What Went Wrong For Barack Obama

M.Dancer · March 5, 2008

I think his obvious insincerity is the killer.

Edited March 5, 2008 by M.Dancer

Carinthia · March 5, 2008

I think his obvious insincerity is the killer.

I don't think it was insincerity as much as it was his lack of response to Canada's allegations. Either he was insincere or over confident and truly thought nothing could stop him. My guess is the latter. I was disapointed, as I liked him far better than shrill Hill but I fear he will be finished long before June.

Leafless · March 5, 2008

Who is Barry Obama?

M.Dancer · March 5, 2008

Who is Barry Obama?

Appently it's the name Barack Obama went by in his youth....but didn't sound black enough so he went back to his original

Topaz · March 5, 2008

What the news is reporting is Rush and other Conservative like him on the radio, kept driving the idea TO Conservatives , to voting for Hilliary so in the November elections they would be beat her with no problems. I guess they won't want to used the software on the computers to change the votes, at least not yet.

HisSelf · March 5, 2008

Why not ask Harper? I believe he was the guy manning the torpedo tubes. Funny that Obama's fortunes in Ohio went so quickly south after a news story that nobody seems to be willing to claim ownership for.

Are we all proud to be Canadians now?

Carinthia · March 5, 2008

Are we all proud to be Canadians now?

I am still in shock over this. If Harper is playing these types of dirty games now, imagine what will be in store for us if he wins a majority in the next election.

Shady · March 5, 2008

I am still in shock over this. If Harper is playing these types of dirty games now, imagine what will be in store for us if he wins a majority in the next election.

Stop trying to blame this on Stephen Harper. It has nothing to do with him. It was Obama who denied that any meeting took place. Which wasn't true. It was Obama's economic advisor who met with Candian officials which produced the memo illustrating Obama's double-speak. Nice try though.

HisSelf · March 5, 2008

Stop trying to blame this on Stephen Harper. It has nothing to do with him. It was Obama who denied that any meeting took place. Which wasn't true. It was Obama's economic advisor who met with Candian officials which produced the memo illustrating Obama's double-speak. Nice try though.

Whose version of events are we relating here? How would such a meeting take place? Can you see a serious Obama insider flying up to Ottawa in the middle of a hotly contested campaign in Ohio to get the input of the Canadian government?

Carinthia · March 5, 2008

Stop trying to blame this on Stephen Harper. It has nothing to do with him. It was Obama who denied that any meeting took place. Which wasn't true. It was Obama's economic advisor who met with Candian officials which produced the memo illustrating Obama's double-speak. Nice try though.

No sorry, I will continue to blame Harper. Obama clearly stated that he did not know about the interaction between the embassy and his economic advisor. I'm sure that the advisor talks to many people around the world on a daily basis and was deliberately misquoted by our fearless leader. This is manipulation so McCain doesn't have to face Obama. The memo must have only said that a meeting took place. I didn't see any written or taped proof that Obama's advisor actually said that re doing NAFTA was only rhetoric.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Carinthia

Wilber · March 5, 2008

No sorry, I will continue to blame Harper. Obama clearly stated that he did not know about the interaction between the embassy and his economic advisor. I'm sure that the advisor talks to many people around the world on a daily basis and was deliberately misquoted by our fearless leader. This is manipulation so McCain doesn't have to face Obama. The memo must have only said that a meeting took place. I didn't see any written or taped proof that Obama's advisor actually said that re doing NAFTA was only rhetoric.

Well which is it? Is it rhetoric, or is it not rhetoric? Inquiring Canadians would like to know. Particularly ones who rely on NAFTA for their standard of living.

M.Dancer · March 5, 2008

Well which is it? Is it rhetoric, or is it not rhetoric? Inquiring Canadians would like to know. Particularly ones who rely on NAFTA for their standard of living.

And more to the point, inquiring americans need to know...

...either way, both Clinton and Oama are dangerous to Canada's interests.

HisSelf · March 5, 2008

And more to the point, inquiring americans need to know...
...either way, both Clinton and Oama are dangerous to Canada's interests.

Which interests might those be? Having soldiers die in Kandahar for the sake of George Bush's misadventure in Iraq? The Europeans were no dummies. When are we going to see the light?

Carinthia · March 5, 2008

And more to the point, inquiring americans need to know...
...either way, both Clinton and Oama are dangerous to Canada's interests.

Guess we won't know now until either Clinton or Obama win the Presidency. I would hazard a guess if it's Hillary, you will have nothing to worry about, if you are for NAFTA. If it's Obama you may have some worries. The people of Ohio were hoodwinked.

Topaz · March 5, 2008

I am still in shock over this. If Harper is playing these types of dirty games now, imagine what will be in store for us if he wins a majority in the next election.

The voters must not let that happen! I still feel Harper is in bed with the Republicans, why else never before would a US congressman visit Ottawa just after he was elected. Why would A US strategist help Harper how to go after the opposition, how to spin things! I don't like the US politics of doing things especially since GW appeared on the scene. One thing Obama has to deal with are death threatens and people's racist views of blacks and there all around the area were the voting is going on. I hope he becomes the leader of the US and put Harper in his place!

HisSelf · March 5, 2008

The voters must not let that happen! I still feel Harper is in bed with the Republicans...

No kidding.

CanadianOak · March 5, 2008

No kidding.

It's quite obvious the CPC was behind this. The question is... WHY?

Are they confident that McCain will beat Hillary? Or do they want to disintegrate the democratic party by causing Hillary vs Obama conflict?

I think Harper wants Repubs in because it will give his party the stability and consistency it needs to continue their agenda. Because if a small change occurs and causes a problem that goes against Harper's budget plans, it will hurt CPC considerably in the future especially when it comes to things CPC is taking for granted when they prepared the budget.

Only time will tell... But one thing is certain... It has proved Barack Obama is not so Messianic after all... thereby diminishing his supporters' last resort in an argument "at least he's honest" sad, THIS will probably end Obama's campaign and the fact that Canada was involved makes me scared when Obama wins the nomination and clinches the presidency as he'll seek revenge for sure.

Carinthia · March 5, 2008

It's quite obvious the CPC was behind this. The question is... WHY?
Are they confident that McCain will beat Hillary? Or do they want to disintegrate the democratic party by causing Hillary vs Obama conflict?

I think Harper wants Repubs in because it will give his party the stability and consistency it needs to continue their agenda. Because if a small change occurs and causes a problem that goes against Harper's budget plans, it will hurt CPC considerably in the future especially when it comes to things CPC is taking for granted when they prepared the budget.

Only time will tell... But one thing is certain... It has proved Barack Obama is not so Messianic after all... thereby diminishing his supporters' last resort in an argument "at least he's honest" sad, THIS will probably end Obama's campaign and the fact that Canada was involved makes me scared when Obama wins the nomination and clinches the presidency as he'll seek revenge for sure.

The thing about the conservatives everywhere is, they can't seem to win on the issues alone, they have to pull off dirty tricks to win.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Carinthia

AngusThermopyle · March 5, 2008

The thing about the conservatives everywhere is, they can't seem to win on the issues alone, they have to pull off dirty tricks to win.

Well I suppose you could say that, in fact you could say a whole lot more, doesn't make it true, but you can certainly say it.

They should be more like the Liberals and just pretend the issues don't exist, toss a few unacountable billions around here and there whilst grandly announcing "don't worry, be happy". Or "look at my golf balls", thats even more reassuring.

Shady · March 5, 2008

It's quite obvious the CPC was behind this. The question is... WHY?

Yes of course, they forced, by gun point, Obama's economic advisor to meet with Canadian officials in Chicago. Then, they forced him not to tell Barack Obama about said meeting. Then, they forced Obama to double-talk on the NAFTA issue during his campaigning in Ohio. Yeah, that must be it, cause Obama certainly couldn't have any responsibility here. He's not even President yet and he's caused an International incident. I can't wait until he's in the Whitehouse meeting with Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong Ill and Ahmadinejad, without pre-conditions.

I see the leaker of this memo as a whistle-blower. American voters have the right to know if Mr. Hope and Change is really Mr. Politics as Usual.

According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

It also said the professor had assured the Canadians that Mr. Obama’s language “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”

CanadianOak · March 6, 2008

Yes of course, they forced, by gun point, Obama's economic advisor to meet with Canadian officials in Chicago. Then, they forced him not to tell Barack Obama about said meeting. Then, they forced Obama to double-talk on the NAFTA issue during his campaigning in Ohio. Yeah, that must be it, cause Obama certainly couldn't have any responsibility here. He's not even President yet and he's caused an International incident. I can't wait until he's in the Whitehouse meeting with Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong Ill and Ahmadinejad, without pre-conditions.
I see the leaker of this memo as a whistle-blower. American voters have the right to know if Mr. Hope and Change is really Mr. Politics as Usual.

According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

It also said the professor had assured the Canadians that Mr. Obama’s language “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”

Actually my friend, although I'm not an Obama supporter, it is against the law to do that.

Are you telling me it is okay to give away such secrets? Than why doesn't Harper talk openly of Mulroney? Bush letting American people know what prompted him to go to the stupid Iraq war? If so he can fire them? I don't see any of that.

When it comes to dirty tricks, why is it that you are trying to spin it to make it a positive? It will probably end Obama's campaign but to make it seem as if CPC did the right thing is ludicrous and you very well know it. It was 100% obvious that if Clinton lost Ohio (which was very likely before this) and why doesn't Harper agree that his camp did it and speak the truth?

August1991 · March 6, 2008

When it comes to dirty tricks, why is it that you are trying to spin it to make it a positive? It will probably end Obama's campaign but to make it seem as if CPC did the right thing is ludicrous and you very well know it. It was 100% obvious that if Clinton lost Ohio (which was very likely before this) and why doesn't Harper agree that his camp did it and speak the truth?

Clinton was not going to lose Ohio but I'll bet even she's pleased with the margin of victory.

Texas was a tie (and Texas is a state with many Hispanic Democrats).

Overall, I'd call this a pretty good day for Obama. The media of course loves to make everything look more dramatic than it really is. Obama's victory in Wisconsin and his tie in Texas mean that Hillary just won't be able to pull this thing off. (Hey, I predicted a Clinton win back at the beginning so don't call me an Obama apologist.)

This Nafta episode? Irrelevant. At most, it shows that Obama may have a commanding voice but he's a little inexperienced. We all knew that and if this is his most serious faux-pas, then he's a far more experienced than John Kerry or Paul Martin.

Next up are Wyoming and Mississippi where, based on past experience, Obama will do well. Then Pennsylvania which will be the next donnybrook. Polls show that Hillary still leads there and I must admit that it's hers to lose. Then NC, WV, Kentucky and Indiana where Obama will likely do well.

The key factor is delegate numbers and this is where the math is against Clinton. She can officially win Texas but what's the point: she doesn't bridge the delegate gap.

-----

So, what went wrong for Obama? Nothing. If he keeps going wrong like this, he'll win the nomination. (Now, winning the White House is an entirely different story.)

Edited March 6, 2008 by August1991

Arjun · March 6, 2008

Just throwing this out there but.... If Barack Hussein Obama does win, im sure there are some KKK ppl who will try and kill him... im pretty sure he will be killed. Then what? Hillary gets pitty votes and she wins. I would rather have McCain win.

But then again... maybe they dont think hes black enough to kill.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Arjun

Topaz · March 6, 2008

Clinton was not going to lose Ohio but I'll bet even she's pleased with the margin of victory.
Texas was a tie (and Texas is a state with many Hispanic Democrats).

Overall, I'd call this a pretty good day for Obama. The media of course loves to make everything look more dramatic than it really is. Obama's victory in Wisconsin and his tie in Texas mean that Hillary just won't be able to pull this thing off. (Hey, I predicted a Clinton win back at the beginning so don't call me an Obama apologist.)

This Nafta episode? Irrelevant. At most, it shows that Obama may have a commanding voice but he's a little inexperienced. We all knew that and if this is his most serious faux-pas, then he's a far more experienced than John Kerry or Paul Martin.

Next up are Wyoming and Mississippi where, based on past experience, Obama will do well. Then Pennsylvania which will be the next donnybrook. Polls show that Hillary still leads there and I must admit that it's hers to lose. Then NC, WV, Kentucky and Indiana where Obama will likely do well.

The key factor is delegate numbers and this is where the math is against Clinton. She can officially win Texas but what's the point: she doesn't bridge the delegate gap.

-----

So, what went wrong for Obama? Nothing. If he keeps going wrong like this, he'll win the nomination. (Now, winning the White House is an entirely different story.)

Jst one question, when there's a clinton and bush working together for their guy or gal....did they check the computer software for the accuracy of the votes? Also, they said three days before the votes 20% of voters change their vote to CLINTON!!

sharkman · March 6, 2008

This would be soooo funny if it wasn't so sad. A democrat loses a couple of elections after reeling off a long string of wins, and it's not Hilary's fault, it's not Obama's fault. No siree, they had nothing to do with it, certainly not Hilary who's staff was circulating a picture of Obama in Muslim dress (since the 5 second attention span of the american voter couldn't put this together without a picture), and pointing out Obama's flip flopping on NAFTA.

It was the conservatives fault. No, really. In the States, paranoid Obama groupies are also blaming conservative talk radio for suggesting to their audience to vote for Hilary since McCain has it in the bag already. Meanwhile, Hilary has finally shown she's willing to go after Obama's weak spot and pound away at it which has big wigs in the party upset that an actual knock down drag out election scrap may ensue (like every election between Reublicans and Dems in the last decade or more).

Just remember, it's not Hilary's fault for passing around that picture or repeatedly bringing up Obama's flip flop. It's those nasty conservatives. Yeah, right.