys lets expect perfection from our human president.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 10:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/4/2008 10:38:35 PM

^ Obama is extremely charismatic, and he has been somewhat of a media darling, and it's been a little sickening how they glorify him so much. But, until now, most of that has been because Obama really hasn't been screwing up a lot. so it was somewhat deserved.

Some Obama supporters are just now seeing through his RDF ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field ) that this campaign can easily take a turn for the worse.

It's a good thing for Obama though, because I think he'll get the nomination, and he needs this trial by fire for the upcoming battle with McCain.

3/4/2008 11:20:13 PM

Clinton Defeats Obama in Ohio Primary; McCain Clinches Race as Foe Concedes
The A.P. Calls Texas for Clinton

http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na

3/5/2008 1:19:55 AM

The bitch is back.

Anyone see MSNBC last night? Keith Olberman looked like he was about to cry. It was good TV. The best part is that Obama jumped out early in Texas then it slowly went away. Watching his attitude change through the night really brought joy to me.

3/5/2008 8:22:01 AM

the overwelming media tide for Obama is slowly turning as people are finally realizing that he has said nothing over the past year to deserve to be the nominee. he has not seperated himself policy wise from Hillary and has been running on rock star status and a strong campaign team.

as someone who will be voting for John McCain, I have the popcorn ready to watch the next 3 months. it could get nasty and I love it.

as much of a long shot as it was 2 weeks ago, I would not be surprised to see Hillary eek it out.

3/5/2008 9:18:41 AM

w00t!

I was hoping for the primaries to be over last night so we can move onto a real debate (Dem v. McCain), but from a strategic stand point this is good for McCain. And from a personal standpoint, it's very gratifying to see Hillary hand Obama his ass a couple of times.

All in all it was a good night.

3/5/2008 9:26:36 AM

The bitch is back.

3/5/2008 9:35:16 AM

You know, there were probably a lot of Republicans voting for Clinton last night because 1) their candidate is already wrapped up and 2) they feel like they have a better chance of beating Clinton.

And yes, I too celebrate the potential to go to war with a few more countries.

[Edited on March 5, 2008 at 9:37 AM. Reason : -]

3/5/2008 9:36:26 AM

mccain = war is like saying obama = somalian radical muslim

easy for the simpletons to figure out but the rest of us understand the circumstances.

3/5/2008 9:59:07 AM

I guess you did pretty horrible on the analogy part of the SAT. I hope whatever you major in doesn't require much logic

3/5/2008 10:21:23 AM

^ I think Dabird has it right. McCain is accused of being a war-monger by his critics, just like Obama is accused of having muslim ties by some of his critics.

Both are distortions of reality that are meant to hurt the canddiates.

Sounds like an appropriate analogy to me.

3/5/2008 10:24:53 AM

yeah, you would

3/5/2008 10:26:36 AM

okay.

McCain want to: "bomb Iran, bomb bomb Iraaaaaaaan" and "stay in Iraq for 100 years"

Obama, a mainstream protestant Christian for 20+ years, is not now and never has been a Muslim.




so yeah, i can see why people might think they're similar like that.

3/5/2008 11:10:00 AM

^ it's so obvious I didn't think I felt the need to explain it - It seems like they're playing dumb or something

3/5/2008 11:11:30 AM

Schmoe,

The best evidence Obama critics have that he is sympathetic to muslims is that he spent time as a kid in a muslim country and has some incriminating pictures of him in a cemeonial costume.

The best evidence you have that McCain wants to start a war with Iran is that he made a bad joke at a ralley.

Yes, they're very similar, because they both equally lack substance.

Thanks for playing.

[Edited on March 5, 2008 at 11:23 AM. Reason : pfft.]

3/5/2008 11:22:43 AM

you paint with broad brushes you get broad generalizations. loons from both sides like to use bumper sticket politics and stupid pictures to scare people into voting one way or another. thats all the analogy was meant to illustrate. both of you got the point and I think its funny that you pretended not to in order to make an SAT joke.

3/5/2008 11:33:15 AM

Plus, the 1000 years in Iraq wasn't a joke

and - "incriminating"

You aren't even worth debating against - fuck off

3/5/2008 11:34:26 AM

^ do you mean "100" years?

And I'm not sure how that even relates to Iran, so I didn't respond to it. We toppled Iraq's government and left them in a state of political transition. McCain wants to help them see it through. I did not support going to Iraq, but now that we're there I think we need to do the best we can to help them through the political process.

That does not make McCain a war mongerer. Obama's complete lack of compassion for the Iraqi people is what actually suprises me. He doesn't care at all if we leave them in chaos. All that matters is that he gets elected. Or so it seems to me. Maybe he really does care and pulling out is part of his "tough love" campaign.

[Edited on March 5, 2008 at 11:43 AM. Reason : ``]

3/5/2008 11:41:21 AM

McCain has specifically noted that 100 years isn't bad and referenced both S. Korea and Japan in the same statements.

For someone to tout their 'experience' and then say that Korea/Japan are even remotely similar to the Iraq issue is almost unforgivable.

3/5/2008 11:42:18 AM

^ I see. And you base this on your extensive military training and experience with foreign affairs.
Could you repeat YOUR credentials again?

I mean if you're going to assert something as fact without a supporting argument, I can only guess you making the statement on the base of your authority on the subject. So I would like some more info please.

3/5/2008 11:45:42 AM

he said he would stay there 100 years if he had to in order to ensure the stabilization. he then said he wanted them home ASAP but would not leave the country of Iraq to flounder in the power vacuum and secretarian violence/genocide that would ensue. I think if you asked most Americans they would agree with this statement. he is being honest about his stance on a hot issue that could win or lose the election for him. at least he isnt making false promises.

this is far from war-mongering.

3/5/2008 11:46:20 AM

Quote :

"Could you repeat YOUR credentials again? "

I have done extensive research in East Asian history and affairs (focusing on late 19th and 20th century), and in fact graduated from NC State thanks to said research.

We've had threads on this before, and there was pretty much no doubt that these are completely different circumstances, mainly due to poor planning on Bush's side, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't say. 'it worked in Japan so it will work in Iraq' without sounding like a complete idiot.

3/5/2008 11:56:37 AM

Quote :

"I mean if you're going to assert something as fact without a supporting argument, I can only guess you making the statement on the base of your authority on the subject. So I would like some more info please."

You don't have to be a PhD. to realize that in Japan and Korea we aren't getting shot at. There is a major difference between a peaceful occupation and a violent conflict ridden occupation.

3/5/2008 12:49:20 PM

Quote :

"he said he would stay there 100 years if he had to in order to ensure the stabilization. he then said he wanted them home ASAP but would not leave the country of Iraq to flounder in the power vacuum and secretarian violence/genocide that would ensue. I think if you asked most Americans they would agree with this statement. he is being honest about his stance on a hot issue that could win or lose the election for him. at least he isnt making false promises. this is far from war-mongering."

HEY!!! KEEP YOUR LOGIC AND EVEN HANDEDNESS OUT OF THIS THREAD. IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T BELONG!!1111

3/5/2008 1:26:26 PM

Sorry about the double post...


It's impossible to hate this man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6MzDl-wdW8

I am sure it's old to everyone but me.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDClaUkSo9o

3/5/2008 9:55:35 PM