destructive campaigning will probably pay off. sad really.
It won't, really. Irrespective of the day's results one way or another. What it does is separate those with principles from those without, in the respective campaigns, the electorate and here. I know which category I am comfortable with. Winning isn't everything. It just seems that way sometimes.
I'd suggest you read my comment below, and then consider whether you really want to turn this into some sort of signifier of who has principles and who doesn't.
I'm not disputing that her campaign has released a legitimate radio ad, I accept that. I was referring to the mischaracterisation of the NAFTA/Canada dispute by her campaign. There has been quite a bit of subsequent news since the AP consulate memo was released. It's the same with the Rezko case, TPM has a balanced overview of the case as it relates to Obama but from her campaign's point of view the mere mention of the name is somehow incriminating or damaging. That seems to be the bar set by some Hillary supporters here for many months and for me that's objectionable, or at least unprincipled.
I don't expect the electorate to be well informed on all these matters and that underlies the Hillary campaign's tactics, but there seems to be no excuse for it among those who are sufficiently engaged to be blogging here.
Are you troubled equally on the NAFTA issue by the antics of the Obama camp?
antics? I'm troubled by the antics of a foreign government trying to insinuate itself into our elections. That's troubling....
So far every official channel (Obama and Canada) have said there is no 'there' there. Hillary is pushing a distortion plain and simple.
I'm not confident about it, to be sure. If the meeting was at the consulate's behest that seems significant. The AP memo's provenance is an issue, in that it arose from a relatively low level source, and it's author has not made a statement on the subject yet, to my knowledge. That this allegedly involves the PM's parliamentary secretary's offce bears consideration.
But the Hillary campaign has been muddying the water and characterising it as intentional hypocrisy, as one would expect. And there seems to be no question the Conservative government in Canada is not impartial. Jury is still out for me. And I note that the original CTV report mentioned both campaigns in this context. We'll see. In the meantime it probably has cost Obama a few points in both OH and TX, that's politics.
Since I don't have your way with big words I'll just explain very simply how it looks from my perspective.
When the story came out, they tried to suggest it was completely unfounded. When the name of the advisor was supplied, they tried to suggest that ok, so a meeting occurred, but it wasn't about NAFTA. When a memo of the meeting was produced, they tried to suggest that ok, so there was a meeting about NAFTA after all, but nothing was said about NAFTA that was any different from what Obama has always said. Yet for some reason they went head over heels trying to pretend that no meeting happened at all!
Also, the idea that we are supposed to credit Canada's "we regret creating the impression that there was any inconsistency" over the written memo that quite clearly shows an inconsistency is just mind-boggling.
While I believe politicians pull this sort of thing all the time and the only sin is getting caught, I have nothing but scorn for Obama considering all his efforts to mislead the public regarding Hillary's position on NAFTA. Time and time again, he offered the "boon" characterization from Newsday as though it was something Clinton had actually said. He deserves to be skewered for his sanctimony on this issue.
Well, as I said, it all depends on whose behest the meeting was called and what the agenda was. My understanding is that NAFTA wasn't originally on the agenda. Whether Austan Goolsbee was acting in his capacity of Obama economic spokesperson or in his role at the University of Chicago is unclear from both sides. It's credible that Obama's campaign was unaware of this when the original denial was issued, his worst demonstrated fault in the facts of the case as we now know them. There is no question this story is a negative for Obama as it now stands.
We have not heard a word from Joseph DeMora, who wrote the memo, of which Goolsbee has disputed the wording. We've had a couple of denial/non-denials from the Canadian Embassy in Washington on the subject and now an accusation that Ian Brodie, Harper's parliamentary secretary, was the source of the leaked AP memo in the first instance, which Harper's office has denied. There are even suggestions that this was a 'set-up' by the respective conservative parties in the two countries. Consider this:
There's another coincidence. While McCain is ingratiating himself with his right-wing Canadian friends, who returned the favor by accusing Obama advisor Austan Goolsbee of making a side deal with them over Nafta, Hillary Clinton is declaring that like her, "Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." This is revolting. Is the idea to do such damage to Obama that a remorseful Democratic Party will decide he's damaged goods after all, and she, by default, is McCain's only true adversary. Then her strategy would be better known as scorched earth than kitchen sink. And it's revolting. One way or the other, it's revolting. Todd Gitlin - Talking Points Memo 4 Mar 08
This is revolting. Is the idea to do such damage to Obama that a remorseful Democratic Party will decide he's damaged goods after all, and she, by default, is McCain's only true adversary. Then her strategy would be better known as scorched earth than kitchen sink. And it's revolting. One way or the other, it's revolting.
Todd Gitlin - Talking Points Memo 4 Mar 08
I don't take that strong a view, frankly, but agree that solidarity among Democrats is as much an issue now as the veracity of Hillary's accusations.
The idea that Goolsbee was somehow wearing his "professor" hat and not his "campaign advisor" hat when he talked about the campaign's rhetoric is just ludicrous.
It's not credible that Obama's campaign was unaware of the meeting, since Bill Burton has admitted that they knew about the meeting from the moment the original CTV story aired.
Based upon inaccuracies in the original story like calling it the embassy instead of the consulate, they tried to hide behind dodgy denials like "the facts of the story are inaccurate." Later, you had events like the candidate himself saying "it did not happen," which can only be a true statement if you consider "it" to refer only to the specific meeting alleged in the original story complete with all the background facts. Very, very dishonest behavior throughout this entire episode.
As for the notion that the whole thing was a set-up by a conservative government, I'd be more sympathetic if there had been a little more honesty throughout the process. Heck, you still have Obama supporters loudly proclaiming across the blogs that because those various details in the original story were inaccurate, somehow Obama's denials have been 100% unvarnished truth all along. This behavior is really sad.
My bottom line is that if you let your campaign get hoodwinked by a foreign government, it's kind of on you. Not to make too much of the episode, but part of the job description is to not give other countries an opportunity to spread egg on your face.
I take your point and it is definitely a bad moment. I still think the original denial is unfortunate but credible. But your argument has become one of 'process' rather than intent and on that we can agree. Point to Hillary, no question.
