Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Wag the Dog, Eh?

1
Posted by *cough* | March 4, 2008 3:26 PM
2

I can hear unPC having an orgasm in the distance.

Posted by tsm | March 4, 2008 3:33 PM
3

In related news, we find that national polls show support for the Conservatives is down to 31 percent and for the Liberals down to 30 percent - which means support for the New Democratic Party (NDP) is up. And those BQ guys.

Messing in foreign relations on marching orders of Karl Marx Rove to help out the neocons in America does not go over well with Canadians.

Especially since they had to pay for the phone call.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 4, 2008 3:34 PM
4

Rove has gone INTERNATIONAL!!!!

Posted by Andrew | March 4, 2008 3:35 PM
5

It's not far to Ottawa from his current location, actually.

And they have phones in Canada - heck, they invented telecommunications satellites and videoconferencing ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 4, 2008 3:42 PM
6

Blame Canada!

Posted by J.R. | March 4, 2008 3:43 PM
7

no, blame the neocons.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 4, 2008 4:00 PM
8

I can't decide which comment is funnier @1 or @6.

Aww, you both win! Hugs all around!!

Posted by arduous | March 4, 2008 4:01 PM
9

Send the Marines, please, we need a regime change. We promise we'll be nicer than the Iraqis.

Posted by Sirkowski | March 4, 2008 4:36 PM
10

but this can't be true since "Canadian" is code word for...

There's nothing sadder than a self-hating Canadian.

Posted by michael strangeways | March 4, 2008 4:39 PM
11

@2

Yesterday early in the day I brought up this Canadian thing about Obama and NAFTA and suggested it was "news" -- about 4:15 pm it was reported here on Slog. The fact is, Obama's high-level adviser told the Canadian government his NAFTA talk was political doublespeak -- as confirmed in the official, written, contemporaneous consular staffer's memo. Not a clinton memo, not a recollection, and by a guy trained to memorialize what was said at meetings.

This fact calls into question Obama's bona fides on NAFTA, the premise of his campaign that he will change politics as we know it (doublespeaking is hardly "change"), his truthfulness, his ability to run his campaign, and his ability to deal with negativity in a campaign. It calls into question his ability or skill at pandering, if you want to look at it that way.

We have to project the movie forward, too, and imagine how electable is he in the rougher world of a general election campapign. McCain will likely try to get the actual memo -- if the Conservatives hate us D's they will enable that -- then he will show TV ads all over Ohio blowing up the words of the memo and highlighting the bad incriminating words in big red letters that zoom out at the viewer. Over and over, every voter in Ohio will see it.

This will decrease Obama's electability in Ohio. We could lose the state. We D's are already behind in Florida.

Not good.
Recently I said Obama is the likely nominee and I will work for him if he is. I didn't support Clinton initially but then volunteered for him for about 500 hours. I believe in change and hope and making a difference even if the candidate is flawed and is not perfect and is not a God.
Being for or against Clinton or Obama should not mean one disregards negative info about the opponent nor gratuitously attacks a messenger relating negative info. Readers are served with a full and spirited discussion of the pros and the cons of both Obama and Clinton. The purpose is to pick the one who can do the best in November. It is not saavy to wholeheartedly support a candidates without full scrutiny. We've been in love with Obama for just two months now. If you want an analogy to a personal level, as your post attempts, I would say one should not pick a candidate like one falls in love with one's first lover. One should not idealize or "crystalize" the other person so that one sees only a perfect shimmering ideal. (Stendahl, On Love.) This only leads to a complete shattering of the crystal image later, and utter disillusionment, upon learning any negative information at all.

will Ohio swing voters suffer that disillusionment about Obama in a general election? They certainly could if there is well documented information like this Canadian memo on NAfta that basically shows Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth on trade.

{Credit: Stendahl, On Love.)

Posted by unPC | March 4, 2008 4:51 PM
12

@9 - last time the US tried that we lost. The time before we tried that they burnt down the White House (which is why it's white and still has a smoky smell ...)

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 4, 2008 4:59 PM
13

oh, and unPC, read the CBC version - it says nothing of the sort ... face it, your McCain dog won't hunt, even if you have Clinton fetching for it.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 4, 2008 5:01 PM
14

Will nothing could be more depressing for avid Obama supporters than that you're on their team.

Posted by McG | March 4, 2008 6:29 PM
15

Pretty lame of you Dan to label my government Conservative with that hint of disdain that can so easily be read in your header.

We have a minority Conservative Goverment, meaning, PM Harper does not hold enough seats to pass any bill he wishes. He needs to negotiate with the other minority goverments (The BQ, the NDP and the Liberal party are all, well, liberal or liberal-esque).

As for the AIDE the passed the memo, blame him and keep your antagonizing to the good folks at FOX news, k?

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Harper, and cringe knowing he'll be in a text book in the future but place blame where blame is due :)

Posted by darek | March 5, 2008 9:13 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).