If he’s lying about this, what else is he lying about?
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico “that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards.”
6 responses so far ↓
1 Jason // Mar 5, 2008 at 3:40 pm
The worst….seems to be inevitable:
Asked on CBS’s “The Early Show” whether she and Obama should be on the same ticket, Clinton said: “That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me.”
Later on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Clinton noted that both candidates have been asked this question many times. “Obviously it’s premature for either of us to address it but you know there’s a lot of interest in that.
“Many Democrats are hoping for that. We have to sort through this nominating process to see who ends up as the nominee but we’re going to put together a winning ticket. The most important thing is to win in November.”
2 Donna // Mar 6, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Please see more on this story here.
And as Andrew Sullivan says: "It’s pretty clear it was a bum-rap on Obama. But it won’t be the first one, and he has to get better at responding in real time."
And I can’t imagine Obama agreeing to a joint ticket with Clinton. What would he possibly have to gain? And, of course, I’m talking about an Obama/Clinton ticket rather than the other way around. He is leading in delegates despite the fantasy she’s pushing.
3 pax // Mar 6, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Yeah I can’t see Obama becoming Hillary’s VP candidate, he has nothing to gain from that.
There are two possibilities : Either Obama’s rhetoric about NAFTA is something he will follow up on in office, in which case he’s a fucking economic illiterate; or his rhetoric is just campaign talk and isn’t something he’d actually try to implement, in which case he’s a fucking liar.
Andrew Sullivan has zero credibility with me, for a whole host of reasons.
4 Jason // Mar 7, 2008 at 3:37 pm
at what point do we take a look at all of these useless candidates and start picking which one is the lesser of 3 evils?
Seems to me they’re all full of shit in one way or another…but one of the three is our next president, so do we get behind Hilary? Obama? McCain? Just to see that the other two losers are out of our lives?
This is the worst field of candidates since..well…since 2004.
5 pax // Mar 7, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Giant douche or turd sandwich, which do you like best?
6 Jason // Mar 7, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Still one of the best south park episodes of all time, and never more true.
Leave a Comment