MyDD :: Canadian government on the defensive

Canadian government on the defensive

by Drummond, Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:26:39 PM EST

New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton tore a new one into Stephen Harper's administration today over the release of the memo written by a low level staff person at the embassy mischaracterizing a discussion with Austan Goolesbee regarding NAFTA. The administration became very defensive and borderline apologetic.

Here's the video clip played on MSNBC today. Somebody in the Harper administration wanted to play ball with Clinton, and Harper's going to get hit for it.

The damage is done however. Hat's off to Hillary, sleezy as it is.

Tags: Canada, Obama, Goolesbee, NAFTA, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, New Democratic Party (all tags)

Permalink :: 34 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (2.00 / 5)

What in the world does this have to do with Clinton?

by americanincanada on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:28:12 PM EST

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (none / 0)

Clinton's been pushing this thing hard for days. At best she's an accessory after the fact, but she continued to push it even after the Canadian government denied the essence of the story.

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's lie doesn't matter? (2.00 / 8)

It is bad for Hillary to push the story about Obama's lie but it is totally ok for Obama to lie? Come one. You can not blame Hillary for every Obama's stupid move. What would you guys do without Hillary???

And when did the Canadian government deny the "essence" of the story? The Canadian government was "apologetic" because the story was leaked not because the story was untrue.

by praxis1 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's lie doesn't matter? (none / 0)

The Prime Minister apologized for people in his cabinet suggesting that Obama was saying one thing publicly and another privately. Watch the video.

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:10:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's lie doesn't matter? (2.00 / 2)

Oh. You watch the clip again and I recommend you to read the transcript of what the prime minister said, too. And this is their official statement.

"The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

Can you read these "diplomatic" rhetorics? They are saying there was no "intention" to convey that Obama lied. They did not INTEND to do so. BUT did the Canadian government say that the memo was fake? NO. Did the Canadian government deny that fact that Obama people warned the Canadian Embassy that Obama's talk on Nafta would be just rhetoric? NO. The whole statement did not deny anything. They are basically saying "Oops! We did not intend to screw you! Obama."

by praxis1 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:21:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's lie doesn't matter? (1.00 / 1)

And what does the word "is" mean again? Boy, this is bringing up some very bad memories.

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That has nothing to do with what Obama said (2.00 / 2)

He said: Nothing Happened

A meeting did happen.

by MediaFreeze on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just like the righties (2.00 / 4)

everything is Clintons fault.

right?

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:57:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just like the righties (none / 0)

Just like the righties - using right-wingers to support your attacks. I seem to remember something about Drudge and Clinton supporter outrage...

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:34:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just like the righties (none / 0)

No, just her campaign tactics.

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:09:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: obama lied (none / 0)

The Prime Minister says he didn't. I guess he's lying too?

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:31:01 PM EST

Re: obama lied (2.00 / 3)

As an american who lives in Canada, I can say from experience that the idea Harper may lie is not at all far fetched.

by americanincanada on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:46:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: obama lied (none / 0)

He wouldn't lie on behalf of Obama.

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Mischaracterized" (2.00 / 7)

Do you have any other evidence that the memo "mischaracterizes" the conversation other than that Obama's campaign says it did?

I hate to break this to you, but Obama's campaign has a dog in this fight. I think most folks will believe the memo-writer, who doesn't have an interest in depicting this one way or the other, and whose memo was based on notes that he took at the meeting where Goolsbee spoke.

Or were you there at the meeting yourself? If you weren't, you're definitely going a step too far by flatly stating that the memo "mischaracterizes."

by Trickster on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:34:09 PM EST

Re: "Mischaracterized" (none / 0)

Unless a name gets put to the memo and this person explains completely its context, I'm going to trust the people who actually put names to their words. The memo doesn't even purport to quote Goolesbee. What you have done is to perpetuate a personal attack made on Obama based on an anonymous government official's subjective interpretation of a conversation held with an associate of Obama's. In law, that's like triple hearsay without authentication. It would be dismissed without the need for an objection.

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:14:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Anonymous? (2.00 / 3)

Try again. "The memo was written by John DeMora, who works for the Canadian Consulate and attended the meeting."

Presumably, since he is a member of Canada's diplomatic staff, whether Mr. DeMora talks to the press about the subject is not a matter of his own choosing. In fact, I find it curious to note that, despite the fact that Canadian officials who were not present at the meeting have issued a flurry of denials that Goolsbee gainsaid any of Obama's campaign rhetoric, none of those officials who were actually present have agreed to speak to the press.

You're taking the word of paid spinners who weren't even there over the word of the professional who was there, taking notes and just doing his job. Not only that, you don't even mention in your article that there is any possibility that events might be interpreted otherwise.

They've got a word for that kind of talk down where I come from.

by Trickster on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:09:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

DeMore and Goolsbee Ain't Talkin' (2.00 / 1)

From the paper of record:

Mr. De Mora did not respond to requests for an interview, nor did Professor Goolsbee, who campaign officials said was unavailable for comment.

Obama's chief economic advisor, unwilling to speak to the NY Times.

Oh no, nothing happened here.

by Trickster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:38:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (2.00 / 5)

In any case, Obama said there was no meeting:

"It did not happen."

There was a meeting.

This is not about NAFTA or the Canadian government.

This is about Obama looking into the camera and saying the no meeting happened when a meeting certainly did happen.

The attempt to deflect this issue to something other than Obama's integrity is clear and obvious, and it is not going to work.

by MediaFreeze on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:58:21 PM EST

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (none / 0)

No, there was a private conversation between someone who happens to be associated with Obama. The campaign itself never held a meeting and nobody has even bothered to alleged that Obama or his campaign even knew anything about it.

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (2.00 / 2)

Bull. It was over an hour, notes were taken and a memo was generated, that went all the way up the chain.

by MediaFreeze on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:31:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's muddying (none / 0)

I don't know that this is necessarily what costs Obama ohio (I think he loses Ohio by 5-10 pts), but it certainly didn't help.

To be honest - while dirty tricks wouldn't shock me at this point, I think the story here from a pure political theatre perspective is that it was the first real Team Obama rapid response failure.

They didn't play this right.

I don't think it changes the overall race... I think this was basically the equivalent of the thus-far stellar Obama defense of missing a tackle and giving up a first down when they had Clinton 3rd and long.

We're still in the 4th quarter and still winning.

TOmorrow night we'll find out if Clinton punches it for a TD (big win in OH, win in TX), a field goal (win in OH, tie in TX), or ultimately turns the ball over (slim win to tie in OH, loss in TX).

by zonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:18:14 PM EST

Re: It's muddying (none / 0)

No, he didn't handle it right. Layton may have salvaged some points for him, but it's going to hurt.

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WTF? (2.00 / 2)

so now this is all Clinton's fault? You are ridiculous.

by linc on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:21:16 PM EST

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (1.00 / 5)

Dude, Obama lied about the biggest issue facing Ohio right now. This is not new politics, but a sleazy Chicago pol who will do any lie, any attack, any sleazy deal with a slum lord to win the nomination and lose the general election for us Democrats.

by moi moi on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:32:21 PM EST

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (none / 0)

Watch the video. The Prime Minister of Canada, from whose cabinet the misinformation came, begs to differ.

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (2.00 / 2)

That's not true.

Watch the video:

"It didn't happen."

by MediaFreeze on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (none / 0)

Yes, it did not happen that an aid to Obama told the Canadian government officials that Obama would not push for NAFTA reforms. The story is untrue. The PM confirmed it.

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (2.00 / 1)

Parsing, parsing parsing.

He knew exactly the context when he was answering the question. OMG what bull.

by MediaFreeze on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:29:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Riddle me this (2.00 / 1)

How does the PM "confirm" something when he wasn't there and someone who was there says the opposite?

That's a head-scratcher.

by Trickster on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:40:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (none / 0)

See, look at your post. We have a piece of paper with an anonymous author making a subjective interpretation of someone who just happens to be associated with Obama. It's on paper, so it must be true. If I write down onto a piece of paper that Obama slept with a 14 year old, is it incumbent on Obama to prove it isn't true?

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:18:07 PM EST

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (none / 0)

I love how you say that without any support. It's like a mantra.

As of this minute I've decided that I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton until she repudiates this. I'd thought better of her.

by Drummond on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:28:56 PM EST

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (none / 0)

Wait, repudiates what, exactly?

And I don't understand this -- why are Obama supporters allowed to say, "I cannot vote for Clinton," and people just shrug it off and leave them alone about it? When Clinton supporters suggest that they might not be able to vote for Obama, his supporters get furious and tell them to take their pity party to Free Republic or www.johnmccain.com.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:02:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (none / 0)

Can't speak for the others, but my first vote for Nader was in 1996. My second in 2000, though I would not have done so had I lived in a battleground state. But I don't like where the Democratic Party has gone for the past 30 years, moving to the right with compromise after compromise. I can't bring myself to vote for that all over again. Bill Clinton did what Reagan couldn't, namely he destroyed the New Deal.

I'd thought that maybe his wife would be different. But I look at these tactics and her "it's all about me" emphasis, and I just don't think I can bring myself to to it again. I fell for it in 1992. No mas.

by Drummond on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:49:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Canadian government on the defensive (none / 0)

Actually, I've been in the habit of dutifully voting Democrat, even if I have to hold my nose. But this campaign is over the top. Reminds me of the 90s.

by Drummond on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:41:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.