Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Surging Obama shifts offensive to McCain

PAUL KORING

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:33 PM EDT 14/02/08

Paul Koring: Leaving a struggling Clinton behind, Illinois senator takes on presumptive Republican nominee ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jonnie King from tx, United States writes: Denounced as a forgery by Odinga and Muslim authorities in Kenya, which it almost certainly is, that document nevertheless still circulates via the Internet and is quoted by American publications. The point is to raise questions about Obama and his connections with Odinga -- who claims to be his cousin -- and to infiltrate those doubts into the mainstream media.Its true Obama, whose family is Luo, lent support to the opposition leader during a visit to Kenya two years ago -- and that they have maintained contact ever since. While that gaffe infuriated the Kibaki regime, it proved only that Obama lacked diplomatic expertise.
  2. Les Caine from Canada writes: At least Americans have choice. What choice/difference do Canadians' mainstream parties system really offer? Personality trumping policy? The biggest weasel gets the most?
  3. Lousy Investor from Ottawa, Canada writes: What choice does Obama offer? Change. Change. Change. What that means, nobody knows, but we do know he doesn't like NAFTA. Not good for Canada. I hope to hear more substantive things from Obama, right now, I don't know what to make of the guy. I generally don't vote for charisma, thats a big nothing to me.
  4. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: Lousy Investor.. I agree. Everything I have learned about Obama makes me wonder if people have taken the time to dig a little deeper. I have seen nothing to support. Hilary doesn't like NAFTA either. Dems tend to be more protectionist than Reps. Neither Dem. seems to have any idea of the world as it is.

    I think the superdelegates will go for Hilary but now it would look like they backhanded the electorate. Tough times ahead for the Dems. I think.
  5. Anuradha Bose from ottawa, writes: Obama is the greatest windbag in American history and the Americans like that,
  6. Green Tory from Canada writes: Neither Obama nor McCain will be any better in terms of allowing Canada to trade with the US. It's not a party-political thing, it's an economic-political thing. When the economy goes bad, Americans turn protectionist. We saw this during the last recession, with the ban on steel imports, the duties on softwood lumber, etc., and that was Republican George Bush implementing those protectionist policies. As for those of you who claim not to know what Obama means by 'change' ... I guarantee you, the people lining up around the block in the driving cold to vote for Obama in Maine or Maryland have no doubt as to what 'change' means. When Obama says 'I don't take money from lobbyists,' when he says 'the Iraq war was wrong and should be stopped,' when he says 'we have to end our dependence on foreign oil' ... that's change. I especially like the above comment 'I don't vote for charisma, that's a big nothing to me' --- yes, that's precisely why Canada has no charismatic leaders. Canadians' inability to make a leap of faith, Canadians' disdain for charisma is the reason that Americans get leaders like Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan, while Canadians get Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion....
  7. Les Caine from Canada writes: Are Americans the only ones with concerns about NAFTA? Are there not things Canadians would like to see changed as well?
  8. The Wight from Canada writes: 'What that means, nobody knows, but we do know he doesn't like NAFTA. Not good for Canada.'

    I'm really not sold on NAFTA, so I don't see this as a loss. Trade between the three has increased incredibly, of course, but so has wage disparity. I've read dozens of studies that cite net job LOSSES in the US and Mexico (Canada usually breaks even or has a mild gain), in fact. Ever been to the Maquiladoras, the factory cities that line the Mexican-US border? Many US companies moved there post NAFTA to avoid what they considered harsher US dumping and emission laws. That area has the highest rate of birth defects in the entire continent, now. I've been there, myself, and seen the effluent dumping straight to the ditches. It's really, really hard to see that as a big 'win' for trade.

    It was even predictable. The wage and job issues result from the fact that while goods and capital are more or less free to move ... workers cannot. As a result, labour reliant companies will hop and skip to the lowest of the three, just like they hop around the world looking for the best deal, too. Same thing goes with pollution and labour laws ... if a company could save a few bucks by moving to a polluter friendly climate like Mexico, largely, they did.
  9. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: Obama better take aim at McCain now, because McCain is going to mop the floor with him in the actual election. And I can't wait, truth be told.

    The Wight - I'm not a fan of NAFTA myself. For anyone who is, I have only one word, one number: Chapter 11.
    NAFTA isnt good for Canada...or the US. Its good for the corproations, who suddenly have the ability to sue our govts if they enact policies that affect their bottom line. Disgusting.
  10. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: On a completly unrelated note: I highly urge everyone to go to the comedy networks website (www.thecomedynetwork.ca) and look up a show called 'Lil Bush'. Its F*ing hilarious. On top of that it shows both Obama and McCain in a way that reflects reality quite well.
  11. Joe Palooka from Toronto, Canada writes: People criticise Obama for being nothing more than charisma and compelling speeches. Yet, his Web site is full of policy positions. His books detail his policies, too. He also injects some policy into his speeches. Nevertheless, people don't seem to realise that public speeches during a campaign are primarily about rallying the troops and creating enthusiasm. I mean, who really wants/expects to see a PowerPoint presentation on economic policy during a stump speech?

    As for the Clinton camp clamouring for more debates, that is a non-issue. The Democrat candidate have already had 18 debates. Why are more needed? The reason that Clinton is challenging Obama for more is because her campaign is short on funds. (Remember her having lent her campaign $5 million last week?) Debates are free publicity, and Clinton needs all of it that she can get. Obama knows this and is rightly denying her those debates. Also, you only call for more debates when you are trailing. Clinton is now trailing.

    I never thought that Obama could pull this off, but it looks like he will secure the nomination. Clinton has a campaign; Obama has a movement. The US citizens are desirous for change after 7 years of hellish Bush governance. Only Obama can provide that positive change. McCain is a 71-year old war-mongering relic. He is Bush-lite. Obama will crush him in the election.
  12. test USA from United States writes: Anuradha Bose from otta - writes: Obama is the greatest windbag in American history and the Americans like that,

    Ahhh, no we don't.

    He hasn't been pressed by the media AT ALL but, that won't last much longer. Things only get tougher for him from here out. He will have to show his cards and not just a smile. That is when his wheels start to come off his campaign.
  13. Andy Garrett: Minister of Neo Political Correctness from West Palm Beach, United States writes: 'P.J.' Now, now. the veiled foul language; what to do with you? Hey, how is your weather the past few days?
    We had a real nice rain storm for two days and today is beautiful, about 70F. As it was cool this morning I wore
    my Panthers jersey. McCain 'while I was being tortured, you were riding your big wheel.' I hope John can
    put together a good campaign and continue to attract the middle and independents. The more I here Obama
    (I'll be good) the more I hear a nice PS sailing breeze across the bay; he is all platitudes without substance.
    Hillary has come out swinging in Texas and will do likewise in Ohio and Penn. It could get bloody if Hill
    wins those states and closes the perceived gap. I suspect Huckabee will drop out in the next week or
    so but Hill and Bill won't. They are in the game for themselves and believe they have a divine right to return to
    rule.
  14. Kate Franklin from Boston, MA, United States writes: The current critique of Obama is lack of specifics, but I've yet to hear real specifics from McClinton. One says we could be in Iraq between 50-100 years. Boy, there's some specificity. The other says she might garnish our wages to enforce her absurd and once-failed health care system. Anyhow, the point is moot because Obama's policy proposals (which are freely available on his website) are every bit as detailed as Clinton's. See for yourself.
  15. R L from Canada writes: NAFTA is a disgrace, and should be killed. Screw you Mulroney.

    Canada & USA should sign a limited trade deal to remove all customs taxes for goods sold between USA and Canada, but the rest of the FTA should be scrapped. In particular, any area that reduces or compromises Canadian sovereignty.

    It is a disgrace that our country can get sued for defending our assets, or that we cannot negotiate trade deals with any other countries without USA at the table, or that it's now illegal to cease exporting any resources to USA even if they were in shortage here in Canada, and that includes water if some traitors ever allow it to be exported from our beautiful country. Sovereignty and national integrity must override corporate profits.

    And when Ottawa politicians push for 'harmonization' of standards, what we really mean is we adopt US standards. USA will never adopt our standards or change their ways... it's Canada that always changes our standards to match theirs. And since Canadian health standards are usually higher, this involves dumbing down or reducing our safety protections, such as what has recently happened on pesticides with the recent undemocratic SPP developments.

    The SPP is negotiated behind closed doors.
  16. Tobin Manley from The Bronx, NYC, United States writes: As far as the claim that Obama is a cipher, an empty vessel-
    a stump speech is hardly the forum for wonkish recitals of policy.
    They are get-out-the-vote events.
    By the way, Obama was the chief editor of the Harvard Law Review; anyone whose read the Review knows it's as far from fluff imaginable
    (yes, I know, some find all lawyerly stuff anathema).
    By the way, I'd like to hear about non-windbag politicians.
  17. Jen Dobson from Canada writes: I don't really like NAFTA either, so I don't see it as an issue that most of the US candidates don't care for it either.

    I'm still puzzled by why some seem to suggest Obama isn't clear on his policies. He's pretty clear to me. Maybe I'm just following it closer? None of the candidates tend to get toos pecific during their rallies, but then I wouldn't expect them too. If you watch the debates, read their websites, and listen to enough speeches though, I feel he makes his positions very clear.
  18. val tonik from Canada writes: I agree about Obama not having much of the substance, but a mere appearance. Go Hillary, or even McCain, though the latter name is more associated with famous fries brand to me. So then, Obama-out, enough of empty rhetoric! He's more like the populist, a pop diva effect. No wonder Oprah supports him strongly, she probably gave him some lessons on how to be a pop star and ride the wave on outer shell attractiveness. But beyond that shell there is hardly any substance. That's my view anyways.
  19. m mills from vancouver, Canada writes: Obama's policies are very clear on his website and are available from his campaign offices. The point of a campaign speech is to inspire voters to vote for the candidate, not to lay out powerpoints of policy. When a coach gives a pre-game talk to a team, is it a rouser to get teamwork and enthusiasm for winning the game, or is it a detailed lecture about the plays? Each has its place, but campaign speechs are about winning the game and arousing enthusiasm for the candidate. Regarding NAFTA, The Wight from Canada and PL from Canada expressed my opinions very well.
  20. The Wight from Canada writes: 'But beyond that shell there is hardly any substance.'

    As Tobin pointed out, he was the youngest editor that the Harvard Law Review has ever had. Experience you can knock, given that he has two terms in Illinois and one in the US Senate for political experience ('only' 12 years in state or federal politics), but substance? Give me a break.

    What was Bush's 'substance'? Running an oil company into the ground? Successfully avoiding combat with Dad's help? Blowing scads of money on dope and booze? Getting into schools he had no reason getting into, again with Dad's help? Bush barely passed his University courses ... Obama was tops of his class all the way through. Knock his experience all you want, but this guy is no pretender.
  21. Diane Major from Chester, Canada writes: R L from Canada writes: NAFTA is a disgrace, and should be killed. Screw you Mulroney.

    I totally agree. We could use a little inspiration and concern for national interests here too. I expect that if the Democrats win, particularly with Obama as leader, that NAFTA will be altered. Suits me. For the short term Canada may suffer a bit. Long term, it's in our interests. At the moment we don't have free or fair trade. If we just scrap customs taxes between the two countries, we can adjust subsidies to match theirs, e.g. in agriculture. The softwood lumber dispute showed us that we can be bullied under this agreement. Without NAFTA, we can have a national energy plan and resources that once again WE control. They'll be more vigorously after our water soon. Like Obama, I am a 'hopemonger' .....hoping that we have a Prime Minister and political party in place who will put Canada's interests first. Canadian businesses should begin diversifying now (if they haven't already) and trading with other markets as well as U.S. ones instead of whining about how the high dollar is cutting into their profits or that the U.S. still has unfair subsidies. It's not going to get better soon.
  22. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: Where were all these calls for 'substance' and 'experience' years ago when Bush was voted into office not once, but twice.

    TWICE!

    People are well advised to take anything the American electorate has to say about their presidential vetting process with a grain - nay a wheelbarrow full - of salt.
  23. Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes: All this talk about NAFTA is not really very relevant. What you want to see is evidence of ability to make really tough, but morally sound decisions. I was reading about Rwanda recently, in particular about the United Nations, and Romeo Dallaire and also (then) President Clinton's belated apology AFTER the killing was over. In a situation like that, what would Hillary have done? We cannot know for sure, but its likely that the US would not have intervened in Rwanda with her as President; similar to what her husband did. If she is gonna use him as a prop in her campaign, then some of his mis-steps should also be brought to bear on her candidacy as well. I surmise that Obama, being African-American, MIGHT have done more to stop the genocide (there is no other word for it) in Rwanda had he been President. Not enough emphasis is being made on the essential psychology of the candidates, in terms of determining who has the strength of character to make the difficult decisions to return the USA to credibility in the wider world. All the domestic policy questions are relatively trite in comparison to the ability to walk the walk when it comes to situations like Rwanda, or Palestine, or other international challenges. Who is closer to the Platonic ideal of a philosopher-king? Who is more perfect and fit for leadership of the USA?
  24. Duh Work Farce Virtually Alive from Canada writes: Obama is exactly right. NAFTA has turned the gap between rich and poor in North America into a chasm. Millions are falling into it and many more millions are on the wrong side without a bridge to cross. Do the rich like it that way? Duh. Good jobs are still being exported to places like India and Mexico to keep those nations hanging on to the American eagle, while mothers and fathers in North America compete with their teenagers for minimum wage jobs at McDonalds and Walmarts. What a farce. Bill Clinton created 20 million McJobs, threw millions off welfare, and kept millions in an endless misery of doing two or three McJobs merely to keep a roof over their head. And Reagan before Clinton created about 20 million McJobs. Great for tens of millions of illegal immigrants but ghettoized African Americans are too wise to be happy with that kind of wage slavery. Look out. If Obama should win the nomination, McCain will make him look like a Communist - merely for telling the truth.
  25. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Like moths drawn to a flame, our male dominated media circle Hillary as they circled Belinda, Shiela and Carol, hoping that another victory for another middle aged middle class male politician will force another woman out. But, wait!! Hillary is leading in the polls in Pennsylvania and Ohio!
    Sorry boys. I think you are going to be very disappointed after all.
  26. Tim Bryson from Claresholm, AB., Canada writes: The Wight from Canada; Bang on about Bush. Those who don't think Obama has no substance don't read, much like Bush. BTW, check out Molly Ivens book 'Shrub: The Short and Happy Political Life of GeorgeW. Bush'. The late Ivens was a muckraking Texas journalist who scewered Bush long before the word had a clue as to what he was about. The problem seems to be that a candidate who can inspire with words is seen as a dreamer with nothing to back it up. That's what happens when the US is ruled for 8 years by a man who admits he doesn't give much thought to who he is and why he does what he does.

    As for NAFTA, why not look at it, especially Chapter 11. And how about the provision in the Canada/US FTA that guarentees the US a fixed portion of our energy supplies, but allows the US to back out of that committment any time.
  27. David Stanley from montreal, Canada writes: Obama Hillary and Mccain all have skeletons in the closet so poisonous to their bid for the Presidency that neither of them dare to take the gloves off .If the American public knew the details they would run all three out of Washington.

    Which evil gangster will it be ?
  28. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: If Obama wants to roll back NAFTA he is clearly out of his depth on economic issues, as developing countries are the current magnets for manufacturers who place profits above all else. Under US law and elsewhere all publicly-traded companies owe their first duty to their shareholders who want to see profits. Remaining companies also place profit-making above nationalism. The US cannot roll back time but it can prepare for and take advantage of current opportunities for highly developed Western countries, which are substantial. Obama has already shown weakness on health care and foreign policy. He's just not up to it.
  29. Jack Robertson from Toronto, Canada writes: Hillary Clinton wonders what Barack Obama is 'hiding' from the voters. At least he's not hiding information about the Whitewater scandal, questionable income tax returns or the 'mysterious' death of Vince Foster. Even without those issues, Ms. Clinton's glass house is already severely cracked. If Obama wins any of the three states (Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania) that Clinton is counting on to save her bacon, all that will be left for the drama queen from Little Rock will be to sweep up the shards and call it a day.
  30. Sanjay Singh from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    There are people who surmise that if the Dems win, we will follow suit and reinstate the Liberal party in some bizarre parallel political realignment.

    Regardless of what happens in the USA, either Democrat or Republican party is still more right wing than even the most right-leaning Canadian political party, past or present.

    I would hope that Canadians use their brains and stay with the party that is showing itself to govern Canada more vigorously than any others.

    Do not let the peanut gallery columnists here in Canada try to draw an analogy between Conservatives and Republicans and Democrats and Liberals; it simply does not exist.
  31. Gold Standard from Canada writes: Ending NAFTA would be great but this CFR media creation will not do it. Ron Paul would and then we could get a better trade deal....but voting for Ron Paul makes sense and people do not make sense anymore in the "Post 9/11" world. Obvious false flag attack or not.
  32. Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: wHAT A jERK.
  33. Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Rolling back NAFTA would allow Canada to charge what we like for energy, and resourses. Bring it on!
  34. Always have an opinion? May Be!! from Toronto, Canada writes: Most people act like sheep when it comes to voting for charismatic politicians, groupieing for musicians etc.
    Does not matter if there is substance to be followed, they just go ga-ga.
    I hear Mr. Obama is refusing to debate his opponent more, I wonder why. Think there is a debate planned in a week or ten days, let's see if he has any concrete plans in real time, to bring about this 'change' he speaks of so much. Chants like, Yes, We Can, do not a president make. He will have to produce. November is a long ways away as far as politics is concerned.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top