3/5/2008 11:52:06 PM

so apparently both obama and clinton people reassured canadian politicians (one of clinton's aide told canadian diplomats to take the nafta rhetoric "with a grain of salt"):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/BNStory/National/home

and there's this:

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, reported by the WaPo on 03/03:

Quote :

" "I certainly deny any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election," he told Parliament. "

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, reported by the Globe and Mail on 03/05:

Quote :

" "This kind of leaking of information is completely unacceptable. In fact, it may well be illegal," Mr. Harper told the House of Commons. "It is not useful, it is not in the interests of the government of Canada — and the way the leak was executed was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign. "Based on what (investigators) find, and based on legal advice, we will take any action that is necessary to get to the bottom of this matter.""

3/6/2008 11:39:46 AM

^ Wow. I read somewhere that that was a mistake by made by Ian Brodie, which was corrected by CTV's bureau chief Tom Clark in subsequent reports on the issue. Let's see...where did I read that...

Oh yah! Your article!

Quote :

" The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt." The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats. Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, declined to comment."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/BNStory/National/home

3/6/2008 12:09:19 PM

i didn't really read it that way. i read it more that it was being said by both camps, and only the obama comments were being reported on.

3/6/2008 12:23:39 PM

Then you read it incorrectly?

Think about it this way. If there was evidence that Clinton or her envoys had spoken with Canada about NAFTA, don't you think the US media would have jumped on it like a trampoline? Especially after she made a big row over Obama doing the same thing? I mean talk about a story!

3/6/2008 12:31:19 PM

3/6/2008 12:52:07 PM

^ It's like I don't even have to try anymore.

[Edited on March 6, 2008 at 1:05 PM. Reason : they my points for me!]

3/6/2008 1:01:55 PM

give me a break. it's a joke dude. you know, meant to be funny. That photoshop doesnt make you laugh?

try to lighten up, i'm not taking a damn political angle here lol.

3/6/2008 1:07:01 PM

Quote :

" Think about it this way. If there was evidence that Clinton or her envoys had spoken with Canada about NAFTA, don't you think the US media would have jumped on it like a trampoline? Especially after she made a big row over Obama doing the same thing? I mean talk about a story!"

well as of right now, all you have for obama is an unverified (and disputed) memo from a chicago canadian consulate. seems like just as good as the clinton evidence (which isn't all that good)

[Edited on March 6, 2008 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2008 2:18:40 PM

^ Well, Obama's senior economic adviser admits that he had a meeting with a Canadian representive where he discussed Obama's trade policies (in contrast to initial denials by the campaign and Obama himself). Don't you read the news?

The only question still open is what was actually said during the meeting (whether Goolsbee assured the Canadains that Obama didn't mean what he was saying on NAFTA). We may never know that for certain, but that's a hell of a lot more than what you have on Clinton. The most likely answer is that Brodie got the two confused. But if you have any evidence at all that this mystery meeting took place, I would love to see it.

[Edited on March 6, 2008 at 2:56 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2008 2:33:53 PM

Quote :

"kkthnxby! "

jesus. gag me.

[Edited on March 6, 2008 at 2:49 PM. Reason : read the rest of your post]

3/6/2008 2:48:51 PM

Obama is just better

3/6/2008 3:13:25 PM

better than what?

3/6/2008 3:34:39 PM

you

3/6/2008 3:57:41 PM

well then make him president. LOL

3/6/2008 3:59:59 PM

eyedrb has just as much experience as Obama

3/6/2008 4:01:05 PM

experience running the country?

hmm, maybe we should just keep the same president forever then! Wouldn't that make sense? since experience is what really matters?

3/6/2008 4:05:16 PM

I think executive experience is important esp for POTUS.

Im more educated, in years at least, than obama. That make me MORE qualified?

Actually my ideas would help this country more than his. imo of course.

3/6/2008 4:22:56 PM

does anyone think obama would be anywhere near as popular if he wasnt a minority?

3/6/2008 4:30:23 PM

shit no, but I doubt people would admit it.

3/6/2008 4:34:13 PM

3/6/2008 4:38:10 PM

i don't support Obama at all

3/6/2008 5:02:31 PM

You all seen the Borat Obama tshirt? Its funny and the subheading says "unqualified even in kazakhstan"

My friend sent me a picture of it in an email. Made me laugh.

3/6/2008 5:39:48 PM

weird

3/6/2008 6:26:11 PM

^ that just feeds the "stereotype" that republicans are racist.

3/6/2008 6:32:09 PM

it's not that republicans are racists, their just largely bigoted because they got money hats and status.

3/6/2008 7:42:39 PM

gtf outta here with that racist bullshit. That fact that Barack and Borat are similar sounding doesnt make it racist. I cant believe you fucking said that.

3/6/2008 7:43:15 PM

Well, just look at his screen name. Nothing should really shock you.

Plus, he doesn't have the sense to understand that those pictures are from humor websites and the result of this:

http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/11/07/borat-endorses-obama-for-president/

or here if you prefer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3690423

[Edited on March 6, 2008 at 8:07 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2008 8:04:13 PM

Latest New York Time article reveals Obama's term in the Senate has been short on years and short on achievements. It also reveals that his position on the Iraq War remains less than clear. Read the whole thing for details. Here's an excerpt with an overview.

Quote :

"They were the two competing elements in Mr. Obama’s time in the Senate: his megawatt celebrity and the realities of the job he was elected to do. He went to the Senate intent on learning the ways of the institution, telling reporters he would be “looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work.” But frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the “glacial pace,” he soon opted to exploit his star power. He was running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors. Outside Washington, Mr. Obama was a multimedia sensation — people offered free tickets to his book readings for $125 on eBay and contributed thousands of dollars each to his political action committee to watch him on stage questioning policy experts. But inside the Senate, Mr. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, was 99th in seniority and in the minority party his first two years. In committee hearings, he had to wait his turn until every other senator had asked questions. He once telephoned reporters himself to draw attention to his amendments. And some senior colleagues were cool to the newcomer, whom they considered naïve. Determined to be viewed as substantive, Mr. Obama kept his head down, declining Sunday talk show invitations for his first year, and consulted Senate elders for advice. He was cautious — even on the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a Senate candidate. He voted against the withdrawal of troops and proposed legislation calling for a drawdown only after he was running for president and polls showed voters favoring it. And while he rightly takes credit for steering through an ethics overhaul that reformers called a “gold standard,” like most freshmen he did not play a significant role in passing much other legislation and disappointed some Democrats for not becoming a more prominent voice in other important debates. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1205082031-3DGE8zwCeprL+OEot3vskQ

I just wonder why it took them this long in the campaign season to come out with this stuff.

3/9/2008 1:55:18 PM

3/9/2008 2:18:15 PM

3/9/2008 4:31:09 PM

Quote :

" That fact that Barack and Borat are similar sounding doesnt make it racist"

Unless i'm pronouncing it completely wrong, Barack and Borat don't sound anything alike.

3/9/2008 8:17:43 PM

Did the Barack is a Muslim emails come from a humor website?

Did the Barack is a terrorist and/or has ties to terrorist organizations in Africa email come from a humor website?

Did Barack is un-patriotic emails come from a humor website?

Did Barack cheated on his wife come from a humor website?


Play the ignorance card as long as you two republicans like. It may not be textbook "racism", but its an awfully blurred line.

Its a shame he's not a War veteran, because then he would instantly be immune to any moralistic or patriotic questionableness.



[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 8:43 PM. Reason : cheers]

3/9/2008 8:42:00 PM

Quote :

"Wait... Did I miss something where Obama is not of Muslim religion?"

bethaleigh said this earlier...i'm cool with her and everything but i was almost "appalled" when i read that

3/9/2008 9:11:46 PM

article is stupid socks, we know Obama is light on actual washington experience but we don't give a shit. This is about stances and capability and change of the guard, not how many years on the resume. That's obvious and voters understand that.

Try again.

3/9/2008 10:30:19 PM

Quote :

"Its a shame he's not a War veteran, because then he would instantly be immune to any moralistic or patriotic questionableness."

Well, this election at least.

Last election being a veteran was a bad thing.

3/9/2008 10:51:24 PM

Kainen,

I think the most substantive point of the article is how unclear Obama's position on Iraq is. Everyone seems to understand him to be saying he will start pulling out the troops immediatley and then that will be that. But if you read the fine print, that may not actually be the case.

Obama's 2007 legislation demands we start withdrawing almost immediatley, but then it also says that withdrawal will be suspended if the Iraqi government starts meeting the benchmarks established by the Bush administration. In fact, at the time he introduced the legislation, Obama made it clear that his "withdrawal" was a way of providing the Iraqis incentive to get progress moving (as if they didn't have enough incentive already). This means Obama could actually be talking about staying in Iraq for indeterminate amount of time.

I think that's pretty important and substantive.

3/10/2008 7:49:43 AM

Wasn't the 'timetable/benchmark' bill passed after compromising due to the previous timetable-only bill failed to make it through congress/senate?

3/10/2008 8:27:11 AM

Has anybody seen the cover of the latest Rolling Stone? Man, why don't they just put Obama in Jesus robes and a crown of thorns already--wow.

http://www.rollingstone.com/

3/10/2008 11:37:37 AM

He is worthless. When you actually have someone as qualified as richardson running and he doesnt even get a legit look, its pretty bad.

3/10/2008 11:40:29 AM

Obama broke fundraising records campaigning this year and last year, (average donation under $100), unprecidented US grassroots movement, didn't take money from lobbyists, triggered record turnouts to the primaries, locked down the "educated" demographic... yet you still say he's "worthless."

You seem threatened - quit being a little bitch, seriously.

3/10/2008 11:45:18 AM

You wanna know who had even less experience than Obama? Abraham Lincoln. Yeah, he was pretty good. So all you stupid ass mother fuckers can STFU.

^ Nice.

[Edited on March 10, 2008 at 11:48 AM. Reason : ]

3/10/2008 11:47:46 AM

^ Ha-ha--you wish. The two nominees haven't even faced off yet--experience will be a big issue, whether you like it or not.

And eyedrb is right. Richardson got screwed.

Did no one bother to look at the Rolling Stone cover? C'mon, isn't it over the top? Be honest.

3/10/2008 11:53:03 AM

wow, he has raised abunch of money. Televangelist do too.

I dont care where/who you want to give your money too. Just dont use it as a qualification for president. Thats pretty ridiculous.

Lincoln, good one. LOL

3/10/2008 11:54:20 AM

3/10/2008 11:54:38 AM

Quote :

"Ha-ha--you wish. The two nominees haven't even faced off yet--experience will be a big issue, whether you like it or not."

Apparently you have a problem with reading context. Let me lay it out explicitly for you...

EXPERIENCE ISN'T EVERYTHING. IT CAN BE GOOD BUT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE BEST BAROMETER TO INDICATE HOW WELL A CANDIDATE WILL PERFORM THE JOB. BUSH AND CHENEY HAD MOUNTAINS OF EXPERIENCE AND THEY FUCKED THE COUNTRY UP HORRIBLY.

Also, eyedrb is the hugest tool I've ever met.

[Edited on March 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM. Reason : ]

3/10/2008 12:00:24 PM

^ Apparently, you have a problem with reading comprehension. Let me lay it out explicitly for you. . .

I DIDN'T SAY EXPERIENCE IS "EVERYTHING"! I POSTED THIS:

Quote :

"The two nominees haven't even faced off yet--experience will be a big issue, whether you like it or not."

GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!1

3/10/2008 12:05:37 PM

I'd say by mocking me without any explanation of why, you pretty much disregarded the entire message I was attempting to convey. Even eyedrb got what I was trying to say. He's just too stupid to realize it's true. You, however, deny what I said is true and move straight to mocking me... you're an idiot.

3/10/2008 12:09:26 PM

^ WTF?!

3/10/2008 12:15:19 PM

Check out these spreadsheets on experience of various presidents:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Data/experience.xls
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Data/experience.csv

It becomes fairly obvious when you look at the top 10 and bottom 10 that experience isn't always good (or bad) and isn't the major issue that some wish to make it.

3/10/2008 12:25:56 PM