Hillary-Backing Union Chief Hits Obama Over Canadian NAFTA Story
A key labor surrogate for Hillary, International Association of Machinists president Tom Buffenbarger, has now opened fire on Obama over the Canadian TV report suggesting that a senior Obama official privately assured a Canadian official that Obama's anti-NAFTA stump talk was just "campaign rhetoric."
From an IAM press release...
"I am appalled but not surprised by this report," said IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger. "Working families cannot trust a candidate who telegraphs his real position to a foreign government and then dissembles in a nationally televised debate."
The Obama campaign has released a statement that didn't address whether the conversation had happened but did say that the report inaccurately represented Obama's position on NAFTA. NAFTA is a highly-charged issue in Ohio. So a report like this -- and efforts like this one by Buffenbarger to keep the story going -- could conceivably have an impact on the primary, which is only days away.
Separately, it's worth keeping in mind that Buffenbarger apparently has little difficulty speaking his mind when it comes to Obama. He recently denounced Obama supporters as "latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies" and said that Obama wouldn't "last a round against the Republican attack machine."
Late Update: A Canadian embassy official flatly denies to ABC News that the conversation ever took place: "It didn't happen."
THE CANADIAN EMBASSY DENIED THIS STORY, it's at politico.com.
Please update your report to show the embassy's flat-out denial of this story.
February 28, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Canadian Embassy: "It didn't happen"
February 28, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Canadian Embassy just said no phone call came from the Obama campaign. Please update your post to reflect this.
A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta.
"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta," Landry said.
He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.
"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.
"There is no story as far as we’re concerned," he said.
February 28, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben Smith's updated the story....
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Canadians_deny_Obama_call.html
February 28, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No story.. period.. another "Kitchen sink" strategy. Seems highly reactive on the part of Greg to be buying into it so quickly, then characterizing the "non-denial denial." Sheesh..
February 28, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could have called that one.
I'm expecting that apology from the Clinton campaign for their crazy surrogate attacking Senator Obama on unsubstantiated claims...any time now...
Holding my breath..........
Turning blue.......
Getting dizzy......
Everything's getting darker..........
...
February 28, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a second, why does the Clinton campaign owe us an apology? They were the victim of the same stupid rumor. The only difference is that their spokesman (who evidently learned the lesson from l'affaire Drudge a few days ago) issued a forceful denial, while our guy made a more tepid response. It is not the Clinton camp's fault that our spokesman was a doofus. The spokesman for our guy might deserve a trip to the woodshed, but I am harder pressed to see how the Clinton camp is to be blamed for the problem.
February 28, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, this whole article is about a Clinton spokesperson hitting Obama over the new discredited report! (That same report that implicated Hillary as well)
February 28, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a spokesperson, but a backer. There is a huge difference. Still, I'm with you that the Clinton backer is the central point of the new story now that it's been discredited.
February 28, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that a big Hillary supporter has twice now went off on Obama in uncalled for over the top attacks, and the Clinton campaign has done nothing to shut him up or publicly disagree with his comments in any way. I'd also disagree that they were the victim of the rumor, because the story was about Obama, and there was a small line implicating Hillary.
Anyway, I just think that given Hillary's newfound love for firmly "rejecting" (not denouncing!) supporters for bad statements (even if they were decades old), she should do a little more to take care of these outbursts.
And for the record, I in no way expected there ever to be an apology from the Clintons for any of this. McCain has only been attacking Obama for a week or two now and he has already apologized more to Obama than the Clintons have this entire campaign.
February 28, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
I'm not sure if you are aware of a tool in news business- it's called editing.
While they show the snippet of the guy saying "Sentor Obama never makes any promises that he cannot keep." You and I don't know if he said anything more than that.
The hole news story seemed to:
1) Fully implicate Sen. Obama
2) Add an innuendo against Sen. Clinton
3) Leave a wide room open for interpretation on aledged Obama contact
4) Fully exonerate Sen. Clinton
One this certain, Media is tanking big time this election season- I never imagined Canadian media would join the convicts too.
February 28, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, this story is now a contest between confirmed sources in the Canadian embassy flatly denying the allegations and an unnamed source in a news story who initiated them. It's hard not to give more weight to the official response over the anonymous whispering.
Methinks, CTV has major egg on its face and so do Hillary's attack dogs.
February 28, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So then why didn't the Obama campaign issue a stronger denial? Something seems fishy about this.
February 28, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just maybe due to the fact that the Obama camp is more careful than Tom Buffenbarger and the rest Hillary's team about its statements.
February 28, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sir, you merely said you did not beat your wife. Why did you not say you ABSOLUTELY did not beat your wife? Sir, you are a wife-beater!"
February 28, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, seeing as how it turns out to have been a winning strategy…
They gave a reasonable denial, but one that pundits could tear into (and I was tempted myself even though I favor Obama) as being not forceful enough. One (or more) of Clinton's more visible supporters go after the meat, not realizing there's a string attached to it. Yank the string, and voilà! They've been trapped. :D
I'm not saying they really thought it through that deviously. It's just fun (for the little devil on my shoulder) to think about it that way.
February 28, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not at all a fan of Stone and Parker, but their kitsch is oddly appropriate for the occasion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EonjqFPKVU&feature=related
February 28, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
looks like Hillary's camp is jumping sharks AND guns these days.
February 28, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Canadian embassy officials must be a bunch of latte-drinking, Birkenstock-wearing, hybrid-driving, tree-hugging liberals.
Of course, this blatantly false charge will stick on some level because the rebuttal, no matter how accurate, never gets as much attention as the accusation itself.
That said, Hillary's campaign just gets dumber by the day.
February 28, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Greg took too much heat in the last thread given the weak denial, but this new story is pretty weak. A Hillary partisan attacks Obama and that merits an update and a new headline? Give me a break. Still no mention of the forceful Canadian denial in this for context. (Spare me the "it's on the main page," bit - the denial is yet to appear in one of your stories.)
You ask if this will "keep the story going?" Seroiusly? Of course it will if you treat each piling on as a newsflash.
February 28, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
tmc's theory: HRC's camp called some favors with their Canadian friends to start this rumor and feed it to CTV. Camp HRC was hoping this would last through a news cycle before the Canadian embassy flat denial came out. Didn't happen because BHO's people were too fast on the draw.
GOOD WORK Team Obama!
February 28, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty much exactly what I was thinking. The tiny delta between the time the story broke and the time their designated loose cannon in Ohio was unleashed to rant about it is rather telling.
I'd also surmise that Obama's mild rejoinders and the Canadian Embassy's rather firm denial were the result of an agreement between them that the Canadian's would fix it.
Unfortunately, damage done and mission accomplished for Camp Hillary.
Oh, wait, I forgot. Under the "Reverse Clinton Rules" that are mandatory on all left of Franco blogs, it is not permissible to surmise that the Clintons would ever do anything questionable, or even moderately byzantine, no matter how much evidence there is. Her campaign is as pure as the driven snow, devoid of all calculation and far too lofty and morally pristine to ever work up their own version of the Canuck Letter scam. Please forgive my momentary lapse into Right Wing Talking Points. I'm just a weak-minded Obama cultist, and thus easily swayed by such things.
February 28, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, if you guys want to go with conspiracy theories, how about this one.
The contact actually happened, but after hearing them speaking of opting out of NAFTA in the debate, the Canadian embassy goes with this story - in order to get a better deal from Obama.
So the fix is now in - the embassy agrees to discount the story, and Obama promises that he won't touch NAFTA, if elected.
It makes as much sense as trying to hang this on the Clinton campaign.
February 28, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. Credit where credit is due, the update now has the Canadian denial.
But posting the bloviations of someone like Buffenbarger is still pretty thin tea.
February 28, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do understand the need to get news out fast and do appreciate the correction, but don't journalists normally investigate the sources and contacts of stories before posting them? Just a thaught.
February 28, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems as though one problem with the Obama camp is that they refute these outrageous claims too quickly. By noting a hit job for what it is, then immediately refuting it and getting surrogates to go to air to dispel the rumor, they allow the opposition to come up with new and even more preposterous claims in the next news cycle. When will the Obama camp learn? One must do what John Kerry did, and wait weeks to issue a water-downed explanation. This worked wonderfully in 2004.
Wait.
I take back that entire first paragraph.
Good job, Obama camp.
February 28, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely agreed wwjb.
This story explodes onto the scene and people immediately rushed to judgement that Obama was lying to Ohio.
Now that it's appearing that perhaps CTV and those that might gain from such a story may have been a bit quick on the trigger (or lying), where's the apology from those demanding a more substantial denial? Where's the apology from the Ohio Union boss that jumped on this story and attacked Obama?
I'm damn proud that Obama's campaign didn't let this story sit around for days before reacting to it. It's reassuring that this Democrat isn't about to allow himself to be swift-boated. Yesterday, when I heard McCain's attack regarding Al Qaeda I immediately recalled campaigns of the past where we Dems didn't react for days, if ever. Obama didn't wait at all, and beat McCain soundly on a National Security issue.
To be fair, I think Hillary would do the same, she's the fighter. But anyone that thinks that Obama isn't, does so at their peril.
Kudos Obama camp for killing this story with speed and truth.
February 28, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weird. Flat denial.
I'm confused about the Clintons. I thought the aim here was to discuss "solutions" and "issues".
It appears the whole back and forth has been completely captured by Clinton or surrogates releasing crazed, over-the-top rants.
Yesterday, we spent an entire day discussing whether Obama was some evil Manchurian candidate, today we're discussing some silly rant that appears to have been based on a vague rumor.
I thought Senator Clinton wanted to weigh in on the Issues Of Our Day?
Why all the drama and nonsense?
February 28, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
TMC,
I don't think this was the Hillary camp's work. If you read McCain's NAFTA statement, I think it's all the more likely this was a Republican favor from the Conservatives in Canada.
Hillary and Obama are going to have to work together in the future, one as President, the other a stalwart ally in the Senate. I think we hurt ourselves if we continually attack one another.
I support Obama, but I want a strong Clinton ally in Congress pushing THEIR agenda through...
February 28, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So a Hillary hack is hitting Obama over something he never said or did?
I am appalled but not surprised.
The Clintons will say anything(especially if its not true) and change nothing.
February 28, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And tomorrow they will send out Lanny Davis to claim that they can never say anything about Obama because he is Black. One day they say they are throwing everything, including the kitchen sink at him, the following day they complain that they can not throw anything at him because he is black. Got to love those Doublespeak Creeps, and the amazing thing is the MSM has not even called them on the glaring contradictions and outright conflicts in their various statements.
February 28, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent! Link this story to the front page after the underlying charge is debunked! Good job TPM.
February 28, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can hardly understand criticizing TPM for following a story that could potentially have been explosive. Ignoring these things do not make them go away. It would serve all to have a thicker skin, the fun is only just beginning.
I support Obama almost passionately, but had the story been true or even if it had been false yet dealt with in a Kerry-esque manner, I would certainly been quite disappointed.
February 28, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not criticizing TPM for following the story, but the Buffenbarger statement is not a legitimately newsworthy item. It certainly did not merit a separate piece. These "so-and-so hits such-and-such" reports are pretty lame. Especially in this context where it's being used to fan the flames of a questionable story.
February 28, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree it was more likely republican rather than Clinton camp, but how else are Obama supporters supposed to act when Clinton's supporters jump on it so fast?
In a few weeks, we'll all be joined together against John McCain. Until then, we will continue to say we'd vote for McCain over the other democrat - thus inflating McCain's poll numbers and apparent competitiveness. McCain is going to be down in the polls against the democrat by at least 10% after the democratic nominee is selected.
February 28, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear what you're saying Dan, I just think that we need to use a little more diplomacy with fellow Dems than either side is using right now.
As an Obama supporter, to Clinton supporters, our rivalry is intense but we need to remember that the other guy represents GWB the Sequel.
We need to tone down the rhetoric amongst ourselves and stop giving ammo to the Republicans. I live out here in California where the Democratic candidates for Gov. in 2006 ran the nastiest most vitriolic campaigns against one another while the Governator sat back and didn't spend a dime. When the actual race began, the public opinion of the Democratic candidate was so low that again, Arnold basically sat back and won by 20+ percentage points.
We CANNOT let that happen here. I'm not going to tell Hillary to get out now, she has every right to stay in there as long as she feels she has a legitimate chance to win. What I am asking is that we try to keep it civil, especially now that McCain isn't having to run a competitive campaign and is basically sitting back and taking notes of what we're saying about one another.
McCain is going to be FAR worse than whatever Obama fans think of Hillary fans and vice versa. As an Obama fan, I think Hillary would only be an A-/B+ President...McCain would be a D-/F+. We need to keep that in mind when we talk about 'our' folks.
February 28, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Misfire! Someone should have kept their powder dry.
February 28, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, will the Machinists issue a retraction? I doubt it.
February 28, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Buffenbarger has zero credibility after the ridiculous shit he spouted this past weekend. He's an idiot!
February 28, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should change his name to BuffoonBarker.
February 28, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! :P
February 28, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!
February 28, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I had any coffee, I'd spit it on my keyboard.
Virtual hugs.
February 29, 2008 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I"m waiting for Buffenbarger to apologize or retract his statements seeing as how they were false.
Someone with access *coughTPMcough* to the campaigns should contact Clinton and ask her about the false statements that were made and ask her if thats really the kind of campaign she wants to run.
February 28, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the real question is does Hillary Clinton "denounce" or "reject" such scadalous tactics? There is such a strong difference between the two.
February 28, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the desk of:
Mark Poison Penn
Senator Clinton wishes to inform the public that if some one in her campaign is, spreading falsehoods about Senator Obama, and to her knowledge, no one is, but she can not check on every one, since she does not have a union card, but if someone is:
Senator Clinton not only denounces such falsehoods, and rejects them, but also is also willing, on a triple dog dare, to touch a frozen flag pole with her forked tongue.
February 28, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree the IAM has some serious credibility problems if they don't issue a correction to Buffenbarger's bamboozlement. The IAM international union hated NAFTA and CAFTA and to my knowledge have not changed their position. But they let Buffenbarger endorse Clinton, who voted for NAFTA and took serious punishment for it from Obama in the last debate.
I don't have time to drill down in the IAM's website (iamaw dot org) but they have separate web pages for their various Districts and locals, and I suspect Buffenbarger is just a lower-level exec., not an officer of the international.
Meanwhile, Obama will be on the Ellen DeGeneres show today, which airs at 2 PM on local NBC stations (e.g., channel four in D.C.), for those of you on the east coast. I suppose it will air at 11 AM California time. She taped an interview with him yesterday when he was somewhere in Texas.
February 28, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, I'm not reading Greg's post carefully enough (or the freakin' press release from IAM): I was wrong about Buffenbarger's position. But he still reports to the international board, which has power to force a correction. Unless, of course, IAM planted the fake story deliberately with CTV in order to exploit it this morning. In which case, IAM is defrauding all Dems, which we never forget and never forgive.
February 28, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
email the IAM and ask them to correct the record.
websteward@iamaw.org
February 28, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
or even better, click through to the press release that Greg quoted and get the press guy's phone number and fax number and blast him.
Here his contact data (unless they faked that, too):
Contact: Rick Sloan, IAMAW, +1-301-967-4520 (office), +1-202-297-2941 (cell)
February 28, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
make that his land line and his cell phone . . .
February 28, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very serious question --- how did Buffenbarger/IAM find out about the CTV story so quickly?
It hasn't even hit (if it's ever going to) the main stream media yet, but apparently the IAM statement went up around 11:00 a.m.?? Does anyone know when did the CTV report aired? (You may be able to tell from the video but I can't play it from this computer.) I'm not implying anything, but it is rather odd, I think.
February 28, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good idea to backtrack as you suggest. I would add, in addition to contacting Buffenbarger, maybe we should get contact data for the idiot CTV reporter/anchor/producer crew who were responsible for the disinformation, and ask them to respond to the Canadian embassy's emphatic rejection of their story.
February 28, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am appalled but not surprised by Buttandbarfer's knee-jerk reaction to this non-story. Working families cannot trust a union official who lies and insults so readily.
February 28, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another Clinton surrogate attack dog ...
February 28, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be a broken record, but Obama is coming up on the next segment of Ellen (NBC) . . . . After Reese Witherspoon pitches her new movie.
February 28, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Reese Witherspoon portray a young Hillery in the movie Election!
February 28, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty please: can we hold the presidential election next month and put all of these tit-for-tats behind us? If not, please wake me when it's over in November.
February 28, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buffy should throw on his birkenstocks, jump in his prius and drive to startbucks for a latte enima. What an uninformed jackass...
February 28, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet the article remains on the CTV News site.
http://www.ctv.ca/politics
Let's push for a public correction and apology. Tell CTV what you think.
newsonline@ctv.ca
February 28, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 28, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a Canadian I can assure you that CTV news is a racist news channel. So, it doesn't surprise me that this story would come from them.
They dwell off dirt news, just like their cousins Fox news but not as bad. Their news staff does not represent the mosaic of Canada. Here, I am trying to remember if ever they had an opinion's commentator or even a journalist that is of a different culture than the English Canadian culture. I may be wrong and correct me if I am.
Canada is increasingly becoming more of a melting pot country thanks to immigrants and I love it.
February 28, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
When he is done cleaning up the gas station coffee that he just spit all over his overalls, pick-up dash board, and his Timberlands, Buffenbarger might want to issue a retraction.
February 28, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The facts of our story are accurate." - Greg McIsaac, Communications Manager, News Information and Current Affairs, CTV
http://www.taylormarsh.com
The anchor and the reporter on this are very senior, experienced reporters operating within the "truth in broadcasting" environment in Canada. This story is not over yet. We've got PR people giving cover but we've also got real journalists sticking with their reporting.
February 28, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reader alert in response to FrankFred9's link: The Taylor Marsh site commenters have been reporting for weeks that they now only watch and rely on Fox News to 'get the truth'........ because all other major media is, er, anti-Clinton. As our Canadian commenter [Salpha] said upthread, please be aware that CTV is known as Canada's version of Fox News.
February 28, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain used this false story as fodder too today. Wow! When did CTV think they could bud into OUR politics?!
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4360446&page=1
Atleast ABC corrected the story to include the Canadians official denial. When will CTV follow suit? What's their agenda?!
February 28, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it time for Clinton to reject and denounce this Buffenbarger clown?
February 28, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
so four hours after i've emailed them the correct version of facts, the IAM website still has the bogus story and press release up.
I'm appalled but not surprised.
February 28, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
CTV has another NAFTA related story up, basically applauding Bush.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/nafta_us_080228/20080228?hub=TopStories
These guys are obviously so blatantly pro-NAFTA, it's no wonder they ran the false story against Obama last night. CTV the Faux News of the north? I believe so!
February 28, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember when Buffenbarger made his latte liberal speech in Ohio and how the Union crowd booed him off the stage. AFSCME President Gerald McEntee was there and tried to push the guy away from the mic. It wasn’t like Buffenbarger was getting any respectful for his outrageous statement.
I’ve known a few Machinists and I know a fair amount of AFSCME people and AFL-CIO in general, and Buffenbarger isn’t doing anyone a favor behaving so foolishly. It’s hard enough to get Union representation, and pro-Union support in a predominately non-Union US workforce - let alone keeping pensions from being squandered by Aerospace CEOs-- or (!) implementing the novel, and completely radical and progressive idea of Universal Health Care. Below is a link from a week ago to prove my point about the crowd jeering Buffenbarger until he’d sit down and calm down (Somebody get that guy a latte, geesh!).
As far as Buffenbarger acting on behalf of Clinton as a few seem to imply, that’s a far stretch. Buffenbarger heads up IAM, and is not co-manager of the Clinton campaign. There are quite a few AFL-CIO Unions backing Clinton (please note 2nd link). When you go to the AFL-CIO page, you’ll notice IAM backs Clinton, but also, Huckabee. They’re the only AFL-CIO Union I know of that backed a Republican, let alone, Huckabee. It would be nice if people mentioned Buffenbarger backs Huckabee too....but, hey. I can dream.
Anyway.Attacking Clinton over Buffenbarger because AIM supports Clinton as the Democratic candidate is nothing more than guilt by association. It’s fallacious and it should stop. If you’re going to blame Clinton for every loose cannon, remember with all the mud slinging these days, neither candidate comes off above it all.
There’s some real interesting dynamics out there with all the different Unions. People could take the time to affiliate themselves with some of the regulars and some of the characters. Buffenbarger might not seem so large after a couple cups of coffee with the average worker... -or lattes- (I like a short pull macchiato, myself). ...lecture mode complete....
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/20/politics/fromtheroad/entry3850647.shtml
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/unions.cfm
February 28, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
IAM / AIM, oops.
February 29, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barry "middle name which must not be said" Obama is a total fraud and a confirmed liar.
CTV Re-confirms Obama NAFTA Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMpbpov-HcA
CTV Names Obama Aide on NAFTA
.. The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters. ... ..
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080228?hub=TopStories
February 29, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink