Obama's NAFTA problem

Barack Obama was trying hard today to explain a potentially important controversy over his views of the the North American Free Trade Agreement, the 1993 pact that broke down trade barriers between the United States, Canada and Mexico.

On the eve of Tuesday's crucial Ohio primary--a state where many struggling workers blame such trade deals for their economic woes--a memo surfaced characterizing Austan Goolsbee, Obama’s senior economic adviser, as telling Canadian officials to regard the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement as “political positioning.”

The memo, written by Joseph DeMora, an official at the Candian consulate, said that Goolsbee “candidly acknowledged protection sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign.”

As a result, he said, the candidates’ message about NAFTA “should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.

Goolsbee told Associated Press DeMora was “not quoting me. I certainly did not use that phrase in any way.”

But Obama’s team has been repeatedly denying any contact between the campaigning and anyone from the Canadian government.

Campaign manager David Plouffe maintained Monday that Goolsbee did not have a “formal conversation” with the Canadians.

And, Plouffe said, Goolsbee was not acting on the campaign’s behalf when he met with the Canadian officials Feb. 8.

“This was not a formal meeting. This was essentially a tour,” Plouffe said. “Austan was approached not as a member of our campaign but as a university professor. Austan and everybody else in this organization is very clear about Sen. Obama’s view.” Goolsbee is an economics professor at the University of Chicago.

Clinton seized on the controversy. “After days of denial that any conversation took place, you know we now have evidence,” Clinton told a Charleston, W.Va., television interviewer.

Comments

[CC]

Get ready for Barack Hussain Obama to be outed for the farce he really is. Its hard to remember all your distortions and since you copy Senator Clinton or virtually everything she says the distinction is that she is the BEST candidate for the presidency! Go Hillary!

[freakkys]

Obama Bomba really is just a Ghetto NlGGER. Just like Oj Simpson

[Plato]

The Truth and nothing but the Truth
Breaking from Newsmax.com

Why the GOP Loves Obama

By: Christopher Ruddy

Republicans this week are breathing a deep sigh of relief.

What was seen as a washout for them this coming November — with big losses expected in the House and Senate and a catastrophic loss of the White House — is now shaping up to be less ominous.

With the Democrats moving to pick Sen. Barack Obama as their nominee, the Republicans see a real opportunity to keep the Oval Office in GOP hands.

There is no question that the Republicans had viewed Hillary Clinton as the most formidable of the Democratic candidates.
During one of the primary debates, Obama suggested that the Republicans were “comfortable” attacking Hillary, suggesting they actually wanted her to be the nominee. Au contraire.
Republicans were attacking Mrs. Clinton because they believed she would be the nominee. They could hardly foresee Obama’s rise.
Indeed, she was the Democratic front-runner and hence the focus of their attacks. Now, Obama is discovering that he’s the focus of Republican scrutiny, with John McCain highlighting Obama's accommodationist views with tyrants.
The glee seen in GOP eyes this week can be chalked up to the clearly visible fault lines shaping up for the November election, a seismic battle between McCain and Obama.
There are many reasons the GOP would rather face Obama. Here are some of the best reasons:
— Obama is the risky liberal. Every time the Democrats run a liberal like Obama, who the National Journal reports has a 100 percent liberal voting record, they lose.
Remember President McGovern, President Dukakis, President Kerry? Mrs. Clinton, however, has been quite clever in her record and rhetoric to come across as more moderate. In New York state she consistently won hardcore Republican districts in her two Senate races.
A McCain insider told me this week that Obama’s support — for example, for driver's licenses for illegals — is worth at least “five percentage points in the election.” Mrs. Clinton was smart enough to back away from that hot-button issue.
Obama energizes Democratic voters. It’s been talked about quite a bit that Obama is a charismatic man who energizes young voters. But young voters notoriously don’t vote.
Remember all the hoopla in the last election with MTV and its “Vote or Die” campaign to bring out antiwar young voters for President Kerry?
Indeed, Obama, as the first African-American candidate of a major party, will energize black voters. But don’t the Democrats know that black voters vote as a bloc for them already?
What does Obama actually bring to the table for Democrats? It’s not clear. Mrs. Clinton, as her longtime critic Dick Morris likes to point out, would have most assuredly energized women voters, especially millions of single moms that have never voted before.
— Obama’s Latino problem. Clearly Latino or Hispanic voters are shaping up to be the key swing vote in this election, as they have been in recent elections. Some political pundits say George Bush’s come-from-behind win in 2004 was due to the solid 40 percent of Hispanics who voted for him, tipping the election in his favor.
This year was shaping up to be a terrible year for the GOP vis-à-vis Hispanic voters. But in primary after primary, Obama has had great difficulty winning over Latino voters.
Even in Illinois, where he beat Hillary to 2 to 1 in the primary, he only captured 52 percent of his home state’s Hispanic vote.
There are a variety of explanations for Obama’s Latino problem, including the belief there is an ethnic rivalry between Hispanics and blacks. Hispanics would like to see a Latino president in the White House, so the theory goes.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, has done extremely well among Latino voters, perhaps owing to her husband’s likeability among these voters.
The recent primaries show Obama improving with Hispanic voters. Republicans, however, believe the problem with this key group will persist.
And then there is John McCain, who is the one Republican who is very well liked by Latino voters. He’s also a strong leader, which Hispanics respect. He’s pro-immigrant. As we all know, McCain joined Ted Kennedy in backing the recent immigration bill.
There’s little doubt Hillary could keep the Democratic stranglehold on Latino voters. Obama won’t.
— Obama’s naiveté. Don’t forget, America is still in a war on terror. It is doubtful America will be tempted to go for an untested leader, no matter how charismatic he may be.
Some have drawn the comparison between Obama and JFK’s election win in 1960 during the height of the Cold War. But the Kennedy-Obama comparison is a weak one. For starters, John Kennedy was a war hero when he was elected president. Obama can make no such claim. Kennedy also had far more Washington experience in Congress and the Senate than Obama.
JFK also had his well-known father Joe at his side. And Democrats like to forget this, but Kennedy outflanked Nixon on defense issues, arguing that Nixon was too soft on communism. Obama’s dovish complaints about the Bush administration being too hawkish on terror won’t resonate with middle-of-the-road voters.
With good reason, the GOP is feeling better, finding its second wind as it coalesces around John McCain.
Despite some differences with the maverick senator, the Republican base will turn out for him. His $12 million fundraising haul for January is just one sign of that.
But there are many other reasons the GOP is more comfortable with Hillary out of the picture and Obama as the nominee.
First, Obama will not be able to lay claim to the good economic times of the 1990s that Bill Clinton presided over, as Hillary can. And Obama will be a nightmare for Democrats with swing voters in key states. Take for example the highly influential Cuban-American vote that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 — and was the key reason George Bush beat Al Gore.
The Cuban vote has been moving into the Democratic column but they will not go for Obama because he has clearly stated he will open up relations with Castro.
Sen. Clinton’s announced Cuba policies take a hard line, which resonates with these voters. And then there are the key Jewish communities in swing states like Florida and Ohio that are already deeply worried about electing Obama to the presidency.
Obama has talked openly about sitting down — without any preconditions — with Iran’s diabolical leader Ahmadinejad, who just this week referred to Israel as “bacteria” and has said in the past that the Jewish state is a “disgraceful blot” that should be “wiped off the map.”
With the McCain campaign blanketing key markets with TV ads featuring “independent Democrat” Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Obama will be in deep trouble.
The Democrats haven’t completely abandoned Hillary. But it sure looks that way.
There’s an oft-quoted saying that the Democrats “fall in love and Republicans fall in line.”
After this November, we may have to change that to “Democrats often like to run off the side of a cliff and the Republicans love to watch them.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[Kevin Gatto]

TOo bad all the officials involved on Obama's and the Canadians side say that they were misrepresented.

Try finding some real facts instead of bs.

You want Obama accomplishments here they are

coburn-obama transparency act

his bill for troop withdrawal

federal mortgage reform wtih dick durbin as a co-sponsor

the HOPE Act

Lugar-obama nonproliferation legilsation

Overall he has introduced over 113 bills.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

also check out
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/

[Sophia]

So let me get this straight.... First there was no meeting.I've personally seen & heard it denied by Obama while on his plane with his press corp. Then I just saw him say yes, there was, but it wasn't a meeting. Seems the Canadian Embassy had just called him up to come take a tour. Well now, I think that's mighty friendly!I guess it became a meeting when they were passing the Stanley Cup? I'm assuming there must have been something special there to see. It would clearly make no sense to call someone out of the blue to tour the same old Embassy.
Now let's get to the players.... Austan Goolsbee is credited as being an Advisor from the Obama Campaign.Obama himself refered to him as his advisor. Yet at article end, Bill Burton said "Goolsbee's visit was not as an emissary from the campaign but as a Professor from the University of Chicago."
So? Washington-speak, confused which story to stick to or this just stinks of it no matter what recovery efforts anyone is putting up now? Anyone else confused?

[Tony]

Barack Obama is like a lethal injection. He always makes you feel good and keeps the pain away but in the end your dead.

Hillary Clinton is like the rosebush. She comes with a sting and some pain but in the end you have a beautiful bright red shinning rose.

I say vote for the rose. It's better to be safe then sorry.

[Tony]

Barack Obama is like a lethal injection. He always makes you feel good and keeps the pain away but in the end your dead.

Hillary Clinton is like the rosebush. She comes with a sting and some pain but in the end you have a beautiful bright red shinning rose.

I say vote for the rose. It's better to be safe then sorry.

[A.D.]

Re: Kevin Gatto's comment above:

The point is that he lied outright, and when confronted with evidence, his team equivocated, distorted, and went so far as to egregiously misrepresent the nature of Goolsbee's visit. It's such transparent deception that it's not worth breaking down.

This also underscores something you and anyone can find on youtube or elsewhere - Obama has frequently done a 180 on his positions. He harps on Clinton for once supporting Nafta, yet Obama himself was an avid supporter of Nafta. Simply do a search on youtube with Obama lies about NAFTA as the query.
And this isn't all. This lying, back-flipping, and refusal to take responstibility is now a common theme with him. He's immature, dishonest with himself and others, and has a dangerously over-inflated sense of his own accomplishment and pride in his 'wisdom'.

Wake up, Kevin. You been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray...Obama is not the Messiah

Vote Hillary 2008!

[LaShawn]

To the Hillary Supporter. I hope you have researched your own candidate as much as you are srutinizing Barack Obama. I read a book about her called "The Truth about Hillary". That woman is so crooked.( The book has quotes from several bi- partisan people who have known the Clintons for years.) Also, why are there so many people ,who were in Clinton's first administration, for Obama now. Answer that since you know so much. Research your own candidate. You obviously haven't.

[KMS]

A vote for Hillary is a vote for China. In the final days of his Presidency, Oct 2000, Bill Clinton sold this country to China. Why do you think the Clinton's wont reveal the source of their income? Why do you think a NY chinese neighbor of minimum wage cooks and dishwashers could come up with $280,000? And, surprise, surprise, lots of the names and addresses don't exist.

Its not NAFTA, its China that's destroying American industry.

Hillary is for sale just like Bill. Buy her empty rhetoric and you selling out America.

[sadiem]

This polarization and character assassination of both candidates will continue to produce the same as we have had in the past.

This is a job for which both candidates are applying. Look at their credentials, education, experience, judgment and choose, based upon who is most qualified. One of the reasons people on both sides are so polarized is that both candidates are good, honest people. But one is more qualified, that's Hillary. Barack should spend 4-8 years as Vice president under her and then run again as the more experienced. Our country would benefit immensely and there would be a healing like never before. We have HUGE problems facing this country and the world. We have to get this right this time.

I also recently read that Hillary has "scared" people into voting for her in these last primaries. It's insulting to voters to think they are so ill qualified as not being able to weigh the pros and cons of a candidate and make intelligent decisions.

[Kathleen Smith]

Re freakkys comment - Freakkys, the name suits you. You are disgusting! How dare you compare Senator Obama to O.J. Simpson just because they are both black men? Why don't you get an education and grow up?

[Kevin Gatt]

Ok, Hillary lied bout it too. SHe sad and i quote, 'i have been opposed from napa from the beginning" yet you look through her white house documents released and she organized at least 5 meetings on how to get it through senate.

Not to mention how hillary doesn't care about the American people. If we vote for Barack and he has the majority of votes, she wants superdelagates to overturn our decision.

If barack said that he would be forced to drop out, yet hillary is still in it. Lets not forget she "forgot" to pay her old hs for holding a benefit too. Now they are stuck witha $3100 bill until her campaign decides to finally pay it. Yet she can be president??

O yea and sh was under sniper fire...o wait there was a greeting party and she had photo ops lol. What wouldhappen if she sai that about a country we are having tensions with? We could be in world war 3 but hey, she is the safe bet.

[Kevin Gatt]

NAFTA*** woooooooops lol.

[Kevin Gatt]

Also, hillary supporters, are you seriously relying on you tube for valid un-biased information? lol.

[Lutak]

What has happened to this journal?

Let's get restarted:

How do either of the candidates represent themselves on the major issues?

Websites like the one listed below could ultimately determine why more and more Democrats will defect to John McCain's camp.

Unfortunately, there is little about Obama that a website like this says that can be argued with...that is, unless you've flunked Philosphy 101 in college or never got to college in the first place.

Check it out: http://www.chilkootmarketing.com/index.htm

What can be done?

Sooner or later all of us have to reckon with our consience and our higher intellectual powers and when this happens we will be invariably forced to choose between our higher principles or a particular candidate.

Which candidate is traveling down the wrong road with this?

Which do you think is going to win out?

Our higher principles or the intellectual and physical attributes of a particular candidate?

Predictably, older voters will vote in favor of their 'principles'...obviously, because they are more concerned about what happens after death and the legacy they will leave behind.

The younger voters (in contrast), since they have more time left in life to recant, are more likely to be reckless and prograstinate with principle in favor of 'idealism'.

These are the young and youthful voters that Obama appeals to and also why a lot of us older folks see Obama as 'the Pied Piper of the niave'.

However, (which is the next question to beg itself): 'When does Barack's own conscience begin to bother him?'

Personally, I think Obama needs to start thinking about what he can do to 'remake' his image if he wants to win this election.

I'm not sure that he'll want to be that person he's beginning to look like against John McCain...who today represents everything that America stands for.

BUT, if Obama thinks he can win going the way he's headed, then let him go for it.

But, as for me and many like me who still sit on the fence until election time in November, we'll still be thinking that we'll have to live with ourselves long after this election is over in November and maybe these are the thoughts that the new young voters haven't considered yet...and there's still a lot that can happen between now and then...

And, this probably means that Obama faces a huge political swamp ahead...one that he has created for himself by already being impetuous on some very important issues.