Andrew Sullivan wrote:
CBC has a useful TV round-up. It’s pretty clear it was a bum-rap on Obama. But it won’t be the first one, and he has to get better at responding. in real time.
Pray tell what that better response might be, other than saying we did not do this when in fact they did not do it.Josh had this post about the Globe and Mail article that debunks the Obama campaign link to this NAFTA nonsense and that it was indeed the Clinton campaign that had the secret contact with the Canadians!
Recall the Clinton campaign ran a faux news ad using this very information. The ad did begin with the candidate disclaimer, but they repeated the FALSE narrative when they, in fact, were the ones who were quietly speaking to the Canadian government:
This is an election news update with a major news story reported by the AP. While Senator Obama has crisscrossed Ohio giving speeches attacking NAFTA, his top economic advisor was telling the Canadians that was all just political maneuvering. A newly released document from the Canadian government shows that Obama’s senior economic advisor met with the Canadian Consul General and made clear that Obama’s attack on NAFTA were just, quote, “political maneuvering,” not policy. Political maneuvering, not policy. In fact, the document shows that Obama’s advisor also assured the Canadians that these attacks against NAFTA would not continue. Obama would not want to be, quote, “fundamentally changing the agreement.” As Senator Obama was telling one story to Ohio, his campaign was telling a very different story to Canada. How will Ohioans decide whether they can believe Senator Obama’s words? We’ll find that out on election day. Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President. (my emphasis added)
This was an out and out lie and they knew it. Had enough? I have.
(Updated for a spelling error in title)