This is the Presidential Campaign Thread.

Barack Obama Vs. John McCain.

Edited November 6, 200817 yr by Toups

From MSNBC's First Read:

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro

Per the Toronto Globe and Mail, in a story that was the lead on the paper’s front page today, that call to the Canadian embassy was actually from the Clinton campaign, not Obama’s:

“Mr. [ian] Brodie, [PM Harper’s chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

“The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was ‘telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.’

“The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.

“Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign.”

*** UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign responds: "Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from. The Obama campaign has given a variety of misleading answers to the press and the public about its top economic adviser’s contacts with the Canadian government and should come clean about why they did so," writes campaign spokespman Phil Singer.

Florida and Michigan voters should NOT be penalized and THEIR votes should be counted. NOT COUNTING their votes would be like what happened to Gore in Florida. I would state this even if their delegates were Obama's.

Florida and Michigan voters should NOT be penalized and THEIR votes should be counted. NOT COUNTING their votes would be like what happened to Gore in Florida. I would state this even if their delegates were Obama's.

Florida and Michigan knew they would be stripped of delegates because they held it so early. They didn't change it. If Hilary was ahead, Barrack was no where close to her, I bet it wouldn't be such a problem.

I don't feel Michigan or Florida should revote.

I think they should because these two states are very important in the general election. We may wind up actually taking Florida away from the Republicans and Michigan is considered a swing state. Let's see who both of those states want as the nominee and play it from there

Florida and Michigan voters should NOT be penalized and THEIR votes should be counted. NOT COUNTING their votes would be like what happened to Gore in Florida. I would state this even if their delegates were Obama's.

I agree....I do not necessarily want the current scores to be used but to have a revote and, as Kwing suggested, have the DNC pay for it (I am sure the DNC wants them to count, so long as they play by the rules this time, which they will)

And now Hillary says she does not want a recount and won't accept a caucus.

This is after the truh of NAFTA cmes out, and the only thing her spokesman can do is compair Obama with Ken Starr.

And this is the person I'm supposed to back? She's worrid about answering the phone at 3am?

When she does answer it, whatis she going to say? I know.......

"Bill.......it's for you."

She should not have to accept a caucus...do a primary for both of those states and have a re vote. Unless both states hold a caucus? Not sure.

I still want Florida and Michigan to count...the best thing to do is re vote

She doesn't want a re-vote.

Now, are you going to agree with her on that?

I do not agree with that and really do not agree with everything about her...but it may end up coming down to a re vote.

Florida and Michigan knew they would be stripped of delegates because they held it so early. They didn't change it. If Hilary was ahead, Barrack was no where close to her, I bet it wouldn't be such a problem.

Nope, and now that the race is so close, Charlie Crist is channeling Katherine Harris to make sure Florida's votes count - how ironic. Anything to help his GOP buddies slaughter Clinton in November.

I think there should be a revote, because I don't think obama put his name on the ballots of MI and FL because the states broke the rules and their delegates wouldn't count. Its only fair that they should do a re-vote. I don't know why hillary is against this I think she definantly would get FL, but I don't know about MI.

After reading about how much it would cost for the re-vote I don't think the states should do it, that money is better off spent somewhere else in need. An I was mistaken about FL, obama's name was on the ballot so imo that one should count. His name wasn't on the MI ballot so I think they should either leave it alone or give it hillary or shell out 10 million dollars. What I don't understand is if the government knew their voters votes weren't going to count why did they go ahead and hold primaries anyway? Didn't that waste taxpayers money? I can see why hillary doesn't want a re-vote, its a total of 366 delegates combined which would put her most likely in lead if they were counted.

Edited March 8, 200817 yr by EricaKane70

I don't care how much it costs...a re vote is a guarantee that people's voices are heard in these states...either tax payer dollars pay for it or the DNC

As for wasting taxpayer money, EK70, California did that in the recall election. They mailed out ballots that were inaccurate and hence had to issue out new ballots. So it is not foreign for a state to waste tax dollars over an election

I don't care how much it costs...a re vote is a guarantee that people's voices are heard in these states...either tax payer dollars pay for it or the DNC

As for wasting taxpayer money, EK70, California did that in the recall election. They mailed out ballots that were inaccurate and hence had to issue out new ballots. So it is not foreign for a state to waste tax dollars over an election

Now the clinotons are pushing for a clinton/obama ticket, with her as president and obama as vp. I'm not sure they should be pushing this at the moment considering he's beating her by over 100 delegates. I thnk they should of waited to see if she could take the lead and then push the ticket, it would of helped give her more momentum, pushing it now could backfire. An not that the clintons would ever do this , I think they are saying this now to gurantee that hillary gets VP just in case Obama wins the nom. They are pushing obama in the corner, because even if he does win he is gonna need hillary's supporters and they won't be thrilled if he doesn't pick her as his vp.

I think that it is absurd how the Democrats are trying to tie John McCain to President Bush, since everybody knows that McCain is no carbon copy of Bush. (In fact, this reason is why McCain will make a strong general election candidate.)

Although the Republicans still are unlikely to win in November, even the most partisan Democrat has to admit these primaries have gone as well as possible for the Republicans. In fact, the only way that the Republicans were ever going to have a chance at winning the general election were if (1) John McCain became the nominee and (2) the Democrats had a very divisive primary. Of course, those two things have already happened.