Obama Is Right
Right-wing ABC radio talkshow host John Batchelor has filled my in box in these last 18 hours with e-mails dissecting and skewering what Obama meant when he said at a private April 6 fundraiser that small-town voters in economically distressed areas of Pennsylvania are "bitter." Batchelor and Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley and Sean Hannity and Rush and O'Reilly are ready and rearing to go, quick to their guns to paint Obama as an elitist. (Read the excerpt from Nation columnist Eric Alterman's "Why We're Liberals" in the April 14th issue of The Nation to understand the cynicism and hypocrisy at the root of the conservative cabal's forty-year campaign.)
The Right has its reasons to play this cynical card. It is the Clinton campaign's rapid-fire, right-wing populist response to Obama's remarks that I find so troubling and cynical, and sure to hurt the party and the country in the general election.
Strip down what Obama was saying: He addressed the trouble his campaign of hope and change was having in "places where people feel most cynical about government." While he has tried to speak concretely about the conditions of peoples' lives, his campaign continues to have trouble making inroads among white working class voters, and "old economy" voters whose idea of change isn't hope but rather losing a job or a pension. Yet he is narrowing the margins.
In Muncie, Indiana Saturday morning, Obama was counterpunching, as he should be-- explaining and expanding on his remarks:
The problem is our politics doesn't let the American people get heard. People know that it's not easy solving some of these problems but they want to feel like at least someone is fighting for them.
It's interesting. Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare up because I said something that everybody knows is true which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois who are bitter.
They are angry.
They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through.
So I said well you know when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community.
And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country or they get frustrated about how things are changing.
That's a natural response.
And now I didn't say it as well as I should have because you know the truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation those are important. That's what sustains us
But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to. And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families. You know this in your own lives. What we need is a government that is actually paying attention. A government that is fighting for working people day in and day out making sure that we are trying to allow them to live out the American dream. And that's what this campaign is about.
I can't think of much truer in our politics today than what Obama is saying about how "people don't feel they are being listened to...What we need is a government that is actually paying attention... fighting for working people day in and day out ..."
At a time when 81% of the country thinks we're heading in the wrong direction (aren't these people bitter?) , isn't it pretty clear that our economy has not performed well for most people for at least a generation, and is now heading into what everyone sentient would agree are likely to be some very tough times. Recovery from this recession is also likely to be even slower than the essentially jobless recovery from the last. The traditional means of jump-starting the economy -- dropping interest rates, or boosting consumer spending -- have been substantially exhausted, and their pell-mell unregulated pursuit is a large part of what got us into our current mess.
The political discontent is obvious--and Obama is trying to speak to that. Americans are fed up with government's failure to do anything much for them, or that they're proud of being part of. " Here's how it is," he said in his April 6 remarks. " In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania people have been beaten down for so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it." Here's where the Right's generation-long attack on government has done real damage to citizen confidence in government. We see it all around us everyday. But surely the other critical source of citizen doubt is that government has in fact done little recently to measurably improve their lives and give them a sense of national purpose. After all, Bill Clinton, long considered the master politician of his age, was basically in the business of lowering expectations of government even faster than they were disappointed. Obama is trying to amp up expectations which the Right and Clintonism have tamped down.
The right wing is clearly desperate; ready to seize on anything to change the subject and hide how out of touch they are with an America in financial pain. But how cynical of the Clinton campaign to claim Obama was condescending to the people of Pennsylvania.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
© 2008 The Nation
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
173 Comments so far
Show All"SEEX" and on another thread "read it and weap" __LOL___ It's him, stupid humor is back, live and in black and white print.
I noticed that too.
I fear ~Riverman~ has changed his name. Or ~BojanglesA1~ is a cloned copy.
bob k.. it is DISHONESTY that causes the greatest harm and is the greatest SIN... you are THAT!!! immoral seex sins does not cause the harm like dishonesty does !!
bob k YOU with held the information from reich EXPLAINING hillarys problems with nafta.. it was NOT about policy as he says... yOU with holding that info and just giving gergen's words saying she had reservations and NOt giving out the two ladies that abc news interviewed who was at the meeting with hillary on nafta saying she SAID it was good for the economy... and she was WORKING to get it passed...you doing that BOB K proves you are a dishonest and immoral person and should be tarred and feathered and branded..
bob k your kind is what has harmed america
Hey bojanglesA1,
Did you know that Robert Reich openly supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights? So, shouldn't he be tarred and feathered and run out of the country along with me, the "feminists and abortionists," and all the other people you despise?
The people who find the statement Obama made offensive join the rest of the American herd who only want to hear nice. The truth is difficult. Sure we will find people out there who will not accept the fact the government of the US uses its population and discards it when it has extracted all it can, whether it be the young who are sent to die, the houses it allows them to have briefly before foreclosure, or the loss of the pensions they have worked so hard to have and have become worthless. The politicians later talks about the equity for the working class hero in America.
Sure there is rhetoric the young people adore in Obama's platform, yes, there is lack of substance because the ideas are unformed and will rely heavily on the "business as usual group that surrounds him and advises him, but yes he is a politician. . .and yes he has galvanized the youth in this new playbook that may count for more change than anyone can now imagine. All say because of him there has not been an election of this kind in their life-times. If nothing else it is something although they are all rigged in a one party system with minor differences.
Change will happen because the brewing environmental catastrophe will require the world to clasp hands around survival. We are now beginning to see the advance shock-waves with the fuel for food disaster and it is just the beginning. With all the other bunch wanting power we will see more of the same stupidity and failed bitter policies and people.
For those who want Nader to carry the mantle, this is a man who could find very few in this Oligarchy to follow his voice. He may be a great guy and has done good things but is unable to capture the people. He should be given the EPA in the next administration much more suitable.
The only hope left for this country, such as it is, will be Obama hopefully surrounded by young people who are not jaded and can reach into the drawing-rooms of power.
good moral americans should STOP horsing around with dishonest people like its a good sport.. it is NOT this causes the greatest harm to we the people....
dishonest people ARE immoral people.. its as simple as that...and these should be tarred and feathered and BRANDED as dishonest and immoral with an X on forehead..
its TIME to stop the silliness of treating dishonest people as a good game and sport...THAT is what has led to terrible govts..and terrible harm to we the people !!
some here are this dishonest and immoral and should be tarred and feathered and branded..
like one regular dishonest person that runs thru the forums he says obama has dropped 20 points cause of his remarks... at times he has even said in penn.. but at times not... and the poll he is selecting to USE is a renegade poll not mainstream .. and renegade polls are mostly bought and paid for by candidates to try to influence...
the latest poll by public policy polling has obama with a 3 point lead in pa.. last week it showed hillary with a 3 point lead and the week before it showed obama with a 2 point lead.... realclearpolitics.com and rasussenreports.com and gallup.com are ALL showing NO harm at all to obama... so that person who is spreading the poll that says hillary is 20 points ahead and HE SAYS he has DROPPED 20 points.. this person who has spread that is a dishonest and immoral person and should be tarred and feathered and branded... good people needs to stop this horsing around with dishonest immoral people that causes harm..
and the other bob k.. goes around saying gergen a former clinton adminstration official has said hillary has said things against nafta.... BUT robert reich clintons labor sec says yes and then EXPLAINS she hAD NO PROBLEM with the POLICY her problem was with the TIMIMG.. she wanted HER FAME FIRST to do the health plan where she put her daughter away in a private school in order to get the fame instead of having one of the cabinet to do the job... a INSANE LUST for fame and power by hillary..
so bob k leaving out what robert reich explained about the problems that hillary had with nafta was BLATANT dishonesty.. so bob k should be tarred and feathered and branded as a Immoral dishonest person..
its time for we the people to put a stop to this immoral dishonesty that is causing we the people so much harm... put them IN THEIR PLACE!!!
The Winnipeg Free Press ran the exact same story as the Globe and Mail -- word for word. They both carried The Canadian Press report. I'm sure every major newspaper in Canada carried this report on March 7, 2008. (Just like newspapers across the U.S. will carry the same Associated Press reports.) So, it really doesn't matter who owns the Globe and Mail, because it wasn't their report.
By the way, both the Globe and Mail and CTV (the TV network that aired the false report about Hillary) are owned by the same parent conglomerate, BCE, Inc.
So, who's the "spindoctor" now?
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/canada/story/4139056p-4730309c.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home
Shada (above) -- Well said.
I live in Pennsylvania. I believe the reason Obama's message was offensive to the Democratic base voters in this state is as follows: Despite the efforts of the far right to break them away (through the gun control issue, religious hot button issues, racial issues)these voters have remained with their Party. We are a very racially and ethnically diverse state where even in the small towns there are "minority" communities. I would argue that it is in our older neighborhoods that real integration is occurring. But, instead of celebrating that, Senator Obama has himself stereotyped these loyal Democratic voters by invoking all of the above far right issues, essentially calling these people close minded racists. They didn't deserve this treatment from a candidate in their own Party.
tailcap, yes, well reasoned and understood.
Yes, the WSWS column is, as always, accurate and insightful on this 'dust-up' ---- which is kicking quite a lot of dust up regarding Obama and Clinton, while they compete in this second vetting for the Democratic Party right to represent the 'corporatist Empire' hiding behind the facade of 'Vichy' American government.
The ruling elite 'corporatist Empire' certainly is sensitive about the choice(s) they offer the masses in '08 --- since they made an almost fatal mistake in the vetting process of '00, in allowing a candidate who almost pulled a Hitler switcheroo on the corporatists, and went ballistic.
As the 'corporatist Empire' adjusts their control away from 'hard' proto-fascist Bush/Republican overreach, to a more acceptable 'soft' Democratic alternative 'Vichy' choice in '08, Obama seemed initially to have passed the vetting process with his vacuous, but appealing, 'hope shtick'. As Andrew Sullivan insightfully wrote, Obama looked like The "Best Face" for Imperialism" --- which is the best 'soft' face for continuing the rule of this entrenched 'global corporatist Empire'.
http://eldib.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/andrew-sullivan-on-obama-the-%E2%80%9Cbest-face%E2%80%9D-for-imp...
But now, the 'corporatist Empire' is getting nervous about it's first vetting process possibly being inaccurate, and wants to vet Mr. Obama again to make sure that he will fully support the central 'corporatist Empire' to the hilt, including it's Middle East branch, the American-style Imperialist Political Action Committee.
All this recent talk by Obama about economic inequality, anger, bitterness, continuing oppression of the masses and such is getting the Empire real nervous. So they will make him jump through even more hoops, grovel at the Empire's feet, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he will never again suggest any real progressive and populist issues that might agitate the masses. Fortunately, for the Empire, Obama will comply completely.
However (comma, he says), this discussion which started with Obama's gaffe will not go away after Obama himself has cowed to the 'corporatist Empire'. A fire will burst from this innocuous flicker of working-class anger and animation, and it will engulf the entire phony election sham. This flame will grow to a general conflagration and strike a cord with the masses --- who will be looking and prepared for a true progressive champion to assault the 'corporatist Empire'.
Thus Obama's gaffe and retreat will serve a great purpose for the multitude who will look beyond Obama early, timid, and retracted mass democratic progressivism – and prepare the '08 election for the 'anti-empire', and real democracy movement of Nader, and all of us who yearn and struggle for the completion of the Second American Revolution.
SkinnyCat - if the person is for the "right" of Americans to own handguns (and against the right of Americans to not die in the crossfire) - they are not going to vote for someone who supports guncontrol.
One needs a big warchest to win an election in the US. Until you ban corporate and union donations, place limits on personal and third party donations, and place a cap on how much a candidate can spend during an election, you will get someone who doesn't know what most people are going through. Our choises are between:
1) Someone who cares about those they don't really understand; and
2) Someone who doesn't care about those they don't really understand;
Clinton booting Mark Penn out was the smart move, politically, and would have probably been the smart move, politically, whether he did anything inappropriate or not.
Is what is right and what is smart for the short term always the same thing?
Think everyone will be moving over to the new thread on this topic. That is what usually happens.
A VERY disappointing article, I expect better of Katrina and The Nation, lately they've become part of the Kool-aid drinkers!
I guess people of Privledge, or Blue-Blooded, would consider Obama, 'middle-class'! Most blue-collar workers, or children of blue-collar workers wouldn't!
He grew up in Hawaii (expensive living) both his parents were college graduates, he went to a private expensive Occidental College, and graduated from Two Ivy league colleges! Student loans didn't cover all that!
He now lives in a 1.5 Million dollar home! He can relate to the Wroking Blue-Collar Voter HOW??? He worked on Wall Street, where some of his biggest doners, and bundlers come from!
I agree with the poster above; Have You Heard enough Yet?
Ready for something better?? Go to the Green Party web site, 85 members alreay holding elected office, and another 1000 candidates running! A convention in July, and No Corporate Money! A REAL Party Platform, written, that every candidate runs on! (No Blue-Dog surprises later)
The only difference between Repugs. and Democrats; are the Corporations that support them!!
***Country Before Party***Go Green (Party)***votesmart.org**
Katrina Vanden Heuvel and the other Obama apologists are wrong because Obama was wrong. There are two kinds of bias at work in what Obama said:
(1) big-city bias against the country and small towns that costs democrats so much.
(2) yuppie/buppie class bias toward the working class.
Everyone is in one class or another, so a little class bias is inevitable and no big thing. If Obama was right, it wouldn't be so bad. His conclusions about rural and small town America are utterly false and based on a class bias he shares with McCain, Hillary, Vanden Heuvel, and most of the Washington political class.
Rural and small town America has been losing jobs and population for at least a century & half. Before and after those loses, they continued to hunt, go to church, oppose large waves of immigration and illegal entry, and they have always opposed phony trade, aka free trade. The politics and beliefs of their big city cousins are not economically based either.
Obama makes the usual democrat/republican asumptions – it is founded in the same need to marginalize and condemn the majority (that exists beyond race and sex) that he is not a part of. It is so convenient for the real middle class to say the politics and beliefs of the working class are just the bitterness of sour grapes - sour grapes is meritless. If the politics of the majority is without merit, there is more justification for government of the few, by the few, and for the few.
The problem is not that the working class (urban or rural) is beaten down. The problem is we don't have the representation in congress that our numbers warrant. That is not going to change because the bipartisan monied interests employ a black man to say – "change we can believe in." How about an Easter bunny we can believe in? How about a better reality instead? Never mind belief, and the cotton candy of dreams.
Maybe I should thank Obama for giving me an opportunity to put him in the same category as McWar and Hillary.
If you are happy with what the two party system has delivered, keep voting for it. If you really want change vote outside the two party system. Real change won't happen until "none of the above" wins a plurality of votes – write it in.
It is interesting that former President William Clinton will be remembered for his lies when he was being impeached, and Hillary Clinton when she ran for president.
Kem, BeForKids said that one of the words he used was "clinged" which I missed. You are probably right on that one.
Obama was both condescending and caring in the way he expressed his words. I give him credit for not running away from NAFTA, though. And that is what he was talking about.
You've heard of Omar Khadr. You've heard of Abdullah Almalki - Maher Arar's time in custody wa slike a trip to Disneyland compared to Almalki's. Any hint of genuinue caring - even if Obama is more like his maternal grandmother than he cares to admit, is better than what you have now or what you will be getting with McCain.
Not all women are caring. Men and women who pretend to be caring to score points scare me even more than misguided stereotypes. I don't know whether Clinton is genuine or not, but have my doubts that haven't subsided yet.
RE: - If he gets elected, he won't be a 'good ol boy' and neither would McCain or Hillary, balls or not.
I should hope not! That is an old southern term used to describe people who scare the hell out of me. James Ford Seale was the prototypical "Good Ol' Boy" and you should have seen the editorial he had published in the local paper days before he tortured and killed those two Black teens in Mississippi. JR Ewing from "Dallas" was another prototypical "Good Ol' Boy." The only somewhat nice people that phrase ever referred to were the Dukes of Hazard.
RE: - The masterful Clinton's are engaging in 'verbal lynching' of Obama for his touching on real class topics that the ruling elites of both parties would like to exclude from a national debate.
Robinea, that is one way to put it. Seriously, Clinton is running against Obama and she wants to win - don't think that Obama isn't engaging in "verbal lynching" himself - though I do think a better term for it is in order. That "Annie Oakley" comment was meant to put the noose around Clinton's neck. Clinton is on record of being for gun control in New York (where such a policy is popular) but her story makes it sound as if she is for it. The real Annie Oakley was a feminist, but also pro war (wanted to serve herself).
RE: - His real crime here is that he even hinted that there are class differences in the USA and some people have been neglected
The others have a point. Obama did say this, but he also seems to see this group as possessing qualities he does not approve of - he portrayed them as gun toting xenophobes who go to church to escape their reality. Those who fit this profile will find Obama's portrayal of it offensive. Those who don't will hate to be lumped in with those who fit this profile.
What are Obama's and Clinton's true position on gun control. Those in Canada who wish to ban handguns (because they put the right to live over the privilege to own a handgun) concede that no ban will be effective unless they can cut the flow of handguns crossing the border from the States.
RE: - Progressives should not jump to defend Obama for his anti-American worker comments.
Nonamnesiac, in what shape or form was Obama's comments "anti-American"! In other words, what constitute being "pro-American" according to your definition of it, and how did Obama fall short.
As far as the working class is concerned, it is a matter of whether they believe either Obama or Clinton on NAFTA. McCain thinks NAFTA is a good agreement - which is not in the worker's interest.
RE: - Come on, people, you don't have to be a racist to oppose Obama, nor a sexist to oppose Clinton. I'm fed up with that kind of rhetoric out of both camps! But then again, I was for Edwards; so I guess I'm both a sexist AND a racist.
If you were, I doubt that Edwards would have wanted your support since he, out of all the candidates, stuck me as the one who would stick up for the little guy or gal most consistently. Former Edwards supporters are on this thread arguing who is better out of Clinton and Obama but secretly wishing that Edwards was still in the race.
RE: - BOB K lies like a DOG
You mean he greets you when you come home, lies on the chesterfield while you are sleeping but gets up and lies on the rug when he hears you get up, and then poops in the most awkward corner of your storage area hoping you never discover his accident. Bob K is a spindoctor who either works officially for a campaign or took it on himself to support a campaign. He puts a lot of work in gathering his information (or somebody does).
The National Post used to be more right-wing than the Globe and Mail when Conrad Black owned it, but, now that the Aspers own it, they are both about the same. The late Izzy Asper, though right-wing in thought, was a life long Liberal but his son Leonard who now runs the CanWest Global media empire did vote Conservative in the last Provincial election. Izzy's daughter Gail is behind her father's Human Rights Museum. Izzy figured that any country named after himself (Israel) could do no wrong.
Both the Globe and Mail (which prides itself on its buisness section) and the National Post are proNAFTA. These are the kind of people who, if they believed that Clinton and Obama were being honest about their positions on NAFTA, would wish to change their minds on the issue.
Want to know any more about Izzy, because I am sure you've heard of Lord Conrad Black.
jclientelle, Question Period (my favourite soap) is about to start and will watch your tape after.
while we discuss Obama and Hillary, people including innocent children are being murdered in Iraq every minute......
yes indeed lets look at this very important issue above... hillary and mccain voted for this horror and big harm to americas economy to booth... netither one of those should get one single vote from the NON rich..
obama said NO... this is an open and shut case of who should NOT be voted into office hillary and mccain... if so what happens.. then anyone can make ANY mistake they want to and later just SPIN and no problem at all..
ANY one that voted for that war... no excuses should be voted out immediately... THIS will send the RIGHT message to politicians... you do RIGHT or ELSE you are OUT!!
Why argue with me about it ~Vaudree~. Obama spoke and he used words that hurt him, that's unarguable and was his fault. He dropped 20 points in the polls in two days. You can't blame his opponent for jumping on it either, that's politics and it's a game both Hillary and Obama are playing. The press however is making a big deal of it.
Neither are prone from attacking the other. Obama made a big deal about her for having a shot of whiskey and a beer chaser and last week he was drinking beer in a bowling alley, just being one of the good ol boys. If he gets elected, he won't be a 'good ol boy' and neither would McCain or Hillary, balls or not.
On parallell parking and brass balls, I was joking. Was joking about Monica and me too, that's my sense of humor and I find it funny when others take such so seriously. What's that term? Oh yeah,___ "let's lighten up". while we discuss Obama and Hillary, people including innocent children are being murdered in Iraq every minute.
RE - how they voted.
Do you know that Environmental groups applauded the NDP for voting against the Tories "Clean Air Act" - because it did not live up to its name.
RE: - Every word Obamma utters may be turned against him. This looks very bad.
That is part of the game, TBenner, unless you think they are going beyond the pale when doing so (ie swift boating).
RE: - Vaudree, Kem didn't say "controversial", he said "caused the trouble". And it was the phrase that people "cling" to religion or guns or whatever.
BeForKids, concede that being "clingy" does trump being "bitter". Usually "controversial" and "caused the trouble" can be interchangeably, but see your point in this case.
I think Obama was trying to give a "red necks are not the enemy" theme. What remains to be seen is whether the people Obama insulted with the "clingy" phrase are more likely to vote Repug any way or were Democrats that he turned off.
What Clinton is saying about opening up NAFTA on The National last night (newscasts stay up 24 hours, near beginning) scares me more than anything. She did not mention workers or the Environment - only unfettered trade:
http://www.cbc.ca/national/latestbroadcast.html
I know that Conservatives from at least Manitoba went to see Obama and Clinton when they were in Grand Forks North Dakota (we live close by) - which struck my mother as strange because Tories are more apt to support Repugs (especially these ones). Will see if I can find it. The politicians mentioned in my second quote are all Conservatives (so it would be interesting to see whether the rhetoric changes after April 5 for either Clinton or Obama):
Historic night set for Grand Forks
Manitoba Tories are leading the caravan to Grand Forks today to witness first-hand the battle to lead the American left.
Illinois Senator Barack Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton, both vying for their party's presidential nomination, are delivering keynote speeches tonight in Grand Forks at the North Dakota Democratic Party convention. It's a coup for the struggling state party and the visit by the presidential contenders has the entire region abuzz. More than 16,000 people are expected to crowd into the Alerus Center for both speeches.
En route to witness what North Dakotans are calling a historic event is a collection of Manitoba Conservatives - everyone from Tory Leader Hugh McFadyen to right-leaning city politicians such as St. James Coun. Scott Fielding, to backroom policy wonks. ...
Before they take the podium at the Alerus Center, both Clinton and Obama are having fundraising receptions at the nearby Canad Inns hotel.
"We were working on the bid team with the state Democratic Party to bring the convention to Grand Forks," said Canad Inns president and CEO Leo Ledohowski, a well-known Manitoba Tory. "This is historic for Grand Forks and it's certainly historic for Canad Inns and me personally."
Ledohowski said the hotel is totally booked and Secret Service agents have been on scene for days prepping security.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/story/4154225p-4742556c.html
Manitobans flock south to see superstar (bottom article)
Several Canadian politicians -- including Treasury Board President Vic Toews and Manitoba Tory Leader Hugh McFadyen -- scored much-coveted tickets to Obama's private, $100-a-ticket fundraiser before his floor speech.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/story/4154833p-4743128c.html
I have never felt as though Obama was an elitist...not even remotely.
I hate it when politicians and news commentators try to speak for me and the vast majority of Americans...regardless of the issue.
It is like Bush saying Americans believe we should be in Iraq because of the terrorist threat to the US...
The biggest threat we have is this kind of BS propraganda and trying to lead the people like they have ring in their nose and no brain.
"Say it, therefore it is"
I have news for them....I am not buying it.
I am po'ed, bitter, angry, disgusted, and just sick of the wimp politicians and uncaring neocons, and lying and corrupt bunch of them.
Rich...
Why is Hillary being demonized....because she lies so often and so obviously...if she can't tell the truth on her experiences that happened in front of a cameraman...what makes you think she will tell the truth about other things.
It comes out that she was in favor of NAFTA....after saying she was against it? She voted for invading Iraq...
I wanted to believe in Hillary..I really did....
But I can't...not anymore.
I will decide at the 11th hour who to vote for...I know who I "will not" be voting for now. I have scratched two names off the list...McCain and Hillary.
Obama was dead on correct....people are bitter and tired of getting the shaft by the admin and their own parties...and both sides are guilty of ignoring and doing damage to this country.
I am bitter...I hate corruption and the failure to address it and prosecute it.
Obama merely said it outloud....I tend to think most people "got the message".
I watched both CNN and MSNBC yesterday....CNN didn't slaughter Obama on it...they allowed the remark to be analyzed correctly...got 3000 emails about the remark...and they said they understood and agreed. MSNBC took Obama apart on it, for the most part.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know people are disgusted....so what is wrong with stating it outloud?
Clinton accusing Obama of being a member of the elites.Isn't that the stove calling the kettle black.
No one, is more a solid member of elites then the Clinton's.
Being a member of the elites, is profitable. Bill and Hillary made $20 million, a staggering 5,600% increase since the pervert left the White House. Most of the new found wealth comes from books and speeches. Bill earned $51.8 million in speeches around the globe as his payoff for Wallsteets instructions. He made $29.5 on books and Hillary $10.9 million. Bill made $15 million with Ron Burkle. Bill is a partner of Yucaipa Global Partnership Fund, which is in Dubai ports. He also made $2.9 million from Info USA run by Vinod Gupta that sells data lists to a third party that have been used by fraudulent telemarketers.
It a joke to think that either of Clintons have anything in common with the working class.
i wonder if the clintons gave their former hired gun gergen some money for TRYING to say hillary was against nafta... BUT their own labor sec reich said she was NOT against the policy at all but the TIMING... just some very ugly stuff that goes on with the clintons and favors..
but there are eye witnesses to hillarys trying to get nafta passed and saying it would be good for america... at least 2 ladies that abc found in the meeting has said this..
but bob k wants to beleive gergen and not the 2 independent ladies or clintons labor secretary reich who EXPLAINED what the reservations was about her getting HER FAME first from getting the health issue done which would have been like the wal-mart health plan that fits the corporations.. and we see this NOW also.. with hillary garnishing the wages of workers to pay for the ins.... this is NOT the health plan like europes which tax the rich to pay for it but instead makes the workers and people and poor and middle class pay the ins..
the clintons health plan is to help the corporations and to head off any other PLAN that would tax the RICH to pay for it..
so clintons health plan is to HELP the rich and corporate america!
Please take 6 minutes to listen to this reading of Langston Hughes poem.
http://www.mosaicvoices.org/Page.cfm?Id=55
edwards deleagates in iowa went to obama 8 to 1..this when they came back to decide who to support... why was it 8-1 because the message od edwards was 8-1 against hillary's campaign issues..... now why would edwards suddendly stop his passion?? he should at least go 8-1 when ever he had the chance but no he has gone 50-50 proving edwards is a corrupt politician..
i think it was great judgment by obama to not give in to edwards blackmail and offer him vp or a top job very wise indeed.. obama can see he was corrupt..
casey democrats are the real democrats before the feminists and abortionists destroyed the party... obama with him will get alot of these voters back that left to go to the republicans...
edwards has REALLY shown himself as a corrupt politician waiting to see where he could get something from either hillary or obama... edwards message was 80% against hillary and only 20% against obama.. so if he was honest he would have endorsed obama.
nader.. nader is like casey except casey is also pro life.. BUT anti corporations and the rich taking the money from the people are what casey democrats are.. so nader should endorse obama.. if casey endorses obama then nader SHOULD .. if not we may be seeing nader as also an opportunist and looking for FAME for himself..
Cynicism has long been Mrs. Clinton's stock in trade. She is totally unendowed when it comes to Mr. Obama's gifts. Cynicism explained her triangulating, amoral enabling of the Iraq invasion, just as surely as it explains her pot shots and misrepresentations of Mr. Obama's comments about "bitterness." Mr. Obama shows me every evidence of an ability to raise the level of discourse in our society, to the benefit of everybody. Mrs. Clinton shows me a very ordinary old-school ambition-ridden politician. Interestingly, some of the mid-PA voters of whom Mr. Obama shows understanding comprehend his comments, despite Mrs.
Clinton's wilful misrepresentations. The mayor of one of the towns in mid-PA (Braddock, I believe) applauds Mr. Obama's comments and portrays Mrs. Clinton's comments as D.C. politics as usual. It is emerging as all-too-typical of Mrs. Clinton to misrepresent, denigrate, and then embellish her presentations with a fabrication: her "Annie-Oakley" identity.
james carville called bill richardson a judas a traitor... this from the worst traitor in politics.. carville democrats main campaign manager and bill clintons marrys the republican main campaign manager mary matalin who was clintons competitors george bush's campaign manager..... talk about a pot calling the kettle black.. carville is a disgusting lYING corrupt politician .. carville and the clintons goes together..
after all this people should remember all the people who supported the clintons.. and run them out of the country..
bob casey may be obamas VP.. and would bring in the democrats that left the party back...and the FDR party back.. the feminists and abortionists should be run out of town..
but the clintons are proving to anyone with any sense they are the most corrupt politicians in the history of american politics..
how ANYONE other than the ultra rich could vote for them is Rediculous!!
BOB K lies like a DOG....
clintons labor secretary reich said that hillary was NOT against the policy of NAFTA but the timing.. she wanted HER fame of getting the health insurance issue first.. she had already put her daughter away in a private school and instead of keeping her daughter with her in the white house like carter did amy which shocked carter and he said so... she could have hired the administration to do that JOB of the health ins .. but NO she weould rather hurt her child just so she could get more personal FAME....
so that issue is a LIE that bob k is spreading.. gergen their other hired gun said only that hillary had reservations BUT their labor secretary Reich EXPLAINED what those reservations was NOT about policy but the timing.. she wanter HER stuff done FIRST!!
bob k should be tarred and feathered in what he is trying to do in forums... why didn't he mention what their labor sec reich said.. not doing so proves bob k is INTENTIONALLY trying to decieve.
I'M MAD AS HELL....
AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE....
Now everybody.... go out into the streets, scream from your windows and open up your doors and tell the world....
I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE...!!!!
Right, glen, it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. However, should he stoop to her level? Most of us already know, now, how ruthless and ambitious Hillary is.
How does a woman who made 109 million last year get off calling Obama an elitist? I hope Obama takes the gloves off tonight and calls her what she is. A liar and a fake, and a threat to everything we hold dear.
I'm not going to say I think Obama is any worse or better than the lot of them. We must realize that, first and foremost, they are out for their own self-glory, and care about their self-image more than the people they say they want to represent. Why? Because the present system is corrupt to the core, and those who rise to the top within it must, to some degree or another, be a part of it. Those who really wish to transform the status quo are either marginalized and/or completely ignored.
What I'd love to see from Edwards is his refusal to support either candidate, and say why. If he was/is really an advocate for populist interests, he would, and it would show whether he has any real integrity or not. Though I'm not holding my breath here.
Disclaimer: I'm undecided, and won't know until Election Day who I'll vote for, if anyone. But it's obvious to me that Obama talks to his constituency, while Hillary talks at hers. And spare me the simplistic, puerile labels of "Hillary-hater" or "demonizer". I offer the following composite of two previous comments on related CD articles by way of arguing that, apart from a candidate's legislative history, the manner in which they conduct their campaign is itself a telling indication of how they will govern.
And it strikes me how deeply anti-intellectual the Clinton campaign is. As one might expect from pure technocrats, their campaign is an exercise in manipulating the collective Amerikan political lizard-brain by launching endless micro-"surgical strikes"on their opponents' character. In their pathetic and desperate bid to maintain altitude and gain sufficient airspeed to overtake Obama, they simply seize on any chance phrase that has the potential to become a "negative", and hysterify it.
The Clintons and their fabulously rich and experienced cadre of handlers tirelessly perform supposedly subtle and sincere maneuvers that amount to trying to fling Obama's own supposed feces back at him, and hoping they'll stick sufficiently that Hillary comes off sweeter-smelling. It's the kind of demeaning stimulus-reponse, behaviorist, operant conditioning that is purely top-down; despite the faux-egalitarian rhetoric, Hillary's constituency is composed of her inferiors: gullible followers, children, lab rats. She's going to "fight" for them, although they're strong and cheerful and sweet despite the vulnerability Hillary claims to protect.
Incidentally: the Puritan pioneers who settled on this continent gave us the gift of repression, which has grown roots deeper than any sequoia. They also imparted an adversarial world-view: life is a continuous challenge for existence, and a wilderness filled with threats and enemies.
Thus, to this day our culture programs, transmits, and encourages an approach to life that is both stoic and hysterically optimistic; the mythical ideal is that Amerikans are always optimistic, resourceful, proud, steadfast, and cheerful. Even, perhaps especially, in adverse circumstances.
Lesser politicians– which is to say, about 95% of our past, incumbent, and aspiring political elite– piously capitalize on this orthodoxy, this dogma, and beat opponents with it like a stick if the opponent dares to come out from behind the curtain and speak unpleasant and unpopular truths.
Clinton's amoral, technocratic approach to campaigning shamelessly responds in this low-road, cheap-point-scoring tradition. She hopes to leapfrog over a stunned and beseiged opponent exactly the way Jimmy Carter's opponents did when he "foolishly" dared to observe that a "malaise" pervaded the nation.
The corporate media loves this kind of artificial sensationalism and ginned-up controversy, of course. Every one of our fabulously successful and well-regarded celebrity infotainwhores can make hay out of the breathless simulated shock and chagrin of Obama's "gaffe". The man actually said that Americans were bitter! What kind of slap in the face is that?
And intrepid correspondents and a phalanx of pollsters will stream into the diners, general stores, and bus terminals in the nation's rural byways to obtain clips of Barney Bowlingshirt and Lucy Lunchbucket, and maybe even the local Republicrat politician, expressing outrage and indignation that Obama insulted them by implying that local folk are "bitter". Bitter! What could there possibly be to be bitter about?
And the infotainwhore Peanut Gallery, from Cokie Roberts to Tweety Matthews, will take up the chorus and ponderously conclude that, yep, this is a Mortal Negative all right– like Dukakis fluffing the Kitty-rape question.
All of this further dumbs down and oversimplifies our already beleaguered political discourse, reducing it to a game of "Gotcha!" which is better known as "tag". Oooh, Obama said "bitter"! What a perfect opportunity for Hillary to tag him! And now Obama is It! So he'll have to chase after Undecideds and waste energy and resources trying to make Hillary It.
Well, politics ain't beanbag, and the "realists" among us understand that the mature, sober response to political campaigns is to disconnect the neo-cortex and pre-frontal lobes, and toss 'em in the refrigerator until the erection is over. And if going all lizard-brained is what it takes to win, that feisty workaholic wonk is a-goin' to do it!
Come on, people, you don't have to be a racist to oppose Obama, nor a sexist to oppose Clinton. I'm fed up with that kind of rhetoric out of both camps! But then again, I was for Edwards; so I guess I'm both a sexist AND a racist.
I have no illusions about Obama. He and Hillary are both too closely aligned with the moneyed interests for my taste. However, she has a proven track record of pandering to the right (can you say "flag burning amendment?") whereas he does not. I feel like with Obama, there's at least a chance for the people to be heard. I am convinced that Hillary will listen most intently to those she thinks can help her.
Ralph Nader? Please. While I agree with him on most issues, he has no chance of governing even if by some miracle he were to be elected. Often the one with the best ideas is not the one who can actually get them implemented. Ralph, I think, is better as a vocal critic of the system than he would ever be at running it. Besides - to vote for Nader or McKinney at this point, and risk four more years of Republican rule, is to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The first thing we have to do is get the criminals out; then we can work on getting what we want out of the new administration.
The VENUE was the bigger issue for me. The fact that he is not transparent; he made these comments 'behind closed doors' with his wealthy backers, not in Pennsylvania, where it would hurt him to say so. Disliking Obama does not mean that one does not have a BRAIN, it means that one has looked at his record, read his books, listened to his words, seen his lack of specifics, his lack of passion, and recognized the cult that is stirring around his candidacy.
Thanks for making that point, nonamnesiac. Rich, pretentious, dunderhead politicians haven't any real clue--or they have long forgotten--what the rest of us in the trenches are grappling with. It is not 'bitterness' for example to realize the truth of what outsourcing has done to our livelihoods when, even after 'retraining,' there are few decent paying jobs to be found. We get the fact that 'free trade' means (and has meant) screwing the American worker, even when the spin said/says that these jobs would be replaced by better paying ones. Then they have the audacity to tell us we're out of work because we're not qualified to learn or do these 'better' jobs.
We understand that they mean for cheap wages. Like you said, most of the working class are not bible-thumping, gun-toting, stupid red necks. Let's not throw stones at Obama, here, but realize that most of the 'elitist' media and politicians have a kind of secret contempt for the average Joe. One would love to hear what they really say behind closed doors. It no doubt would be a big eye-opener for many of us.
I want to thank Hillary for explaining the big words. Otherwise I would not have known Barack was trying to insult me. And I trust Hillary will also straighten out the confusion as to why Barack's eloquently delivered and lucid messages are meaningless empty rhetoric except when his choice of wording can be pounced on and cynically misinterpreted.
Progressives should not jump to defend Obama for his anti-American worker comments. I am not a Hillary supporter, but Obama played to some of the most anti-working class biases of his liberal elite audience in attempting to keep them on his side in his battle with Hillary over electability. His remarks were much worse than those of Reverend Wright. He insulted all of us. Most blue collar workers are not even Reagan Democrats and most Reagan Democrats are not a bunch of know nothing rednecks who cling to the guns and religion because they are economically disadvantaged. Their form of religion is not evangelicalism and, for the most part, they are pro-labor and moderate Democrats. As for gun ownership, although the right has taken over the NRA, that doesn't mean that most gun owners and supporters of gun ownership agree with the NRA. It is a sport they enjoy and also, deep down, a protection against government if it becomes totalitarian.
Obama screwed up big time here. But progressives are screwing up even worse by acting like Pavlov's dogs and screaming that what he said was true. You are making it impossible for those of us who are progressives within the labor movement who organize blue collar workers and discuss politics with them to seriously argue that progressives are our allies.
First they criticize Obama for not having smoked enough pot as a college student. Then he was a Muslim who went to a madraaaaaaaaasa. (oooh, he went to school) No, wait he is a Christian but his preacher talks like Elijah.
Now they catch him out for having a clue about how people are doing and feeling. His real crime here is that he even hinted that there are class differences in the USA and some people have been neglected (I could use a more obscene word here). To me that is an improvement over the Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm message that we must unite on some single agenda and that everyone has exactly the same interests.
There has been a huge struggle to bring the "It Never Was America to Me" narrative more into the mainstream. But the attacks on the minister show that that project is far from over.
But class is still underground and suspect, unmentionable. Here everyone is supposed to subscribe to the same bland and cheerful narrative about life regardless of their class experiences. As the grandchild of Westen PA coal miners (one of whom died in a mining accident) and the child of factory workers (one of whom died of steel particles in the lungs) I applaud Obama for speaking the truth.
I have many reservations about Obama, but my reservations have some substance, thank you.
The masterful Clinton's are engaging in 'verbal lynching' of Obama for his touching on real class topics that the ruling elites of both parties would like to exclude from a national debate. What Obama represents as a 'symbol' of mass discontent...and the possibility of change...is already an enormous threat to the elites who have monopolized the political process for many decades.
It may be a short step from 'verbal lynching' to the real thing - when the ruling class truly becomes alarmed at a growing mass movement. I think Obama, as an eloquent symbol of popular aspirations versus Obama as a rather moderate conventional politician, should be examined separately and carefully. Our ruling elite do not give up power peacefully - or give any ground to the masses through real elections. It is just not part of our contemporary history. The various comments - from Bill Clinton's contemptuous 'Vote for me because I don't steal cars' ridicule of Obama's refusal to take lobby money, to the recent 'boy' comment, to today's 'Obama bin Laden' comment by the head of Associated Press - just shows how threatened the ruling elite are by the 'symbolic' Obama - and how their fears bubble up in their conscious or unconscious racist words. This is a more refined form of 'lynching' that occurred after Reconstruction - to discredit, destroy any emerging leader not willing to play his or her 'assigned role'.
Stop listening to and watching the bullshitters on cable and network television who try and turn our elections in a farce by bringing up Obama's truthful statements and then twisting them into something negative in an echo chamber.
I have little to no respect for the entire army of liars on the television and I don't waste time with them.
There is an abundance of information available on the internet. TV is a source of misinformation that is controlled by the money of the top 1%. I haven't watched a network news program in years. I gave up on them when Tim Russert let Dick Cheney repeat his lies about the Al Qaeda - Iraq connection on Sept. 14, 2002 through the discredited story of a meeting in Prague. The mushroom cloud rubbish was parroted about that same time and I just quit wasting time with those bullshitters.
And, like so much of the rubbish that dominates the airwaves, this story about Obama is just irrelevant and a waste of time.
If Clinton winds up as the Dim running with McCain (she isn't different enough to really be running against him) many of us bitter, dispossessed masses will be voting for Nader or McKinney.
solrey April 14th, 2008 11:47 pm
"Just look at Obama's voting history and his major campaign contributors to understand that here comes yet another corporate shill."
Sigh...yes, here comes another corporate shill. We now have a choice (soon to be 2, I hope) of corporate shills to choose from. Choose one or choose none, but a corporate shill will be our next president. So what?
Has anyone here ever gambled? Ever played poker? Know the difference between a good bet and a bad one?
Life is like that. Take stock of your cards and what you've seen on the table, size up your opponents, and take a calculated risk. That's it. What more do you expect?
Oh, there is one more thing: If you work you ass off to help your cause, you may better your odds.
There - the meaning of life, the universe, and everything in one post.
Did anyone notice all of the MSM last night beginning the swift boating of Obama? It looked almost as if they held a meeting to decide how to get rid of this man who looks quite threatening to the ruling elite. Everyone slammed the bitter remark with almost the same words. I surfed through several networks and heard the same story over and over. I fear this will get much worse. Every word Obamma utters may be turned against him. This looks very bad.
Bitter in Pa.
As an Aside:
Does anybody else think that perhaps the Horror that is campaign 2008 is just strait-up RAVAGING a good man who's name is Barrack Hussein Obama?
Now he must "apologize" for SINCERELLY EMPATHIZING with the People?
Ugh.
Is it worth it Mr. Obama? Perhaps as a Senator you can do more for the People, perhaps we NEED a president like you.
But, as for me, I say:
HOW COULD IT HAVE COME TO THIS?!?
The greed-pigs in charge of the Democrats have as much to answer for as those in charge of the Republicans.
Once again I say!
Ugh.
Please Mother. Waken me from this Nightmare!
-matti.
Vaudree, Kem didn't say "controversial", he said "caused the trouble". And it was the phrase that people "cling" to religion or guns or whatever.
But Obama was gracious when Hillary lied about Bosnia and said that on the campaign trail people get tired and sometimes misspeak, not even pointing out that she repeatedly "misspoke". She on the other hand used his words like an executioner's ax against him. He's not a fighter by preference although he fights back. Her first preference is to fight. Not a good sign. We already have had 7 years of that. Does anyone think it's made us safer? I'm ready to try something else.
kathyodat
Kem, Hillary's been running on a campaign of "My balls are bigger than your balls" so that doesn't hold water. As for parallel parking, I had to do it to get my drivers' license in 1959, and I'm better at it than my son's father. I'm also more mechanically inclined than he is. Although he is a math whiz. We also think we're pretty smart, but our son could defeat us with his logical arguments at age 3, much to our dismay. Men and women can't be neatly put into boxes. Everyone has individual strengths and weaknesses.
That includes Obama, but in him I don't see any serious defects of character, unlike Hillary or Bush. In fact, that pair makes McCain look like a pillar of integrity. And he has shown some decent behavior in this campaign. Regardless of how scary he might be as President.
kathyodat
Kem, what did Obama say that was more controversial than "bitter"? Was it the Annie Get your Gun dig against gun owners, portraying small town people as xenophobic or making it sound like religion is something you turn to when your government no longer listens to you? Clinton was smart with the gun story because it makes her sound pro gun even though she never actually stated she was. On the other hand, of the three, guns seem to be the least toxic issue - but that may be just because I don't believe in handguns for anyone not in law enforcement.
Lillulu - agree with you - especially about Obama being the great unknown but still the best option out of the three. He does strike me as a bit more compassionate against those weaker economically than himself than the other two, but does not always know the difference between reality and stereotypes - or even that those who fit the stereotype don't like to see themselves as such or have the things important to them portrayed as naive.
Last one. You can either ignore Yvon Godin or nod as he seems to be describing what you are going through in the US. The rest are on NAFTAgate and why you should not trust Harper.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today we understand why the Prime Minister's Office interfered in the U.S. primaries. By damaging Obama's campaign and undermining his position on NAFTA, the government had hoped it could avoid reopening NAFTA.
We learn that instead of trying to seize the opportunity to improve environmental standards and working conditions, the Minister of International Trade is trying to prevent such improvements. Nonetheless, he said the opposite to the representative from Maine.
What is the government's position? Does it want to reopen NAFTA or not?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we understand that the leader of the NDP thinks that free trade has not been good for Canada. He apparently has not noticed the hundreds of thousands of new jobs that have been created as a result of that and the fact that our economy has prospered over the years. We understand that the NDP wants to go back to the old ways of fortresses against the rest of the world.
We believe Canadians can succeed. We have the best things to offer and our history and track record show that is, indeed, the case.
We intend to continue with NAFTA. We think it is providing great benefits for Canada, for the Americans, for the Mexicans. We have all become more prosperous and more secure and everyone's standard of living has risen as a result.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we want to hear a clear statement from the government on whether or not NAFTA will be renegotiated and whether it is willing to do the right thing for the environment and for the hard-working families in this country. We are dealing with a minister who is the same old, floor-crossing minister who signed the softwood sellout where hundreds of working families are losing their jobs, as we speak, across this country.
The fact is that there is a golden opportunity here to work with our friends across the border to fix a trade deal that is not working for working families. Will the government do it, yes or no?
Monday, March 31, 2008
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today seeking clarification on an answer I was given a few weeks ago concerning an ethics question that I asked the Prime Minister. As we all know, we do not always get answers. My question had to do with ethics and with what is now known as the Cadman affair.
The situation is most alarming and very serious. Let us review what happened. In 2005, there were a number of crucial votes. Canada had not had a minority government in years. Bills were put to the vote. We all remember the late Chuck Cadman, who was the member for his Vancouver area riding. Despite the fact that he was seriously ill, he decided to come to the House to vote and carry out his duties as a member of Parliament.
However, we later found out that what happened was far less noble, particularly on the part of a government that claims to be transparent and pure as the driven snow. In the last federal election, the Conservatives said that they had never done anything wrong and never would. However, some of the things the government tried to do were certainly disturbing. The people of Canada found it disturbing. I think I will have a hard time getting clear answers, because there is a tape that proves what the Prime Minister said to a reporter not so very long ago.
Clearly, as I said earlier, there is more going on than the Cadman affair. Here are a few examples: the Mulroney-Schreiber affair; the Baird-O'Brien affair; the NAFTAgate affair concerning the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie—not that I am naming names—who commented on certain allegations and uncovered some information. And that's not all. There was also the "in and out" scheme with Elections Canada.
It is clear and plain that we have here a government which refuses to be transparent; it tries to control everything and hide things from the people of Canada. In addition, the allegations made in the Cadman affair about discussions the Prime Minister apparently had concerning a "financial consideration" are alarming. It is very difficult to imagine a Prime Minister attempting to somehow convince a member to give him his vote, when in a recording he finally admits that both he and his party knew that some "financial consideration" was offered to an unfortunate, gravely ill member in order to secure his support in bringing down the Liberal government of the day.
It is clear that this Conservative government has hidden many things from Canadians. I think it is time the Conservative government owned up to its role in the Cadman affair, stop hiding behind interviews given by the late Mr. Cadman and tell the people of Canada the truth, namely that it has indeed—
xxxxxxxx
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion M-414, presented by the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, to address the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. I have a hard time understanding how the government member could have said earlier that Canadian industry was doing well. He definitely did not visit the right regions, or else he is turning a blind eye to what is really going on.
We need only take a look at the situation in northeastern New Brunswick, for example. The UPM plant in Miramichi closed its doors resulting in the loss of 600 jobs. The Weyerhaeuser mill, also in Miramichi, closed putting 140 people out of work. And again in Miramichi, 400 people working at the kraft paper mill lost their jobs. In 2005-06, 100 workers at the Nelson plant in Miramichi lost their jobs. In 2005, 270 workers at the Smurfit-Stone plant in Bathurst were laid off. Furthermore, AbitibiBowater, a company established in the 1930's, has just closed its doors putting about 360 people out of work. As for New Richmond,I am not sure how many jobs were lost, but I believe it was at least 300 to 350.
We could also look at the situation in northern Ontario. I have brothers who left Quebec 45 years ago to work in northern Ontario. They worked all their lives for Domtar and Abitibi Paper and they would never have believed that these plants would close their doors as they did last year.
A whole industry is shutting down and the government says that it is doing just fine. Yes, it is doing fine: service jobs that pay minimum wage are being created. It is not that these types of jobs are not needed. However, these regions are hurting from the loss of jobs such as those at the Smurfit-Stone, AbitibiBowater and UPM plants. We have to ask why this happened. How did we lose these jobs? We are told that the American dollar has something to do with it. If the American dollar is a factor in these plant closures, then why are the companies saying that they are closing them forever and that they will only sell to companies that are not their competitors?
The truth is that with NAFTA and free trade, foreign companies have stepped in and been allowed to buy our Canadian companies. These foreign companies end up deciding that their production is big enough and that they no longer need the plants in Canada. Once these companies have secured the market they close the plants. That is what is happening.
Smurfit-Stone bought the companies in Bathurst and New Richmond, but after a number of years it told the workers they were no longer needed. It said goodbye and left. After acquiring the markets, it closed the plants to eliminate the competition.
The government invested money at the time, but there should have been agreements to ensure that these foreign countries could not close the plants in the heartless way they did. From one day to the next, they decided to close the doors, say goodbye and leave.
The government has turned a deaf ear to all this.
(cont)
Once again, I regret trying to engage in conversation with vaudree. Your posts are so confused I doubt that even you know what you are saying.
You continue to hype a false story. Ian Brodie was the person who was supposedly the source of it in the first place, and even he says it's not true. Not to mention the Prime Minister's office and The Canadian Press.
RE: - The main reason I want to see a female president, is because they don't have to prove to the world they have brass balls. Women are more sensible in so many ways.
Some of us are and some of us aren't. Kem, agree that it would be nice to see a woman President or a woman who serves longer as Canadian Prime Minister than Kim Campbell. Campbell was PM because Mulroney did not want to go down with the ship - so it was not a fair test of what a woman can do in office (and no one sees it as such).
It is a double edge sword that the second woman or person of colour to seek office will be measured against the first woman or person of colour to become President. If the President was a good one, they will be measured against the President and found lacking. If the President messes up badly, they will be seen as made from the same cloth and sent packing.
Do you honestly think that Harper's bunch (CPC stands for Conservative Party of Canada) would out anyone who had agreed to let them have their way? Harper's bunch likes NAFTA and would prefer a President who also likes NAFTA. And then you add to that Harper's record, and who knows what Clinton's or Obama's people did not say about NAFTA.
What Obama's aid was interpreted as saying (we never get his exact words) seems to be a messed up version of what Obama had said a few days earlier about being more concerned with Mexico than Canada concerning NAFTA. We never get an exact quote so we can determine for ourselves what he said. We never heard exactly what someone close to Clinton supposedly said either, only that Brodie brought her name up unsolicited - even though he had one of those "you have the right to remain silent" cards that Tories are expected to carry in their wallets - and now denies saying anything.
Peter MacKay denies calling his ex girlfriend a dog during Question Period because it was not picked up on tape and did not make it onto Hansard (the transcript). However, the people who have signed affidatives concerning the comment paraphrase his comments fairly consistently with each other. Likewise, Brodie knows now that no one from the CTV even thought to even turn on their cell phone to record what he was saying - but he waited a while to make a denial, just in case.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many believe the government interfered in the U.S. primary elections by a deliberate disinformation campaign. NAFTA-gate continues to have serious consequences for Canada's relations with U.S. Democrats.
Now the trade minister adds insult to injury by accusing those who criticize NAFTA, such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, of being irrational. What a way to strain relations with candidates, one of whom could become the next U.S. president.
Will the government apologize to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the minister's insulting comment?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the substantive policy question of free trade and NAFTA, we are not going to make any apology for standing up for Canada's interests. One of those aspects of standing up is recognizing that NAFTA has been very positive for Canadians. It has been positive for Americans too.
Our standard of living is higher than ever before. As a result of that, there are more Canadians working than ever before, partly as a consequence of that free trade agreement. We believe it is very much in Canada's interests and we will continue to stand tall and advance that agenda and we will always fight for Canada's best interests on trade issues.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of Canadian families are actually earning less now than when the agreement was signed, so that simply does not hold water. It must be deliberate policy to undermine relations with U.S. Democrats.
Weeks ago NAFTA-gate broke and the alleged disinformation campaign of the government to interfere with the U.S. primary elections was revealed. The Conservatives are sweeping under the carpet the biggest scandal we have had with the U.S. by privatizing the investigation. When is the government going to release the mandate and results of the inquiry and when are we going to know the truth about NAFTA-gate?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the question of determining where the unfortunate leak occurred of the foreign affairs document out of the consulate in Chicago is ongoing. That is being led by the Clerk of the Privy Council.
It is a matter of great concern to us because our relations with the United States are important and the subject matter, the North American Free Trade Agreement, is particularly important for Canadians.
That agreement has been, contrary to what the hon. member said, very, very productive for Canadians. We had a massive increase in job growth as a result of increased trade with the United States. Canadians have been successful. We have been able to compete. We have been able to do well. More Canadians got jobs at higher incomes because we can compete.
What's all the hysteria about the word "bitter?" I'd be bitter too if my job was sent to China, India, Mexico, etc., and I had no health coverage.
I wouldn't vote for either Clinton or McCain. They will expand the unnecessary wars to other countries. I'm afraid Obama might, too, but I'd at least consider voting for him.
"Bitter" was not all he said that caused the trouble.
Bob K - good reporters always use the word "alleged" until something has been proven in court no matter how convinced they are of it's verity. People like Rush Limbaugh only use the word "alleged" when they wish to dispel doubt on something that has already proven to be true.
Why have a private company "investigate" NAFTA-gate unless Harper has something to hide. Harper claims that some information is too sensitive to hand over to Parliament, yet he decides to use a private company to look into the situation!
A "briefing" is a type of meeting entered into for the purposes of giving precise and detailed instructions" on a specific area of policy. People connected to the PMO tried (and succeeded) in ambushing people from both the Clinton and Obama camps. Nothing said in passing would constitute a "briefing" for either the ambusher nor the ambushee - and, technically, no utterance made by an ambushee would constitute a "briefing". Technically, one can be assured of something (or think one has been), without the alleged assurance being a "briefing."
Sandra Buckler said "no" only to a "briefing" but not to a conversation where something just happen to come up but was never pursued or clarified.
Something you should know about Sandra Buckler - Harper was caught on tape talking about offering the soon to be deceased Chuck Cadman "financial considerations" in exchange for his vote (though he presently denies trying to actually bribe Cadman) and this is how Sandra Buckler spun it:
The Prime Minister's Office has "categorically" denied that any Conservatives offered a dying MP a lucrative life-insurance policy in exchange for his support on the eve of a critical Commons vote.
Stephen Harper's communications director sent The Canadian Press a brief e-mail Wednesday rejecting allegations the party offered Chuck Cadman the million-dollar policy.
"Yes, I categorically deny it," wrote Sandra Buckler.
We know that Buckler is lying about Cadman, which makes it more likely she is either lying outright or intentionally trying to mislead us on other ocasions as well. Bob K - I dare you to find a Canadian on CD that actually believes Harper's official story on almost anything - and there are a few of us lurking around.
RE: - I may not know the Canadian media like you do, but it sure seems like CTV was engaging in tabloid journalism by trying to create a sensational story out of nothing — or perhaps out of some hot-air from Ian Brodie.
There were quite a few witnesses. Do concede that CTV tends to fall short of the journalistic standards of the CBC, but they are still much better than CNN. From the Winnipeg Free Press:
The revelations about Brodie's conversation with the television news station have left a key unanswered question that holds some implications for the U.S. election.
Sources who overheard that conversation say he specifically mentioned that Canadian diplomats did get assurances from the Clinton camp - and he never raised Obama's name.
That begs the question: why was Clinton's name raised at all?
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/canada/story/4139056p-4730309c.html
RE: - And I really hate to think this, much less say it for Bush is horrible, a unbelieveable disaster, but if McCain does get elected, we may wish that Bush was still there. That's how bad I precieve McCain as our president and Commander In Chief, in spite of his actions as a prisoner of war.
While it makes good play, did we ever find out whether or not McCain ever regretting his sacrifice of staying behind with his men? Would he do the same thing today? I think not!
I think that all McCain took away from his time in Vietnam was distain for the enemy - whoever he or she may be. Heard something about McCain being involved with arms dealers somehow.
Concede that "bitter" may have been the wrong word because bitterness often corrupts. There must be a better word to describe the jadedness that makes one distrust those who say that they care about the things that affect your life. "Resentful" has less negative connotations that "bitter" but doesn't quite cover the same ground.
mikepeters__How many times have we had a government made up of people who really knew what the word WORK meant? The only President that comes to mind is Jimmy Carter, and I have never heard his administration praised much.
It is possible for priviledged folk to actually care about people that are less fortunate-- the Kennedy family were pretty good on that, despite their other failings. The main thing to consider is knowledge of the country`s needs and a little character to go along with that--just what our present occupant lacks.
I firmly believe that the progressives that are idolizing Obama and dissing Clinton were led into doing that by the right-wing Repug media. They chose the Dem`s "front runners" and after that was done, the next step was to give Obama a free ride and magnify everything Hillary could be accused of just to throw the Dems into total confusion.
We have two good candidates that are not too far apart on platform, but all we hear is Obama the great, vs Clinton and McCain, who are not even in the same ball park. Hillary is not a warmonger, and she had no choice, being a Senator from the same state that had 9-11, on supporting the administration, as did many others.
Sen Hagel stuck his neck out in opposition and nearly got thrown out of his own state. Many others had their careers ruined by speaking out against the war plans, so it would have been political suicide for Hillary to do that. Obama was not there so did not have to go on record opposing the war.
Is it worth spilling so much ink about our "simple farming people"?
Sure, the good folks in ruralsville regularly get screwed by Republican policies. They feel good about being against big government even while their tax dollars are being pissed away to make Halliburton stockholders rich, all of the while murdering innocent people. Old glory!
Again and again, they vote Republican. And they'll do it again. Nah, they're worked up about illegal immigration this time. They can't figure out that they are being robbed so there will be no money to educate their children, who are destined for military service, fighting for oil.
Let's not get choked up about them. They will vote Republican. They love the hate of the Republican Party. Logic doesn't feel right, somehow, to 'em. Suspicious.
Besides, they're not so dumb. Democrats have much the same policies as Republicans, but the hate element and tribalism are missing on the Democratic side - and where's the fun in that?
Real anger at injustice is disturbing to people, whether it is black anger (Rev. Wright) or white anger(embittered unemployed et al.) Real leaders (Bobby Kennedy, Nelson Mandela, et al.) are not afraid to name that anger -- they know how to name it, raise it up, aim it properly, and turn it into legitimate political force for democratic change.
On the other hand, leaders who want to live at the top of that unjust status quo for political and economic profit are scared to death of that anger, and want to suppress, trivialize or discredit it.
That's the line of counter attack for Obama -- why are the status quo candidacies of Senators McCain and Clinton so afraid to speak the truth that people are angry at yet another seven years of betrayal by their leaders, Democrats and Republicans?
We DON'T "need a government that is fighting FOR working people"
We need a government OF working poeple.
Important linguistic distinction. Obama '08 in any case.
yeah, twice that peaceout
Sometimes it's better to not speak the truth so eloquently, and just don't say it out loud.
And I don't mean to imply by that, one needs to lie.
"Follow not truth to near the heels, lest it dash out thy teeth"
~George Herbert~ 1640
Just look at Obama's voting history and his major campaign contributors to understand that here comes yet another corporate shill. He's got speech writers and an oratory that create the illusion that he's just one of the regular folk trying, and sacrificing, to help us all out. Buy that line of BS if you want. You'll just be looking the other way while the powers that be choose/install your next prez for ya anyways. And all three of the remaining contenders are among the chosen and there's nothing, nothing at all that any one of us can do about it. That's just the way it is. I've accepted this and quit the mainstream "game" a long time ago by living with other folks working towards self-reliance and sustainability. It's all a game, Obama is just another shiny candlestick in the parlor with Ms. Scarlet and we all loose. If we really, really want to win and ensure the survival of an autonomous, free human species, we'll quit playing their game ( what if they held a war and nobody showed up ) and just start providing for ourselves. There is definitely enough creativity among us to keep ourselves entertained and provide the infrastructure for a continual high quality of life for all. All we need to do is quit playing their game. Stop being fooled by the likes of Obama, look at who sponsors him and how he votes, not at what rolls out of his flapping jaws. Hope and change???!!! GIVE ME A FREAKIN BREAK. It would be funny if the consequences weren't so serious. Vote for an alternative candidate if you think it will ease your conscience but that won't matter either. What if they held an election and nobody voted?
As long as you keep on playing their game they will always, always have power over you, your family and all you know and love. Stop believing their lies and open your eyes.
peaceout
I am not voting for Obama or Clinton, but he spoke frankly and truthfully and that's what the big uproar is all about. The MSM won't stand for it neither will Clinton. That's why Hillary has her panties all up in a bunch. Good for you Obama. Having said that, I hear Obama is already back-pedaling away from what he said. That would confirm him as dyed-in-the-wool, true-blue Democrat to the core. Turn tail and run when the heat gets turned up!
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/obam-a14.shtml
Obama: "I didn't say it as well as I could have," he told a campaign rally in Muncie, Indiana. In an interview with the Raleigh News & Observer, he said, "Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that."
of course people are bitter,
whose more elitist a former member of the board of wal mart (who sam walton personally praised as an outstanding lawyer) or a talented young lawyer who, after leaving law school, worked for the benefit of the poor and disenfranchised?
--------------
KEM PATRICK (10:52)
there are preventative remedies for potentially deadly cancerous growths republicans ingest prior to general elections -usually at the convention, when the VP is named. similar to a vaccine -- possible vaccines circa 2008.....jeb bush, joe lieberman lindsey graham...
Obama did screw up with his comments about the rural Pennsylvanians, it wasn't just the word "bitter". It was actually the other things he also said that are hurting him. But every candidate makes such verbal blunders at one time or another and the press is makng it out to be a lot bigger deal than it is, at least I think so. He spoke the words and he did screw up. ___ Oops!
Yeah KATHY, I suspect that's absolutly correct. And I really hate to think this, much less say it for Bush is horrible, a unbelieveable disaster, but if McCain does get elected, we may wish that Bush was still there. That's how bad I precieve McCain as our president and Commander In Chief, in spite of his actions as a prisoner of war.
He's possibly stupider than Bush is, which is difficult to fathom, and I honestly believe he is in the first stages of Alzhiemers and that growing lump on his left cheek sure does look like a cancerous growth. On top of that, he's a true, full blooded, War Hawk. Once one is in power, we all know what happens and usually it ain't good.
The main reason I want to see a female president, is because they don't have to prove to the world they have brass balls. Women are more sensible in so many ways. A female president won't have to parrallel park a car, so lets elect one. ___ Someday.
Bob K are you trying to suggest that Hillary has clean hands? Won't fly.
Wikipedia has it's uses, but anyone can say anything on it and call it a fact. It's not a true encyclopedia of information.
kathyodat
I appreciate your thoughtful comments, Kem. I agree the media is turning this primary into a Roman circus, and I suspect plan on turning the general election campaign into a bloodbath to help McCain win. Swiftboating, anyone? Meanwhile, the moguls are making hundreds of millions off the campaign ads. A win-win for them and as usual, the taxpaying suckers will be the losers.
kathyodat
Sorry WOODY, I always try to carefully read everyone's comments. I didn't realize that's why you never attended that church again. Sometime I only attend a church service one time and never go back for a variety of reasons. I actually don't even approive of churches. I read my Bible at home and attempt to weed out the bullshit. I read your post as the "logic queston" was 'your' question and that's why I replied. When one is born a Muslem, they remain a Muslem.
vaudree,
The news report published by The Globe and Mail newspaper in Toronto clearly says: "Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday."
And, "After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for — or received — any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday. "The answer is no, they did not," said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler."
And, "Ms. Clinton's team reacted furiously to the Brodie story and offered the Canadian government 'blanket immunity' to publicly release the name of any campaign official who might have offered such back-channel assurances."
The report goes on to explain that, while the Prime Minister's chief of staff Ian Brodie was ALLEGED to have told CTV (a Canadian television network) there had been a contact from the Clinton campaign, he now DENIES having said that.
I may not know the Canadian media like you do, but it sure seems like CTV was engaging in tabloid journalism by trying to create a sensational story out of nothing -- or perhaps out of some hot-air from Ian Brodie.
I also know that the report published in The Globe and Mail was reported by The Canadian Press, Canada's version of the Associated Press -- in other words, a legitimate news organization.
According to Wikipedia: "The Canadian Press (often abbreviated as CP) is Canada's national news agency established in 1917 as a vehicle to permit Canadian newspapers of the day to exchange their news and information. The Toronto-based company is a private not-for-profit cooperative, owned and operated by its member newspapers. It is the Canadian version of the The Associated Press (AP)."
Since The Canadian Press has reported that the Prime Minister's office has put this false story to rest, and even Ian Brodie has denied it, I think it's high time we stop suggesting here on Common Dreams that there might be something where there is nothing. There was no contact by the Clinton campaign, period. End of story.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home
Katrina vanden Heuvel is certainly correct that Obama is correct --- regardless of whether he expressed it exactly right.
As Heuvel accurately notes, 81% of the American people are obviously frustrated that their country (or the country they thought was their's) is on the 'wrong track'.
Faced with this frustrating situation the American people complain that their "voices are not being heard", and then hear from their Vice Emperor, "SO?" ---which would certainly make many people 'bitter' ---- and angry!
And while people are digesting this 'kick in the teeth' with no say in the deadly and frustrating Iraq imperialist oil-war and their own economic oppression at home, they may start to think, "what's the difference between this unresponsive government here and the virtual dictatorship, only posing as a democracy, in Zimbabwe?"
If you want to talk about frustration, 'bitter', and even outright revolt, just wait until the average American 'working class' and even middle class learn that the GINI coefficient of income INEQUALITY in the US is about as high as strongman, Mugabe's Zimbabwe --- which places the US inequality in with South American 'banana republics', oily monarchies, and central Asian dictatorships ---- as well as being above the level that 'our own' CIA warns, "leads to civil unrest and revolt."
Kernel say:
"classicliberal___You are still taking the bait. The right wing Repos and their Foxy media know quite well that most people will not think of voting for Hillary Clinton because they recommend it. You need to think like a tricky Repug to understand their methods. Remember they turned war hero`s into liars and traitors and got away with it. They are scared of Hillary, not Obama"
And, as I said, your "argument" is that we're to assume Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest are a part of some huge Machiavellian conspiracy when they openly and repeatedly urge their listeners to go to the polls for Hillary Clinton. We're supposed to assume that, while all of this is going on, they're communicating their true feelings--what you descibe--only secretly between themselves, presumably via some form of telepathy. Some things in life are a lot simpler. Here's what Jerry Falwell had to say about the race, not long before he died:
"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate. I hope she's the candidate, because nothing will energize my constituency like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."
And that's why the righties are backing her.
Something else you missed is what it says about Clinton and her campaign that she's willing to use outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh against another Democrat. That says a great deal about her, and doesn't say anything that would make her supporters proud (unless they, like her, subscribe to the notion of "anything to win," with that end justifying any means).
Obama is clearly the dems best choice, unless you consider his affiliation with foreign policy advisor Zbignew Brysenski. Brysenski is a cold warrior of the Dr. Strangelove variety and is programming his Manchurian Canidate Barack to carry on New World Order policies with a particular distrust and hatred for Russia. Who is the man behind the curtain and what is he up to?
Woody, did you see "What Muslims Think" on cbc.ca/sunday yet? Seems that you were right and the Minister was wrong.
RE: - remember his "wink-wink" to the conservative canadian government
The leaks (and there were more than one highly coordinated leaks) involved both Obama and Clinton. And how can I forget it! Every other day in Question Period it comes up!
It gets stranger and stranger:
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, NAFTA-gate was a serious breach of government security which damaged our international reputation and implicates the Prime Minister's inner circle. Yet the government secretly outsourced the investigation to a private company.
Why did the government choose BMCI Investigations? What is its mandate and will all its findings be made available to the public?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, this is a serious matter. The Clerk of the Privy Council was asked to investigate the matter. He is using the resources that he believes are necessary to answer the question, because the issue of our relations with the United States is very important.
I understand the hon. member shares that concern that we have positive relations with the United States, that NAFTA is an important agreement, that it has yielded tremendous benefits for Canada as well as for our partners in NAFTA. We want to ensure that nothing is done that hurts that relationship because we want to keep it strong.
next intervention previous intervention
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is another example of how the government has misled Canadians about accountability and transparency.
The Prime Minister has had five weeks to investigate the NAFTA-gate leaks. The Prime Minister even told this House that Kevin Lynch would conduct the investigation. We now find out that it has been secretly outsourced.
Every time the government makes a mistake, it either covers it up or refuses to answer the questions.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Can he stop dragging his feet and tell this House when he will make this report available to the public?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the former Conservative minister, Michael Wilson, now the government's Ambassador to the U.S., was aware of the NAFTA leak that interfered in the American democratic process before the story broke.
Mr. Wilson is now hiding behind a so-called private conversation to deny any wrong. That is not good enough.
An internal probe by the Prime Minister's staff will not get to the bottom of this scandal. When will the RCMP be called in to investigate the actions of Ian Brodie, Michael Wilson, and all the other actors in the NAFTA leak?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are taking this matter very seriously. It is why the Clerk of the Privy Council is right now carrying out a full and complete investigation.
I want to express to the hon. member the importance of our free trade agreement with the U.S. We have a good free trade agreement. It has been productive. It has been very good for job creation in our country and also in the U.S. and Mexico. We hope to continue to build on the good relationship that we are having with the U.S. in the near future.
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, leaked sensitive diplomatic conversations to the media. Then, a classified memo was leaked from DFAIT. Now, we learn that the Canadian Ambassador to Washington, Michael Wilson, leaked the same information to a reporter. Coincidence? I think not.
We have three leaks with a desired result to interfere and influence the Democratic primary.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that Ian Brodie and Michael Wilson are under investigation and that they have stepped aside? If not, why not?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said last week, this leak is a serious matter and that is why the Clerk of the Privy Council is currently conducting a full and detailed investigation.
I should point out to the hon. member that trade and diplomatic relations between Canada and the United States are important. These relations will remain good and valuable. NAFTA has been good for all countries involved—Canada, Mexico and the United States—and we will continue to work in harmony with the Americans.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the government is lacking transparency to such an extent, in its management of confidential and secret information leaks involving our relations with the United States. The government, which promised to be open and transparent, continues to break that promise when we put questions to it regarding this embarrassing leak.
Will Ian Brodie and Michael Wilson leave their jobs during the investigation to determine whether or not they gave away this secret information, yes or no?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council is investigating the matter. The investigation is going on right now, and I can assure the hon. member that, just as we work in a transparent fashion for Canadians, we are going to do the same in this case. This is a very serious matter, and the Prime Minister has said so. We are investigating.
The Clerk of the Privy Council is currently investigating, and we will definitely get to the bottom of this issue.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=...
Kem Patrick. Yes. It was absurd to convert all the Muslims - and counterproductive. That's WHY it was my last day in that church. You shoulda read one more sentence.
Kem, you are so right.
Kernel suggests that we shouldn't be fooled by Obama like we were fooled by Bush during his campaign. My opinion of Bush during the 2000 campaign was that he was a dangerous bumbling huckster doing the bidding of self-serving special interests. Boy, was I fooled! I wonder if my opinion of Obama as an effective, charismatic leader will also miss the mark.
Is that comment Obama uttered all the oppositon currently has on him?
Kinda weak in my opinion, but of course the media is selling air time with it.
RE: - John Edwards spoke the words and had the action plan to get to One America, but who paid attention.
Karita, I paid attention.
RE: - There are no honest journalists. If there were, we wouldn't have this ridiculous garbage being foisted off as on us as news
It is not a matter of whether they are honest or dishonest - they are not journalists, they are personalities. You can have Paris Hilton up there doing what they are doing, and not wondering where the "news" is coming from or what it means.
Speaking of News, the latest of Obama and Clinton was a lead story on The National tonight (wait an hour and it will be up):
http://www.cbc.ca/national/latestbroadcast.html
RE: - She worked actively to pass NAFTA. The misrepresentation that Bob K. refers to regarding Obama supporters denying NAFTA to the Canadian gov't is another Clinton lie. Actually, the Canadian gov't said that was true of of the Clinton staff.
Enthusiasm (or lack there of) won't get Clinton off. The only card she might have is if NAFTA was the will of Congress and Clinton's husband was reluctant to VETO it. True or not, she better check the make-up of congress first.
Bob K - the Grope and Flail has Sandra Buckler who says the Clinton camp didn't say it and Ian Brodie who said they did. And Layton, who seems not to have heard Buckler's comments:
"It has changed the dynamic of the U.S. primary for the Democratic party and it has given a club to the Republican candidate which he can use time and time again to go after whether it's Senator Clinton or Senator Obama."
According to CTV Sandra Buckler said that the French were offering troops in Afghanistan (while failing to tell us than none were going to Kandahar), lied about why the Opposition leaders could not attend the NATO summit where the Afghan mission was going to be discussed, talked prematurely about Harper winning his libel suit against an Opposition leader over the Cadman bribe, lied outright about what the PMO knew about prisoner transfers in Afghanistan - NOTHING about Clinton and NAFTA at all.
The CBC has it but says that Buckler referred specifically to "Clinton's aides" and what they deny was that there was a "private briefing." That doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't a conversation with someone from the Clinton camp.
~WOODY~ You ask, "Who could argue with the LOGIC, that if all of those Muslem men could have been converted to Christianity, 9-11 would have never happened? ____ Every single Muslem could and would argue it, ___ for starters.
Lots of people admire Obama and and yes they are still reloading! He did not offend me but of course ,I took the time to understand what he meant instead of jumping in line with the brain dead monkies of the press or politicos.
Most of this senseless word mongering is coming out of hateful mouths that are not remotely connected to a BRAIN.
Obama was forthright and impressive at Messiah College, embracing choice and evolution. Hillary was evasive and grandiose. Obama's Achilles heels--both based on erroneous perception created by the Hillarites--are elitism and lack of patriotism. The best thing for him to do, in keeping with his direct style, is to tackle them head-on. Quote Bill Clinton's words about bitter working class voters back to Hillary and show her as the hypocrite she is. Lay out the predatory policies she supported on the board of Wal-Mart. Acknowledge that Michelle Obama and Reverend Wright have also been accused of bitterness, and that the outrages of the Bush administration have made most Americans angry. There is noting unpatriotic about anger at criminal, unconstitutional, brutal, devious, corrupt and mendacious governance.
"When Obama said that small-towners are bitter about being economically disadvantaged and that's why they embrace anti-trade and "anti-immigrant" sentiments, he is indeed signaling his contempt for their anger. Once in a while, his Reaganesque pro-business agenda leaks out on the campaign trail, and this was one of those times."
Construing an attempt to understand the way people feel and the reasons why as a sign of contempt for those feelings is a sure sign of unclear thinking. If anyone has an agenda, it is you.
If this circus goes on much longer there will be no one left standing?? OMG, does that mean we would have to start over? Too long to be productive. My patience is threadbare. Enough is enough, started way too soon.
Yet again the media goes into a tizzy whenever a presidential candidate oversteps the established parameters of political debate. Rather than becoming a legitimate issue, Senator Obama's remarks become fodder for media self-indulgence. Entire books have been written on this very subject-"What's the Matter With Kansas?" by Thomas Frank, "Who Will Tell the People?" by William Greider,"The Twilight of American Culture" by Morris Berman, to name just a few, and incidentally, for what is the raison d'etre of talk radio other than to safely channel to the ground much as a lightning rod, the frustrations, anger and fears of its listeners?
You can't be a more corporate Democrat than the Clintons, since Joe Lieberman is an independent. Obama is the best major candidate we have seen in many years, but I doubt that he will get the nomination, because Americans are not that lucky. There are so many on this web who do bash Obama, because they are indeed bitter.
I am most amused by the blogger who believes that Ralph Nader wouldn't throw his hat in the ring, if he thought there was a "real" progressive in the race. If Ralph is breathing, he is running for President. He will be there in 2012 to help John McCain's second term and then in 1216 for Vice-President Joe's run.
But such is your destiny if you can't the difference between the candidates. "Don't you just love the smell of napalm in the morning."
classicliberal___You are still taking the bait. The right wing Repos and their Foxy media know quite well that most people will not think of voting for Hillary Clinton because they recommend it. You need to think like a tricky Repug to understand their methods. Remember they turned war hero`s into liars and traitors and got away with it. They are scared of Hillary, not Obama, as they will have plenty of ammunition stored up for him if he gets nominated. What can they say
about Hillary that has not already been told a thousand times?
On the Sunday after 9/11, like many I went to Church. My minister's message that day was that if only we had been able to convert all those young Muslim men to Christians, 9/11 wouldn't have happened? Who could argue with that logic? That was my last time in that church. When the Jeremiah Wright story broke, I took a cynical view. I could not believe that Obama would choose to subject himself and his impressionable daughters to the teachings of such extreme (even if "true") rhetoric. I just assumed that Barack "clung" to his church, because it was a good base for a man in Chicago with local political ambitions. Fast forward.
I am a democrat. Always have been, always will be. Born in the mid-west to families of merchants and farmers and retirees from Catapiller tractor. Blue collar. Union workers. I don't have a PhD in socialogy, so I can't say whether Katrina Vanden Huevel is right when she says Obama was right. She might be, but it doesn't matter. What I do know is that my family "clung" to their religion and guns even before those "bitter" days - in those halcyon days when union jobs reigned and they were living the American dream. What Obama said in Indiana to "clarify" is not the point. As Obama himself says, he can give a good speech. It is what politicians say when they don't think the camera is rolling or the microphones are on, when they are with their people, that is most revealing. Unfortunately for all Democrats - including Hillary supporters - Obama's "unartful" words are going to be hammered this fall as part of how Democrats don't "get" rural or middle America. It really doesn't matter if Obama is "right." In his legislative role, Al Gore really did help "create" the internet, but that didn't matter either.
I too always love to hear from starofthesea, which happens too infrequently.
kathyodat
There are some here who don't want to join the discussion ~IKE~, because if they are the LEAST bit critical of Obama, they are "white-balled" as Hillary lovers and asked why they hate blacks.