digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at dailykos.com

The Untold Story of How Canada Sabotaged Barack Obama

dailykos.com — This is the largely untold story of how the Harper government, with the help of a television reporter, sought to sabotage the candidacy of Barack Obama. Many of the facts of this story are on the record, in pieces, from disparate sources.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • smotpoker, on 04/28/2008, -21/+70This kind of convoluted story, the direct result intentional deception and ambiguity, is the precise reason why so many people shy away from politics and cannot learn to properly determine a clear course of action to follow or the proper people to lead them down it.

    Props to TocqueDeville for helping to provide some clarity on a story that goes unreported not only because politicians don't want it to be but also because the MSM would have to admit how badly *they* helped in screwing those primaries (intentionally or no).
    • chdodd2012, on 04/28/2008, -22/+5Everyone thinks the government should be fair and honest, even though they live just as depraved as a life at home. Politicians lie. We all lie. Don't give me that idealistic ***** that it is a crime that politicians lie. Every single president has lied to the American people in various ways. It is the way government works, for absolute honesty will get you nowhere. Everyone, that includes both idealistic liberals and ridiculously-reactionary conservatives, needs to get realistic and stop muckraking and exaggerating
      • oderdigg, on 04/28/2008, -3/+15"we" being people like me, don't lie.
      • supermanKD, on 04/28/2008, -0/+13There are lies that keep things in good standing and there are lies that decieve millions and take away important liberties. I say ***** those who lie and harm
      • Pherdnut, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5Everybody's doin' it. I can to. Exactly the kind of ethics practiced by the most despicable politicians.
      • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3Uh... hate to tell you this but it is a crime for anyone to lie under some circumstances. And since you cannot seem to understand english so well, the comment was more about failing to correct inaccurate information you know is wrong or recklessly reporting questionable info than it was about lying or criminal charges

        Also, everyone doesn't lie. Some of us still value honor and principle and try to do the right thing whenever we can - even at our own expense.
    • wigginz, on 04/28/2008, -12/+6Bah, exactly what I'd expect to hear from a smot poker(??) heh.
      • ashfish, on 04/29/2008, -2/+6That's exactly the type of response I would expect from a Crack Head.

        See, it's great inferring what substances someone ingests just from their comments. Despite what you think, not all pot smokers are as cynical of the government as this particular person is.
        • fivefootfour, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4...his user name is Smot Poker...
        • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Plus he could have checked my profile before replying :P

          That said, though, thanks for sticking up for me and I agree it was a crackhead response. Like a crackhead, he is prone to dumb/irrelevant associations and acting dirty
        • wigginz, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1guys I was being ironic, get over yourselves.
    • jbenson2, on 04/28/2008, -8/+8The reason this meandering and convoluted story it is not reported is because it's not true. Why? Fairly obvious when the source of the info is filtered through the DailyKos.
    • JointVenture, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2Okee DOkeee.
    • JettaMan, on 04/29/2008, -3/+6This article is a whole lot of fanciful BS. Must be fun to make up stories and report them as fact.
    • jabberwolf, on 04/29/2008, -2/+3WTF???
      This article makes it to Digg but nothing about Wright and Obama today?
    • RepubOperative, on 04/29/2008, -3/+9Obama is a dumbass with regard to trade, NAFTA and all importantly, OIL.

      http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/02/28/canada_n ...

      Cut and paste if the link truncates
      www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/02/28/
      canada_nafta_and_obama/index.html

      Canada exports more crude oil to the United States than any other nation, including Saudi Arabia. All of that oil, along with a gusher of natural gas, comes free of any kind of export controls or tariffs, courtesy of NAFTA. In fact, the United States consumes almost 100 percent of Canada's energy exports.

      Which undoubtedly puts Canada in the driver's seat should a new president of the United States decide he or she wanted to "renegotiate" NAFTA.

      David Emerson, Canada's trade minister, took some pains to remind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama of U.S. dependence on foreign (Canadian) oil on Thursday, according to a Globe and Mail story a reader kindly forwarded to me.

      Americans' privileged access to Canada's massive oil and gas reserves could be disrupted if Washington cancels the NAFTA accord as Democratic presidential candidates threaten, Canadian Trade Minister David Emerson warned yesterday.

      "There's no doubt if NAFTA were to be reopened we would want to have our list of priorities," he said.

      In other words, if you Yankees think you can wave a magic wand and "renegotiate NAFTA" so as to be more beneficial to Americans at the expense of Canada's interests, think again, because we'd be happy to close off the oil spigot and sell our crude, to, oh, I don't know, China.

      Don't mess with Canada!


      http://www.energybulletin.net/18828.html

      There will be no quick fixes for natural gas shortages in North America. None. Eventually, natural gas from Alaska and the MacKenzie Delta in the Northwest Territories will arrive by pipeline. But that could easily be 10 years from now. Imports in the form of liquid natural gas (LNG) could offer some relief, but the timelines for building the necessary special purpose ports and ships could be equally long.

      So, what happens in the meantime should Reynolds' prediction turn out to be true? The answer will be puzzling to many Canadians. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) obliges Canada to share its oil and gas in the same proportion as it has in the previous 36 months prior to any restrictions placed on output. The specific reference is Article 605. In other words, the United States is supposed to get its share no matter what. In 2005 the U. S. imported almost 3.7 tcf of natural gas from Canada which produced about 6.5 tcf in the same year. That's more than half Canada's production.

      (Perhaps even more galling to the Canadian public will be the fact that the other party to NAFTA, Mexico, retained control over its own hydrocarbon resources in the very same chapter of the agreement in which Canadian negotiators gave away Canada's energy sovereignty.)

      But what if the Canadian government faced a situation in which its own citizens were freezing in their homes for lack of heat? Would it simply let natural gas flow south because of a trade agreement? And, what if it became apparent that the situation wasn't temporary, but rather a long-term problem?

      Any party to NAFTA can withdraw from the agreement with six months' written notice.

  • DaDrake, on 04/28/2008, -48/+23*****, I forgot my tinfoil hat.
    • buhbyebot, on 04/28/2008, -15/+29At least you remembered to make a stupid ***** comment and get dug down! That's something.
    • PURPLEDRINK, on 04/29/2008, -3/+1penis pie
    • TripcodeMel, on 04/29/2008, -1/+0*****! I forgot my rose-colored John Lennon shades!
  • MattNF, on 04/28/2008, -30/+155Blame Canada!
    • paintpro, on 04/28/2008, -4/+24I'm not even going to read the story. I just clicked through to digg whoever said this first.
    • rsHoratio, on 04/28/2008, -29/+1Hat of america my ass! more like the asshat of america!
    • Rocco03, on 04/28/2008, -3/+16We must blame them and cause a fuss
      Before somebody thinks of blaming us!
    • supermanKD, on 04/28/2008, -16/+11I would say ***** America but I don't hate America just your government and ignorant ***** like you.
      Believe me then list of ***** we can blame America for is far longer than the list of all things Canada has ever done wrong to any country.
      • TheBuzzKiller, on 04/28/2008, -1/+17southpark dude ... chill
        it's the only thing most US Americans know about us.
      • kelowna4life, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3I think he was being sarcastic man.
      • supermanKD, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Blame stumble video!
        I don't watch tv anymore and my internet don't like bit torrent :(
    • sandanista, on 04/28/2008, -4/+5Sometimes I wish they had stayed on strike
    • darthmdh, on 04/29/2008, -7/+4It seems that everything's going wrong since Canada came along!
    • Velnich, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1num num, so fresh.
    • cnot3, on 04/29/2008, -10/+1They're not even a real country anyway!
      • worldchanger, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5you're not even a real troll anyway.
    • Fozefy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5:( As a Canadian I apologize...please elect Obama...plzplzplz...for the love of the world!
      • Ford_Prefect2nd, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4I second this, I live in Ontario, if I were living in America I would vote Obama. I hate Harper, he is our own little Bush, which is why he sabotoaged Obama. I also apologize.
        • Plinkotic, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Third canadian to apologize for my leader's Douchefactor. Obama seems to lace the least amount of ***** in his answers. Hilldog is scary, Mccain is not worth consideration. The man was a POW, and knows torture. That he totes the Bush party line and didn't call Rove's ***** back in 2000 is disgusting.

          Harper's a *****, please take him. You have so many windows that need shinin' :D
    • sashay89, on 04/29/2008, -3/+0they're not even a real country, anyway
    • chris1012, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Any Canadian I know loves Obama. Go ***** yourself anyone who wishes to badmouth Canada. We hate harper up here. He is a big ***** loser. Don't blame Canada, blame bush for being a bully and harper for being a pussy.
  • Gunsdead, on 04/28/2008, -10/+2Oopsie Daisy!
  • TubeDigger, on 04/28/2008, -11/+114USA Please stay on your side of the 49th we know Harper is a *****. We gave him a chance and he is not going to pan out for a 2nd term. Team Clinton/USA no doubt put pressure on CAN for a simple mistake. Of course we can admit when a mistake is made and we want to correct it and look for the injured parties to find a solution, unfortunately the solution (possibly provided by the USA) was to equally damage the opponent/colleague so both were stained with Clinton's words and no one has the advantage. CBC isn't Faux News. We will be more mindful of sensitive facts while neighbouring political actors are in theater.
    • smotpoker, on 04/28/2008, -3/+9No one can say it was an intentional gaff for sure (at least not currently) but it was definitely a big problem that was widely reported the night before Ohio primary and all that day and then never retracted (at least not that I saw here). There is no telling just how many people still believe it was Obama's campaign or that Obama was lying when he said he didn't know about any such meeting etc
    • freedomkeeper, on 04/28/2008, -29/+7Canada: The part we didn't want.
      • archiesteel, on 04/28/2008, -2/+18Yeah, right, you mean the part you tried to take but couldn't (before you realized it was really, really cold and that you didn't really want it that much).
      • supermanKD, on 04/28/2008, -4/+12freedomkeeper: dumbass
        • whodoes, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2"freedompatriotkeeper" would have been even MORE patriotic. maybe he has something against patriots. f'n commie doesnt know you cant keep freedom with patriotism. duh
        • freedomkeeper, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0Very skilled linguistic abilities, super'. You've managed to include two of the five words in your vocabulary in one lame insult!
      • MisterChirish, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2We need to get freedomkeeper drunk on Labatts and then lose him in the woods...
      • kingcam, on 04/29/2008, -1/+8More like you tried to take it but we - and I realize it was still technically Britain at this point but there was still a large amount militia and native troops - kicked your ass so hard at Detroit and Queenston in 1812 that your country failed to capture any territory in BNA even though you were 10x the size. I don't care what the apologists say, if your main objective is to conquer a nation and you fail you lose the war, it is not a draw.
        • mycoplasma, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1@kingcam:

          By your logic, Britain (and therefore Canada) also lost the war because they tried to take back the US, and faled
          • kingcam, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Not true, a counter-offensive is different. Part, if not all of the strategy of a counter-offensive is to bring the fight to an enemy. The best defense is a good offense, as the saying goes. I am sure that the British would have loved to have American back but as the original defendanted in the war the 'burden of victory' for them is to not be conquered. I am not saying that the British didn't lose a campaign, or more, in the south, only that a war that ends in Status quo ante bellum, the defender actually wins, even if it is a Pyhrric victor.
          • chris1012, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1we burned down the white house, you never burnt down our parliament buildings. Canada 1 - USA 0 final score.
          • supermanKD, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Well they stole our oil and sell it back to us so we are probably at about 0-0 now
      • freedomkeeper, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0Labatt's, yeah right. Like any red blooded American would be caught dead drinking that horse piss.
    • lolinyerface, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4Who are you kidding? This is America, baby! We stick our metaphorical penis wherever we want! ;)
      • chris1012, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1and then get hiv/aids bcuz u forgot to wear protection :P
        • lolinyerface, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1so you are saying canada has the hiv?
    • shodanx, on 04/29/2008, -5/+20I am Canadian and I approve this message
      Harper you're out next elections
    • pradaaddict, on 04/29/2008, -4/+6You know, i didn't vote for Harper in the election but in the next one i will. The guy can be a real ass sometimes but lets be honest, Dion is a real loser and would make the country look limp wristed if he were elected. Harper has done some good and is a no BS kinda guy, he does what he says he's going to do
      • theviceroy, on 04/29/2008, -4/+6your action-man Harper doesn't make Canada look strong, he really just comes across as a huge dick - like Bush. I think Canada should be more worried about the neocon invasion than looking "limp-wristed."
        • pradaaddict, on 04/29/2008, -2/+3Bush and Harper couldn't be more different. Harper understands economics, he did not start this war, he is articulate, works his ass off and is at his post more than Bush and his father combined, has strengthened foreign relations, and most importantly he doesn't really push his conservative beliefs into law like Bush does.
          • netant, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Let me try to explain this to you, Newfie...

            Your PM just framed Barack Obama, and helped him lose Ohio. If Obama doesn't win the nomination, that means you will have to contend with either Hillary Clinton or John McCain on your southern border. Are you Canadians as clueless as Americans? Can you conceive the economic chicanery directed towards your country from the multinational corporations that JMcC or HRC will be abetting? Can you imagine the ***** in the Middle East or the rest of the world that you will be compelled to tacitly cooperate with, because your PM put in McSame or THAT woman into the US White House? (Hint, who said this: "bomb Iran")
          • pradaaddict, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2Let me explain this to you, fatass...

            A war with Iran would not be a NATO operation so Canada would not take part aside from wagging our index finger. Obama is a strong supporter of unions and i feel very strongly against this kind of policy. American companies setting up shop in Canada is not nessicarily a bad thing, we could actually really use an American Telco to set up shop here to kick some ass in the mobile phone area. Our economy is much more stable (especially in the west) and less prone to the shocks that the US feels due to investor speculation. Any kind of protectionist policy is bad for both Canada and the US especially with the exchange rate(NAFTA issue) I don't see Obama as being good for business up here.


          • taiakpun, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Very well said. As a western Canadian I completely agree with pradaaddict. Especially the fatass thing. Obama would be bad for more than just Canada. As for a Canadian PM "putting in" the next US president - funniest thing I've read all day.
          • flightofeagle, on 04/29/2008, -1/+0Harper didn't start this war, but I believe he was pretty upset at one time because Chretien refused to join the USofA in the Iraq (mis-)adventure. Your economy is 'much more stable' only because you have managed to keep out immigrants to a large extent, so you can divvy up your oil, timber, fish, meat and every kind of natural resource among a smaller population (about 1/10th of the US pop.?). Like today's America, Canada too has very little to sell to the rest of the world. Why do you think Canadians are fighting in Afghanistan? It is somewhat to compensate for their official 'non-participation' in the Iraq boondoggle. Also, it allowed the US to rush into Iraq before finishing off the job in Afghanistan. Unofficially, Canada HAS contributed even to the Iraq fiasco by way of logistics.
            It's good that Harper doesn't push his conservative beliefs into law. Would that have anything to do with his being a minority government and he doesn't have enough votes to make new laws on his own? :)
          • taiakpun, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1"Very little to sell to the rest of the world"? Ya right. We have the largest amount of fresh water in the world, the two largest diamond mines, the oil sands that have more oil reserves than the entire middle east, not to mention large coal and other mineral deposits, and our very lush forestry industry, from which the us gets most of its lumber.
            As for why we are fighting in Afghanistan, it started by getting rid of a group in power called the Taliban that murdered women and children in public - in the national soccer stadium - just because they wanted to read, write and teach/learn. We Canadians are rebuilding Afghanistan the same time we are fighting. Hospitals, schools, infrasturucture. We are creating a positive change in Afghanistan, unless you have been there you wouldn't have a clue on the good we are doing there. As for the immigrants - we have not kept them out to a large extent. We see more immigrants here now than you see in the US. Why? Because nobody wants to live in the US - the laughing stock of the world with a large target on your back. As for the Iraq "fiasco" what the hell do you mean we have contributed by way of logistics? You need to stop smokin that crappy American weed and get in on the good Canadian stuff (Which is also exported to many countries, including the US). As for Harper I won't even touch that one because you have no idea. Liberals have ruined our country in numerous leaders - Trudeau, Chretien and Martin. Conservatives have helped drive our economy. But I will leave it at that because I am tired of arguing against the narrow-minded liberalists. On a last note, we have a smaller population because we do not need millions of mindless pawns that fill the US of A. More professionals come out of Canada that are from all races and ethnicities than the US. Many professionals in the states have actually studied in Canada. The US is on its dying legs, they cannot effectively compete in the global marketplace that drives the world economies today. the days of the hegemonic power that once was the USA is now over. Thanks for coming out though yank.
          • flightofeagle, on 04/29/2008, -1/+0Ooh...you're so proud, aren't u? My point was that Canadian economy relies largely on its natural resources - and your reply only proves that point. What I meant by 'very little to sell' was actually, very little value-added products (high-tech or even regular consumer products). It doesn't mean Canadians can't make them, but just like Americans, they expect to get paid way more than those in competitor countries.
            As for immigrants, you THINK you see more immigrants - that's because you are largely used to seeing white folks. What you see in Toronto or Vancouver may give you that impression. But the fact that your population is still 1/10th that of the US shows that immigration was highly restricted. So, you think Canada didn't make use of "mindless pawns" at some point in their history, say, to build your railroads? And then highly restrict further immigration? Or sent back any immigrant ships? I agree more professionals come to Canada - but I know for a fact that immigrant professionals are way better off in the US - as seen by the number of top jobs and senior positions held by immigrants, not to mention entire companies founded and run by them, in the US. I am pretty sure there are as many taxi drivers in Canada with higher education in their native countries as there are in the US! I have personally seen and heard from professionals who had originally immigrated to Canada, but left in disgust - either to the US or back to their home country as the job opportunities were better there. If you look at how various immigrant groups were treated historically, I don't think Canadian history would be much better than America's. May be even worse? Every country can feel good about themselves TODAY because they can compare themselves to America today.
            I know many Canadians have a high opinion of themselves - a very rosy picture, filtered by your media. And the roguish nature of the US governments have only contributed to this sense of superiority - but that's ok - it's not my problem.
            So you don't think Canada has contributed to the Iraq invasion? Here's a link from a Canadian magazine:
            http://commonground.ca/iss/199/cg199_iraq.shtml
            (if the link does not show up, just go to the site of the magazine "Common Ground", February 2008 issue. Or do a google search with "canada iraq war logistics". So you think Canada went into Afghanistan only because Taliban murdered their women and children? Well, they had been doing that since 1996, and Taliban representatives even visited the US which was trying to work out a pipeline deal with them. My friends from Indian and Pakistan have told me about the hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight from Nepal to Kandahar on the eve of the new millennium (in 1999) and kept it there for over a week, when the Taliban was in power there. I bet you didn't know that - because America wasn't yet attacked by then. By the way, other countries are also building substantial lengths of roads in Afghanistan, and sending food aid there, despite having their nationals kidnapped and killed. Admirable as Canadian action is, Canada has generally acted internationally ONLY when America and Britain needed help. You think the Taliban were the only murderous regime in the world? Where is Canada (and the US, Britain, etc.) in the other parts of the world that don't have oil, or those having friends in high places such as China and Russia?
            I know the US is in deep sh#% - but that doesn't take away anything from what I have said here. Before you launch into a comparative attack, read once again what I have said - I am not saying that the US is better. I am only trying to deflate the Canadian ego just a little bit by pointing out reality.
      • chris1012, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Dion is the man, Canada only does good under french leaders.. trudeau, cretien.. the white english old men are losers. Dion is also in touch with Canada today. He is pro green, wants to reduce and try to elimate canadians having to pay for school all together, and a lot more. It seems like he is really in touch with the younger Canada, and that is what ppl need to focus on. Us younger people are sick of these ***** politicians that only care about themselves and the old conservative christians. We want a progressive forward liberal minded leader that is ready to change Canada, make us leader of alternative energies, education, technological infrastructure, and all the good stuff.
    • manitoba98xp, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5The sad thing is that the Liberals don't have a chance as long as Stéphane Dion is their leader. I predict that Harper will win the next election (possible with a majority, but who knows?), then the Liberals will get their act together and either make Dion into a potential prime minister or elect a new leader who can.
    • Velnich, on 04/29/2008, -4/+3Harper only got in to spank the Liberals for mucking around in scandals, not because we actually wanted Harper and his dead soulless eyes leading parliament.
    • arobicha, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6You know what sucks? None of the elected party heads are people I would vote for... Harper's a prick, Dion's a wuss, don't even get me STARTED on Layton, Duceppe doesn't count, and the other parties are really just filler for the people who dropped out of a political science degree, or want to kiss trees and stuff. Don't get me wrong, there were some great candidates in the recent Liberal pool, but they voted Scott Brison out... *sigh*

      Anyway, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Harper's not going anywhere. He's played ball very well in his last term, and the masses are generally ok with that. We'll only regret it when he gets a majority government. The only alternative to Harper is Dion; but like I said, Dion's a pussy and is NOT prime minister material. Again, sorry to piss in everyone's corn flakes, but Harper's not going anywhere.

      PS - I am not voting for Harper.
      • worldchanger, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2dugg for "or want to kiss trees and stuff"
    • bredren, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7I'm Canadian and can confirm our prime minister Stephen Harper is a complete ***** and strong supporter of George W Bush. Unfortunately our opposition leaders are also ***** but for other reasons.

      We need another Trudeau or an Obama!

    • diggingaround, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Obviously Obama doesn't fit in North America Union plan... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union
    • 533n, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1I am Canadian and I really just want to clarify that most Canadians do not say "*****."

      I'd also like to clarify that 83% of Canadians do not care about your election, chances are we're screwed no matter who wins.

      Lastly, how the hell do you speak for CBC, seriously, as if you can say that they will be more mindful.
      • TubeDigger, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1"Lastly, how the hell do you speak for CBC, seriously, as if you can say that they will be more mindful."
        2 diffrent statements. 1.CBC isnt Faux News 2. We (Canada) will be more mindful (based on this event)
        ***** is in most canadians lexicon.
  • Kicker01, on 04/28/2008, -3/+42I think the CBC reported it correctly in the first place. They also picked up on how CTV shifted focus towards Obama in the following article as well, as some insight into the investigation.

    http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/03/06/memo-leak ...
  • davidkeithjones, on 04/28/2008, -25/+12This is just silliness. Canada doesn't decide the next president of the USA, Americans do. How many Americans were even aware of the story? Not many.
    • aliengoods, on 04/28/2008, -8/+11Osama Bin Laden was a big factor in the last election. Canada doesn't decide, but it can influence.
      • manitoba98xp, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Err…what does Osama bin Laden have to do with Canada? Is "foreign influence" the point you're trying to make?
    • smotpoker, on 04/28/2008, -3/+13How exactly do you know how many Americans knew about it? It was certainly on all of the cable news channels the day before and the day of those primaries. How much do you want to bet a large chunk of bluecollar people spread ***** by word of mouth pretty quick and learn half of what they know about a given candidate within a couple of days of casting their votes?

      Furthermore I never heard a retraction from any of the channels that were reporting it and only a few vague mentions of Clinton *after* those primaries. There is no telling how many people still think Obama was the one being shady/two-faced because of all of those reports
    • boredrph, on 04/28/2008, -5/+2mexicans decide along with Americans... since we apparently don't care about illegals being here, giving them drivers licenses, letting them vote... etc
    • max420, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5You'd be surprised how many forces external to the USA can influence the elections. Canada may not be directly involved in the outcome, but it can certainly flex its political muscle to influence the outcome.
      • theviceroy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2yes, it can - and it shouldn't. Canada even has laws about this regarding other countries influencing their elections. What happened reeks of hypocrisy regarding how the nation of Canada views election procedure.
      • max420, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1The Americans do it to Canada as well, what you think Harper got the vote all by himself?
  • hummstheword, on 04/28/2008, -27/+9Shows how effective the canadians are. Maybe they should go on strike again, for more of that internet money.
    • Trublmakr, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2You're assuming Canadians don't want Obama to win,.. maybe we're just messing with you and we really want Ron Paul to win,.. or maybe not,.. either way whoever does become the next US Prez will be Canada's first choice . Did that hurt your head? Sorry,.. let's make a deal,.. we'll agree to stop ***** with your election if you agree to start capitalizing the "C".
  • elamr, on 04/28/2008, -53/+7To Canada: shut your ***** mouth, Uncle *****
    • AustinMandi, on 04/28/2008, -1/+9I thought it was face :(
    • heliox, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3"Uncle *****"
      WTF???
    • JulyZerg, on 04/29/2008, -2/+6Wow... you're proved all the stereotypes about stupid, fat americans right there.
      I'm disgraced to share a continent with you!
      • Derelict267, on 04/29/2008, -3/+2It's from a movie, chill.
        Google: Southpark movie
      • fakekevinrose, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1stereotypes kick ass
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/28/2008, -20/+61Obama wants to "re-negotiate" NAFTA, whatever that actually means who knows because he doesn't give us details. Canada doesn't. End of story. They have interests too. Does Canada owe Obama because diggers and Daily Kos love him?
    • davharrington, on 04/28/2008, -6/+25Canada produces more oil right now than Iraq does,, I suppose Hillary and Obama wants them to start putting protectionist duties on each barrel,,, NICE!
      • DalamarArgent, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1....and Bush probably wants to invade!
    • smotpoker, on 04/28/2008, -19/+13CBC misreported, perhaps intentionally, which combined with that stupid operation chaos bs completely tainted ohio and texas primaries. Then US MSM failed to retract the misinformation and only vaguely mentioned Clinton was the real culprit after blaring inaccurate news of Obama for at least 2 days when voters were paying most attention
      • PistolFred, on 04/29/2008, -0/+9Just a clarification. CTV misreported. Not CBC.
        • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Doh! Sorry, dunno how/why I did that
        • kiroh, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Probably because neither CBC nor CTV are on your regular TV schedule/news source list, if you're American.
    • 55mph, on 04/28/2008, -11/+2They don't want Obama anywhere near the White House. When he gets assassinated, they should turn the investigation over to the 9-11 commission.
    • UnterDenLinden, on 04/28/2008, -7/+6Agreed NonLeftist, just because someone says out loud they disagree with Obama doesn't mean they are sabotaging his campaign. I hate to say it, but not everyone agrees with Obama, you guys will just have to get over that.
    • dig1x, on 04/28/2008, -3/+11Free Trade with places like China and India are causing economic problems for the USA, not NAFTA.

      I dont support "free trade" -- I support "fair trade", and if shutting down NAFTA unsettles the WTO's BS then great.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2It is, how's that? I don't see how clinging on to low skill jobs helps us in the (key word) long run
    • JointVenture, on 04/28/2008, -9/+2Dont worry, Obama will never be elected. Till this weekend I thought he would actually get the nomination. I wish Rev Wright would shut the ***** up so that we can get that man a nomination.

      As far as elections go the middle aged white womens vote trumps the 95% black vote Obama is getting any way you cut it.

      Wright actually made fun of the way Irish people speak , he also made fun of Europeans and Opera.

      • Lazydriver, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4Who gives a damn?
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1well nobody since he's "progressive"
      • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1He satirically illustrated how various American's speak to illustrate his "Different != Deficient" point. His poor attempt at Opera singing was also an illustration, though not intended to be a satirical one. None of those illustrations was intended to be derogatory, stop trying to invent ***** to be offended by
      • DalamarArgent, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Aint women voting with Obama because Oprah said so anyways?
    • jabberwolf, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2DIGG FILTERING STORIES BASED ON THEIR VIEWS!
      This one pulled from searches even when factually based:
      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Rev_Jeremiah_Wri ...
    • Ford_Prefect2nd, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4"Canada doesn't. End of story." I am Canadian, almost all my friends are Canadian. My dad works in the auto industry, or at least will for the next four months. No one I know wants NAFTA. NAFTA is terrible for this country, Mulruney is one of Canada's least loved Prime Ministers and he brought it in. Harper is only a pale comparison to him. You have no idea what your talking about, as such you would be best to remain silent. Look up Bowser and Blue, thier a musical comedic team that has a song about NAFTA, you might get a negative vibe from them, towards NAFTA, they never get bood off stage for it.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2http://www.ic.gc.ca. Canadian site.

        According to this Canada's total exports have grown every year, staying above imports every year. Broken down to industry, manufacturing was stagnant which I guess is why you are not too thrilled with it.... but manufacturing is this bumpersticker like industry that all the populists like to point at like the sky is falling because basic assembly jobs are sent overseas where people don't demand 25 an hour, pension, and full health care, thus totally ignoring the big gains in other sectors like technology and agriculture just like Canadaa and the US have made.

        Just because it's not on your block doesn't meen it's not happening. One of the graphs I looked at shows Canda's domestic exports have gone up by $100 billion canadian dollars since a decade ago, roughly 33% increase. NAFTA doesn't look like it's been terrible for CANADA, sure it's been hard on a few sectors and little guy is run over all the time, but overall Canada looks healthier.....of course that's a canadian website I referenced.
  • smacksaw, on 04/28/2008, -6/+25First, we have to start with Belinda Stronach:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belinda_Stronach

    For those of you who don't know, her "relationship" with Bill Clinton is about as big of a secret as Jodie Foster, Ellen DeGeneres and Elton John all being gay. When it got closer to Hillary making a run at the presidency, she reeled Bill in. It's highly unlikely they are simply just friends.

    If you want to know why the Clintons have that sort of power to reverse something like that, it's not just NAFTA. It's that she dated Peter MacKay. This whole thing is scandalous. She was a Conservative - he is. He's next in line to take over the party. They break up in what is a massive embarassment for the party and...she switches sides. To the Liberals! And guess what? She's right at the forefront of the party leadership. Her defection took a lot of party secrets and strategies and made the Conservatives grip on power even more difficult. Losing her is a big deal.

    So in a way, the Clintons have everyone by the balls. Hillary has the Liberals by the balls because she can expose Bill and Belinda. No one in the opposition is going to start a formal inquest into this. The Liberals are reeling from the Sponsorship Scandal. She also has the Conservatives by both testicles. The left testicle is NAFTA and the right is MacKay's future leadership and the fact that he brings the Alliance into accord with Harper's PCs to form the Conservatives. Without MacKay, there is no Conservative party. If the Clintons squeeze the right testicle, they humiliate MacKay and undermine him for his poor judgement in trusting Stronach and probably knowing of her involvement with Clinton.

    So everything in that article is accurate, but if you really believe the Clintons to be sleaze, imagine for a moment they might have actually put Bill into an immoral affair with a leading Canadian MP to undermine Canadian politics. People may say "Oh, these NAFTA comments are interfering in US affairs, the Canadians should not do that"...but what do you call it when the former President of the USA whose wife is a sitting Senator has a questionable relationship with a woman linked to the 2nd most powerful politician in Canada? And then she defects, nearly spilts her old party in half and changes the fragile balance of power of the Conservatives minority gov't?

    I would not put it past them.
    • ronaldst, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Oh no... Not Jodie too... :_(
    • BoneheadFarker, on 04/28/2008, -1/+7Jodie Foster is gay? Damn, that's gotta makes you think...dirty thoughts...

      Anyways, while this makes the political climate in Canada that much more heated, this might lead to a complete shake up in the government. Or it could lead to Harper becoming even more entrenched, depending on what happens and how well he controls things. While the next election is likely to be close, I'm hoping that we start to move away from both the Liberals and Conservatives. We have a multi-party system for a reason. Let the NDP or Green party become stronger and change the balance of power completely. Either we'll end up not going anywhere like we are today, or we'll become more progressive. With Harper or any other former Canadian Reform Alliance Party member in control, you can count on Canada becoming more restricted and offer less services to average Canadians.

      As for the Americans...well, good luck to you. Obama seems like a good choice, but in all honestly the entire government looks to be corrupt. Canada's not much better, but it seems to go deeper in the American system...
      • smacksaw, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1And she's the "femme" in the relationship ^^

        I think that no matter what, things are going to change, but I'm not sure how. The NDP have proven themselves to be incompetent when they've had power in about 80% of the circumstances and they are bleeding the Greens and vice/versa for votes. The Liberals can't take advantage of any sort of opportunities while the Conservatives simply seem to win by default since they're the least of all evils. It's a shame Paul Martin wasn't leading the Liberals 13 years ago, there would not have been any sponsorship scandal but all of the same budget surpluses =/

        It's funny...I think Canadian politics are less corrupt than US politics.
    • dafunkmonster, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Seems to me it would have been easier to dump a body in Fort Marcy Park, but I guess affairs come easier for good ol' Bill.
    • max420, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Bill Clinton and Belinda Stronach - http://tinyurl.com/5s3cam

      I would not put it past Bill to be doing that chick.... She's kinda cute (for a older lady). She's certainly WAY better looking then Monical Lewinski EVER WAS!
    • poopdigger, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2yep, the entire election and fate of American politics is clearly revolving around your scandal conspiracy
      • smacksaw, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2I think the article clearly proved that these comments cost Obama dearly in Ohio, one of Hillary's two crutches that are supporting her broken campaign.

        All my "theory" does is add onto this article. But it's not a theory that Bill and Belinda have spent more time together than makes people comfortable.
    • dig1x, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Canada doesnt give a rat's ass who Stronach sleeps with. You're analysis is bunk.
      • smacksaw, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2I think you missed the point of what I'm saying. Look at the sponsorship scandal. It killed the Liberals. People do care because of impropriety and cronyism. What do you call it when Belinda cozies up to Peter and then bolts to the Liberals with the Conservatives entire playbook? The Liberals need Dion as a sacrificial lamb so people don't question Stronach, but she will get her chance to lead the party. She can't lead the party if there is appearance of impropriety - any time Bill can get linked to Belinda it raises sympathy for Peter and questions about her ethics.

        Also, it's "your"...thank you.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/29/2008, -1/+7Elton John's gay?!!!!!
    • copypastry, on 04/29/2008, -1/+6I'd cross belinda stronach's floor if you catch my meaning.
    • inajeep, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1WTF does the line about being gay have to do with anything. It totally throws a propeller on your tinfoil hat and ruins the whole thing. I'm not saying your wrong but damn.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1"Jodie Foster, Ellen DeGeneres and Elton John all being gay" was the only part of that whole thing you actually read, isn't it?
    • Balath, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1tl;dr
      ***** Canada.
  • cheezeme, on 04/28/2008, -71/+3This is really twisting my head. I hate the cannucks, and I hate Obama. Could win get him to the prime rib of canada? Instead of POTUS.
    • dinot, on 04/28/2008, -1/+40Woah! It looks like you threw some words in a blender, drank it, then barfed all that into a comment.
    • buhbyebot, on 04/28/2008, -1/+9You won another digg down! Enjoy!
  • MatCon5, on 04/28/2008, -11/+45Actually, I'd blame America.
    • p0s3r, on 04/28/2008, -19/+6Which is, of course, the default position of all Democrats.
      • Eiknujrac, on 04/28/2008, -6/+11As opposed to unconditionally accepting whatever the country does as right?

        I prefer my side.
        • masterm1nd, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4I give you credit for admitting it.
        • unreg, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Perhaps you should investigate and lay blame as appropriate? Or is that too much to ask.
    • freedomkeeper, on 04/28/2008, -5/+0Without substantial proof, no less.
  • Roninsama, on 04/28/2008, -13/+4Canada Raid!
  • protogenxl, on 04/28/2008, -11/+4[Predictable Joke]
  • brokenspatula, on 04/28/2008, -20/+37DAILYKOS LOLOLOLOL
    • freedomkeeper, on 04/28/2008, -3/+7It would be funny, if they weren't being serious.
    • Barbarino, on 04/28/2008, -10/+4Digg loves to drink the kool aid... I can't believe anyone would read these wacko sites.
    • freddc, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4DKos played by the rules. Others didnt and are filtered.
  • GhostyBoy, on 04/28/2008, -4/+46Yeah, sorry about that. Our government is like half-retarded or something.
  • chdodd2012, on 04/28/2008, -21/+20You Obama fans sure like making yourselves feel like underdogs.
    • BallJoint, on 04/28/2008, -2/+5Before Iowa and super Tuesday we were underdogs! And after all the ***** this campaign has gone through I am absolutely amazed he is in the position that he is in. So excuse me for nut swinging Obama.... But after all this campaign drama I believe that I have a right to!
      • rainbowhandbag, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Being on the cover of Time before serious campaigning ever began does not make you an underdog.
        • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Fighting half of your own party and an nearly entire other certainly does.

          The reason he maintains his current position is that he has garnished support from many who belong to neither party and some of the conservative base (which illustrates how many people are NOT represented by our government - only dictated by it)
  • ileftfark, on 04/28/2008, -6/+16"But the fact that this information emerged from the Canadian embassy, albeit indirectly, violated the most fundamental canons of diplomatic confidentiality... Suddenly, the story was no longer about how Ian Brodie had revealed that the Clinton campaign made private assurances to the Canadian embassy to take her NAFTA rhetoric with a grain of salt, but how it was actually the Obama campaign that did."

    That makes no sense at all. The Canadian Gov. didn't want it to seem like information could be easily leaked from their embassy. So instead of covering up the alleged Clinton situation (which would have made sense if they wanted no information leaked), they turned around and admitted leaked information about Obama? Non. Sequitur.

    This theory is so full of holes and contradictions to give it any real credence. I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but there was no identified motivation in this tangled story. Also, this is exactly the kind of distraction Obama himself speaks about- dwelling on a possible cover-up on he-said she-said affair instead of focusing on the issues is only going to hurt him in the long run.
    • InnerRayg, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4I believe the bigger issue-whether the candidates intend to uphold their positions on NAFTA if elected, is relevant to our discussion, not really a distractor.
      • JeffD, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I tend to agree... if the democratic candidates are in fact secretly telling us that all of their NAFTA talk is just for show, morally the correct thing to do would be to leak that information to the American public. We should seek to keep their American public as close allies, not only the American government (and potential presidential candidates lying to their electorate is somethings that the American public deserves to know about).
      • ileftfark, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I didn't say NAFTA wasn't important. Shill conspiracy-theory stories with no real basis were my complaint.
  • DeathRay2K, on 04/28/2008, -1/+63Untold? This was all over the news in Canada...
    • Jhiaxuz, on 04/28/2008, -0/+10Yeah normally these things get called out on by the CBC News // Fifth Estate within a short amount of time and it gets blasted around in parliament for ages.
    • daizaru, on 04/28/2008, -1/+15Untold in the US I believe is the point. Canada is well aware.
      • spankr, on 04/28/2008, -2/+9Yeah - The US *is* the center of the universe, I forgot.
        ;0)
    • fatTJ, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Well It's now on the Internet because they have all that internet money
    • cnot3, on 04/29/2008, -4/+1Sorry, I don't speak Canadese.
  • ultraJesus, on 04/28/2008, -1/+15You've uncovered our fiendish plot!
  • compreal, on 04/28/2008, -10/+14blah blah blah blah blah

    i'm so tired of this


  • brownrecluse888, on 04/28/2008, -8/+7I can see it now....the digg fan boys are lining up there excuses when Clinton gets the nod from the superdelegates....blame canada!! Blame Fox News.....blame Ron Paul...oh wait, who is Ron Paul again, I forgot?
  • mrmount, on 04/28/2008, -4/+18Not surpsising given the fact that Harper is a Bush poodle! That guy gives weird vibes at times!
    • joe90210, on 04/28/2008, -6/+6so Harper is a Bush poodle but he's invovled in a "conspiracy" to help Hillary Clinton, makes sense!
      • spankr, on 04/28/2008, -3/+9Uh, fueling the divide in the Dems would help the Republicans in an election.
  • jaytek13, on 04/28/2008, -11/+11Anyone who actually knows a thing or two about politics knows that both Obama's and Hillary's rhetoric about NAFTA didn't hold any clout, and it was only to appeal to the middle/lower class who wrongly blame NAFTA for the loss of their jobs. It's not surprising Obama supporters didn't know this, as they tend to be pretty clueless about the political process.
    • spankr, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4You're getting dugg down as a knee-jerk reaction, but you're right on. The NAFTA jobs aren't going to Canada - they're all going to Mexico. I think Obama's camp were trying to signal to Canada that they knew that the jobs were being exported to Mexico, not Canada and wanted to tacitly imply that any renegotiation of NAFTA would be in order to re-balance the inequities with Mexico, not Canada.
      • dig1x, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Not Mexico, CHINA(!).
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1all what jobs? Manufacturing? Agriculture? Technology? Energy?

        See that's why populism is crap. The all important big picture gets thrown out the window for a few swing voters too dumb to make an intelligent voting decision without first receiving shallow and downright silly guarantees from politicians. Exports are up for all countries, explain that.
      • jaytek13, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Yeah... NAFTA has actually brought just as many jobs to the US as it has lost. There has been some shuffling, sure, but there isn't a single politician who wants to end NAFTA.
      • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I cannot speak for anyone else, but I openly admit I don't know much about NAFTA and I buried him because he fails to realize this story isn't relevant because Canadian-NAFTA is bad, but because it shows Canadian tv/officials inaccurately portrayed Obama as dishonest over something that he didn't do to the US MSM right before a primary which definitely impacted it and skewed the results
    • minox, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2I liked in Obama's "bitter" speech when he talked about "anti-trade sentiment" when he had been trying to take advantage of that sentiment to get votes in PA.
  • hempydave, on 04/28/2008, -15/+5Canada's media is own by US Corporations.
    Don't blame Canada, blame your media machine that seems to march to someones order's down south
    • kanuk20, on 04/28/2008, -1/+14Um, no it isn't. CBC is owned by the people, CTV is owned by CTV Globe Media, and Global is owned by CanWest. All these companies are Canadian owned. I don't know where you got that information, but obvious you don't do any research. In fact, the largest news corporation in the world is Canadian owned (Thomson Reuters).
      • aidave, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3So why is the weather update brought to you by Monsanto?
        The CBC isn't owned by the Americans but the other channels (and our newspapers) seem whole-heartedly pro-conservative and pro-republican. Yesterday the featured letter was a guy saying how much he'd love to live in a police state. CBC will either be gone, or become a conservative propaganda machine, if Harper gets a majority.
    • PopcornDave, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5Satan?
  • joe90210, on 04/28/2008, -2/+7"So, in conclusion, we have a situation where Canada's prime minister, his appointed ambassador to the US, and a top Canadian television network, all conspired to divert a would be scandal for Hillary Clinton onto her Democratic opponent Barack Obama."

    oh brother..
  • NateTheApe21, on 04/28/2008, -6/+8blame everyone but barack
  • mrhedges, on 04/28/2008, -2/+20This is hilarious, mainly because I'm Canadian, and I'm 100% positive that anything Harper throws at Obama won't do *****.
    • rhartman, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5Not to mention that most Canadians I know (myself included) would actually prefer Obama as the next president rather than Hillary.
    • aLFaDaRK, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2harper is a douche.
  • daizaru, on 04/28/2008, -2/+33It was news in Canada and we all hate Harper as much as most people hate Bush. He's on his way out.
    • Intangible360, on 04/29/2008, -2/+16If you hate Harper as much as Bush you're an idiot, I mean I hate Harper but I loathe Bush.
  • mike17032, on 04/28/2008, -5/+15Another hardly polished turd from dailykos, what a shock!
  • IggyPop, on 04/28/2008, -3/+30Harper does not represent ALL Canadians.
    • dig1x, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4No, but Canadians are responsible for his government. We need to force an election and throw that bastard (and the rest of the ignorant reform jackarses).
    • JulyZerg, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2Well... our three main parties are...
      a.)The "liberals" (who are anything but) who's policy is "take the funds and run!"
      b.)The Conservatives, who are Bush supporters... ugh!
      c.)The NDP, who completely ***** our economy.
      • JustinBaglo, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I don't know about you guys, but I think I'm leaning toward the CAP for the next go 'round.
      • stinger666, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1The Bloc Québécois has more seats than the NPD....
      • Makaveli604, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1That is not a valid point, his three main parties remain correct.
    • Makaveli604, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3I'm voting Marijuana in protest. For me, the problem is:
      a) Liberals (Who steal from the tax payers)
      b) Conservatives (Who are social conservatives and bordering on welfare liberals, which is the opposite I want)
      c) The NDP (Socialism nothnx)
      • aidave, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Why not Green?
      • Makaveli604, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1To be honest, lack of research.
        They also have potential to suceed which is not good for my protest vote plan.
    • DSPoh, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Just like Bush does not represent ALL Americans.
  • UTKEngineer, on 04/28/2008, -11/+8If Obama's ego and self-worth are as fragile as that of his followers, the man shouldn't even walk by the White House.

    For God's sake, not everyone is going to like your candidate. Those who don't just have differing views. It's not a global conspiracy to deny you the man you are so enamored with.

    In conclusion, STOP WHINING.
    • OlivierNO, on 05/01/2008, -0/+0What the F...!! Who's whining??? Is it whining to be discusted by these kind of lies and manipulation? Is it really the way you want the country to be ran?
      "So, in conclusion, we have a situation where Canada's prime minister, his appointed ambassador to the US, and a top Canadian television network, all conspired to divert a would be scandal for Hillary Clinton onto her Democratic opponent Barack Obama." I mean, come on!
      Enough is enough!

      "If you don't know how to behave at the dinner table, stay in the kitchen!" quote from myself
  • DrJoe916, on 04/28/2008, -7/+7Looks like Canada is flexing its muscle a bit, now that the loonie has exceeded the value of the US dollar.
  • blarch, on 04/28/2008, -9/+1At least Canadian newspeople can spot a campaign "promise". How Barack will pay for all of his promises when he can't even bowl a 40?
  • max420, on 04/28/2008, -3/+22***** Harper.
  • spankr, on 04/28/2008, -3/+15Helooooooo? Where the F have you been (USA)?! This is *old* news in Canada. The story broke more than two months ago here.

    There is no damn conspiracy - just inept politicians... now *that's* a scoop!
  • IanPR, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1Giving bad names to Canadians AND Ian's?!
    Double Whammy :(
  • amightywind, on 04/28/2008, -7/+8I don't know about the Canucks, but it looks like Reverend Wright is doing a good job sabotaging Senator Obama. That moron was out flapping his gums today. This guy is a gift from God to the Republicans. I am beginning to think Hillary still has a chance.
    • dig1x, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee#Criticism

      "During the same September 18, 2006, edition of National Public Radio's Fresh Air, Hagee said Hurricane Katrina was an act of God, punishing New Orleans for "a level of sin that was offensive to God." He referred to a "homosexual parade" held on the date the hurricane struck and this was proof "of the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans." [30], even though the Southern Decadence parade was scheduled for the following week and the primary gay neighborhoods, the French Quarter and the Marigny, were spared the flooding and destruction. Another reason for God's wrath, Hagee claims, was the Bush administration's pressure on Israel to abandon settlements and the associated land. Therefore, God took American land in a "tit for tat" exchange."
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2Hagee wasn't McSame's "mentor and spiritual advisor" - Wright was Obama's self-described mentor and spiritual advisor. BIG difference...
        • Lazydriver, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Who gives a ***** about Wright, obviously you can have a man as a good friend despite thinking differently... *****, do you people look for friends that think exactly like you or something?
  • GrodyChamp, on 04/28/2008, -5/+3whocareswhocareswhocares
  • spankr, on 04/28/2008, -3/+9The NAFTA jobs aren't going to Canada - they're all going to Mexico. I think Obama's camp were trying to signal to Canada that they knew that the jobs were being exported to Mexico, not Canada and wanted to tacitly imply that any renegotiation of NAFTA would be in order to re-balance the inequities with Mexico, not Canada.

    You're giving the Harper government a lot of credit where credit isn't due. They're just a bunch of Western Canadian redneck ***** who stumbled into power.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2if by "NAFTA jobs" you mean low skill manufacturing jobs, then you are correct, but seeing how net exports have grown every year for Canada with a fairly stable trade balance (http://www.ic.gc.ca), I don't see how this progressive "We R losing R good jobs!!" has any merit. It's crap. There are many industries that have benefited from it, and Canada's been growing economically overall, so if you want to reverse that but have a few more basic assembly jobs in Canada that won't be anywhere remotely close to globally competitive, and will STILL be gone in the long run anyway due to union demands.... then by all means, grab a gun, point at foot, pull trigger.

      PS Mexican agriculture has gotten it's ass handed to it by NAFTA, so ask a Mexican farmer what he/she thinks next time you want to imply Mexico is getting the sweet end of the deal.
      • spankr, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Uh, where did I say that Mexico was getting a sweet deal?
  • Bkaufman, on 04/28/2008, -8/+3More DailyTinFoil hat drivel. All of the Obama zombies are looking for an excuse for why he can't win any of the important states, and why hes dropping like a rock in the polls. Obama is no longer a blank slate that Americans can project their hopes and dreams onto. The more we are learning about him, the more we dislike him, and his racist preacher isn't helping things any.
    • InnerRayg, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Hyperbole is silly. "Dropping like a rock"? Show me the statistics-according to the latest from Gallup, he's still tying with Clinton. and I'd love to know what makes a state important. In a truly Democratic nation it shouldn't matter at all, it should be about what amount of the population total wishes him elected or not.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Well that would be populous states that are generally up for grabs by either party (as opposed to CA for example) each election that no candidate in recent election history has lost more than a few of, and gone on to win the election. Such states happen to include Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

        So as much as my Hilliary hate permeates every inch of me, her point about winning the important states is far from negligible if the primary really goes down to the wire. As for your opinion, that is fault of the electoral college, and that would be fine with me, as CA wouldn't erase my presidential voting for the rest of my life.
  • kanuk20, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4This is idiotic. First of all, no one but this insignificant news site has ever released any information that this was originally said by someone within the Clinton campaign. This has been all over the news in Canada, and a full inquiry was made a month ago. This is old old news that really had no effect on Obama.
    • InnerRayg, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2I gotta agree, I don't think this is all that terrible in it's affect on the Obama campaign.
  • supermanKD, on 04/28/2008, -4/+2Boo harper
    I heard he wants to or is cracking down on drugs. That ***** will end up even worse than in the US cuz people generally don't spend as much time in jail so we are just gonna end up with a lot more well connected and educated criminals. I mean you gotta talk about something if you spend 3 years in jail and I doubt it will be I shouldn't grow pot it ruins lives.
  • altinnovation, on 04/28/2008, -5/+8Harper is a piece of *****. The only reason why he won is because of a scandal facing the opposition party at the time of the elections.
  • cordillera, on 04/28/2008, -7/+24I think I speak for a lot of Canadians when I say:

    Barack Obama ***** rules! And we're sorry for the dumb politicians..
    • Rapter09, on 04/29/2008, -2/+8Amen to that, brother.
      Don't worry, yanks, Harper's a douche-bag, and he's gone next election. Never have I felt - not even with Paul Martin - that a man has taken reign of a country who is so diametrically opposed to everything it stands for.
    • Ekkers, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5That was very blunt but ridiculously true! My first vote will be spent well. The conservatives are OUT.
    • dsenman, on 04/29/2008, -5/+6Stick to speaking for yourself
  • Plantagenet, on 04/28/2008, -19/+4Obama got pwned by Canada. What do you expect from a typical liberal elitist weenie?
    • SpookyPig, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5So... you spend a couple years of your life on welfare, and are paying off student loans while you're a state representative, and grew up living with a single mother. This makes you elitist? Next thing you know, people are going to be saying Obama killed Steve Irwin because he doesn't wear stingray-skin shoes.
  • tempestnight, on 04/28/2008, -14/+1F*ck Canada!!!!!!
  • Carsonauto, on 04/28/2008, -4/+3Blame Canada
  • Alexcarrier, on 04/28/2008, -2/+9Why would anyone blame NAFTA for job losses in the first place? Those jobs you're losing are clearly going to China, the same goes here. Also, the treaty itself helps you much more. Sure Canada gets access to the oh-so-great american market, but in return we owe you all our natural ressources. That means we actually have to feed you oil and natural gas before we can even serve ourselves. Oh and the US doesn't even respect its part of the deal, take softwood lumber for example. Canada's producers were forced to pay high duties for years, it was declared illegal by a NAFTA committee and yet it continued long enough to trash the whole industry. So go on, quit NAFTA, and you'll end up paying alot more to fill up your SUVs.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.