A NAFTA stretch?

Adam Kontras, Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:54:40 GMT

Now I'm confused. I thought it had come out that was actually a CLINTON adviser that said these things. What's the truth?

A NAFTA stretch?

Geoff in Brooklyn — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:56:36 GMT

Compare this to what Clinton did, which is to actually ESPOSE contradictory stances on NAFTA. Obama has been consistent, and a representative of his told the Canadians not to worry unduly. Renegotiation doesn't mean repeal. Clinton outright spoke out of both sides of her mouth, as she did on the VP issue this week. Listen MSNBC, balance in journalism doesn't mean equal number of negative stories about all candidates. Sometimes one candidate is a bigger lyer, a bigger parser of words, a more "say anything' type." If those are the facts, they can be reported.

A NAFTA stretch?

Cheryl, British Columbia — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:01:26 GMT

MSNBC: 'To date questions about the details of the Goolsbee meeting have yet to be answered'

The same could be said about the details of what Mr. Brodie was speaking. The difference is there was no leaked document. Why does the press choose to believe the Canadian government and the Clinton campaign on this given Brodie's initial offering?

Americans know the degree to which you can trust the Clinton word. It's at a par with the degree to which Canadians trust the Harper government; perhaps even less.

A NAFTA stretch?

CJ Koonce, Braxton GA — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:01:48 GMT

Both Obama and Hillary are liars. Both need to be ignored. They certainly are not the best the Deomcrats can offer.

A NAFTA stretch?

TJK, Hunt Valley, MD — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:04:56 GMT

What is wrong with US media that they continue to neglect important stories staring them right in the face, and instead waste our time with this horse race nonsense? Our ambassador to Canada has gone on record that the Canadian government is interfering in the US primary election. The Canadian media is full of the allegations that are being made against the conservative government, calling their government shills for Bush. The Canadians absolutely love Obama and do not care for Hillary. The Canadians have their own Fox news network that is a mouthpiece for their very conservative Prime Minister. But American media ignores these facts. American media ignores the evidence of the Limbaugh-Clinton alliance that committed voter fraud in Ohio and Texas. Once again our media is out to lunch. Where are the weapons of mass destruction?Answer: Newsweek, Time, Washington Post, NYTimes, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, CBS and so on.

A NAFTA stretch?

Gregory Peek, Birmingham, Alabama — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:08:30 GMT

No matter how much anyone tries to spin a story out of this, no one has been able to come up with a credible reason why an Obama representative would want to have such a discussion with a Canadian official and make such a statement. Common sense should rule.

A NAFTA stretch?

Brian,sd,ca — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:08:43 GMT

TALK ABOUT REWRITING HISTORY.

A NAFTA stretch?

Sheridan Meloni — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:10:04 GMT

Obama won't let Goolsbee talk to the press.....now that's transparency!! Or is that "Change you can count on"...NOT.

A NAFTA stretch?

Brian,sd,ca — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:10:05 GMT

TALK ABOUT REWRITING HISTORY.

TIME TO EXPOSE OBAMA FOR THE FRAUD E REALLY IS.

CLINTON 08

A NAFTA stretch?

Patty,sd,ca — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:12:34 GMT

It seems that this is a complicated issue. What's not complicated is that I've seen the error of my ways and am beginning to realize the Senator Obama is both a person of substance and someone with vision to lead this country forward, despite not being perfect.

I pledge to carry on a more respectful dialogue when voicing either my doubts about Senator Obama or my enthusiasm for Senator Clinton.

A NAFTA stretch?

Shtuey — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:13:14 GMT

"To date questions about the details of the Goolsbee meeting have yet to be answered, including the economic adviser’s on-the-record version of events, since the campaign has refused to let him talk to the press. What's also unknown is how much did Obama know when he first denied the original story."

Well of course we're not going to get a straight answer from the Obama camp. Their candidate leads by example, running out on a press conference because he's already answered 8 questions. And if Obama didn't know that his chief economic advisor was meeting with officials of the Canadian government then I would suggest that he is not as in control of his campaign as his advisors and supporters would have us believe. Change you can believe in? I think not!

As time goes on the picture becomes clearer to anyone with eyes, ears, and a brain; from his campaign financing lies to his NAFTA-gate, it is obvious that an Obama presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for America.

Super Delegates of the Democratic Party: If Senator Clinton fails to win the popular vote prior to the convention (the delegate count is meaningless now, anyone who thinks otherwise is dumber than a bag of hammers), have the wisdom to prevent the walking disaster that is Barack Obama from receiving your party's nomination.

A NAFTA stretch?

curt jorrey mt clemens mi — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:14:17 GMT

am very disappointed in your decision to replace Tucker Carlson. My wife and I watched him every day and thought he was a thoughtful and articulate voice amongst your left leaning lineup. Keith Olberman is a buffoon, Chris Mathews is a cartoon of his former self and Gregory is a stiff. We will now only watch Fox news. What a shame your turning into a crappier version of CNN.
If this is needs to be forwarded to those more responsible feel free.
you suck

Curt Jorrey

A NAFTA stretch?

Nancy, Champaign, IL — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:15:50 GMT

Chuck Todd, I am disappointed in you. Your coverage is usually fair. But this is one sided coverage. What about the recent information from Canada that it was really Clinton's campaign that gave them the wink about Nafta? As a journalist, you should not be taking sides, or just presenting one side of the issue.

A NAFTA stretch?

Pete, Pittsburgh, PA — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:16:04 GMT

Soooo, where's the news here, Aswini; too tired to come up with something new. Er, nice stale article?

A NAFTA stretch?

AJ, IL — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:17:47 GMT

Unfortunately, Aswini Anburajan you don't understand the term paraphrasing. Instead of going into a long explanation as you did that attempts to paint only Obama negatively, Obama was relating how the entire situation got blow out of proportion due to Hillary's allegation of lack of transparency and double-talk by the Obama camp, when further news came out after the March 4th primary from the Canadian Government that the Clinton camp had contacted the Canadian Government earlier and that leak of NAFTA talk actually was from the Clinton camp.

A NAFTA stretch?

Jane — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:36:17 GMT

The real NAFTA-Gate: In fact, Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told reporters Feb. 26 that a member of the Clinton campaign called the embassy to say Canada should take her campaign position on NAFTA “with a grain of salt.”

... just mentioned and filed under "by the way". Nice 'reporting'.

A NAFTA stretch?

Ron, TX — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:37:13 GMT

What's that old saying? Making a mountain out of mole?

Obama never claimed that he was going to repeal NAFTA. It would obviously never get to that point. Canada's labor relations aren't exactly -bad-... He did say that he was going to renegotiate it. He's always said it needs to be renegotiated, and standards have to be upheld. He's said that in 1998. He said it in 2000. He said it in 2006. And he's still saying it today.

What I find absolutely absurd is that the press spends a week hounding on this issue, without looking at Obama's record, taking a memo leaked by a conservative official at the Canadian government for its word. If Clinton were at the brunt of this attack, it would have lasted half a news cycle. Clinton's uranium scandal only lasted about half a news cycle.... a URANIUM scandal for crying out loud.

It took the media a year to actually analyze Hillary's foreign policy experience. It turns out, everything is a gross exageration, and again, that lasted about half a news cycle.

A NAFTA stretch?

Jade7243 Hussein — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:41:29 GMT

If Clinton can spin cotton candy, pad her resume, fake her experience, lie about anything and everything, Sen. Obama can tell the tale of Goulsbee and the Canadians any way he wants. ESPECIALLY since the Canadian government said the story you all keep flogging IS FALSE.

Have you read what Geraldine Ferraro said today... oh boy!!!!

A NAFTA stretch?

arshi — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:41:40 GMT

wow, firstread, are you serious?

"goolsbee didn't go to the embassy like he was on tour" is your initial critique of Obama's statement?

What a desperate and pathetic reach this is on your part.

Did a Hillary operative hack into your blog? Because thats the only explanation I have for this worthless piece of "journalism".

A NAFTA stretch?

stephen riverwoods,il — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:47:13 GMT

What happened to the investigation that it was the Clinton campaign that had a meeting with the Canadian representatives and said that Hillary's anti-NAFTA comments should be raken with a grain of salt?This possible turn of events was reported by several news agencies last week and nothing has coneof it since.

A NAFTA stretch?

Ed AZ — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:52:30 GMT

=
=
BOTH HILLARY AND OBAMA HAVE THE POSITION ON NAFTA --- LIKE IT OR NOT.
=

A NAFTA stretch?

Obamawatch, LA — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:55:23 GMT

I'm sure this comment by Obama will not be on Hardball or Countdown.......

A NAFTA stretch?

Patrice, South Orange, NJ — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:57:11 GMT

What is amazing is the fact that no one is reporting the revelation that the Clintons' approached the Canadian and said to take it with a "grain of salt". I am concerned that the very consrvative party of the Canadian government may have done Bill a solid by leaking this bombshell to tip the balance of the primary and keep Hillary into the race. I don't understand why the Obama campaign has not talked up the Clinton contact, given her very hypocritical accusations of Obama.

A NAFTA stretch?

Rachel Schali — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:05:09 GMT

You need to research the Canadian press more. They are telling a different story. That the leaked memo was actually an intended misrepresentation of what happened and that it was the Clinton camp who approached the embassy. They are taking legal action on it and have said that Obama's campaign did not contact them. It is a difficult story to follow because Canada appears to be covering up information as well as the Clinton's Rovian tactics of accusing the other party of what they are guilty of.

A NAFTA stretch?

Mary, Seattle — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:09:22 GMT

How about updating the CA delegate results?

Obama picked up (and Clinton lost) some delegates when more of the votes were counted.

Obama now 167 (up 4)
Clinton now 203 (down 4)

And percentage is down from 10% to 8.7%

Are there more votes to be counted?

A NAFTA stretch?

Lucia, Miami — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:10:09 GMT

What, nothing on Geraldine Ferraro giving two interviews over the past four days in which she says that Obama is only where he is because he's black? Here's the first comment:

http://www.dailybreeze.com/lifeandculture/ci_8489268

and here's the YouTube of her on John Gibson's radio show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqL_sm0J8jc

Clinton and her supporters represent nothing about the Democratic Party.

A NAFTA stretch?

allison weil — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:16:38 GMT

QUITE THE SPIN- is this supposed to be accurate?

Let me - a mere reader - fill the author in

Obama did not know about the "meeting" when first asked because there was not a campaign sanctioned meeting. Austan Goolsbee is an academic and met with someone locally discussing trade. It was Prof Goolsbee's error to not report the discussion to the campaign.

Some questions the author may want to ask is
How did a memo recounting a discussion on Feb 8th suddenly materialize from the Canadian gov weeks later -in fact just about the same time Bill Clinton was visiting Canada and a few days before the March 4th primary

And how come the original "leak" was about the Clinton campaign's assurances that NAFTA was not going to be touched - which the author dismisses at the word of the Clinton campaign

And what about the Prime Minister Harper denying any overtures by the Obama campaign on this and in fact apologizing - albeit after the damage was done - to the Obama campaign

and of course all this begs th question;
What was Canada doing inserting itself into the US Presidential race?

These might be things a reporter would look into before presenting a piece like this

A NAFTA stretch?

twocanpete — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:16:41 GMT

http://twocanpete.blogspot.com
Hello! CANADA IS NOT THE PROBLEM! China is the problem. Canada is a DEMOCRACY! China is an oppressive police state where anyone who speaks out is sent to a labor camp. Canda has enviormental laws and abides by simlar if not more stringent rules then we do. China does not. Half of the drank. Canada has a currency traded on the open market. China has a currency that is controlled by the regime. Even a moron can see that Canda offers fair competition and cooperation. China offers slave wages and military aggression. Fellow bloggers please don't let the power-elite set the agenda for debate, speak the truth!

A NAFTA stretch?

David in Oregon.... — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:19:20 GMT

OMG it's NAFTAGATE....Such a yesterday bit of news, it's tiresome actually.

A NAFTA stretch?

Karna, Huntington, WV — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:26:51 GMT

I am surprised that how people were not able to realize that this was a set up. The meeting took place on Feb 8 and the memo came out just a few days before March 4 primary elections. Finally, Clintons were the ones who contacted Canadians and it makes sense as NAFTA was passed by Bill Clinton and Hillary was Pro Nafta all along.

A NAFTA stretch?

Steve B, Ottawa Ontario. — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:29:30 GMT

Hey Aswini ... Please DO YOUR RESEARCH !

The Canadian government through Stephen Harper has since apologised to Sen. Obama.

It turns out Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff Mr. Ian Brodie will be investigated for his role in the attempted interference of the Democratic primary in the US election.

I live in Canada and Stephen Harper a conservative has been accused of trying to meddle with the democratic race in order to boost Sen. Clinton's chances of winning ... thus making it easier for John McCain to win the general elections.

The prime minister has since apologized to Sen. Obama in Parliament and he launched an investigation into the matter .. including his own office.

AGAIN ...TAKE NOTE ...IT WAS THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN WHO SAID NOT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THEIR CANDIDATES TALK ON NAFTA ...Not the Obama campaign.

Now the chief of staff to the prime minister saw an opening to help Hillary and leaked a memo ( remember - a canadian embassy memo ) saying that it was Obama's camp that did this.
The memo has since been declared FALSE by the government ... an investigation launched ... and the record corrected.

SO ... PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH .

I know you don't live in Canada .. but all you have to do is to google any Canadian news agency ... YOU'LL GET THE FACTS .. AND THEN REPORT THEM ...ON FIRST READ !
tHANK YOU

A NAFTA stretch?

Dave, West Coast — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:32:54 GMT

Contrary to what Obama supporters were hoping... he is just another politician. He uses inside connections. He panders to those to seek votes, instead of describing his policy proposals (fearing they may be unpopular to mainstream, moderate Americans), and took money from lobbyists only to criticize others (after raking in millions at a grass roots level) for accepting donations from lobbyists. He is the worst fake. He is inexperienced. He will run as a three year Senator (with two of those three years running for President with no major accomplishments), and 8 years from the most liberal district in Illinois. His candidacy is a farce.

A NAFTA stretch?

Cheryl, NJ — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:43:21 GMT

Aswini,

Shouldn't you add the Canadian government's apology and admission that the characterization depicted in the memo may not have been accurate? Also, there's the Canadian investigation in the leaking of the memo. To me,these items are important parts of this story.

Also, while the campaign clearly fumbled its handling of this issue, Obama's other actions throughout this campaign suggest that internal communications were probably garbled. It's the Clinton campaign that has been CONSISTENTLY secretive, nontransparent, and very much less than forthright.

Obama 08

A NAFTA stretch?

steven f, ca — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:56:17 GMT

All gates lead to Clinton.

Clinton-gate.

A NAFTA stretch?

Tom, Chicago, IL — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:03:32 GMT

I'm glad to see some real and fair reporting here, explaining all the details that have come to light and those questions that have been unanswered.

A NAFTA stretch?

Mr. Unite Us — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:11:33 GMT

In fact, Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told reporters Feb. 26 that a member of the Clinton campaign called the embassy to say Canada should take her campaign position on NAFTA “with a grain of salt.”

So why didn't Americans hear about this before the Ohio vote?

Canadian Parliament accuses the Prime Minister
of Sabotage, before the vote. Where was the American
media?

Before responding I encourage to everyone including
MSNBC to watch the two videos linked below.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZSx-wUvQztQ&feature=PlayList&p=2436A556D1EE8490&index=2

Note the coy response from the Prime Minister Harper

Canadian Broadcast Corporation exonerates Obama

article and video.

http://www.liberalavenger.com/2008/03/07/cbc-exonerates-obama-on-nafta-charge/

Spread the word

The Canadian governemt has since admitted that memo was inaccurate.

Warning to Americans. Don't blindly believe memos leaked by foreign goverments, especially right before an election. It weakens our country.

A NAFTA stretch?

Horace Johnson, Olney MD — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:13:45 GMT

I hope Obama really pushes back on this one. Let's face it, the NAFTA/Canada thing hurt him much worse than anything else in Ohio, first by letting Hillary off the hook and second by eroding his "I'm a clean politician" claim.

For that matter, Obama should have let Hillary catch hell for her comment on 60 Minutes that he "wasn't a Muslim -- as far as I know."

Here's a hilarious retort -- Clinton doesn't have a Muslim lesbian lover, as far as WE know:

http://www.nationalscold.com/

A NAFTA stretch?

Laura, Sammamish WA — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:14:24 GMT

WHY ISN'T MSNBC ASKING OBAMA THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN THIS ARTICLE? HOW MUCH DID HE KNOW WHEN HE FIRST DENIED THE STORY? AND WHY THE HECK ISN'T THERE PRESSURE TO HAVE THE ECONOMIC ADVISER GOOLSBEE ANSWER QUESTIONS. THE CAMPAIGN WON'T LET HIM TALK TO THE PRESS...WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH THE MEDIA THAT THEY THINK AMERICANS CAN VOTE FOR OBAMA WHEN HE GETS AWAY WITH PATIAL ANSWERES AND COVERUPS TO MANY ISSUES. I JUST READ AN INTERVIEW IN TIME MAGAZINE
AND HE GAVE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STORY ABOUT HIS REAL ESTATE DEAL...VERY MISLEADING AND IMCOMPLETE.
HE JUST DOESN'T COME CLEAN ON ANYTHING.

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT WE THE PEOPLE ARE PLAYING THE GAME OF PUT ON YOUR BLINDFOLDS AND PIN THE TAIL ON THE DONKEY. NO ONE WINS BECAUSE THE DONKEY'S BUTT
IS SHIELDED BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. FOX NEWS IS ATTEMPTING TO REPORT ON SEN. OBAMA'S STRANGE FRIENDSHIPS AND PERHAPS WE SHOULD FIND OUT MORE ABOUT A PERSON WHO WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

OBAMA IS OUTRIGHT MISLEADING IN HIS CAMPAIGN SPEECHES ON HIS NAFTA-GATE. I WATCHED CBC NATION
AND OBAMA'S ACCOUNT IS NOT WHAT CANADA IS SAYING...IS OBAMA SAYING THAT THE CANADIANS ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH? OBAMA GETS MORE ARROGANT AND COCKY EVERY DAY.

OBAMA BRAGS THAT HE HAS WON SO MANY STATES --
WYO. WIN. 4,459 people voted for Obama. Oh my God
the will of the people have spoken. Voters are not even certified at the caucuses. What a illegal way to win an election.

A NAFTA stretch?

G Davis — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:17:51 GMT

Man, I would expect this sort of hack job on the AOL forums, but previously thought y'all were abover this sort of mess...

Here's a CBC rundown on the whole affair from beginning to end...very different than your rundown. Do you have backup for any of your editorializing?

I asked Sally Southey, the Canadian embassy's spokeswoman in Washington, how it could be that CTV began with a tip about Clinton's campaign, but after a conversation with Michael Wilson, wound up reporting a distorted version of an Obama adviser's remarks.

That, she said, is a good question. But, she added: "All conversations the ambassador has on background with journalists are private."

Did you look into the role of CTV or Wilson? Are you simply assuming since someone in the Canadian political network says something is so that it must be so?

Good grief...if you're going to try to beat this dead horse to death again, why not try getting some facts and sources to back it up?

Very shabby.

A NAFTA stretch?

LB, Virginia — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:18:52 GMT

i guess with the clintons, it's what the word "meet" means....they didn't deny they spoke on the phone. when will you people learn about the Clintons? They are notorius!

A NAFTA stretch?

Opa2 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:19:28 GMT

Obama has no more intention to mess with NAFTA than he has of flying to the moon, no matter what he says. For one, he knows that he would never get significant changes approved by the Senate as well as by our trading partners Canada and Mexico. Secondly, there are bigger fish to fry should he be elected like the war and the economy.

A NAFTA stretch?

iowan — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:21:07 GMT

File under BFD.

A NAFTA stretch?

Gordon, Portland — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:21:17 GMT

Just another example of the fundamental strategic flaw of a certain camp of Democratic politicians. They believe the only way to beat the Republicans is to act like them. It is a pathetic and short sighted view that was forged in a time when Republicans had a strangle hold on power, but things are shifting. The Republicans are weaker now than any time in the past 20 years and it is our chance to change the game and make them play by our rules for a generation!

The sad part is that Clinton knows this but she is just too deeply invested in the old paradigm to change now.

Maybe she could be John McCains VP!

A NAFTA stretch?

Walt — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:22:11 GMT

This horse is dead. Find something else to whip. Do you think voters really care about the Canadian spin on what somebody named Goolsbee said to a low-level Canadian official?

If you want actual inconsistencies, try Clinton's own on-the-record statements.

A NAFTA stretch?

Mr. Unite Us — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:22:16 GMT

In fact, Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told reporters Feb. 26 that a member of the Clinton campaign called the embassy to say Canada should take her campaign position on NAFTA “with a grain of salt.”

So why didn't Americans hear about this before the Ohio vote?

Canadian Parliament accuses the Prime Minister
of Sabotage, before the vote. Where was the American
media?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZSx-wUvQztQ&feature=PlayList&p=2436A556D1EE8490&index=2

Note the coy response from the Prime Minister Harper?

Canadian Broadcast Corporation exonerates Obama

http://www.liberalavenger.com/2008/03/07/cbc-exonerates-obama-on-nafta-charge/

Spread the word

The Canadian governemt has since admitted that memo was inaccurate.

Warning to Americans. Don't blindly believe memos leaked by foreign goverments, especially right before an election. It weakens our country.

A NAFTA stretch?

Benjamin — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:22:31 GMT

How to stretch a story way past its expiration date ...

A NAFTA stretch?

Mr. Unite Us — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:24:37 GMT

In fact, Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told reporters Feb. 26 that a member of the Clinton campaign called the embassy to say Canada should take her campaign position on NAFTA “with a grain of salt.”

So why didn't Americans hear about this before the Ohio vote?

Canadian Parliament accuses the Prime Minister
of Sabotage, before the vote. Where was the American
media?

youtube.com/watch?v=ZSx-wUvQztQ&feature=PlayList&p=2436A556D1EE8490&index=2

Note the coy response from the Prime Minister Harper?

Canadian Broadcast Corporation exonerates Obama

www.liberalavenger.com/2008/03/07/cbc-exonerates-obama-on-nafta-charge/

Spread the word

The Canadian governemt has since admitted that memo was inaccurate.

Warning to Americans. Don't blindly believe memos leaked by foreign goverments, especially right before an election. It weakens our country.

A NAFTA stretch?

Kathleen from Iowa — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:32:17 GMT

Thank you for clarifying this???!!! So, let me get this straight...Obama's campaign did not contact the embassy, but a campaign adviser met with an official from Canada & told him basically what Obama has been saying all along: there are some good parts to Nafta & some bad parts & we want to fix the bad parts.
Then, Clinton's campaign didn't meet with a Canadian official, but called them & said: "take what Clinton says about Nafta with a grain of salt" (he didn't add that Hillary changes what she says by the minute ie Obama's not ready to be President; but I would consider him for my VP if you will just Please vote for me!!!)
OK, so the difference here is...what?! Let's see, oh, yeah, Obama can't be trusted because what he says in public isn't the same as in private meetings (Hit all the main stream press with this the day before the Ohio & Texas primaries...wink, wink) & oh, yeah, by the way, Clinton wrote in her book that Nafta was a good thing; then said it was a bad thing to Ohio voters; then denied a meeting with a Candian official, even though a phone call did take place in which someone from the Clinton campaign told the Canadians to "take what Clinton says with a grain of salt"(but of course no one knows about it because the press is burying that part of this whole story)

Talk about a sickening twist & spin on a total non issue. They both have the same position on Nafta. As far as I know, Obama has had the same opinion since day one. Clinton, however, has changed her opinion. And the press spins this badly for only Obama??!!

A NAFTA stretch?

Chad, Salt Lake City Utah — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:35:14 GMT

The chief of staff to the prime minister (Canada's Condoleza [sic] Basically) says that the Clinton camp in no uncertain terms told the Canadian government to ignore her NAFTA rhetoric, but that hardly gets a mention in this article and it certainly hasn't been investigated by any of the media.

Any Hillary has the audacity to whine about the press being unfair to HER?!?!?

A NAFTA stretch?

Tungsten — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:36:41 GMT

crickets...

seriously, you guys are still talking about this big nothing?

A NAFTA stretch?

Sick of media laziness — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:38:24 GMT

How about the media actually cover this story with some sort of fairness other than just the "fairness" of equal amounts of negativity between the candidates. Its clear that BOTH candidates told the Canadians something, and while it isn't exactly clear what the Obama campaign did or didn't do, it is abundantly clear that the Clinton campaign not only talked to the Canadians to express there "concerns," but then slammed the Obama campaign for allegedly doing the same thing! Talk about disingenuous!

I understand going after Obama on this, but Clinton should be more than an after thought in this mess. If you go after one of them in this story, you need to go after both of them equally, and before the article is almost half over and off the front page!

Go after candidates, its your job. But, now you just seem vindictive, and instead of being lapdogs for Obama, now you look like lapdogs for Clinton.

Shame on you.

A NAFTA stretch?

CJ — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:42:35 GMT

This is a major flub...if it was just a meeting with his advisor saying whatever about policy not official with the campaign isn't that all? Better to drop this issue b/c I think the public has largely moved on. All he has to do is keep saying he want's to "fix" Nafta and people will take him at his word a few weeks from now.

A NAFTA stretch?

Ladean — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:19:13 GMT

Why are you not shouting about the DNC's plan to sit Clinton no matter what. NAFTA SHAFTA, it don't matter. You media people are focused on everything except what they are doing! What is wrong with you. The truth is worse than any exaggeration either candidate can make at this point. I am disappointed in all of you.

It isn't about the delegates or superdelegates or any other hogwash the DNC spins - it's about THIS IS NOT A DICTATORSHIP. Why are you not focused on this? I do not understand. This is the most important thing to happen ever. This party is stripping those of us that casts our votes of those very votes. And you turn a blind eye. You shut those of us speaking out up. Why?

I've responded several times to address this very topic and each time you've edited me out. Why? Is this topic off limits?

A NAFTA stretch?

Jimbo, Mesa, Arizona — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:36:35 GMT

You left out that the memo also states that "the Senator is less interested in fundamental changes to the agreement and more looking at clarifying language on labor mobility and environmental standards." This is consistent with Obama's statements and these changes would largely cause little harm to Canada's already good labor proctices and environmental standards.

A NAFTA stretch?

Brad Plumb — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:37:43 GMT

Everyone always quotes the paragraph with the
"political positioning" line but not the
paragraph under it which reads:

"On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

This quote is just as relevant as the other
as it states specifically what Goolsbee said
and it is consistent with Obama's public
statements. So... actually what Obama said today
is what really happened. It's just not how
the story played out in the press.

The press jumped on the political positioning
line because it seemed to corroborate the
earlier reports of a meeting.

Why don't you guys ever print that second
paragraph? It really makes this whole thing
look like a non-story.

A NAFTA stretch?

Davis, Eau Claire, WI — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:40:22 GMT

NAFTA = Clinton (Final Answer)

Either way, momentum will be shifting to Obama because of this ‘veep’ scandal. She must be naïve thinking that Obama will grab the veep position yet he is the clear frontrunner. The voters will decide who has passed the threshold to become commander in chief. It is not Hillary’s Job to decide who is ready and who is not.
****************************************************
A sinking person will grab just about anything, even a tiny twig, hoping to stay afloat. Clinton’s recent attacks including dangling the veep position to Obama won’t save her from sinking.
*****************************************************
She might have ruined her chances of becoming the next veep. I think will be Clinton VS Rudy in 2010 for NY GOV.

A NAFTA stretch?

James, Houston, TX — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:47:59 GMT

The truth finally comes out. This may have costed Senator Obama Ohio. People fail to realize that in Senator Clinton's "landslide" vistory, Sen Obama closed the 20 point gap to a near draw before "NAFTA-gate" dropped. This should be a leading item because the public deserves to know the truth.

A NAFTA stretch?

Louis, Phoenix, Arizona — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:54:40 GMT

ok, everyone involved states clearly that it was NOT a meeting. It was not pre-arranged, no agenda was set. It was a conversation during a tour. He was not representing the interests of the campaign or the candidate. The Canadian PM denies that any official meeting took place. Another example of not being able to find any good dirt, so we'll run with innuendo and make it look as bad as possible. I suppose that is one way to make sure HRC doesn't call the press bullies anymore.

A NAFTA stretch?

Michael, Houston — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:06:10 GMT

Oh please!! MSNBC. You are becoming Clintonites par excellence.
Your quote:
---------------------------------------------
In fact, Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told reporters Feb. 26 that a member of the Clinton campaign called the embassy to say Canada should take her campaign position on NAFTA “with a grain of salt.” Both the Clinton campaign and the Canadian government, though, deny that a representative from the Clinton campaign met with any representative from Canada.
-----------------------------------------------
So the Clinton camp called the Canadians but did not meet with them. Reminds me of that line: "smoked but did not inhale"
This piece also fails to mention what the Canadian Foreign ministry stated:
-------------------------------------------------
"In the recent report produced by the consulate general in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA," said a foreign ministry spokesman.
-----------------------------------------
and this last quote is from MSNBC's reporting....
http://ori.msnbc.msn.com/id/23452214/

So Obama IS correct.

Read your own reporting people...

Shame on you MSNBC

A NAFTA stretch?

MARYLOU, LHC, AZ. — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:13:38 GMT

PERHAPS SOMEONE IN THE MSM SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH GUTZPAH TO PRESS OBAMA FOR THESE ANSWERS. WHAT HAPPENED TO "CHANGE" AND "TRANSPARENCY". WELL, AS MY GRANDADDY USED TO SAY, "IF YOU CAN'T DAZZLE THEM WITH DIAMONDS THEN BAFFLE THEM WITH BULL SHEEET!" I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN GETTING SOME OF BOTH!

A NAFTA stretch?

Sam Shaw — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:20:34 GMT

Good grief. There's no story here. Whether Goolsbee met in his capacity with the University of Chicago or the Obama campaign is questionable; Goolsbee's statement of the substance of his comment on NAFTA may have been misinterpreted as the memo stated; whether the Clinton campaign called the Canadian consulate or met with them is academic; and at the end of it all, there's no evidence that anything of consequence was said that points to devious double-speak on either side.

A NAFTA stretch?

DJ — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:03:03 GMT

Obama's a Fraud... he talks about being "bamaboozled" "okie doked" well he's the one doing the BAMboozaling!
and such lanquage only being used in the south in heavily populated AA communities/states is racist pandering.

A NAFTA stretch?

JL Forest, Vancouver,BC — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:11:16 GMT

Not quite. Dig Deeper.

I am a Canadian writing you in the hopes that you will read the following article in what is widely regarded as Canada's leading newspaper (see link below).

It clearly implicates the Clinton Campaign and some media's overzealous ambition to run with the latest hearsay and allegation, with an obvious lack of due diligence. Clinton's campaign strategist Mark Penn has openly acknowledged that the NAFTA issue had a clear effect on the results in Ohio and will more than likely do the same in Pennsylvania.

As the article below clearly sets out, the Clinton campaign is even more implicated by the comments that led to the release of the memo. The media, however, ran with the story as fed by the Clinton campaign - without any due diligence.

"PM's top aide set off storm with Obama NAFTA leak"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/BNStory/National/home

Wishing you all the best,

A NAFTA stretch?

bill dalton — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:12:02 GMT

there's absolutely no knowledge of bill clinton ever throwing a bone into patty,sd,ca. even though he's been to california, and well patty's from sd, ca.

A NAFTA stretch?

Nicky Hartzell — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:19:11 GMT

What is odd in this story is the complete loss of all references to the "several people who overheard a Clinton aide" verbally make the comment regarding taking NAFTA campaign rhetoric in Ohio "with a grain of salt" while in Canada. The very phrase the Clinton used against Obama to make Ohio voters think he was duping them. Widely reported in the Canadian press for over a week, the US press wouldn't touch that aspect of the story. These people have conveniently never been mentioned in the US press, either then or now, because all these stories are pro-Clinton, not balanced and fair reporting.

A NAFTA stretch?

George, Dallas, TX — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:50:31 GMT

In OBAMA we TRUST! Obama is HONEST and TRANSPARENT. Clinton is secretive. She sould release her tax returns, White House Documents, List of contributors to the Clinton Presidential Library, etc.

A NAFTA stretch?

Connected the Dots, NY — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:55:35 GMT

OK... SO ARE WE SUPPOSE TO JUST BRUSH THIS PART OF THE STORY UNDER THE RUG?

"In fact, Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told reporters Feb. 26 that a member of the Clinton campaign called the embassy to say Canada should take her campaign position on NAFTA “with a grain of salt.” Both the Clinton campaign and the Canadian government, though, deny that a representative from the Clinton campaign met with any representative from Canada."

BUT ENSTEAD

The media is focused on a communication issue between Mr. Obama and a full time professor, who serves in the capacity of an part-time economic advisory, that has the permission to meet on his behalf, but not the AUTHORITY to speak on his behalf. You got to be kidding me!

CONNECT THE DOTS

Now comes the darker side of the Clinton machine. When they actually call in favors, set people up, and destroy peoples lives. This sounds like a something out of a Will Smith movie.

Here we have Obama and his "official" campaign "staffers" and advisors running around the country talking to reporters, organizing volunteers, meeting people, kissing babies, and participating in 2 - 4 (PER DAY) campaign rallies of more than 18,000 people, across counties and across states.

Then there's this guy is up in Chicago teaching students and probably feeling good about being associated with the campaign. Of course he has his own mind, and of course he's like good how about "a simple information gathering meeting" I'll let campaign know how it went and what I learned - non-assuming as must of would have been, he has know clue that this is part of plot.

LISTEN.

Unless this meeting was arranged, called, and or approved by the official Obama Campaign team it shouldn't count.

Obama, like Clinton, has 10,000 people out in the field working gathering information and reporting it back to the campaign. Of those thousands a few hundred or so provide advice in all areas from economics, foreign policy, health, environmental science, you name it.

THE POINT

These people have full time jobs already and they provide advice, but they still have their on mind and they are not, in most case, part of campaigns inner circle.

REMEMBER

This non-assuming University Professor was contacted by the Canadian official to sit down and chat. This happened after the Clinton's were reported to have contacted Canadian Officials.

1). So why did Canadian officials feel a compelled to contact this guy?

2). And why was the purpose of meeting, as stated by the memo, so thinly veiled?

3). And why didn't the Canadians contact Obama first, to at least find out who had the authority to speak / not meet, on his behalf?

Clearly if this was supposed to be an "official" meeting the Canadians consulate very well knows the protocol.

MSNBC

PLEASE GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS. AND STOP FALLING FOR THE CLINTON'S BAIT AND SWITCH.

The Clinton's know the leadership in Canada, personally and certainly diplomatically. This sounds like it was somewhat planned.

The Canadians are clearly aware of protocol.

A NAFTA stretch?

Casey, California — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:02:51 GMT

Senator Obama seems to not want the truth to be told. It seems there are many versions to what happened and I think bottom line is He lied to us, the Americans, and catered to the Canadians. He did this to get elected. What else is he lying to us about? Will he work on Health Care and when? Would he have voted against the authorization for war if he was a Senator? He says he didn't know if he would. So how can we trust him on his speech for good judgement?
I hope the press looks at other issues and digs some more before we crown him into the white house.
Good article by the way!

A NAFTA stretch?

Marty, Philadelphia PA — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:16:10 GMT

You cover the Obama side of things with great detail, which is fine. However, let's take a closer look at the CLINTON campaign's "hush, hush, wink, wink" with the Canadians and the CLINTON campaign's possible interaction with Canadian officials to (a) conceal CLINTON shady statements on NAFTA and (b) over-emphasize Obama statements. Let's have fair coverage of BOTH sides of this story!!

A NAFTA stretch?

Sean — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:26:00 GMT

What I don't get is why Obama would try to tell the Canadian government to not take his position on Nafta seriously. He voted against it. He was never in favor of NAFTA, so there is no need to re-assure the Canadian government anything on his part. It doens't make any sense. It makes more sense that the Clinton campaign would approach Canada instead. Bill Clinton drafted NAFTA and Hilary voted for it. So their position was always in favor of NAFTA, so they have more of a motive to reassure the Canadian government.

A NAFTA stretch?

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:33:42 GMT

Only Hillary and Barack could manage to get them darned "No Doot Aboot It" Canuckians into the Chicken Fight. Can Lichtenstein be far behind?

A NAFTA stretch?

Nj — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:41:33 GMT

Can we move past this???
When do you guys ask WHERE ARE THE WHITE HOUSE PAPERS???
Her Taxes, The Clinton Library donor list???

LETS GET REAL MSNBC. I swear you are on Clintons payroll

A NAFTA stretch?

Dave PM — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:33:46 GMT

Ok. Where is the re-weave? He said embassy instead of consulate? My god, I cant believe he hasn't apologized for such a heinous mistake yet!

A NAFTA stretch?

Bobbi, Sasebo Japan — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:39:44 GMT

The Canadians have cleaned this up, apologized and stated the Clinton Camp gave the wink, wink. Obama is a politican running a HUGE presidential campaign. He can not be know all have eyes on his staff 24/7. Obama's only mistake was answering in the affirmative denial rather than checking first. So now did the Obama camp and the Clinton camp meet with the Canadians @ wink at different times? What was it, a meet wink party? This is just he said, she said politico mumbo jumbo and now the Canadians are in on the act. According to AP the Canadians are launching a full fledge investigation into the "leak" from their end and it is not going to be pretty. There was a meeting and some winks, so what? How does the NAFTA he said she said wink stop the $4 a gallon gas at the pumps or get grocery prices down. Considering the keystone cops behavior of some of Obama's staff, why should he let them talk to the media? Obama is running a huge campaign, he made an assumption and found out later that not to be true.---Not unusual with an organization that busy, that large. Politicans are not perfect, they and their staff slip up, talk too much, blunder, and yes wink. The Canadians have stated it was the Clintons that gave the NAFTA wink, now what? Does the Clinton camp get the exact same "investigative reporting" on NAFTA as Barack has gotten?

A NAFTA stretch?

Julie in VT — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:46:55 GMT

Geez, Dom, the way you write this up, as if you're a crack Watergate reporter, one would think Obama had slept with a hooker... or a young intern...

A NAFTA stretch?

Enrique, Chicago — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:52:26 GMT

If I'm not mistaken, NAFTA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The first lady at the time was Hillary Clinton. Any questions?

A NAFTA stretch?

Bob W Mendon, NY — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:56:43 GMT

The whole Clinton story as it relates to Canada is yet to be told but More Stupid Nothing but Clinton reporting doesn't point that out.How about other Clinton tidbits like their lame response to the racist vitriol from their campaign operative Ferraro? I would call the whole presidential threshold a campaign stretch. When are you guys going to ask for a definitive answer from Clinton about what that means?

A NAFTA stretch?

Koko Anwana, Austin, Texas — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:26:14 GMT

I AM VERY SURPRISED THAT YOU HAVE MADE NO REFERENCE TO THE EVENTS IN THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENT CONCERNING THIS MATTER. IF YOU WERE SINCERE TO GIVE A BALANCED BRIEF YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE OBJECTIVE IN YOUR REPORTING. SENATOR CLINTON'S AIDE SPOKE TO THE CANADIAN AUTHORITY AND THE DETAIL IS THAT SHE WAS NOT TAMPERING WITH NAFTA AGREEMENT AS IT IS IF SHE BECOMES PRESIDENT. IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY ALL, AFTERALL NAFTA IS HER LEGACY WHICH EVIDENCE OF HER PRAISE OF IT ABOUND.

A NAFTA stretch?

M. McGee — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:33:39 GMT

So we know that Hillary's campaign initiated contact with Canada and told them that her rhetoric on NAFTA was spin and we know that Golsbee was invited to come as a representative of the University of Chicago NOT the Obama campaign, but you (the complicit media) still want to try to find some way to spin this in Hillary's favor regardless of the whole country knowing that it is Hillary's guilt not his.

A NAFTA stretch?

BL, Cincinnati OH — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:46:00 GMT

Wow Aswini, welcome to last week. Are your skills that bad that the best thing you can write about is something that every news agency has hashed and rehashed and rehashed again for the last week?

Try and keep up...

A NAFTA stretch?

Phil, PA — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:46:09 GMT

Given the fact that you admit in the very last paragraph that all these important questions have yet to be answered, isn't this story then a bit premature? Quit being lazy and do your homework before you throw half baked theories into the thither.

A NAFTA stretch?

Dave, Exeter, NH — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:56:22 GMT

I am a huge Obama supporter, will continue to be and absolutely believe he is beyond the best for our country and party... but this guy should have been fired. Immediately.

Does that change my mind about Sen. Clinton ...no. She now has fallen to just above Mike Gravel marker for me since this campaign started...and unfortunately that is below McCain unfortunately.

A NAFTA stretch?

Ron Hussein — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:59:25 GMT

I think most of the answers in this diatribe have been addressed. Obama is certainly wrapping up the narrative, but I'll be a monkey's uncle if the media has gotten this stuff issue right over the last couple of weeks.

And can you guys please recognize that Texas was not a 'win' for the Clinton camp? At best, they reached on an error and was cut down stealing second base.

A NAFTA stretch?

Alexandra — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:05:35 GMT

Domenico, why don't you follow up to find the memo covering the Clinton comments to the Canadian Embassy. It is unfair that you guys give Clinton a pass and try to throw Obama under the bus. He deserves an appology for false reporting by Canadian and US media. It cost him the Ohio primary

A NAFTA stretch?

Ron Hussein — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:09:22 GMT

http://www.dailybreeze.com/lifeandculture/ci_8489268

How about we discuss this today, rather than rehashing NAFTA-Gate again?

Top Clinton financial backer says some pretty classless (monstrous?) stuff:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.

"I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he's going to be able to put an end to partisanship," Ferraro said, clearly annoyed. "Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that's the way our country is."

A NAFTA stretch?

Matt, Wisconsin — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:14:51 GMT

What a twisted article! What about the Clinton campaign's meeting & their accusations? Please write a long article about their contradictions on NAFTA & their meeting with the Canada. The Clinton campaign's contradictions are much greater than the Obama campaign's since they were the ones pointing the finger. I'm sure in fairness you'll write a follow up story describing their tactics in falsely accusing Obama of what they actually did just before the Ohio vote.

A NAFTA stretch?

melvin, Union, NJ — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:17:10 GMT

I was a big Bill Clinton supporter in the 90s and I supported Hillary at first until I first heard and then I researched Sen Obama. Then I start to look deeper at the Clintons. I know realizes I was being misled. do some research on the hillary and bill Clinton you will find info about the whitewater land deal. also you will find info on her back room deals to win her sen. seat in New York. This proves that the Clintons would do and say anything to gain power.

A NAFTA stretch?

Eleanor — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:17:12 GMT

This whole thing is ridiculous. Goolsbee didn't write anything, it is a staff member's version of what he interpreted, and as such t isn't all that different from what Obama has been saying all along abut NAFTA. The observation that there is a lot of political overstatement is hardly profound.
What is shameful is the reinvention of history by Clinton. NAFTA was one of the major accomplishments they brag about. For her to say that she was always opposed to it is as absurd has saying, well, she has always been opposed to the war in Iraq.

A NAFTA stretch?

Doyle — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:24:38 GMT

MSNBC, your pro-Clinton bias is really offensive

You continue to try to milk this tired old story to Clinton's advanage. Why not report on the conservative party from Canada leaking inaccurate information in an attempt to influence voting in America? That leak effectively damaged the outcome of last week's primaries and will draw the Democratic nomination out extensively, allowing America's conservative party to coalesce before the general campaign

Meanwhile, no mention of today's contest in Mississippii in the headlines on your main page . . . oh yeah, Obama may win that one . . . got to keep that hushed up and spin the news to make it sounds like Clinton is an unstoppable force

It's really upsetting to watch how these stories are being focused

A NAFTA stretch?

Deb — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:25:09 GMT

In conclusion, the Clinton campaign contacted the Canadian embassy, as reported by the chief of staff to the Prime Minister,by phone about a week before the debate to tell them to take Senator Clinton's comments with a grain of salt on NAFTA. The Obama campaign was contacted by a lower level embassy employee about a month prior to the debate and requested Goolsbee come for a tour ...... this did not go through the compaign and did not have the sole intent of soothing concerns on NAFTA. The Canadian government has even stated that the way one of their employees paraphrased what was said by Goolsbee was not accurate.

First Read you sound more interested in "got ya's" that delivering the real message. THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN WAS THE ONE THAT WAS PROACTIVE IN TELLING THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE TO TAKE THINGS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.

A NAFTA stretch?

Neenahfox, MI — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:32:37 GMT

What's the purpose of this article?

The fact is, NAFTA isn't going anywhere as he has stated time and time again. But, Nafta will be revisited to benefit American workers, as he has stated also repeatedly.

A NAFTA stretch?

ace — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:35:21 GMT

hrc uses spin and lies to win votes. those who choose not to research and find out the facts will always be fooled. that is why they are called fools because they choose not to read, but blindly believe what they hear. it makes ir easy to support who you want to instead finding out if you are being dooped.

A NAFTA stretch?

Henry Long, PA — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:35:34 GMT

hillary has said she made a mistake voting for the war yet she did so under the best information at that time - she did own up to it.

obama won't own up to anything....nothing! You think back to everything his camp has said, done or that he has retracted from or calls made behind the public's back, and yet he still doesn't own up to it.

He is a typical politician that is supposed to be some great chage leader. you are no different and lost my vote buddy.

Al Sharpton for Vice President

A NAFTA stretch?

Patty,SD,CA — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:42:05 GMT

I Love you Barack!!!

A NAFTA stretch?

Laurie, St. Paul MN — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:43:42 GMT

Why does this part of the story keep getting ignored?

"In fact, Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told reporters Feb. 26 that a member of the Clinton campaign called the embassy to say Canada should take her campaign position on NAFTA "with a grain of salt."

Chief of staff is a high ranking position. Do you think he fabricated the part about the call from clinton campaign?

A NAFTA stretch?

dave — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:45:44 GMT

You know

Not sure how to send this but Chuck needs to take a look at how you all are posting some and not others. There is some huge biases coming out in both directions...but lately ...especially this blog ...for Clinton (and yes I am an Obama supporter but we have tried it both ways now). I use to work for NBC and uh... I was hired by Bob Wright actually... There is something a little off ...actually a lot off about how the individual writers for each outfit are controlling the postings in there blogs. We have tested it a couple of times now on here and several other "news" blogs.

I work for another outfit now...and there are some red flags here. I am a huge fan of Chuck's work but I see some issues showing up in the reporting and I think that is becoming the story of this election.
If you can pass that along to Chuck that would be great... I really do say that only out of the fact that I think he is a great reporter and I would guess the buck would stop with him eventually.

(P.S. I don't work for any campaign so honestly this is not some dissed poliitical guy, I am a writer for several shows believe it or not and just trying to give a heads up.)

A NAFTA stretch?

John Ingram, Chicago, Illinois — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:47:17 GMT

Hillary Clinton has proven throughout this campaign season that she believes more in herself than the people she pretends to care for. First she shakes hands with Obama and tells him that he has a fine Character on Feb. 26th, then a day and a half later she throws a fit over some flyers that were distributed at least one month prior. Hillary accused Obama's Camp of duplicity concerning NAFTA, when an Associated Press story on March 7th questioned Hillary’s stance on NAFTA, with CTV reporter hearing a Canadian official implicate one of Hillary’s surrogates. Ohio went for Hillary’s line, but the question should be did she use this ploy knowing that she was the one REALLY posturing for votes. She used retired Generals to give her the Aura of being more qualified for Commander-in-Chief than Obama. But in all due respect to the retired military brass, if it weren’t for Senator Richard Lugar and Barack Obama brokering an agreement to corral loose nukes in Russia BEFORE they fell into terrorists'' hands, the current military brass would have far more headaches today. I’m a lot more comfortable with someone with the foresight to do something Before it can happen than someone who can only React When Something Happens. Hillary, Bill, and Co. are going to find out that Americans are not Fools, and they’ll find out a lot sooner than they think.

A NAFTA stretch?

Dr.Strangedog, MI — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:49:11 GMT

Do people remember Condie Rice meeting with Canada? In our lifetime we'll probably see something akin to the Euro. The US, Canada and Mexico under one currency. Nafta was just the 1st phase.
People are slow to change is all. Yet to throw the heavy lift to Obama is unfair and that seems to be the Clinton specialty.

This may be one of the lowest points in American history because we are squandering momentum. The most unpopular president in history is FINALLY stepping down and the DEms are wasting steam fighting each other.

We don't need Obama to "prove" himself by attaking Clinton. The change we ask for is what he's doing. Talking about relevant issue can only be dismissed if we pander to sensationalism. We need to stop engaging the Limbaughs/O'riley's and Pattys. Focus people.

A NAFTA stretch?

obamavet Rochester, NY — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:49:57 GMT

Rather than play at "gotcha" and continue supporting Hillary, why aren't you guys giving the Clinton camp's weak response to Geraldine Ferraro's racist rantings any coverage? You and all the other networks jumped all over the Samantha Power story. She simply called Hillary a monster when she could have used a much stronger word that many voters would happily accept. How about jumping all over Hillary for once again allowing a surrogate to use race baiting tactics.

A NAFTA stretch?

Colleen, NY — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:50:44 GMT

On the Obama side, it seems like they made a communicatiun blunder. On the Clinton side, they wa deceit and hypocrisy.

Who cares? The bottom line is they both apparently want to "re-negiotiate" NAFTA (although the Obama camp seems slightly more commited to the idea). Can we please talk about something else?

A NAFTA stretch?

Jim Ky — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:52:02 GMT

This is not news. This is the News searching for news (and hopefully it will be juicy). Let's move along.

A NAFTA stretch?

HP Boston — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:55:17 GMT

Obama is disgrace, he and his minion's are the reason politics is such a dirty game. Admit you were wrong and act like a man Obama. You have been sniveling and lying from the git go! We do not need another lying, sneaking, holier than thou dirty politician in the WH. THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH COVER UP FR CAN DO FOR THIS GUY!

A NAFTA stretch?

HP Boston — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:56:04 GMT

A NAFTA stretch?

Beth — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:40:03 GMT

The statement by the Canadian PM actually is, no the meeting with the Clinton camp did not happen.

Denial by the Clinton campaign. Denial by Canadian PM. Read the story.

Denial by the Obama campaign though was met with confirmation that the meeting did indeed take place, and an apology that the meeting may have been misconstrued.

Read the story. The Clinton did it Internet conspiracy theory is an oldie but a moldie.