Super Tuesday 2! Election primary 08

[dieblucasdie]

And come on, how long did every news outlet sit on that McCain/lobbyist story?  3 months?  Until *after* he had the nom sewn up?  Do you really think if there was even a whiff of say, Bill Clinton up to his ol' cheating ways it wouldn't be all we hear about?

[FreddyKnuckles]

insinuations? no evidence? Different from the mccain story on the front page of the times how?

[dieblucasdie]

The Michelle Obama not being patriotic enough story spent more time in the news cycle.  And while the affair stuff was only insinuation, the fact that the champion of political finance reform changed his vote for a lobbyist is not.

And again, 3 different news outlets had the story months earlier and sat on it until the time when it would be the least damaging to him.

[hannah]

And while the affair stuff was only insinuation, the fact that the champion of political finance reform changed his vote for a lobbyist is not.

Needed to be said twice. Heck, again:

And while the affair stuff was only insinuation, the fact that the champion of political finance reform changed his vote for a lobbyist is not.

Little bit louder now:

And while the affair stuff was only insinuation, the fact that the champion of political finance reform changed his vote for a lobbyist is not.

I can't hear you!

And while the affair stuff was only insinuation, the fact that the champion of political finance reform changed his vote for a lobbyist is not.

Whew, that was fun.

[Thermofusion]

As for Russert, it would be more accurate to say that he's is a Bush administration mouthpiece than a conservative mouthpiece.

I watch Meet The Press religiously, and while I'm generally nursing a killer hangover at that time, I'd have to think Russert does a damn good job of disguising his status of "Bush administration mouthpiece", because about a year and a half ago I watched him take Cheney to fucking task on MTP on pretty much every foreign policy and wartime decision the Bush administration has made.  But, whatever, man, I'm sure you know more than I do.

[hannah]

Bradley '08!

[hannah]

As for Russert, it would be more accurate to say that he's is a Bush administration mouthpiece than a conservative mouthpiece.

I watch Meet The Press religiously, and while I'm generally nursing a killer hangover at that time, I'd have to think Russert does a damn good job of disguising his status of "Bush administration mouthpiece", because about a year and a half ago I watched him take Cheney to fucking task on MTP on pretty much every foreign policy and wartime decision the Bush administration has made.  But, whatever, man, I'm sure you know more than I do.

He does have a cool cousin...

[dieblucasdie]

haha I was just thinking that hannah.

[davy]

y'all really need to read this.

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
Per the Toronto Globe and Mail, in a story that was the lead on the paper’s front page today, that call to the Canadian embassy was actually from the Clinton campaign, not Obama’s:

“Mr. [Ian] Brodie, [Prime Minister Harper’s chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

“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.”

*** UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign responds: "Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from. The Obama campaign has given a variety of misleading answers to the press and the public about its top economic adviser’s contacts with the Canadian government and should come clean about why they did so," writes campaign spokespman Phil Singer.

[Andrew_TSKS]

I've always liked him + I think he's about the only redeeming quality of the entire NBC News department

i like keith olbermann a lot, and i greatly prefer NBC's "analyst" panel to CNN's. even pat buchanon. i get a kick out of those guys. i want eugene robinson to hang out with me and be my friend.

i agree with all of this except for the bit about pat buchanan. fuck that guy. although i am lightening up on him as i get older and find it harder to even take him seriously. the comment about eugene robinson is backed 100%, though, and i kind of have a stupid crush on nora o'donnell, which is a total waste of my time as she is currently pregnant.

[Andrew_TSKS]

(Putting 'gate' on the end of every scandal is the stupidest fucking convention ever created).

seriously.

but seriously, what the fuck is going on with that link davy posted? how did it go from being the clinton campaign to being the obama campaign? i'm so confused.

and possibly pissed.

[elpollodiablo]

Why wouldn't the Obama campaign flat out deny it and even levy a counter charge if there weren't a kernel of truth in it? Doesn't make any sense.

[dieblucasdie]

Why wouldn't the Obama campaign flat out deny it and even levy a counter charge if there weren't a kernel of truth in it? Doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, I think it's likely that both campaigns' economic teams have been in contact with the Canadian government re: NAFTA.

[elpollodiablo]

Well yeah, I'd've thought that was a given. I love how there's this willing suspension of disbelief in this country where everyone tacitly accepts that shady doins are a-transpirin all over the place but once there's a whiff of it on the national stage every pundit out there is ready to like do the maudlin how-has-it-come-to-this bit

[Andrew_TSKS]

the obama campaign's denial is here:

On March 3 the Associated Press released the DeMora memo, which by then had circulated widely within the Canadian government. Asked once again to comment, Obama said his campaign provided Canada no such reassurance while Goolsbee maintained that DeMora "misinterpreted" his comments. For its part, the Chicago consulate smoothed things over with a statement saying, "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."

so, pollo, there's your answer.

also, i think what we really have to take into account here is that it's not like the jobs fled to fucking CANADA. what i would assume is going on here is "hey canada, we're yelling about nafta, yes, but don't trip--it's mexico we're actually going after, not you dudes." the fact that they can't say this openly is yet more political jockeying, and it's a bummer, but whatever. anyone paying attention can see through it.

[davy]

Why wouldn't the Obama campaign flat out deny it and even levy a counter charge if there weren't a kernel of truth in it? Doesn't make any sense.

as andrew said, obama DID flat out deny it--there's a oft-played clip from an in-flight interview where he does just that--but then he got bashed even harder for denying the charge when he was so "obviously" guilty.

[elpollodiablo]

the obama campaign's denial is here:

On March 3 the Associated Press released the DeMora memo, which by then had circulated widely within the Canadian government. Asked once again to comment, Obama said his campaign provided Canada no such reassurance while Goolsbee maintained that DeMora "misinterpreted" his comments. For its part, the Chicago consulate smoothed things over with a statement saying, "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."

so, pollo, there's your answer.

You're missing the point. Willfully. But I've sort of come to expect that from people in the throes of Obamamania.

Anyway: Davy's posts suggests that it wasn't even Obama's people that talked to the Nucks, it was HC's. Obviously that's not the case. Or most likely, as blucas said, it's a half truth--of course both campaigns talked to them. Why wouldn't they?

[elpollodiablo]

Why wouldn't the Obama campaign flat out deny it and even levy a counter charge if there weren't a kernel of truth in it? Doesn't make any sense.

as andrew said, obama DID flat out deny it--there's a oft-played clip from an in-flight interview where he does just that--but then he got bashed even harder for denying the charge when he was so "obviously" guilty.

Davy you're misinterpreting your own post, bub

As I said to Andrew: he denied that the call was of the nature it supposedly was. He didn't deny that the call took place. Your post up there suggests that it was actually HC's people going back door with the Nucks. That seems like some pretty piss poor spinnage to me. If this is all coming from a comment that some Nuck official made to reporters (as I believe your quoted article up there is trying to imply) and the supposed phone call never took place, why say anything other than "The call never took place. Those fucking Nucks are dirty godless lying bastards" ?

[elpollodiablo]

Also:

y'all really need to read this.

The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

I noticed you missed that part when you were bolding sentences. Who the fuck wrote this, Scott Templeton?

[Andrew_TSKS]

oh, willfully, huh? so you can read my mind now? that's a neat trick, especially since you're learning things i didn't even know from it.

so, let's see here. i guess if the fact that there is a denial doesn't change your point, your point is that the meeting happened. well, i don't really see that as all that damning in and of itself. i'm sure it was something a lot more complicated than the stuff that's reported in the media, and if it got boiled down to "what we're saying is just political posturing," i can't imagine that that was an accurate representation of what the obama campaign was trying to communicate. like i said above, i'm sure it was more like "we have way less issues with you (if any at all) than we do with mexico, but you guys are part of this treaty too so we wanted to let you know where we stand." do you really think i'm wrong on that one? if so, i'd love to hear why.

xpost edit: jesus christ you're being an asshole about this. do you really see the fact that obama's people EVER TALKED TO CANADA AT ALL as some kind of damning evidence? if so, why isn't it damning evidence that your girl hillary did the same thing?

[elpollodiablo]

I mean really that right there is enough to make me more angry about this than Obama supporters have any right to be


And sorry for like having a conversation with myself here but I'm in the middle of a serious early-evening drunk

[Andrew_TSKS]

yeah, well, if hillary lives by the sword, and she does, she just might die by the sword.

EDIT: this is pissing me off and it probably isn't worth being pissed off about. sorry miles.

[elpollodiablo]

oh, willfully, huh? so you can read my mind now? that's a neat trick, especially since you're learning things i didn't even know from it.

Just as you can know without having met me that I'm hateful, I can know that you're willfully ignorant. The internet is amazing.

so, let's see here. i guess if the fact that there is a denial doesn't change your point, your point is that the meeting happened. well, i don't really see that as all that damning in and of itself. i'm sure it was something a lot more complicated than the stuff that's reported in the media, and if it got boiled down to "what we're saying is just political posturing," i can't imagine that that was an accurate representation of what the obama campaign was trying to communicate.

I would imagine that since you, like I, can read minds, that you're totally correct on this. Point: you.

like i said above, i'm sure it was more like "we have way less issues with you (if any at all) than we do with mexico, but you guys are part of this treaty too so we wanted to let you know where we stand." do you really think i'm wrong on that one? if so, i'd love to hear why.

Like I said, I can't really argue with telepathy. No one can! And if they could, we'd both know about it before they even spoke.

xpost edit: jesus christ you're being an asshole about this. do you really see the fact that obama's people EVER TALKED TO CANADA AT ALL as some kind of damning evidence? if so, why isn't it damning evidence that your girl hillary did the same thing?

Nope! I'm saying that what davy posted is complete and utter unadulterated bullshit, but like most Obama supporters he has to take any perceived slight as pissing in the man's face. That's what I'm saying. I know (because I can read minds) that HC's campaign did the same thing. She's no better than he is. And he, in this instance at least, is no better than she.

[elpollodiablo]

Except that since he was caught, he has to cop to at least some of it. HC, on the other hand, has not been implicated by anything beyond unattributed hearsay. So if you want to quibble about what the big O would've done had the roles been reversed, we can. But I think it woulda played out much the same way, except no one is going to be smearing Obama with unattributed hearsay. At least not until the general.

[davy]

i read that article as saying that the call which took place--the same call reported by CTV and used against obama--was actually a call placed by clinton's advisors to the canadian embassy, not obama's advisors. what it said to me is that clinton's campaign knew that the story originally reported by CTV's tom clark was false (i.e., they knew it was their call, not obama's), but they used it against obama anyway.

am i reading this all wrong? i thought obama denied that any call took place, and was criticized for doing so, since there had been allegations in print to the contrary. if that article i posted above from msnbc's "first read" blog is true, then obama was telling the truth...the call in question was placed by clinton's people, not obama's. and yet she used the story against him anyway.