Is it really true that around 1/2 of the progressive blogosphere is going to let this stuff go, continue to support her, make excuses or ignore it?

What about this are people not getting?????? We’ve seen this before! 7 and a half years ago and 3 and a half years ago. Same tactics.
Only THIS time it’s a dem doing it to another dem, which is about the only way it could be worse!

And she’s getting away with it, it would seem to be working, while promising everyone that she’ll “change the Washington is run”. what’s wrong with this picture????? I thought we were all on the same side, that we wanted a real change and that we wouldn’t be fooled again or buy into the right wing bs. But because it’s coming from a Dem, and the Dem is HRC, it’s somehow UNRECOGNIZABLE?

Most Canadians hate Bush with a passion and McBush would not be much more popular. McCain is beloved by Harper and his small pack of neo-cons, but about 64% of Canadians vote against them in their goodd years (but the vote is split) and even most Canadian Conservatives are not so warlike as McCain.

I should also say that until she said this, I was OK with her as a candidate though she wasn’t my preference. It really is too much and all I can do is hope against hope that she is not the candidate and that she does not destroy the person who is. That was a truly, truly appalling thing to say.

I recall when the Somali picture appeared on Drudge, there were demands that the Clinton campaign immediately deny that they had anything to do with it, and every minute that ticked by was further proof of their complicity. All the Obama campaign had to do was check with one guy, and Obama tries to mealy mouth with ”That’s the information we had at the time.” A bit of a double standard, no?

I’m still waiting for any confirmation of the Clinton meeting beyond ”some guy told another guy” reports.

March 6 (Bloomberg) — The chief of staff to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that an official from Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign told the Canadian embassy in Washington to take her criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement with a “grain of salt,” the Canadian Press reported.

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said the campaign “did not sanction nor would we ever sanction anyone to say such a thing.”

“We flatly deny the report,” Singer said. “We give the Canadian government blanket immunity to reveal the name of anyone they think they’ve heard from.” ”

Hmmm! I thought that blanket-immunity was something that only the source itself could offer…not the campaign. I’d like to see the release forms that the Clinton campaign makes people sign!

“I swear that the Clinton campaign may reveal me as the source in any statements I may make to the press. I am not under any duress when I sign this. I swear!”

Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Harper, told reporters on Feb. 26 that a Clinton campaign official told the embassy staff “not to worry” about her calls to renegotiate the trade agreement, the Canadian Press said, citing a person who heard the remarks and wasn’t identified by name.

Clinton has accused rival Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of misleading voters about his views on trade, after a leaked Canadian government memo indicated someone from his campaign had told Canadian officials the candidate’s promise to re-open Nafta was “political positioning.”

Harper, who on March 4 denied Brodie was the source of the leaked [memo about Obama], said the circulation of the memo was “unacceptable” and that an internal investigation is under way.

Canada’s CTV television network on Feb. 27 first reported Clinton campaign aides may have told Canadian officials to downplay her NAFTA comments. Clinton’s campaign denied the story at the time.

If Brodie is spreading such false assertions about Clinton, then why would we believe them about Obama? Instead of attacking Obama for making such statements to the Canadians, knowing that her own campaign had been hit with such “false” accusations by the Canadian government…shouldn’t the proper thing to do have been to point out that anything coming out of the Conservative Government in Ottawa was HIGHLY SUSPECT? That would have been the ETHICAL thing to do. Instead she allowed the assertions to spread like wildfire and allowed her own campaign to assist in spreading them.

IOW…she allowed what may have been likely to be a CONSERVATIVE smear (perhaps originating from Washington…or a fellow in retirement in Texas) to putrify because it happened to help her.

I plan on holding the Dem winner Accountable from Day One, cause yesterday and today did not work.

There’s always tomorrow…

oh, and lucky NYC Helen @ 146!

No secret there. But the memo didn’t specifically say what Goolsby said…other than “assurances” about NAFTA.

Conveniently leaked by Harper’s staff just before Ohio…which is ripe for disturbance and essential for a Hillary win.

Now the Clinton material has leaked out. If THAT had leaked before Ohio it would certainly have damaged her campaign there. But they were able to keep that little secret for a month. How odd?

(*_-) Winkin’ at ya!