C'mon, Senators Clinton and McCain

UPDATE, 12-1-08:

Obama Names Susan Rice as UN Ambassador; Advocates "Forceful Action" Against Genocide

Read Susan Rice's original piece from March 6, 2008, below:

In this election we have two candidates who will manipulate the truth and one, Senator Obama, who will tell it.

Last night on Tucker Carlson's show, I said that Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and Senator McCain have never had to answer that proverbial 3 a.m. crisis phone call; only a commander in chief has shouldered that unique burden.

You can watch what I actually said. The full transcript of this portion of my interview is below.

Rather than acknowledge this indisputable truth, Senator Clinton's campaign chose to edit selectively and thus grossly distort my words in a video it sent to reporters and posted on Youtube. Senator McCain's campaign also misrepresented and manipulated my statement.

What we need from the next President when he or she answers the phone in a crisis is good judgment -- the kind that Barack Obama has consistently shown. Senators Clinton and McCain failed the judgment test when they voted for George Bush's Iraq war -- a war which has made America less safe and is the greatest strategic blunder of our generation -- without even bothering to read the full National Intelligence Estimate.

TRANSCRIPT, 3/5/08:

CARLSON: Barack Obama continues to defend his policy of engaging our enemies. But after last night's win for Hillary Clinton, has Mrs. Clinton finally found his Achilles heel? Could it be the freshman senator is more vulnerable than we thought on the question of foreign policy?

Joining us now is senior foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign, Susan Rice.

Susan, thanks a lot for coming -- for coming on.

SUSAN RICE, OBAMA SR. FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR: Good to be with you again.

CARLSON: So Hillary Clinton runs this ad, the famous red phone ad, that says when the phone rings at 3:00 in the morning, you know, who do you trust to make those snap decisions that could hold all of our lives in the balance? And the Obama campaign, I thought very wisely, came back and said, name one that you -- you know name a situation where you've judged a foreign policy crisis, and she couldn`t.

I'm going to ask the same question to you. Where has -- Barack Obama been in a position where he has to make those kinds of decisions?

RICE: He hasn't and he hasn't claimed that he's been in a position to have to answer the phone at 3:00 in the morning in a crisis situation. That's the difference between the two of them. Hillary Clinton hasn't had to answer the phone at 3:00 in the morning. And yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready. They`re both not ready to have that 3:00 a.m. phone call.

The questions is and what Barack Obama raised is, when that phone call is received for each of them for the first time, who's going to make the right judgment? Who is going to make the right decision?

On the critical foreign policy issues of the day, whether it was a decision to go to war in Iraq or the decision to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt and beat the drums of war with Iran, Hillary Clinton has made the same wrong judgment as John McCain and George W. Bush. Barack Obama has made a very different judgment.

So neither one of them, and nor John McCain for that matter, have had that 3:00 phone call that others have had. And I think we have to be honest about that.

CARLSON: Well, good for you for saying that. I mean I've asked that question of Hillary Clinton supporters and they -- rather than just saying she hasn't, they`'e come up with less believable right.

RICE: They've come up -- but Tucker, let's go into.

CARLSON: I don't want to pile on.

RICE: ...what they said.

CARLSON: I know what they said. I mean.

RICE: They said, you know, oh she -- first of all, as you pointed out, they said, you know, nothing for several, almost 20 seconds.

CARLSON: Well, she went to the 1995 Beijing.

RICE: And then she went to the Beijing women's conference which, of course, is a crisis. And then she claimed that she played an instrumental role in negotiating the Northern Ireland peace agreement. George Mitchell who was the negotiator said she not directly involved. She claimed she went to Kosovo and opened the border with Macedonia, and yet the border opened the day before she arrived on that trip through no direct involvement of her own.

CARLSON: They knew she was coming and they opened it up.

RICE: Well, you know.

CARLSON: That -- such is the power of Hillary Clinton.

RICE: Well, there you go.

Comments

[Lane]

"the kind that Barack Obama has consistently shown."

Is it just me or does it appear to anyone else that Obama is just "too cool"about this election process????? I mean, the man acts as if he KNOWS he is going to be the next democratic candidate already. I'm wondering why he us behaving this way??? Who has he already sold his soul too?????????

[cybersense]

Susan Rice worked for the Clinton Adminstration as "Assistant Secretary of Foreign Affiars for Africa".

Senior Secretary of Foreign Affairs was M. Albright. She supports Hillary, and she tells a different story about Hillary then Susan Rice.

Susan Rice, you are learning that what you say can be taken any way. This is just the beginning.

[PNolan]

Dr. Rice, I would have appreciated it if you had used this posting to say you had made a mistake in saying what you said the way you said it. Instead you chose to blaim Senator Clinton and Senator McCain for "misrepresenting and manipulating" your statement. You gave your opponents a political opportunity. Take responsibility.

[ignorantwillyharper]

To hell with the 3:00 O'Clock phone call, it's the 2:00 O'Clock pizza delivery. Hillary would not pay, nor tip the Pizza Guy, as she is entitled to everything in this country!

[NursePatric]

Rule # one ... when you are stuck in a hole ... STOP DIGGING. I am very unimpressed by Obama's choices of foreign policy advisors. The world isn't Harvard. I was priviledged to go there myself -- it's a wonderful, artificial world that sees itself as the center of Western culture and thinking. They say so ... oh yeah ... that's why HRC chose Yale.
I think the theme of HRCs 3am commercial was exactly that she is ready. SHE IS READY -- as ready as anyone will ever be. Hillary is exactly the woman I want dealing with a 3am crisis in a world where the people I love are hoping to live for the forseeable future.
Calling more attention to an amateurish statement doesn't inspire confidence.

[needavid]

Which of the Hilarys do you want dealing with this 3am crisis? The one that will start to cry, or yell shame on you for waking me up at 3am, or mimic the voice in an exaggerated manner, or say " I am really honoured to be the one to recieve this phone call"?
I am sorry I couldn't resist!!

[Aladdinc]

Susan Rice, by her bio, is the most experienced of Obama's "Not Yet Ready for Prime Time" team.

Therefore, Rice's willingness to post the full transcript of her remarks on MSNBC is proof of either a self-destructive streak or a willingness to hand words to the McCain campaign. Can you hear it now?:

McCain: Obama's adviser herself said, "They`re both not ready to have that 3:00 a.m. phone call."

Pleeze.

Can America afford a President who selects people who lack judgment in dealing with media and other goverments?


* The other team members we have seen in the full glory of lime light to this time are:

1. Samanthan Power, the woman whose remarks about Obama's commitment to his self-proclaimed timetable for withdrawal from Iraq led the BBC interviewer to conclude): "So we needn't necessarily take it seriously at all." She also called Senator Clinton a "monster" FYI, she also has said that Israel was guilty of war crimes.

2. Top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, who revealed the falseness of Obama's commitment to changing NAFTA to the Canadian Government.

Should we include the would-be First Lady Michelle Obama who on February 18th, said, "for the first time in my adult life I 'm really proud of my country"?

[needavid]

I am surprised to hear someone quote Austan Goolsbee regarding the NAFTA issue. I suppose you Hilary Clinton fans will believe anything that makes Barack Obama look bad. It became obvious in the last few days that the said meeting did not occur as the media and Sen. Clinton's campaign made it out to be. In fact here in Canada when the news first broke it was Sen. Clinton's campaign that reached out to the Canadian Govt and said to take her stand on NAFTA 'with a grain of salt' according to Ian Brodie. Why that part is being omitted from the American media has baffled us up here since the whole story broke. I hope you know that you tteach people how to treat you, if you dont hold your politicians to a higher standard now you can't expect to do that when they are in office. I also wonder why the Paul vs Clinton fraud case is so mute in the media meanwhile the hidden tape recording that implicates Sen. clinton has gone viral on youtube.

[Aladdinc]

Of course, Goolsbee met with Canadian officials. I am including a transcript of the account of this meeting. What Goolsbee's meeting showed was that Obama lacked a principled position on NAFTA--spoke to the American people one way (against NAFTA) and to the Canadians another (for NAFTA). The voters of Ohio and Texas voted against the man who is not in their corner on this issue, a man who gives no bread and butter answers to American workers who need answers now, saying, in effect, "It's the economy and we're not stupid." Good for the voters!

Voters choosing a President also have no time for candidates who put amateurs out there who are in shock to be in the limelight. This is the account of Goolsbee's meeting. What is additionally shocking (besides what he revealed) is how naive he is....and how for him, this is all about his first minutes of new found fame. Pleeze. There are serious issues facing the American people: 63,000 jobs lost last month; people losing their homes, their futures.
Hillary understands their needs and will work every day for them. As David Brooks of the Times wrote on Thursday, of Obama, "It's that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona. If he can't explain that, he's going to lose at some point anyway. "

Here is the backup material about each of Obama's advisers ( I could have cited many other sources on this but the one I cite gave a transcript).



*Austan Goolsbee, NAFTA and Canada

Reported from Canada.com:

We now have a copy of the Canadian diplomatic memo of the meeting Feb. 8 between Barack Obama's top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and Georges Rioux, Ottawa's consul general in Chicago.

Herewith are some excerpts:

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign ... (he) cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans. He also suggested that of the Democratic candidates, Obama has been the least protectionist."

"He again cautioned that much of the current conversation in the US about the negative impact of free trade is not aimed at Canada. He said the 'blood bath' is over expanding free trade to countries like Peru and Korea."

"He was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the campaign rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of the political maneuvering than policy."

"Goolsbee projected youthfulness, energy and a keen political acumen and was refreshingly open and candid. He admitted that the past few months have been rather extraordinary for, as he described himself, 'just a professor.' "

[GRobSecular]

Aladdinc, are you comfortable living in a restrictive, heavily monitored society that Hillary will usher in? She has already voted for the Patriot Act not once, but twice. Think about when she is president. It will truly be the death of free society.

[cybersense]

How about reading the Bill? How about learning about what the process is? You can comment all you want, but until you understand what it actually detailed, then it is in fact, a weak comment.

[Aladdinc]

Oh please, I don't expect to have my candidate support every position I would. Hillary has long spoken out to protect Habeas Corpus and against torture, wiretapping etc. These are credible candidates--both--on civil liberties issues, and a partisan supporter of either who says otherwise hurts only his/her own credibility as a rational thinker. The difference is that one --Hillary--has a record of fighting when she draws the line on an issue (continued support for mandatory health care). Obama lacks fight (e.g.his shift to allow voluntary reporting by nuclear power companies when there are nuclear leaks)

On the issue of the Patriot Act,: Do you not know that Obama voted for the Patriot Act re-authorization, as most progressive senators did, when he had became a Senator and had the chance to vote?

All of us should remember that even Obama spoke of the difference between the positions one takes outside the Senate and inside the responsibility of having a vote. Here are his words on his own 2002 anti-war speech, which seems to be his self-proclaimed right
to be President: from his October2006 New Yorker interview when he spoke about the Iraq vote. Barack Obama responded to the question:
> "Where do you find yourself having the biggest
> differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?"
>
> He said: "You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know
> her, the more I admire her. I think she's the most disciplined"one of the most
> disciplined people"I've ever met. She's one of the toughest. She's got an
> extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she's somebody who's in this stuff
> for the right reasons. She's passionate about moving the country forward on
> issues like health care and children.
>
> So it's not clear to me what differences we've had since I've been in the
> Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of
> the war in Iraq, although I'm always careful to say that I was not in the
> Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I
> didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence.
>
> And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So
> that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in
> different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she
> had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test."

Hillary will be a great president.

[treadway123]

For the trueth shall set you free htt://www.judicialwatch.org/hillarywatch.shtml i was a real believer after reading this. ENJOY!

[army193]

Susan the MSM and Clinton is unable to meet the threshold on truth ...Thank you for clearing this up...I just got the first part and now it makes more sense...Hillary claims that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president because he hasn't met the commander-in-chief threshold...But she would have him as Vice President that has not met this threshold...I"m sure that Barack Obama would pick a person that can meet this threshold it appears that Clinton is not ready on day one based on her job description.

[elion10]

Yes, its a relief she cleared up her own words.. and now asks the opposition and the media to "Come' on "

Cause that will go over so big with real opposition.. you know -- like enemies.

Come' ON guys-- lets get real.

[Centaur]

As I pointed out on another post, Clinton should not be Obama's choice for VP. She has forfeited that right. It has been a culmination of things that should be pointed out such as her half-hearted (at best) response of Obama being an alledged Muslim and her unforgiveble sin of putting McCain over Obama as to who would essentially be qualified as President. I say Sebilius as VP if he goes with a woman. She is more qualified than Clinton and much more popular.

[Aladdinc]

In the end, Hillary will have a different running mate, one that she will choose. We should all have faith.

[athy]

Hi mtrue-
I beg to disagree with you STRONGLY.
Please review my comments below regarding Sen Bill Nelson (Fl).
Please challenge or support (with facts & sources if possible) anything I have written
This is too important. We have to discuss to get to the truth.

[mtrue]

Ms. Rice you are an excellent analyst and point out correctly that nobody but a president in a time of crisis has had to make a response to such calls. We all saw Bush's 'deer in the headlights' response to the 9/11 attack. We have all seen John McCain's fits of rage and anger. We have also seen Hillary's snits and use of incomplete information to try and make political points. The only candidate who is clear headed and secure enough to remain analytical to react appropriately to a crisis in security is Barack Obama. Those that would propose otherwise simply are not looking at the facts. Just like before the Iraq war it did not take a rocket scientist to conclude that Saddam did not impose an imminent threat -- even if he had reconstituted a nuclear program! Now we see Hillary using the (Republican) fear tactic for her partisan political gain. UGH!!!!

[athy]

Hi MTrue,
I beg to disgree with you...VERY STRONGLY...
See my comments below concerning Sen Bill Nelson (FL).
If you still agree with your statement above, (or can refute/support anything I have written) please tell me and show me why...This is too important. WE NEED TO DISCUSS.
Thanks-

[WilliamGossett]

What is with McCAin about the Airbus deal?

"No pork..." he says.

The tanker project is going to be done anyway. It is NOT an add-on that doesn't have to be spent. So, why not spend the primary money here in America rather than overseas???

[moyphee]

Susan Rice articulates Obama's credentials and positions beautifuly . The problem I have is that I'm still waiting for Obama to use his own voice to say it,

Exerience as an elected leader , legislation authored and passed ,quality of legislation, jdugement...he has her beat on so many fronts but for some reason he keeps giving a sermon as opposed to mixing some real policy and positions. While he got my vote February I'm not looking for a reverend for president. I want hear him tell me what he's going to do...no stories of the unfortunate. We can see this everyday.

Hopefully he will point out in public that Hilary made a 3 point blunder regarding the war. She trusted Bush , and knew there was no exit plan , and she didn't even read the resolution she signed . A self credited CIC that doesn't have the common sense to read a war resolution before she sign onto it. A decision she should known was going to cost American lives. That position would stop this CIC/Day 1 garbage.

With possible debates coming in Penn. She should be called on her hypocrisy regarding NAFTA. I would also like to see her challenged on her tax returns more strongly. I would ultimately like ti hear her tell the public that she's clean and has no ties to special interest or owe any favors related to her finances. The Tax returns will undoubtedly prove her to be untrustworthy.

** Anyone notice....Clinton's 35 years of nondescript experience has been revised to " a lifetime of experience".

*** No president has ever taken office without winning Ohio - true. More importantly , no president has ever taken office after loosing 12 contest in a row , loosing the popular vote ,and a lesser delegate count.
Spin that Clinton !

**** Why isn't this info being used ? Let her wiggle out this.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

[Janskats]

Not true..Kennedy and FDR.

[moyphee]

I stand corrected .

[athy]

Hi
Having tech problems getting this through...

Congress voted for what they told would be used as leverage to force inspections. They did not vote for authorization for war.Check out Joe Wilson's article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/battletested_b_86355.html?view=screen
According to various credible sources-Congress was lied to- before, during and after the vote

According to a detailed investigation conducted by The Center For Public Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

"President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses"

[DRHoen]

If that's what they thought, then they were duped by Bush, of all people. How does that reflect on their ability and judgement? It was their Constitutional obligation, their most important duty, to prevent an unnecessary war of aggression. They failed. There is no way to excuse it.

[antirepublocrat]

Mike Gravel said it beautifully in an early debate when he said that anybody who voted for that authorization lacks the judgement to be President.

The fact is, the Democrats who voted for the authorization did so largely for political expediency. They corruptly voted against their own better judgement, hoping for the least damage to their own political fortunes. Ironically, many like Max Cleland lost that fall anyway. One who did not cave but voted with integrity, Paul Wellstone, was in better shape in the polls than many who did.

When it comes to Hillary, I believe she voted her conscience. She's a liberal hawk, and if she's elected expect to see our military used and expanded.

[moyphee]

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

...what exactly did they think they were authorizing if not war.

from Clinton's Meet The Press...

"You voted against Carl Levin, who was saying give diplomacy a chance and yet you said no. You voted to authorize war. The resolution you voted for, Robert Byrd said was a blank check for George Bush. Ted Kennedy says it was a vote for war. James Carville and Paul Begala said anyone who says that vote wasn't a vote for war is bunk."

They knew what they exactly were voting for. " Coercive Diplomacy" as Clinton put it is my favorite oxymoron to come out of the race. They gave Bush permission to threaten but not to shoot. That's a stretch even for republicans

[athy]

Sen Bill Nelson (FL) was one of the 77 senators who voted for Iraq War Resolution.
Nelson described for the Congressional Record ( pp S311-S312 dated January 28,2004) the days leading up to the 10/02 U.S. Senate vote on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of US Armed Forces Against Iraq. He explains how the House and Senate members were not told the truth about weapons of mass destruction, about troop levels, about the cost of the war, about sectarian violence.
In addition, I had read somewhere that just before the vote, about 75 senators were told in closed session specific details regarding how Saddam Hussein had the means of attacking the eastern seaboard of the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons delivered by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
The discussions which take place in a closed session are subject to confidentiality rules and are similar to an executive session, which itself can be open or closed.
All business is considered secret, including Senatorial remarks, votes, and other parliamentary proceedings. The Senate can vote during the session or later to lift the secrecy, at which time the vote and the session proceedings will be published in the Congressional Record.
If a Senator discloses any of the proceedings except as directed by the Senate, the body can vote for expulsion of the member; any officer that does the same would be subject to dismissal. In extreme cases, the Senate could vote the member or official in contempt of Congress.If the senators were told something (horrifying) in private during that closed session that convinced them to vote for the Iraq Bill-we will never know about it.
I don"t know who called the motion and who seconded it so that this can take place.
I I don"t know if Sen Clinton was presentduring closed mtg. I don"t know what was discussed.
Then, on February 2003, Colin Powell presented further evidence in his Iraqi WMD program presentation to the UN Security Council that UAVs were ready to be launched against the U.S.
Sen. Clinton (along with 76 senators and 296 House members) voted in favor of the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which authorized Pres. Bush to use military force against Iraq, SHOULD SUCH AN ACTION BE REQUIRED to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution (26 House & Senate members voted no and 3 abstained-. Force was to be used ONLY AFTER after after pursuing with diplomatic efforts. (However, Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the U.N., and would have also required a separate Congressional authorization to unilaterally invade Iraq. Attempts were made to pass 5 amendments to the Bill. House (spratt, Lee) Senate (Byrd, Levin, durbin). All five failed..
Clinton did vote for the Byrd Amendment to the Resolution, which would have limited the Congressional authorization to one year increments, but the only mechanism necessary for the President to renew his mandate without any Congressional oversight was to claim that the Iraq War was vital to national security each year the authorization required renewal). In addition, Hans Blix the chief United Nations weapons inspector, said that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. According to Joe Wilson, Sen. Clinton"s approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. .. According to Wilson, the betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats. After the Iraq War began, Clinton made trips to both Iraq and Afghanistan to visit American troops stationed there. Noting that war deployments were draining regular and reserve forces, she co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular United States Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain. She criticized the administration for making poor decisions in the war, but said it was more important to solve the problems in Iraq. Clinton supported retaining and improving health benefits for veterans, and lobbied against the closure of several military bases.[223]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/battletested_b_86355.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s012804b.html
(Congressional Record 1/28/04)

[mtrue]

athy

I do believe that the act was entitled "Authorization for the use of military action in Iraq" -- I may be off on the exact wording but it should have been clear to Ms. Clinton that she was authorizing the administration -- led by a naive cowboy -- that she was authorizing the use of our young men and women to die and be maimed in the sands of Iraq for a non-imminent threat There is no getting around her lack of judgment. So strongly disagree with me -- but be careful the wool does not scratch your corneas. Now you could criticize Barack for making too much of his insight as even I knew -- at the time -- that the administration was full of blather and flapdoodle -- and I did not get any of the data that was available to members of the Armed services members of the senate. Dick Cheney beat the war drums for months and Hillary decided that she would rather be on the side of the administration than be smeared as weak. This ironically makes her not only weak but lame as well.

[mamamay]

I saw Tucker and Susan, and I agree with her comment. One thing for sure, Obama will be the best and the most qualified for the President. He has mored actual experience in working with, for and by the people. He is a uniter and one who will use sound judgement when answering a crisis call. Why? Obama is for all people, not just a few women who want say they helped another woman defeat a man. He will be a good president. Hil learned as a very young girl to fight men, but she learned nothing about sharing with men, being kind to men. McC learned how to bully and push his weight around to get his way. It appears upon being captured he developed an anger and hotter head toward the enemy, and now he wants to continue a war and or start one on his own. This is not good. McC needs to return to the senate before he goes off on someone or causes someone to test him. He is too angry to be turned a loose to campaign for the President. Yes, he needs to go back to chasing chemistry in folks. At least this seems to appease his angerment for a minute. Vote for Obama and stop this drama.. Hil needs to stop her drama and go back to the Senate and await her own time out.

[Tulka2]

"Gee, do you think Senator Clinton is divisive?"

Just ask the above question over and over. Senator Obama has my permission to ask it loud and ask it often.

[democratICnpround]

Part ot TPM post this afternoon:
After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for " or received " any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday.

"The answer is no, they did not," said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.

That response will come as a relief to the Clinton campaign, which has angrily denied that it has engaged in the kind of double-talking hypocrisy of which it accuses Mr. Obama.

Obama camp followers, your apologies are accepted with sincer thanks.

[DRHoen]

Sure, and they also denied that the Obama camp had suggested it, saying it had been a misinterpretation.

The fact remains that a roomful of reporters heard Brodie say the embassy had received a call from Clinton's aide. Since the Canadian Conservative Party is as corrupt as the Bush Republicans. (e.g. do some research into former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who is currently having some, er, legal issues.), at this point it's hard to know what the truth is. It's possible that Brodie misspoke, or the reporters were hallucinating or something, but exceedingly unlikely. This Conservative government is notoriously tight lipped. So, something is still fishy. Luckily, the opposition in Canada is pushing hard for an independent investigation, so stay tuned...

[needavid]

I am in Canada, I heard the story at least a week before it made headlines in the US and the reporters said Ian Brodie mentioned Clinton's campaign. After getting into so much trouble with both the Canadian people and the opposition do you really think they will admit to anymore of their folly and ineptittude. Seriously only a 5 year old will believe this. Are you talking about a PM that has not been able to answer straight forward questions about the Cadman affair? This same government has not come up with answers about accusations they tried to bribe a dying man with 1 million dollar life insurance policy for his vote. The PM is heard on a tape recording saying if it requires "financial considerations" then that is what they should do. He has not been able to define "financial consideration". So it does not work well for your case that the PM's spoke person is defending Sen Clinton. In fact one of the Toronto star's author called James Travers wrote an interesting article on March 6 on how the Harper Govt prefers Hilary Clinton because Obama is too much of a contrast to him and may spark a yearning for an Obama here. We already have that yearning.