This is an exceptionally well-done video by Flineo, which manages to present much of the case against Obama in less than five minutes. As you watch the finale, keep in mind that Obama has now officially reversed his pledge on public campaign financing. He now says that he needs more money to combat "smears." By "smears," he means the truth -- as presented in videos by Flineo.
I'm particularly angered by the section on NAFTA. In the video, you will see two clips of Obama denying that Goolsbee met the Canadians, even though he provably did. (People now forget that Goolsbee originally tried to pretend that he had no connection to Obama.)
Obama apologists -- I will not link to the relevant Huffington Post story; use Google if you must -- now try to pretend that Obama's current NAFTA position matches the one he has always held. Oh yeah? Then why did so many Obots on Kos, DU, TPM and HP shout fantasies about Obama doing away with NAFTA? Why did they (falsely) claim that Hillary, not Obama, was the one giving secret assurances to the Canadians?
Obama transformed himself into a Rorschach blot, onto which progressives projected all of their silly fantasies. As Virginia Postrel says in The Atlantic:His call for “a broad majority of Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents of goodwill -- who are re-engaged in the project of national renewal” is not a statement of principles. It’s an invitation to the audience to entertain their own fantasies of what national renewal would look like.
As the NAFTA flap demonstrates, his supporters can’t even decide what the candidate really thinks about free trade. His glamour makes it easy to imagine that a President Obama would dissolve differences, abolish hard choices, and achieve political consensus—or that he’s a stealth candidate who will translate his vague platform into a mandate for whatever policies you the voter happen to support.
15 comments:
I like reading your posts.I think you are spot on.I just came across your blog and it made my day.I thought I was alone and everyone went nuts. Thank you Becky from ohio
Well done Joseph, as usual.
Thanks.
You're not alone, Becky from Ohio. There are quite a lot of us out there who haven't drank the kool-aid and are trying to stop this man. We just aren't as noisy as the Obots.
"Why did they (falsely) claim that Hillary, not Obama, was the one giving secret assurances to the Canadians?"
Because, whether or not the claim was "false," is was what was uttered to various CTV reporters by Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, since resigned.
I've brought this fact to your attention numerous times, only to have you claim you're too busy to read the comments to your own blog, so you hadn't noticed. Not so busy that you can't delete the ones that displease you, apparently; but sufficiently busy to ignore the ones that "correct" you when you are wrong.
At the time, in the interests of fair play, I stated that Ian Brodie may have misstated "fact," or that he may have subsequently lied when he denied any recollection of having said anything to CTV reporters about Clinton or Obama. The issue was of sufficient import here that it was investigated.
I do not expect you to have paid attention to what has been reported by the Parliamentary investigation into this fiasco. It is a Canadian matter and of little relevance to you. This I understand.
But, for the nth time, I would like to state that this is precisely what Ian Brodie said, whether true or false.
To wit:
"The report by Lynch confirmed that Brodie kicked off the incident in a discussion with CTV staff and suggests Brodie "shared information (which turned out to be incorrect) that Canadian officials in Washington had spoken to Senator Clinton's campaign regarding NAFTA."
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/429541#
As for the Goolsbie memo, a few points to remember. First, the memo wasn't written by Goolsbie, but by a Canadian consular official, paraphrasing what Goolsbie had said. Was it accurate? Perhaps. Perhaps not. As somebody whose own words are often misconstrued, you must have some understanding of how such things occur.
Second, who leaked the memo? Turns out it could have been any number of people.
To wit:
"The 21-page report puts blame on the Foreign Affairs Department for incorrectly classifying the diplomatic document and distributing it to too many people. It was distributed to 232 e-mail addresses, 212 of which were at Foreign Affairs. Eight were outside government."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/23/brodie-report.html
Third, regarding Obama's initial denial, one is not surprised that a Presidential candidate is not aware of every underling's every activity. The meeting with Goolsbie was arranged at Canada's request, not at Obama's instigation. When asked about it, Obama conceivably had no idea such a meeting had taken place. That makes him wrong, not necessarily a liar.
Pointing out the foregoing will presumably result in me being smeared as an Obot, since it is your proclivity of late, but as I have likewise pointed out repeatedly, my money - like yours - was on Edwards and I do not "hate" Hillary Clinton. Just for the record.
If the Hillary-downplayed-NAFTA rumour gained some currency, it was because of words spoken by Ian Brodie, not because they were "invented" by anyone connected to Obama's campaign.
If you cannot acknowledge that much, or that little, you are no more literate or sensate than those you so regularly decry in your posts.
Joseph, you should be ashamed of yourself posting that vile and obscene graphic.
JFK Guy, I do read the comments. Well, except for the hate mail. I generally hit the delete button after whiffing the first few words of those.
And we've danced this dance before about Brodie. What the hell does it amount to? One anonymous source recalls a guy speaking off the cuff. And then, this statement:
"Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.
They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate — either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama."
Then we learned -- AND THIS IS THE POINT YOU KEEP LEAVING OUT -- that if Brodie did mention Clinton, it was based on ASSUMPTION, not knowledge:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/24/canadian-government-probes-leak-of-nafta-document-in-us-campaign/
"Brodie told investigators that while visiting the Canadian embassy in Washington the day before, he heard someone say something about a back-channel assurance from one of the campaigns. Brodie said he assumed the remark was about Clinton because there was a story in the news on Clinton’s remarks about renegotiating NAFTA."
Game. Set. Match.
And yet the Obots STILL blame Hillary!
What's going on in that video at the end with the Michelle Obama statement "for the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country."
On the view, Whoopee played a video showing Michelle Obama saying "for the first time in my adult life, I'm really proud of my country" and tries to make the case that the "really" makes her statment completely different. That Michelle has been proud of her country but in that moment was "really" proud of her country.
Which version is correct?
Regarding Gary Buell's post, I don't mean to be dense, but I don't understand his offense at the 'graphic' in your post. I assume he's referring to the Rorschardt image, and after reading his comment and looking at it again, I suppose the images on the side look something like KKK members in their robes, but I'm truly at a loss as to why he's offended by the 'graphic.'
I'm a long-time reader of both Cannonfire and Covert History, as well as the back-and-forth between the two blog writers, and I can't help but feel like I'm missing something. Gary, if you see this, please explain. Joe, ditto to you because I can only assume you have a better insight into Gary's complaint than I do (since you posted the Rorschardt image in the first place.)
Gary was kidding.
I could tell you what the blot looks like to me, but my favored term for that part of the body seems to offend people.
Citizen K: She made substantially the same statement during two different speeches, given either on the same day or on subsequent days -- I forget which. There's a video online which displays both versions.
Hey, dude, where did you get the inkblot?
It's one of the standard blots used in psychological testing. You should read William Poundstone's "Big Secrets," which has a chapter on the secret history of the inkblots, what the testers are looking for, and how to fake a veneer of sanity.
Couple things.
1. Why does Obama speak in that fake Southern accent? The pundits pilloried Hillary for changing her accent. Fair enough. But why do they give Obie a pass for speaking like a Southe'n preacherman?
Of all the things that annoy me about Obie, this is is the most annoying.
2. If you saw that jackass Whoopie Goldberg on the view, she went on and on and on and on about how Michelle didn't say, "I am proud of my country" but, "I am REALLY proud of my country." She beat that into the ground. I thought it was a non-issue until I saw this video.
Goldberg was wrong.
Sorry, I didn't read the preceding comments carefully before submitting mine. The fact that Mme. Obama made the comment more than once proves the point: really or no, she wasn't proud of her country until her hubby ran for Prez.
Yawn, OK, who cares. But Goldberg's pissing in the wind.
Will look into Poundstone (though it kind of escapes me how anyone can 'fake' sanity, assuming they're not!), but I'm curious where you got that inkblot. Is it in his book?
Post a Comment