On this question of discussions with the Canadians, am I mistaken or weren't there follow-up reports that it was actually a Clinton advisor who had spoken with someone in the Canadian government about NAFTA instead of (or in addition to) an Obama advisor?   That details seems to have gotten lost in the new reporting on this issue.   As usual, I don't think this is quite as clear as it's being reported.

Ohh the Teamsters and Obama thats new politics there isnt it.Hoffa where have I heard that name before .....................Oh yea all on the up and up, you folks are in for a rude wake up call when your dreams are dashed by the reality of washington and the back door deals Obama makes with the teamsters to keep working people African american mostly down. I m sure it will be different this time HAAAA as MAthews says.

I believe that's supposed to be "the big difference Hoffa said (not Penn)" is that Goolsbee - - unlike Penn - - was not" (4th paragraph).

Instant death for Hillary ?

From Campaign Diaries:


'...4.08.2008
Clinton faces series of instant death contests in which Obama is gaining

A number of primary contests looming in the next few weeks have still never been polled, though Survey USA corrected the most glaring of these omissions today by releasing the first public survey of Oregon, which votes on May 20th:


Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 52% to 42%. He is the one who benefits from a very large gender gap (+37%), as he leads by 30% among men.
Oregon's voting is conducted entirely by mail, with all the ballots counted the night of May 20th. That could create a different turnout pattern than what we have witnessed in other states. Another important fact about Oregon is that it holds a closed primary in which only registered Democrats can vote. This could be crucial for the Obama campaign since one of Clinton's main arguments against him is his weakness among registered Democrats and his reliance on independents to win primaries; if Obama maintains a strong lead in Oregon, expect his campaign to use these numbers to counter Clinton's criticism.

Meanwhile, Clinton's main preoccupation for now is Pennsylvania, for she doesn't have much to expect from any May states if she cannot hold her own on April 22nd. All the polls over the past week showing a dramatic tightening of the race, with Obama even leading in one of them and tying Clinton in a second. Today, two new polls from the Keystone state confirm that the race is close:


Quinnipiac's second poll in six days shows yet another tightening, with Clinton's lead now down to 6%: 50% to 44%. The margin last week was 50% to 41%. Looking at the shifts among internals, there is no particular group who has moved more than others.
Rasmussen's survey brings good and bad news for Hillary: She is leading by only 5%, 48% to 43%. But this margin has remained stable in the past week, making Rasmussen the first institute to release a poll without movement away from Clinton.
It goes without saying that a mid-single digit lead is much less than what Clinton needs to win by on April 22nd. At least Clinton can hope to gain back some momentum if she first stops the bleeding -- there still is a debate and 2 weeks before the primary, after all -- but the Obama campaign is rapidly gaining confidence in its Pennsylvania numbers and this could lead them to invest even more in the state than they had planned. They do not have to believe that they will win the state, just that they will hold Clinton as low as possible.

Finally, the last primary poll comes from North Carolina, where PPP has found Obama leading Clinton 54% to 33%. This is the same margin that he posted last week, though that can certainly not be held against him given how massive his lead already is.

Pennsylvania, Oregon and North Carolina vote on three different dates; all three Election Days could mean instant death to the Clinton campaign which has very little room for error left. They first have to win Pennsylvania convincingly and they have to post great results on May 6th and May 20th; it seems to me that Clinton can survive without winning North Carolina and Oregon (as long as she wins Indiana and Kentucky comfortably) but she has to keep it close in both of these states -- and right now it doesn't look like she is managing to, at least in North Carolina....'

Mark Penn isn’t the only Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter on the wrong side of the Colombia trade agreement.

The Democratic-leaning advocacy firm the Glover Park Group, former home to Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson, signed a $40,000 per month contract with the government of Colombia in April of 2007 to promote the very agreement that Clinton now rails against on the presidential campaign trail.

MSNBC do your homework, please. Politico.com has done thiers.

Mark Penn isn’t the only Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter on the wrong side of the Colombia trade agreement.

The Democratic-leaning advocacy firm the Glover Park Group, former home to Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson, signed a $40,000 per month contract with the government of Colombia in April of 2007 to promote the very agreement that Clinton now rails against on the presidential campaign trail.

MSNBC do your homework, please. Politico.com has done thiers.

Then Canada NAFTA was actually CLINTON, but the media never played up that side of the story

I think one was clearly posturing and the other was profit motivated; on the one hand one is embelishing and the other is getting paid (coming and going).  You decide for yourself.  I know when it comes to story tellin' we all tend to put our own spin on it.  But if you do it for profit I think you've crossed the line.  The HRC and her crew haven't seen a line yet they wouldn't cross - apparently!

Hoffa is right; Penn needs to go.

Also, it wouldn't hurt for Obama and Goolsbee to each make a statement on their stance on NAFTA.

But, all in all, this is a bunch of wonky stuff.  The average American isn't as concerned with NAFTA, Mark Penn, Austen Goolsbee or a trade deal with Colombia - as they are about our economy or the war in Iraq.  

http://thepajamapundit.com/

If possible, three issues should be clarified:

1. Is Penn still affiliated with Hillary?
2. What exactly, if anything, was Goolsbee's communication with the Canadians?
3. What exactly, if anything, was Hillary's campaign communication with the Canadians?

It would be nice if we could find out the truth. Regarding issue #1, that's a no-brainer. He was on a conference call. Why Hillary lied about this, who knows. Regarding #2 and #3, we would need the Canadians to provide us with the information. We've heard from Obama's side and need confirmation. Hillary's version would be influenced by Penn, and, unfortunately, he has resigned from the campaign. If there is a Penn still associated with the campaign, that would automatically constitute another fact distortion, so why bother pursuing the truth any further with the Clintons?

He never made a statement about the Canada issue for Obama because as with everything during this campaign the media is not pressing and scrutinizing the Obama team like they have been the Clinton's.  Things have to get great internet buzz before the major media will pick up the biggest questions about Obama as a candidate but they are obviously transcribing each word Hillary says and they are out to get her.  

Barack NEW SUPERDELEGATES

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=North_Dakota_2008_presidential_primary_and_superdelegates

I have to ask:  Who are these Clinton supporters and where do they get their information from?

I have seen nothing but the most ignorant statements and defective logic from the Clinton contributors to this blog.

Clinton supporters are more likely to cite false information, be uninformed on the actual political status of the race, misinformed on what is going on with the candidates, and blindly adherent to their candidate and her chances for success despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Then, there are comments even more deeply disturbing that exhibit thinly veiled, or even outright racism.  Comments such as "America will never vote for a Black President," or "Barack Hussein Obama will never get my vote" only mean one thing:  You're a racist.

Moreover, the Clinton supporters constantly attack Obama with debunked information.  For example:

Rezko - Debunked by the Chicago newspapers.

Reverend Wright - Isolated statements over a lifetime of leadership in the Black community.  Sound bite taken out of the larger overall sermon and used as a political football.  Not Obama's statements and not supported by Obama.

Obama's Tax Returns - Out for weeks already.

Obama's house - Debunked, the deal was legitimate and paid with his book royalties.

These are just a few among many examples the pinheads using them have not bothered to fact check.

Here is some good advice:  If you are going to support a candidate, or oppose another, BE ARMED WITH ALL THE INFORMATION AND STAY INFORMED!

Anything less is irresponsible and makes you look foolish and ignorant.

One last suggestion:  Learn to string together a complete and coherent sentence.  Inability to articulate oneself is perhaps the greatest indication of faulty logic and does nothing to convince others you have a worthwhile point of view.

Rather then playing games with Hillary, Obama and his minions need to outline their vision for the country. The Republicans aren't going to play these patti-cake games that never end for Hillary and Barack. The Reps are serious pols that will wring the necks of Clinton and Obama in the general election unless the Dems get a heck of a lot tougher.

Penn did not do enough.  The clintons will have to have him leave the campign to have any crediablity.

Excuse me 'First Read', was'nt the Goolsbee flap proven to be an illegitimate smear by the Clinton campaign?

Comparing Goolsbee to Mark Penn, is a stretch as wide as 'The Grand Canyon'.

Senator Obama is held to a standard, that the Clintons are not. However, he'll handle it.

Do the McCain, and Clinton campaigns really want to pester Barack to the point that he makes another 'major speech'? I don't think so. Best leave that alone.

Pulling for Obama '08

The Teamsters.....pay us or we'll shut your business down, destroy your property, and kick your ass.
Real "nice" people.
Nixon should have let Hoffa Sr. rot in jail. He was a total scumbag, and apparently "like father, like son."

It is to late now for Hillary to fire Penn and regain her credibility on this issue. She has shown by continuing to employ him behind the scenes that she condones his activities in pushing for the Columbian Trade Deal.

The way the unions have been lied to by The Clinton's, I cannot see why any union person in their right mind would back A Clinton.

Goolsbee DID make a statement. He said he that the Conservative (and GOP-friendly)  Canadian government official misrepresented what he had said, and there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve him. The fact that not even Hoffa knew this is a tribute to the effective self-censorship of the GOP-friendly corporate media in reporting on this bogus controversy.

The real scandal was that a foreign government was interfering in the electoral process of the United States. If the liberal government in Australia was caught releasing memos of dubious honesty about meetings with a McCain representative, there would be howls of outrage from the Republicans and their media flunkies. CNN would be covering the scandal  every night for a month.

Mr. Goolsbee already has disputed this.

The original story claimed that Senator Obama's campaign reached out to the Canadians (which makes little sense).  This was false.  The Canadians asked for a meeting three times before one was arranged.  Mr. Goolsbee first repudiated this.

http://www.observer.com/2008/goolsbee-denies-canadian-nafta-story

And-- Mr. Goolsbee has denied the meat of this false story:

"In a conversation with the Associated Press on Sunday, Goolsbee disputed DeMora's memo. He said that DeMora was not quoting him and had mischaracterized the conversation. Goolsbee specifically told the A.P. he did not use the phrase "it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

However, Goolsbee admitted he did tell Canadian officials that Obama is not a protectionist. Goolsbee told the Associated Press he was trying to convey that Obama wants to strike a balance between free trade -- and labor and environmental protections."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200803/NAT20080303c.html

See that last sentence?  This is precisely what Senator Obama said while campaigining.

Also, it should be noted that Ian Brodie, Chief of Staff to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told several people that the Clinton Campaign REACHED out to the Canadians to tell them to take what Senator Clinton said on the campaign trail "with a grain of salt."

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n0305132A&source=srch

Finally, I ask you why in the world Senator Obama would feel the need to make Canada his friend and then Canada would turn around and leak his new found friendship?  You might want to look into the Canadian ambassador to the U.S., who incidentally is a F.O.B.
(Friend of former President Bill Clinton), to find out how this all occurred.

Then Canada NAFTA was actually CLINTON, but the media never played up that side of the story
TR (Sent Tuesday, April 08, 2008 1:09 PM)

--------------------------------------------

NO no little TR take your lies and crawl back in your hole! Obama and only Obama did the NFTA diddy!

I did hear Obama wants NAFTA for COLOMBIA! AND CUBA TOO!

On this question of discussions with the Canadians, am I mistaken or weren't there follow-up reports that it was actually a Clinton advisor who had spoken with someone in the Canadian government about NAFTA instead of (or in addition to) an Obama advisor?   That details seems to have gotten lost in the new reporting on this issue.   As usual, I don't think this is quite as clear as it's being reported.
Randy (Sent Tuesday, April 08, 2008 12:58 PM)

------------------------------------------
PAY ATTENTION!  IT WAS OBAMA'S TEAM THAT SCREWED WITH CANADA!  YOU ALL KEEP LYING ABOUT IT AND IT HAS BEEN A LIE ALL THE TIME.  TO MANY REPUKES ON HERE TRASHING ANYTHING THEY CAN.

Jorge,

Why wouldn't FIRST READ report this? is there a complot not to report obama's new superdelegates?
wow this is big NEWS!!!

the Pajama Pundit -

The problem is that this goes directly to ethics and believability.  So while the specifics on the trade deal may not be important to all voters.  Knowing that your campaign and administration is not making a side deal that is different then what your position is - that is important and will hurt Clinton in a major way.

Again........as long as Mark Penn remains connected to the Clinton campaign, there will be and should be a question as to HRC's knowledge and involvement in Penn's meeting with the Columbian Government.

Period.

Goulsbee did speak to AP wire a few weeks ago, also the Canadian Government is now investigating the memo leak which they themselves claim as an inaccurate representation of what Goulsbee said which clearly favored the Clinton campaign after they contacted Ian Brody saying the Clinton position was political posturing. You guys need to check the Canadian press to find out the coverage, the U.S. press seems to be ignoring the story.

Mark Murray,

Please explain why the media is still not telling the truth about the Canadian NAFTA situation?  Keith Olbermann reported on this over a month ago and yet they still keep distorting the facts.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOLEK2lr3CM

And why is the Obama campaign allowing them to do this?  

The Goolsbee-NAFTA memo was not only refuted by the Canadian government, but Canada went on to explain the "wink and nod" was not Goolsbee's words, but those of a Canadian staffer, who was present at the meeting.

This is not the case with Penn, where the Columbian government not only corroborated his intentions on the trade agreement, but fired him because of the subsequent flap, and apparent misrepresentation surrounding it. It seems they were unclear whether Penn was representing Sen. Clinton or the company Penn works for.

There is no comparison between these two events, yet for some reason, the media (specifically CNN) appears to have a need to connect the Obama campaign to any negative aspect of the Clinton campaign.

Perhaps this is due to the propaganda that the media is treating Sen. Clinton unfairly, as so comically displayed in the SNL skitch, which protrays CNN as somewhat leading the pack in this area. Since then, CNN has somewhat bent over backwards to tie the Obama campaign in every misspoke/misdeed of the Clinton campaign.

This is not reporting, objective or otherwise. This is covering one's supposed reputation at the expense actual news.

For a summary of Mark Penn's involvement in the Clinton campaign and impact on that campaign, you can read what Dee Dee Myers had to say about it.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200804070008?f=h_popular

It is also interesting to note that Mr. Goolsbee, though an adviser to Senator Obama's campaign, has not received any payment for that advise (and was not a lobbyist for Canada).  Mark Penn, conversely, has been paid over $10,000,000 ($10 million) by Senator Clinton's campaign and $500,000 by the Columbian government for his lobbying for that government while he was an adviser to Senator Clinton's campaign.  Also, Senator Clinton is obviously aware that Mr. Penn was still lobbying for special interests (like the Columbian govt.) while he is employed as a consultant to the Clinton campaign.

How does Hoffa feel about Hillary replacing Penn with, say...a Kennedy?

Way down near the end of the First Thoughts post, they mention that Hillary was right on the hospital story issue.  Funny, I think if this was Obama, it would be in bold letters letting everyone know he was right.  

Does anyone else think that this may be just another attempt of the Clinton's diverting the attention AWAY from the tax returns? (Wink, wink) Afterall, Penn can stay on the payroll, but still get the media attention that is NOT going to the tax returns? They are soooo good at the smoke and mirror thing, aren't they?

Three incidents regarding Obama and Nafta.
1.  Canadian PM aid, I think name was Bodie, in response to a reporter's question said he had received call from Clinton campaign and they said don't worry about the campaign rhetoric, it is just polical posturing.
2.  An American radio station relayed that but said the call came from the Obama campaign instead of the Clinton campaign like Mr Bodie said.  
3.  Then it was revealed that Goolsbee (I hope I am spelling this correctly) met in Chicago with a Canadian rep about various subjects.  When the Canadian rep wrote a summary of the meeting, he conveyed that the Obama campaign were posturing as well.  
4.  The words I read in the report (seems it was sent to various Canadian officials) suggested that Obama was intent on reexaming only certain aspects of Nafta.
5.  Credibility came about because Obama said he did not meet with Canadian officials.  True he did not, but unpaid volunteer did.  
6.  I agree.  We need a statement of clarification here.  Somebody needs to speak up and tell the truth.

Chuck, Mark, Domenico???

There's obviously a lot of confusion on what actually happened with Canada & NAFTA before Ohio.

Do you have any information on this that you can share with the rest of the group???

Ok, do the math:
1. NAFTA - Hillary supported it as documented in news footage and White House schedules.
2. Columbia Free Trade - Penn helped Bill with his campaign (NAFTA) and has been with the Clintons over 15 years. I think they knew what he was doing, but expected him not to get caught. It would also be ideal for the Clintons that another Clinton doesn't sign the NEXT free trade agreement.
3. TATA - Hillary worked with this Indian company while in her State Senate position to outsource tech support jobs to India.

Add those 3 up and Hillary doesn't have a good record for union people like me.

Is it true that Howard Wolfson's company is also working for the Colombia trade?

Also, is it true that Penn said he has held meetings with other customers while working for Hillary?

Whose idea was it to call Hoffa a "surrogate" for the Obama campaign?

Kind of makes "monster" and an unpaid advisor, maybe speaking on his own out of turn to the Canadians-or it really was the Clinton folks after all-seem a tad overblown?
 Where's the outrage on the latest Clinton misstep?

I really wanted to be for Hillary Clinton.  The first thing that held me back was the fact that she put up with her husbands disgusting and demeaning behavior.  I would have walked out.  I then considered her vote on declaring the Iranian military group a terrorist organization.  She said that she would never have voted the way she did on the Iraq resolution if she had known what Bush-Cheney would do, so why did she repeat the mistake with Iran.  Clinton and her mother were loyal to her father no matter what he did.  Then she was loyal to Bill no matter what he did.  Mark Penn obviously an arrogant bully, and she stayed with him through a failed message and chaos in the campaign.  I do not believe that she is capable of standing up to men.

Don’t underestimate the influence Mark Penn may have on Clintons.  And, this morning, Hillary said that she will NOT fire Penn.  
The Bosnia scenario was pretty bad, but when she joked about it on the ‘Tonight show’ it nearly killed me.  

Putin said that Hillary ‘does not have a head’. I hate to agree with him, but……..

Judith L blackbird (Sent Tuesday, April 08, 2008 2:22 PM):

Judith: I beg to differ. I think Hillary can stand up to men just fine. I think her problem is not wanting to stand up to those men that she feels she needs or that she can use to promote her own agenda. Hillary is not a victim in this regard, but rather a user. If and when the time is right there is an ability to devour those males she no longer needs just as does the black widow.    

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):