It sounds reasonable, but it's a bold-faced lie. It appears you may have a problem with reading comprehension. His campaign manager wrote the draft, not an aide. He reviewed it and made amendments by hand. He met with the Board the next day -- I'm sure that would have gone swimmingly if his answers to questions on major issues like abortion, gun control and the death penalty were different from those in the questionnaire.
The "Clinton Smear Machine" is nowhere near this one, just reported on Politico.
"It did not happen" "I wasn't in the pews" "I never held those positions"
This was intended as a reply to "sounds reasonable" by JoeCoaster.
finger prints...
The two questionnaires, provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama's presidential campaign
It's interesting that the current IVI-IPO state chairman David K. Igasaki is a Clinton supporter (from the Politico Article).
Busted.
"The two questionnaires, provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama's presidential campaign, were later supplied directly by the group, Independent Voters of Illinois -- Independent Precinct Organization. Obama and his then-campaign manager, who Obama's campaign asserts filled out the questionnaires, were familiar with the group, its members and its positions, since both were active in it before Obama's 1996 state Senate run."
And how does the group feel about Obama now?
"...many members of IVI-IPO, some of whom have relationships with Obama that date back nearly 15 years. The group had endorsed Obama in every race he'd run -- including his failed long-shot 2000 primary challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) -- until now.
The group's 37-member board of directors, meeting last year soon after Obama distanced himself from the first questionnaire, stalemated in its vote over an endorsement in the Democratic presidential primary. Forty percent supported Obama, 40 percent sided with Clinton and 20 percent voted for other candidates or not to endorse.
"One big issue was: Does he or does he not believe the stuff he told us in 1996?" said Aviva Patt, who has been involved with the IVI-IPO since 1990 and is now the group's treasurer. She volunteered for Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, but voted to endorse the since-aborted presidential campaign of Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and professed disappointment over Obama's retreat from ownership of the questionnaire."
"Dobry, Patt and current IVI-IPO state chairman David K. Igasaki, a Clinton supporter, agreed Obama likely didn't write every word of his campaign's 1996 answers. But they all dismissed as unbelievable his presidential campaign's assertion that Obama never saw or signed off on the state Senate questionnaires."
And just to follow up...
"Harwell, a veteran Democratic operative who got her start working for the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington in the 1980s and who now works for Cook County Clerk David Orr, last year told Politico she filled out the first questionnaire."
They have no shame.
"It did not happen." A meeting between the Obama campaign and the Canadians on NAFTA, as it had been put to him in the question, did not happen. You can call that parsing, but given that the meeting that took place was not an official campaign meeting, was not about NAFTA, happened at the request of the Canadians, not the other way around, and was probably unknown to Obama at the time, I think he answered fairly. Besides, once the details came to light, the Obama campaign was completely open about what took place.
"I wasn't in the pews." Now who's parsing? Obama was clear that he was not in attendance during the comments that were the subject of the YouTube clips. That has been verified. Obama heard Wright make other controversial statements regarding our foreign policy, but not the 9/11 comments or the God Damn America comments.
It amazes me how some people seem to revel in inflating accurate statements into "bold-faced" lies. They trot these same tired "whoppers" out in post after post.
I could easily produce a long list of Clinton lies, exaggerations and omissions to counteract these claims, being sure to include both the verifiable lies and the "lies-that-aren't-really-lies-but-kinda- sound-like-lies" -- but what good would that do? I'd much rather talk about the merits of my candidate than try to catalogue every time Clinton plays with the truth.
"It did not happen." No, I don't call that parsing, I call it lying.
Not known to Obama at the time? At the time of what? Him saying it did not happen?
Withing 5 minutes of the first newsbreak on the story, with Ohio looming, Axelrod was on the phone with Goolsbee. How many senior economic advisors were there? Goolsbee, does this sound like a anything you might have said? I guess we could say it did not happen, and if more comes out we can define the "it" that did not happen. Obama was open about what took place? Give me a break. The only openness would be sorry, I lied to the press because I thought I could get away with it.
I won't bother to get into the pews, that one takes my breath away.
What we do know is Obama threw away every scrap of paper from his years in the state senate, but didn't manage to throw this one away.
The details of Goolsbee's non-official, non-sanctioned, non-NAFTA conversation with the Canadians differed sharply from the official meeting that Obama was asked about. The meeting that was being described to Obama did not happen.
And as far as openness goes, I'm much more comfortable with Obama's explanation than I am with Clinton's "it did happen, it really did, I guess I misspoke, I was really tired" explanation for her Tuzla fabrication.
I guess Clinton could have said, I'm sorry, I lied to the press because I thought I could away with it.
But that's different right?
It did happen, Obama campaign knew because it was a Sr. Advisor, and Goolsbee was asked about a number of things INCLUDING NAFTA.
Obama lied, obfuscated and then tried to parse what happened.
Obama admited to being present for a number of "controversial" comments, yet continued to stay in the church, many years before Rev. Wright decided to retire.
Those are the facts. You can have a version of the story, but not your own version of the facts. Remember, words matter. Actions do as well.
Nobody is denying that a conversation took place, but it was significantly different than what was being described. It was not an official meeting, Goolsbee was not representing the Obama campaign in the meeting and had no authority to discuss NAFTA, the NAFTA comments were 3-4 minutes of a much longer conversation on other subjects, and according to people who were there, he did not say what was being reported.
Those are the facts, but those details aren't important to you. Details matter, though, because without them, it's easy to paint lots of things as lies. If you ignore nuance, then Clinton was lying when she said she never supported NAFTA, and was most certainly lying when she said that the National Guard didn't have health insurance until she took action.
Regarding Rev. Wright, Obama's comments about what sermons he heard and did not hear are not inconsistent. And so what if he heard a few things he didn't agree with and stayed with the church? I thought intelligent people were supposed to be able to listen to views they disagreed without bolting for the door. I hear things on MyDD that I think are crazy all the time, but I keep coming back.
You know, I have to say it's getting tiresome repeating things to the who-cares-what-the-facts-are based community.
Please read the memo. Read it all. There are not one, not two, but three separate entries that say exactly what we've been satying they say, if you catch my drift. Remember that the memo itself is already just hits the high points.
Then go ahead and tell me the note-taker is part of the Hillary conspiracy or that Goolsbee was lying or that green is blue, whatever. I'm done.
I know how you feel.
I've read the memo.
And I've read Goolsbee's comments that DeMora's notes don't accurately reflect what he said.
And I've read the Statement by the Canadian Embassy supporting Goolsbee.
The memo was wrong all three times? Goolsbee denied it? Don't make me laugh. His ass was on fire.
I've never seen a credible denial by Canada. Show me a link.
Just to make it clear, in case this is what you're talking about:
"There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA," the embassy statement said. "We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."
This was days later, after Canada was horrified at the dust-up, and had been accused of interfering in our election. And even then, it doesn't say "The memo misquoted" or "It was phony" or even "DeMora got it wrong." "There was no intention to convey" -- talk about a first class parse.
Whu-evah.
