What Went Wrong For Barack Obama

sharkman · March 6, 2008

double post due to some weird board flooded error I received on my first attempt to post.

Edited March 6, 2008 by sharkman

August1991 · March 6, 2008

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.

So true.

It's as if the US MSM has given leave to its senses (and the Canadian MSM is even worse - starting with the CBC's Michael Colton). Some of these people actually think that Obama or Clinton can become President. Admittedly Clinton has a slightly better chance of making it to the White House but at this point, she has almost no chance of getting the nomination.

The MSM in both countries reminds me of the people who believed that McGovern would get elected in 1972. It ain't gonna happen.

What happened to Obama in Ohio is just an inkling of what will happen to him in the Fall campaign. Obama's real problem is not that he's inexperienced, it's that he's far too left wing. The Dems are committing political suicide but the base is oblivious to what it's doing. (Sharkman, as you rightly point out, they'll blame talk radio or NAFTA or Canadian Conservatives or whoever.)

Every so often, political parties indulge themselves and this is what happens.

Edited March 6, 2008 by August1991

Shady · March 6, 2008

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?

It's against the law to leak a memo regarding a Professor of economics' discussion with an official at the Canadian Consulate in Chicago? Are you talking about Canadian law or American law? And if it's true, where are the prosecutions of leakers of the Canadian Federal Budget every year?

It's not okay to give away national security secrets. This however, falls well below that standard. This memo shows that Barack Obama either didn't know that his economic advisor had a meeting at the Canadian Consulate, or lied about it. The memo, which nobody is disputing its authenticity, illustrates Barack Obama's double-talk regarding his NAFTA position. The meeting happened. Barack said it didn't. That's a fact. The memo tells Canadian officials to discount Obama's rhetoric regarding NAFTA. That's a fact. I'm sorry that facts may get in the way of people's dislike of Stephen Harper.

Some people want to focus on why/who leaked, instead of focusing on the content of the discovered meeting, and the discovered memo. Whoever leaked, for whatever reason, should be looked upon as a whistleblower, shining the light on poltical backroom deals, and political double-speak by a candidate running for President of the United States.

Topaz · March 6, 2008

So true.
It's as if the US MSM has given leave to its senses (and the Canadian MSM is even worse - starting with the CBC's Michael Colton). Some of these people actually think that Obama or Clinton can become President. Admittedly Clinton has a slightly better chance of making it to the White House but at this point, she has almost no chance of getting the nomination.

The MSM in both countries reminds me of the people who believed that McGovern would get elected in 1972. It ain't gonna happen.

What happened to Obama in Ohio is just an inkling of what will happen to him in the Fall campaign. Obama's real problem is not that he's inexperienced, it's that he's far too left wing. The Dems are committing political suicide but the base is oblivious to what it's doing. (Sharkman, as you rightly point out, they'll blame talk radio or NAFTA or Canadian Conservatives or whoever.)

Every so often, political parties indulge themselves and this is what happens.

Yeah Obama is really in deep trouble. He's going to have the Bush crime family and the clinton crime family going after him. Too bad McCain had to have the Bush's behind him.

BubberMiley · March 6, 2008

It's not okay to give away national security secrets. This however, falls well below that standard.

It's pretty bush league diplomacy, to say the least.

But I would agree with August in that yesterday's results ultimately mean nothing. Anyone who can do math can see that Obama's delegate lead was virtually unscathed, and we're now that much closer to the end. It's just looking more and more that this nomination is going to be decided by super delegates.

jdobbin · March 6, 2008

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.)

Don't know if you can be so certain about that.

I don't think either candidate can win before the convention as it now stands. They are both formidable candidates.

August1991 · March 6, 2008

Don't know if you can be so certain about that.
I don't think either candidate can win before the convention as it now stands. They are both formidable candidates.

It's an Internet forum - of course I can be certain.

Seriously though, I agree with Bubbler. It looks like the super delegates (and Michigan and Florida) may matter. I think they'll go with Obama or the winner of the pledged delegates (who will likely be Obama).

All that's happened here is that everyone wrote off Hillary and then she won Ohio and RI. Well, she was going to win Ohio anyway and RI is like a mini-version of rural Massachusetts. Because of this, everyone (the media) now thinks Hillary's campaign is back on track. It's not. She lost Wisconsin and she tied Texas.

Obama will get Wyoming and Miss. and then he'll be Number One again with the MSM again.

Carinthia · March 6, 2008

It's an Internet forum - of course I can be certain.
Seriously though, I agree with Bubbler. It looks like the super delegates (and Michigan and Florida) may matter. I think they'll go with Obama or the winner of the pledged delegates (who will likely be Obama).

All that's happened here is that everyone wrote off Hillary and then she won Ohio and RI. Well, she was going to win Ohio anyway and RI is like a mini-version of rural Massachusetts. Because of this, everyone (the media) now thinks Hillary's campaign is back on track. It's not. She lost Wisconsin and she tied Texas.

Obama will get Wyoming and Miss. and then he'll be Number One again with the MSM again.

Ha, ha, amazing! As I was reading your post, a pundit I was listening to on TV said the exact same thing.

jdobbin · March 6, 2008

It's an Internet forum - of course I can be certain.

Yes, I forgot about that. lol I will put that up there with the "Dewey Wins!" headlines.

Seriously though, I agree with Bubbler. It looks like the super delegates (and Michigan and Florida) may matter. I think they'll go with Obama or the winner of the pledged delegates (who will likely be Obama).

I guess you haven't heard about the possibility that they will re-run those state votes.

All that's happened here is that everyone wrote off Hillary and then she won Ohio and RI. Well, she was going to win Ohio anyway and RI is like a mini-version of rural Massachusetts. Because of this, everyone (the media) now thinks Hillary's campaign is back on track. It's not. She lost Wisconsin and she tied Texas.
Obama will get Wyoming and Miss. and then he'll be Number One again with the MSM again.

And if Florida and Michigan are re-run again? Florida would be huge and we won't know until we get to convention.

bush_cheney2004 · March 6, 2008

....And if Florida and Michigan are re-run again? Florida would be huge and we won't know until we get to convention.

No big deal....the New Hampshire (first) primary use to be in March, and California was the decisive state in June. Sorry we are taking so long to decide party nominees.

capricorn · March 6, 2008

The mere suggestion that Canada could sway the outcome of the Democrat's nomination is laughable. O.K. so Obama's position on NAFTA is unclear. Big friggin deal. If he so chooses, he can clarify what that is. If not, still no big deal.

Let's stick to our business and find out who on the Canadian side screwed up and let out inside information, and take appropriate action. I don't think this will torpedo Obama's chances at the nomination. He can do this all by himself.

While on the topic of Obama and his campaign, IMO he comes across as a preacher. Reminds a bit of a rainmaker. It's based on belief and hope. I have nothing against belief and hope but in these historic times is that enough? That's for Americans to answer.

jdobbin · March 6, 2008

The mere suggestion that Canada could sway the outcome of the Democrat's nomination is laughable. O.K. so Obama's position on NAFTA is unclear. Big friggin deal. If he so chooses, he can clarify what that is. If not, still no big deal.
Let's stick to our business and find out who on the Canadian side screwed up and let out inside information, and take appropriate action. I don't think this will torpedo Obama's chances at the nomination. He can do this all by himself.

CTV reports the chief of staff leaked the news at the budget lock-up. He says he can't recall.

Carinthia · March 6, 2008

The mere suggestion that Canada could sway the outcome of the Democrat's nomination is laughable. O.K. so Obama's position on NAFTA is unclear. Big friggin deal. If he so chooses, he can clarify what that is. If not, still no big deal.

It was a very big deal. Both Obama and Hillary stated that they would re negotiate NAFTA if they became the President. It was reprehensible that the Canadian Government would leak remarks from an Obama campaign person to the media during the U.S. primaries, knowing full well that Ohio feels they have suffered from the fallout of NAFTA. The Canadians knew that this would sway the voters to Clinton.

Obama's big mistake was that he didn't fire the guy who carried on the conversation, for perception purposes if nothing else. But then who would think that an outside nation would do something so manipulative? The reality is that neither Obama or Clinton have a hope in hell of changing the NAFTA Treaty. That was probably the gist of the conversation, just the reality of what's really possible and it was deliberately taken out of context. That's my guess.

Finding the right dialogue to explain this to the voters would be rather tricky, don't you think? Seems to me he had little choice but to hope it would not have the impact that it did and he could ride it out on his existing momentum. He may not have won Ohio anyhow but what went down here is damaging to Canadian/U.S. relations and will resonate into the future regardless of who wins.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Carinthia

bush_cheney2004 · March 6, 2008

...Finding the right dialogue to explain this to the voters would be rather tricky, don't you think? Seems to me he had little choice but to hope it would not have the impact that it did and he could ride it out on his existing momentum. He may not have won Ohio anyhow but what went down here is damaging to Canadian/U.S. relations and will resonate into the future regardless of who wins.

Why? It was garden variety campaign rhetoric, and Canada couldn't influence a US election even if it really wanted to. Mexico is also a NAFTA signatory, but we haven't heard much from them vis-a-vis renegotiating NAFTA. The only winner in this exchange was Senator McCain, because he took advantage of the controversy to score "gravitas" points.

Carinthia · March 6, 2008

The only winner in this exchange was Senator McCain, because he took advantage of the controversy to score "gravitas" points.

Exactly! Tories back Tories, hence the true reason for the manipulative leak. To reiterate what's already been pointed out, McCain has a better chance of beating Clinton than Obama. His record is far cleaner than hers on this issue and a few others.

bush_cheney2004 · March 6, 2008

Exactly! Tories back Tories, hence the true reason for the manipulative leak. To reiterate what's already been pointed out, McCain has a better chance of beating Clinton than Obama. His record is far cleaner than hers on this issue and a few others.

No, I don't think that's what happened. Besides, Americans chased "Tories" across the border 245 years ago. The clumsy event would have been better orchestrated if a purposeful leak.

McCain could have seized on protectionism and NAFTA's impact on Canada/Mexico without this fiasco.

Edited March 6, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

capricorn · March 6, 2008

Tories back Tories,

Not a revelation.

hence the true reason for the manipulative leak.

Manipulative? A slip of the tongue, perhaps? Not everything that happens is intentional. People are people. I'm not making excuses just stating a fact.

To reiterate what's already been pointed out, McCain has a better chance of beating Clinton than Obama.

That's opinion, nothing else. There are some people who think McCain could beat any one of those two contenders. So far, nothing is in the bag.

Shady · March 6, 2008

It was reprehensible that the Canadian Government would leak remarks from an Obama campaign person to the media during the U.S. primaries, knowing full well that Ohio feels they have suffered from the fallout of NAFTA.

What was truely reprehensible, was Obama saying one thing to Ohio voters, and the opposite to the Canadian Government.

Wilber · March 6, 2008

Tories back Tories,

If the Canadian government is going to back anyone, which they shouldn't, at least not in public, it should be the party they see as most likely to share the same interests as Canada. When it comes to trade at least, that has generally been the Republicans.

M.Dancer · March 6, 2008

If the Canadian government is going to back anyone, which they shouldn't, at least not in public, it should be the party they see as most likely to share the same interests as Canada. When it comes to trade at least, that has generally been the Republicans.

All Canada needs when our largest trading partner is staring recession in the face is a protectionist president with zero foreign policy experiance.

Carinthia · March 6, 2008

What was truely reprehensible, was Obama saying one thing to Ohio voters, and the opposite to the Canadian Government.

Nobody knows what was said and in what context. I am highly suspicious as to what was said merely on the fact that the Government interfered for their own self serving reasons. Nobody could convince me they did this out of a sense of duty to the American voters. If that were the case, they could be releasing all sorts of untold lies, especially during this past Bush/Cheney era.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Carinthia

M.Dancer · March 6, 2008

Nobody could convince me they did this out of a sense of duty to the American voters.

More likely a sense of duty to working canadians....

Leafless · March 6, 2008

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

You are wrong and have some nerve initiating a thread under a nick name used in his school years.

I think you are trying to make him sound White.

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (pronounced /bəˈɹɑːk huˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/;[1] born August 4, 1961) is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Carinthia · March 6, 2008

More likely a sense of duty to working canadians....

I would think that most working Canadians would feel more comfortable with appropriate above board dialogue between our nations rather than back room shenanigans and manipulation.

Carinthia · March 6, 2008

A tale of two leaks...

Ian Brodie, Harper's chief of staff, has been accused of being the source of the CTV News report. Brodie also allegedly told CTV reporters that people from the Clinton camp told Canadians to take her NAFTA concerns with a grain of salt.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/06/memo-leak.html