Seems the NAFTAgate leak started with -- surprise, surprise -- the Chief of Staff to Canada's conservative PM Stephen Harper. Only the first hint wasn't about stuff the Canadians had heard from the Obama camp. It was about reassurances the Canadians got from the Clinton campaign. According to a reporter who heard the original conversation, Brodie said "someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."
Only somehow this evolved into a story about the Obama campaign giving such reassurances.
The Globe and Mail has the latest details.
So was Hillary bashing Obama for what her own campaign had done? Did they both do it? Was it all a set up? I think the overarching story here is that friendly governments should not interfere in our elections.
It's almost admirable, isn't it? Hillary Clinton and her gang have no compunction about turning a story around, serpent-like, with little regard for the truth except as they can manufacture it in the media.
Is that what we want in a President? Is the best choice to lead America one who blatantly lie, smear and bully to win?
Did it work the last time?
1 comment:
I'm really torn here. On the one hand, it is nice to see a democrat who can really play hardball and stand up to the republicans. (it seems clear that if the Clintons were in the battle of Florida against George W., we would have had a Democratic president for the last 8 years). However, when compared to the way that Barack has run his campaign by focusing on his vision and not tearing down his opponent, the Clinton tactics are really unappealing. That said, Obama is going to have to run a tough, competitive campaign going forward. In the end, it might be good preparation for the general election.
Post a Comment