The Obama Craze: Count Me Out
Submitted by jen on February 28, 2008 - 1:46am.
Border Security | Current Events | Democratic politics | Energy | Health Care | immigration | Iraq | Israel | Middle East | Nuclear Proliferation
The following article was linked by Jeralyn at Talk Left. Mr. Gonzalez reveals important information not being exposed by the media regarding Senator Obama's past actions in the Senate on many issues.
I only hope it's not too late for people to open their eyes and realize we've got a real champion in Senator Clinton, ready and willing to lead our country out of the huge mess that will be left once GWB and his wrecking crew are gone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Via Jeralyn:
Matt Gonzales is a progressive and the former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He's also a former public defender, former Democrat and green party candidate who ran a well-respected and close campaign against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
~ snip ~
I think Gonzales' view is even more telling when you consider who supported him for Mayor in 2003. It wasn't the Democratic establishment, it was the change folks, including:
....a mix of college students, unemployed dot-commers, artists and activists old enough to remember the 1960s.As to how he did (cbsnews), running as a Green candidate:
Still, with Democrats representing 54 percent of the registered voters and Greens 3 percent, Gonzalez said his 47 percent showing should send a message to the two major parties that voters will respond to candidates willing to take on the political establishment....more...
++++++++++++++++++++++
The Obama Craze: Count Me Out
by Matt Gonzalez
Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.
Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn’t much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama’s voting record, and I’m afraid to say I’m not just uninspired: I’m downright fearful. Here's why:
This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.
But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.
~ snip ~
THE WAR IN IRAQ
Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.
First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”
Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that.
Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of “Operation Iraqi Liberation” the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.
And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.
And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman “his mentor” and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called “Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War.” Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?
~ snip ~
This is hardly a position to get excited about.
CLASS ACTION REFORM:
In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.
By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the “reform” was a thinly-veiled “special interest extravaganza” that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, “Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers.”
~ snip ~
Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?
CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES:
Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.
Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn’t credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn’t put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.
Why wouldn’t Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.
LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES:
These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests aren’t new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully recover for pain and suffering or for punitive damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were already empowered to adjust awards when appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court had previously ruled such limits on tort reform violated the state constitution.
In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with patients’ full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients’ economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama’s solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient.
MINING LAW OF 1872:
In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million between 1998-2004 according to The Center on Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again.
The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected western states.
Later it came to light that one of Obama’s key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies (CBS News “Obama’s Position On Mining Law Questioned. Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him,” November 14, 2007).
REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:
The New York Times reported that, while campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama boasted that he had passed a bill requiring nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive leaks. This came after residents of his home state of Illinois complained they were not told of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation.
The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama’s bill failed to pass the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled “Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate” by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama’s constituents, which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama’s legislative efforts:
"Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it."
As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: “Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.”
ENERGY POLICY:
On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are required to produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, according to research by the Cato Institute. Ethanol’s impact on climate change is nominal and isn’t “green” according to Alisa Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. “It simply isn’t a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.” A 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. (There’s even concern that a reliance on corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.)
So why would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capitol of the country? In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.
SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE:
Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, “Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.”
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:
Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, “I don’t think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have.” Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama’s record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: “In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers.”
Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as “pole-vaulting” over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid “right to organize,” “minimum wage,” and other worker protections.
SOME FINAL EXAMPLES:
On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America’s pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.
~ snip ~
Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)
On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he’s campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he’d employ a different border solution.
It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.
Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president (“Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable,” USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn’t even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold’s words “I’m amazed at Democrats … cowering with this president’s number’s so low.” Once again, it’s troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.
CONCLUSION:
Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about “change” and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.
I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype
I found the BEEF - Obama's Senate Record
Oh.. and he's the one in the co-sponsor list to Repeal the Military Commissions Act.. notably absent.. well y'know.. But do you know why
Mining Law of 1872? heh.. who knew.. the outrage! /snark :)
The diary you link lists 10 of 15 bills he either sponsored (which is hard work) or co-sponsored (which is generally political calculation). What about the missing 5? What beef was in those bills that he sponsored or co-sponsored, and just how fatty was it?
Of the 15 bills Senator Obama sponsored or co-sponsored in 2005-7 that became law:
Two addressed foreign policy:
Promote relief, security and democracy in the Congo (2125)
Develop democratic institutions in areas under Palestinian control (2370).Three addressed public health:
Improve mine safety (2803)
Increased breast cancer funding (597)
Reduce preterm delivery and complications, reduce infant mortality (707).Two addressed openness and accountability in government:
Strengthening the Freedom of Information Act (2488)
Full disclosure of all entities receiving federal funds (2590)Two addressed national security
Extend Terrorist Risk Insurance (467)
Amend the Patriot Act (2167)One addressed the needs of the Armed Forces
Wave passport fees to visit graves, attend memorials/funerals of veterans abroad (1184).
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
He wasn't running for anything there. :)
like the one in that video, or the Democratic Convention in 2004. Still, there is something a little too preachy about him and too Biblical about many of his supporters' approach to Hillary:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14831#comment-285614
And did you see the Sept. 28 Doonesbury? You can find it here: http://news.yahoo.com/comics/doonesbury
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
He's our own version of GWB.....says one thing, does another but couches it all in clever language...."Hope Change, Unity" meet the "The Clean Air Act"
I've come to the conclusion that Democrats must be easily snowed. The only difference between Chimpy's campaign in 2000 and Obama's now is that Obama is playing sleight of hand with voters in his own party.
I wrote a blog back in December laying out the reasons I was backing Hillary and not Obama.
Those reasons still prevail.......His lack of qualifications are still #1. Haven't been taken in by his bogus Unity schtick. His love affair with Republicans still sticks in my craw. And I still believe that with him in the WH, I have no hope that he would do anything to further the progressive agenda.
My dislike of him hasn't changed....in fact it has grown I've watched his campaign continue to spout RW rhetoric and descend into using RW tactics.
The last straw for me was the swiftboating of the Clintons in SC with his fraudulent, trumped up "race card". For me, this was as low as you can get. Of course then came the lying fliers on health care and NAFTA......and I said to myself "Tell me again what the difference is between Obama and Karl Rove?" The answer appears to be "not much"
Bottom line......the more I saw of Hillary the more impressed I was with her commitment to the progressive issues I hold dear. Healthcare is HUGE for me. The only chance I see of getting anything close to universal coverage is with her. Conversly, Obama....following his love affair with the RW, torpedoes it at every turn.
The more I see of him the more I see a man, who claims to be a Democrat but runs from the label every chance he gets ......lies about his own record and that of his opponent.........and is driven by so much personal ambition that he'll stoop to levels I'm only used to seeing from the other side.....see race card and misogyny for starters.
What will finally trip him up is......"you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Unfortunately, by the time Dems come to their senses, the damage may already have been done.
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
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.”
Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member’s warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/28/shocker-obama-campaign-reveals-fake-stand-on-nafta/
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
it's those Canadians who worst violate the trade agreements...of course Obama would advise those "violators"
/ snark
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
Whilst Obama has fliers and ads out slamming Hillary on NAFTA, he is privately assuring Canada and telling them not to worry, "it's just politics"
Hypocrisy at every turn
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
If Obama wins in November, NAFTA is guaranteed to get changed in our favor. He'll have a full Dem majority in Congress, so nothing to stop him from being successful. I could live with that.
Proud to be an American.
May I remind you of the Rules of Obama?
Wes Clark Democrats...let the Clinton campaign know who sent you
There was a time when a piece of crap article like this one would have been laughed off the blog. That is no longer the case.
a top staff member
according to Canadian sources
The staff member
a spokesperson
the staff member’s
Let's see the rest of the crap in that article.
Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.
During Tuesday's debate, she said that as president she would opt out of NAFTA "unless we renegotiate it."
Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Wednesday that the candidates' criticisms of NAFTA were misguided.
"(They) should recognize that NAFTA benefits the U.S. tremendously," he said. "Those who speak of it as helpful to (just the) Canadian or Mexican economies are missing the point."
Liberal MP and finance critic John McCallum told Canada AM that the U.S. pulling out of NAFTA "would be a disaster for Canada."
But he added, "I hope and I believe that it's politics, because they're in a high-stakes contest. I believe after this nominee is decided, this issue will go away."
John Fortier, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise institute, said that in an effort to gain votes in the anti-NAFTA state of Ohio, each candidate might find themselves "locked-in" to their pledge to renegotiate NAFTA.
"Last night, both candidates really locked themselves in to at least doing some serious renegotiation," Fortier told Canada AM. "But how serious they are and what the changes (will be) . . . that's another question.
"But I don't know how Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton can get out of last night's very clear pledge that they are going to use the opt-out (clause) as a threat to do some serious renegotiation."
Crucial primaries in Ohio and Texas are just one week away.
During Tuesday night's debate, each candidate was quite specific about using the six-month opt-out clause in NAFTA, to pressure Canada and Mexico into renegotiating the deal.
The March 4 primaries are seen as vital for each candidate, but particularly Clinton. It's expected that without a decisive win in both Texas and Ohio, she has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
Clinton once had a large lead in each state, but recent polls are showing the candidates as close to even, with Obama surging ahead.
Early polls show that there is a strong possibility of a Democrat in the White House in January 2009.
Obama, in particular, is surging in popularity throughout the U.S. and some polls give the Illinois senator an almost double-digit lead if he were to run head-to-head against the expected Republican candidate, John McCain.
And more crap at NoQuarter from SusanHU on this so called story...
A Canadian medical professional (no more to protect anonymity) reports to me: “This story made headlines tonight in Canada in all major Canadian news networks. Barack Obama has been caught lying. Spread this as much as you can because it is true and factually supported. I think the people of Ohio as well as the rest of America, deserve to know this.”
NAFTA Rhetoric? 'It Didn't Happen'
"The Canadian Embassy confirms that at no time has any member of a Presidential campaign called the Canadian Ambassador or any official at the Embassy to discuss NAFTA," the statement read. "Last night the Canadian television network CTV, falsely reported that such calls had been made. That story is untrue. Neither before nor since the Ohio debate has any presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson or the Embassy to raise NAFTA."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/canadian-embass.html
CTV Stands by NAFTA Story
"The facts of our story are accurate." - Greg McIsaac, Communications Manager, News Information and Current Affairs, CTVThe NAFTA - Obama story gets more interesting.
I called CTV to verify the story, especially given the Obama campaign's cries that it's "inaccurate." After asking Greg McIsaac of CTV if they were sticking by their story, he quickly called me back with verification. The facts of our story are accurate.
Then why are the traditional media and Obama blogs pushing Obama's side of the story that the CTV story is "innacurate?" That an embassy spokesperson alone proves the reporting is wrong? Back channels exist, which means skepticism should apply, especially with CTV standing by the facts of their story:
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. ... ..
Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric
Will the journalistic stenography on behalf of Mr. Obama ever end?
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27111
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
Who are you going to believe, the Canadian Embassy or the people who put out the piece of crap in the first place? What did you expect them to say? "We are liars."
We know that we can't rely on any single source of media, and I am not at all familiar with that Canadian media outlet.
Proud to be an American.
High level officials in the Canadian government still saying they did receive said call from Obama campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMpbpov-HcA
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Let's see, the argument here is a Canadian press puts out an investigative piece claiming Obama's new stance on NAFTA is nothing but campaign rhetoric and the Canadian Embassy denies all charges.
According to the 2007 Reporters Without Borders 2007 Press Freedom Index Canadian press ranks at 18th but the US Press ranks at 48th worldwide.
Who to believe?
Isn't the function of a free press to alert the public of (among other things) government wrong-doing?
The US press doesn't rank 48th by accident. We have seen over the course of a decade or more the right-wing echo machine and the US corporopress time and again painting their favorite "politically correct" storyline, certainly one effect of media consolidation. One only need to read any of Noam Chomsky's many books on this subject or watch Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media.
The fact that Canada's press is 18th indicates their media is doing a much better job of Fourth Estate watchdogging the government's claims. Do you really think the Canadian Embassy would ADMIT to any of this? Or even the Obama campaign? Seriously?
One certainly has to double- and triple-fact check the US Media on everything. But on this one, I'll side with CTA.ca News NOT the Canadian Embassy. Remember, it was just last month when Canada listed the US among countries that torture in one of its Diplomat training manuals, but when leaked to the press via Amnesty International, had to quickly retract. See Canada To Remove U.S. From Torture List @ CBS.
Dennis Edney, one of Khadr's lawyers, said the foreign affairs document shows that Canada says one thing publicly but believes something else privately.
"Canada was well aware that Omar Khadr's allegations of being tortured had a ring of truth to it. Canada has not once raised the protection of Omar Khadr when there are such serious allegations," Edney said. "What does that say to you about Canada's commitment to the rule of law and human rights? It talks on both sides of its face."
I concur with Mr. Edney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJYMgX4JuU&eurl=http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/28/shocker-obama-campaign-reveals-fake-stand-on-nafta
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
you know how awful that damned media is...
Canadians deny Obama call
A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of NAFTA.
"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the ambassador or any of the officials here to raise NAFTA," Landry said.
He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.
"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.
"There is no story as far as we’re concerned," he said.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Canadians_deny_Obama_call.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Canada Says TV Story on Obama NAFTA Deception is 'Untrue'
By Terence P. Jeffrey and Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief and Senior Editor
February 28, 2008
(CNSNews.com) -
A Wednesday evening report on a Canadian television network that said a "senior member" of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign had called Canada's ambassador to the U.S. to advise him that Canada should not take seriously Obama's attacks on the North American Free Trade Agreement was "untrue," the Canadian government told Cybercast News Service.
"I can categorically say that no one has contacted our embassy or our ambassador," said Canadian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andre Lemay. "None of our officials at the embassy discussed anything with the runners up in the presidential campaign. We realize that one of the Canadian networks mentioned yesterday that such a call had been made. The report is untrue."
When asked whether Ambassador Michael Wilson, the Canadian emissary to the U.S., had received a call from anyone in the Obama campaign, Lemay said he had not.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080228b.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
need more?
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
And be blinded by their alligence to one candidate and pretend to think that story is true is absurd to me.
When statements from two official Canadian embassy spokespersons isn't sufficient on this board, its gone beyond all reason.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
I would trust the news media (the ones that use the public airways - not cable) before I would trust the politicians.
Having lived in both countries, the Fouth Estate" in Canada is very "old fashion" and take pride is honest/true investigative reporting.
UPDATE: From CTV News, “[T]he Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.”
Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters. [That exchange speaks volumes.]CTV News, an internationally respected national Canadian television and print news service, has reconfirmed its story with its top-level sources, and stands by its original report
Also information about O voting "against the amendment sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) in the 109th Session:" ....
Senator Dorgan offered a simple amendment to the Commerce Justice and State Appropriations Bill, S.Amdt. 1665 in the 109th Congress, which basically would have made it illegal for the Bush Administration to that agree to terms that would weaken ALREADY EXISTING protections in trade law, like countervailing and anti dumping duties on nations that dump cheap products in the U.S. to undermine our products and our workers.
And link to "Machinists’ Union president" who tells of his
outrage at Sen. Obama’s promises — to the faces of machinists from whom he took hard-earned campaign donations — to save Maytag jobs only to find out that Obama never spoke out for those workers. And that Obama took donations from the top owners of Maytag and never once mentioned the workers’ plight to those executives.
All at.....
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/29/ctv-reconfirms-obama-nafta-story/#more-1660
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
Canadian CTV Television censured for inaccurate and unfair reporting...
[...] On May 16, 2005, the CBSC National Specialty Services Panel published its decision – upholding the complaint submitted by the Polish Embassy. The Panel ruled that CTV had breached the code of journalistic ethics by broadcasting naccurate and unfair information. The Panel pointed out that the adjective “Polish” - similarly to such adjectives as “English”, “French” and “German” – had connotations that clearly extended beyond geographic context. Its use with reference to Nazi extermination camps was misleading and improper. The Panel did not accept President Hurst’s argument that the objectionable phrase had been used by the media throughout North America. It obligated CTV to announce on the air the Panel’s decision censuring the station, and to notify the Polish Embassy of this fact. In a letter dated May 30, CTV advised Ambassador Piotr Ogrodziński that it had broadcast the Panel’s decision on May 18 and 21 - during prime time.
That example of a successful campaign against the distortion of historic truth by the media – and in defense of the good name of Poland – will hopefully reduce the number of similar incidents in the future. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs intends to use the experience gained in Canada in other countries.[...]
President of CTV, Robert Hurst, has not always been the upstanding journalist some people would like to believe.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
is the allegation that Jesse Jackson Jr. threatened Lewis with competition in the primary if he didn't switch to Obama true or not? It hasn't been reported in the MSM as far as I know, but that's nothing new. It would be nice to know the facts; right now it's just an allegation.
On TV poundits:
"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." - Thomas Brackett Reed
Georgia Rep. John Lewis, who Wednesday switched his allegiance from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, may not be the last high-profile African American officeholder to change sides.
The pressure on Clinton’s black supporters to defect has been gradually mounting, rising to the point where some elected officials are being forced to consider whether their backing for Clinton will have adverse consequences for their own political fortunes.
“It’s atmospheric pressure, a change in mood in their communities,” says University of California at Los Angeles political scientist Mark Sawyer, who studies race, ethnicity and politics. “You see people that are going out to vote that have never voted before. Do you want to be on the other side of that?”
Lewis, who announced his decision in a statement, alluded to the weight of history and pointed to his district’s overwhelming support for Obama in the state’s Feb. 5 primary. “When I speak to students about the Civil Rights Movement, I say that it is impossible to stop a determined movement that is captivating the American consciousness,” Lewis said. “I think the candidacy of Sen. Obama represents the beginning of a new movement in American political history that began in the hearts and minds of the people of this nation. And I want to be on the side of the people, on the side of the spirit of history.”
But it’s also true that his decision to flip comes not long after he drew his first general or primary election opponent in nearly a decade—a challenge rooted in Lewis’s previous endorsement of Clinton.....
...There is little reason to think that political expediency drove Lewis, a civil rights icon who is safely ensconced in his Atlanta-based seat, to make the jump to Obama. But there’s no question that, for many black politicians, the stakes have increased since Obama’s Jan. 26 victory in South Carolina, when he first displayed his tremendous popularity among African Americans by winning 78 percent of their vote.
In the four weeks since then, black elected officials ranging from Virginia state Sen. Louise Lucas to New Jersey state Sen. Dana Redd to Georgia Congressman David Scott have switched from Clinton’s to Obama’s camp. That list also includes former Cleveland Mayor Michael White and New Jersey super delegate Christine “Roz” Samuels.
“Who wants to be on the wrong side of history?” says UCLA’s Sawyer. “These are African American politicians who probably didn’t think Barack Obama had much of a chance to get elected and now he’s poised to be the nominee.”Cont.
Jesse Jackson, Jr's statement from last week:
“Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position” in the future, he added. … (A.P./Google News)
Missouri’s Rep. Cleaver is also getting nasty pressure):
[Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus] says some — such as John Lewis — have become the victims of “robo-calls.” In Lewis’ case, the calls said “very, very derogatory things about him.”......
Cleaver notes that some members of Congress who support Clinton are experiencing threats — not from fellow members but when they return home.
They have been told that they would face opposition in their next election if they do not support Obama, and Cleaver says some — such as John Lewis — have become the victims of “robo-calls.” In Lewis’ case, the calls said “very, very derogatory things about him.”
Cleaver, too, has experienced some troubles.
“I had a person in my district send out a newsletter, for which I know he didn’t pay, distributed primarily in the African-American community, in which he suggested that I had been paid by Sen. Clinton to support her. I don’t know if there’s anyone who [is African American]...
And the cheering diary at kos when Lewis announced he was switching his support from Clinton to Obama -- nevermind he was f'ing threatened. They are fine with that.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/26/151445/928
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
we all know Obama and the Puritans would never stoop so low. (SNARK!)
On TV poundits:
"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." - Thomas Brackett Reed
the endless media playing of, and the blasting all over the blogosphere of disgust and hate, if the Hillary campaign used these tactics on strong-arming women superdelegates to vote for her because women must support the first ever woman president. Imagine.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
To Those Who Question Obama's "Legislative Accomplishments"
[...] No doubt, Watson -- and anyone acting as an Obama campaign surrogate -- should be able to rapidly list the important issues that the Illinois Senator has championed. This includes the Lugar-Obama legislation that has helped decrease the threat of old nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon in the former Soviet Union and the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 which Obama co-authored and that led to USAspending.gov, which keeps Americans better informed on government spending.
Obama has also been very active in legislation to end the Iraq war and the much-heralded Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, which passed in July of 2007 and addressed the hideous treatment received by Veterans under the Bush administration, began its legislative life as the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, introduced by Obama earlier in the year.
But here's the thing that any person going on television to represent Obama should repeat without end -- and that should also be a part of the Obama campaign's standard playbook: No Democrat, including Senator Hillary Clinton has been able to do one hell of a lot that meets the accomplishment benchmark of "passed legislation" in a time of unending, record-setting Republican obstructionism. [...]
[...] As for the Obama campaign, I support your guy and I'll give you this statement for free as you will certainly need it when Republicans begin lobbing charges of zero legislative accomplishments that will make Matthews look like an Obama groupie:
"Senator Obama knows that the American people are smart enough to see that the Republican party has become committed to doing nothing but blocking legislation that would help the American people and restore our nation to a place of esteem in the world. And they'll further reject Republican claims that any Senator has not passed enough legislation when the GOP has made it their life's work to see that no legislation is allowed to pass.
"More than anything, this demonstrates why a new kind of politics is necessary in Washington and why the American people are ready to turn the page and see all of us begin to accomplish more."
[...]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-geiger/to-those-who-question-oba_b_87970.html
Lugar-Obama Bill to Keep Weapons Out of Terrorists' Hands Passes Congress
WASHINGTON - Legislation authored by U.S. Senators Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) that will help keep weapons like shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles out of terrorists' hands has passed Congress and will soon be signed into law by the President. Lugar and Obama authored the legislation (S. 2566) and included provisions of the bill as part of H.R. 6060, which was approved by the Congress early Saturday morning.[...]
MORE: http://obama.senate.gov/press/061211-lugar-obama_bil_1/
Junkyard Dogs of War
By Richard G. Lugar and Barack Obama
December 3, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201509.html
Obama Steps Up For Wounded Troops
In the wake of the scandal surrounding the conditions endured by some Veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced two pieces of legislation last week to create a more suitable level of care for wounded troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama introduced, S. 713, the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, intlegislation written to "ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries," which has been referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee for review.[...] (passed in July 2007)
http://www.democrats.com/node/12170
why am I posting this here Jen? because it looks as if very soon, one or the other of our candidates will be going up against mccain and the Republican machine.
ONE
or
the
OTHER
Reality Check: Shouldn't you be making your case FOR Hillary rather than venting your spleen AT Obama? To say nothing of the fact that there are a number of inconsistencies in your diary...Hillary also voted "the fence" - both candidates have said that should be "reconsidered". Gonzalez is A-OK with 30% interest rates??? GMAFB!
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
Wes Clark: I’m proud to endorse Hillary Clinton
Today, I am proud to announce my endorsement of Senator Hillary Clinton as President of the United States.
Senator Hillary Clinton has earned the support of millions of Americans in her campaign for president -- and today I am pleased to count myself among them. The world has reached a critical point, and we need a leader in the White House with the courage, intelligence and humility to navigate through many troubling challenges to our security at home and abroad. I believe Senator Clinton is that leader, and I whole-heartedly endorse her for President of the United States. Senator Clinton and I share a worldview in which diplomacy is the best first-strike tool in our arsenal; in today’s complicated global system, the United States should be making more friends than enemies.
Never before have so many Americans had our well-being so closely tied to world events. Our economic and national security has become more complicated than ever before, and we deserve a leader who draws on wisdom, compassion, intelligence and moral courage -- in short, we need Hillary Clinton. She is tough but fair, a rock-solid leader equal to the many weighty challenges ahead of us.
As I make this endorsement today, I realize this may disappoint many of you who hoped that I would run for President myself in 2008. But rest assured: I’m not going anywhere. I’m going to continue to speak out on issues I care about, to work with you to support good Democratic candidates who will help restore the kind of leadership we need in America, to make sure our nation is as secure at home and abroad as it possibly can be.
Your support has been absolutely essential – to our country, to our Democratic candidates, and to me personally. I would never have run for President in 2003 without your support – after all, you drafted me into the race! I can’t tell you how much it means to me that you’ve been standing with me since my campaign for President and right up until now. And we still have so much work to do.
Together, we made a huge difference in the 2006 elections. We helped 42 candidates win their races across America, including 25 candidates who flipped their seats from Republican to Democratic seats. Our Clark community raised more than $1 million for candidates, not to mention the millions of hours of volunteer time members of the Clark community provided to campaigns in every corner of our nation. And I am most proud of the fact we helped elect a number of veterans to the House and Senate. What a tremendous victory for America – and it wouldn’t have been possible without the hard work that you and I and tens of thousands of us put in over those 24 months.
The fight is just beginning for the future of America. Through WesPAC, you and I and thousands of other Americans will continue to play a very active role throughout this entire upcoming campaign -- to support strong candidates, to get them into office, and to get our country back on the right track.
Your continued participation in the political process is absolutely critical. I hope you’ll all join me in supporting Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President. And I hope you’ll continue to be active here at WesPAC as we support many candidates up and down the ballot in 2008, and continue to speak out on the issues.
I’m proud to endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. But I’m not going anywhere, and I hope you’re not either. We have a lot of work to do in the months and years ahead to get America moving forward again – and I need you with me.
Thanks so much for everything you’ve done – and everything I know you’ll continue to do – for me, for Democrats, and for our country.
..Lieberman has similar Democratic accomplishments I just wouldn't want him for my President because he thinks we should get along with Republicans instead of fighting them.
Sound familiar?
And if you are defending Obama's refusal to cap the interest rate at 30%.....truly don't know what to say.
As for what this site will become...
If Hillary wins, we'll all stay and fight in November.
If Obama wins, I personally am through. And i fear many others will be too.
So you'll have it to yourselves...where you can continue to defend Obama every time he frenchkisses the Republicans and tosses Dem values to the curb.
It'll be a purple brown haze of What Obama Really Meant...and I don't own hip boots.
And before you admonish me for "abandoning" Wes. Just take a moment to contemplate the irony
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
Please stay at least through the General Election, Maddy. We have congresspeople to elect, and you never know -- we may have a job to do with regard to Wes's new job in the new administration, or, if the Dem doesn't win, we have a job to do for 2012.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
...that the Dems will have to run against McCain in 2012 if Obama is the nominee.
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
There is STILL stuff lurking in the wings that the Republicans will have so much dirty fun with. When I think about it, I actually feel kind of sorry for Obama. Hillary knows what she is in for--and she's willing to take it. Obama doesn't have a clue, and his "Chicago street smarts" will hardly be enough to help him.
raising Lieberman? I wouldn't
Hillary may pull this out
defending the % cap vote, I wouldn't
if not mistaken, this is the vote Hillary voted for but hoped it would fail
Hillary may pull this out
If Hillary wins, we'll all stay and fight in November (good!)
If Obama wins? so then, is this all about you?
As for abandoning Wes, I wouldn't presume to admonish any Wes supporter for abandoning Wes no matter which candidate they support....reluctance to particpate on his board however, has been an entirely different matter having *nothing whatsoever* to do with Wes Clark.
Now go ahead. Assure me, "from the horse's mouth", that's the way Wes wanted it.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
...that was NOT the vote she hoped would fail. That vote happend back before BO was was in the senate. The Cap vote was when they were both in the Senate.
All about me? That's a joke coming from someone who thought nothing of coming on here slamming Hillary and pushing Obama.....whilst Wes was working his butt of for her
I'll say one thing. You've got chutzpa.....but then I always knew that.
No, If Obama is the nominee. I will not be here.....because I would find it difficult to keep my mouth shut....and there is no way I would put Wes in a difficult position.
Because in my mind, this site is ALL about Wes.
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
about Wes
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14863#comment-286296
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
At least not to him. "It's not about me," he would say. It's about getting the country headed in the right direction.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
but it's under his banner, isn't it?
I understand Wes's philosophy. So does Susan Putney.
You might have said this to Maddy.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
I have been voting all of my long life and now I am being told that my primary vote in Michigan isn't going to count.
If any of you feel that it is not right to disenfranchise over 2 million of us who voted in Michigan and Florida please go to:
www.seatourdelegates.com and sign the petition. I don't think any democrat is going to win in November without Michigan and Florida.
The instant that I heard that Obama said that Lieberman was his mentor, I knew that I would not be supporting him. Lieberman is just Republican lite.
He's a dyed in the wool, 100% Republican.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
potential to someday become a formidable candidate for POTUS. However, he is not yet at his prime; he has a limited and mixed political record; and I think it is possible to attribute his defense of his campaign's ethical lapses to the likelihood that he has allowed his ambition to overrule his better nature and his better judgment.
It's not really too remarkable that his campaign has included multiple unfair attacks on Hillary and her proposals. As I recall, he was originally pressed into his unlikely run by a faction of the democratic activist community that could be described as "anybody but Hillary".
I am happy that Matt Gonzalez has summarized some important truths about O's limited and mixed record before the Democratic convention. Between now and then, we need more Democrats to step back from the O craze and take a hard look at reality. Otherwise, I fear we will not get the kind of change we so desperately need, and deserve.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
If not, and we go for O this year, I fear that we will see neither of them as POTUS, ever.
For in electoral politics, timing is not the only thing, it's just one of the most important things.
By the way, I see that the next elections in Iraq have been scheduled for October, 2008. Clever boys, those Republicans. I can just imagine all the money that is being promised to all the various Iraqi factions if they manage to carry out those elections peacefully. Because if they do, that will work hugely in Sen. M's favor if he is facing Sen. O, as he hopes.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
...is relying on the Iraq election this October to help him win? Bringing attention to the 70% of Americans who oppose the Iraq War the fact that we have been fighting in Iraq five-and-a-half years--the Bush/McCain war --- is a winning strategy?
By-the-way, did you know that the year John McCain was born, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade sailed from New York City on its way to the Spanish Civil War.
The Spanish Civil War.
to know, there are still many Americans who would like to see that our policies in Iraq have somehow worked.
If the GOP can somehow organize the appearance of success just before the General Election, that will help McCain - especially against Obama.
1936 wasn't a terrific time to be born, and McCain will surely let people know his story, which doubtless includes some exploits of his father in WW II. McCain's age is a liability against Hillary. However, it's a coin toss against Obama's lack of Federal experience and his lack of any military service.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
BLITZER: You sound like one of those moderate Democrats and Republicans who met in Oklahoma recently, who want to see the Left and the Right basically move closer together. …
DASCHLE: Well, it’s not only where I am personally. But I think it’s where the American people are. It’s where Barack is. … It’s why Republicans say, for the first time, you know, I think I can work for that guy
Via ronkseattle
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/short-takes/
"The Right always knows who its enemy is" Lance Mannion
The Matt Gonzalez that is Nader's running mate??? Now that is rich.
Big whoop! Nader is one of the few out there TELLING IT LIKE IT IS.
On TV poundits:
"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." - Thomas Brackett Reed
I'm glad the guy took the time to have a closer look. Some of the issues, like ethanol, there's little difference between the candidates. The NYTs has an article talking about HRC's support for ethanol and how she's working to get the transition going for cellulosic produced ethanol to get away from using corn and other food stuffs.