From Thursday's Globe and Mail

March 5, 2008 at 10:38 PM EST

OTTAWA — The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the U.S. presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed yesterday to use whatever investigative means necessary to find the source of leaks that, he said, were "unfair" to U.S. Democratic candidate Barack Obama and may have been illegal — although opposition leaders insisted the Conservatives cannot be trusted to investigate political players on their own team.

But the story that reverberated through the U.S. presidential campaign began as a terse, almost throwaway remark that Mr. Brodie made to journalists from CTV, according to people familiar with the events.

Mr. Brodie, 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. Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, declined to comment.

The Prime Minister's communications director, Sandra Buckler, has said that Mr. Brodie "does not recall" discussing the issue.

On Tuesday, Mr. Harper denied that Mr. Brodie was a source of the leak — but he appeared to be referring to a diplomatic memo that described the key conversation between an adviser to Mr. Obama and Canada's consul-general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.

Although Mr. Harper has for days brushed aside allegations that his government interfered in the U.S. presidential campaign, yesterday he promised to "get to the bottom" of the matter and said laws may have been broken.

"It is not in the interest of the Government of Canada, and the way the leak was executed, Mr. Speaker, was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign," the Prime Minister said in the Commons.

"We will make sure that every legal and every investigative technique necessary is undertaken to find out who exactly is behind this."

But opposition politicians accused Mr. Harper of hiding behind artful denials — ignoring the verbal leak, while denying that the diplomatic memo came from his top aide.

However, Mr. Harper did not appear to be distinguishing between the two leaks yesterday.

Yesterday, he said he had asked the top civil servant, Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch, to call in an internal security team, with the help of Foreign Affairs.

Members of the opposition asserted that an internal inquiry is unlikely to look seriously at Mr. Harper's own high-level political aides and appointees, such as Mr. Brodie, or Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to Washington.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said it is time to call in the RCMP.

The first leak sparked stories that Mr. Obama had privately delivered a message through an aide to Canadian diplomats that the stand against NAFTA was more political posturing than a real policy plan.

The Clinton campaign seized on the stories to argue that Mr. Obama was making promises that he did not mean. The Obama campaign sputtered after this and other attacks on his experience and integrity.

Days later, the leak of the internal Canadian diplomatic note revealed that Mr. Obama's adviser, Austan Goolsbee, spoke to Mr. Rioux on Feb. 8.

In a summary of the meeting written by Canadian diplomat Joseph de Mora, Mr. Goolsbee was described as indicating that Mr. Obama's NAFTA stand "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." Mr. Goolsbee denied using those terms.

Mr. Clark of CTV says he called Mr. Wilson for reaction.

Hi folks,

Sen. Clinton won last night, in large part, due to Republicans following Rush's advice to insincerely vote for Sen. Clinton "because she will be easier to beat in November."  Sen. Clinton got 10% of her vote Tuesday from Republicans, and while many of us right-wingers are supporting Obama based on actual support for him, I dare say there are few (if any) to right of center who are supporting Clinton.

Within a ten-minute period on the Sean Hannity show last night (around 7:10pm ET), two out of three callers bragged about switching and voting for Clinton to help bring Obama down and thereby win the general election for Sen. McCain (one in Ohio, one in Texas).  The third caller was debating it.

Tiffany in Austin, after laughing at Democrats about it, went on to say that she was going to go out and caucus as well.  She noted that her firefighter husband said he "couldn't bring himself to do it", for which I give him points for moral character.

Even Sean Hannity spent a good bit of time voicing his discomfort with the idea.  "Ask yourself how you would feel if the Democrats were doing that to our primary," he asked the undecided election subverter in Ohio.

I think the entire episode is sordid.  On the part of democracy-subverting Republicans - I'm ashamed of you.  This is the antithesis of what core conservative political values are about.  On the part of Sen. Clinton in supporting the action (and recommending McCain over Obama), the whole implication of turning on your party to serve your own ends is perhaps the lowest form of betrayal of trust.

I don't mind losing a fair fight, but this aspect of the contest makes me feel soiled and disappointed.

 -chris

Hi folks,

As many of you may have seen, Sen. Clinton on 60 Minutes tonight said that Sen. Obama is not a Muslim, and I quote: "As far as I know."

Were this someone else - someone not a politician, not Sen. Obama's chief opponent, not comprehensibly aware to the finest detail the status of Sen. Obama's faith - I could believe that it was an uninformed statement.

I believe it was entirely intentional for the purpose of fostering the fears of the uninformed, and the bigotted, solely for the electoral benefit of Sen. Clinton. 

Sen. Clinton is definitively and without doubt fully aware that Sen. Obama is specifically of the Christian faith and has never subscribed to Islamic faith.  She could have said so forthrightly and done a good deal to eradicate the ongoing fear campaign of Sen. Obama's detractors, benefitted both the Muslim and non-Muslim American population, and advanced the cause of the United States in international affairs.

She did not.

Instead, she chose to use words that encourage both the fear of Muslim Americans as a group and the lingering "accusation" by extremist factions that Sen. Obama subscribes to Islamic faith.

I suggest that every Democrat, every Republican, every Independent and every American of every stripe bring this final step over the bounds of decency to the attention of their elected officials.  There are prices not worth paying to get oneself elected to political office.  The price we all just paid in the peace of this country and the dignity of the office of President is too high for anyone to lay at our feet.

I have sent the following letter to the Democratic National Convention, Senator Edwards,  Senator Dodd, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, Governor Richardson, Speaker Pelosi and others.  I will continue to do so to more political, media and other public sources.

-regards

-chris

Dear DNC representatitves,

I would like to comment to you on Sen. Clinton's "60 Minutes" interview today. As you likely know, when asked whether Barack Obama was a Muslim she replied:

"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know."

I have included the transcript of that exchange at the end of this message, as well as the link to the entire transcript on the show's website.

As a veteran politician, I find it *extremely* hard to believe that Sen. Clinton said these words without forethought. "As far as I know." That leaves a great deal of interpretation for the viewer.

This from the person most likely to know every detail of Sen. Obama's current and past faith, including the fact that he has never been a Muslim and has in fact attended the same Christian church for twenty years. Senator Clinton knows *definitively* that Senator Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim and was more than capable of saying so.

The implication that there is any lingering doubt in Sen. Clinton's mind in regards to Sen. Obama's religious inclination can only be read as a specific and intentional political tactic to play to the fears of uninformed and regrettably anti-Muslim voters.

As a respected voice in American politics I turn to you to use your position to put a stop to this inconceivable use of fear and bigotry by a leading candidate for the highest office in the nation, and indeed the world. I fail to find words to describe my reaction when I watched a potential US Presidential candidate, instantly perceiving both the impression this statement immediately had on American Muslims, and the use that it will be put to by those who lack tolerance.

I beg you. Please, in the name of all you stand for, in the interest of your party and for the love of this country: speak out before it is too late.

With deepest respect,

Chris Blask

Transcript:

""You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?" Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

"Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that," she replied.

"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…," Kroft said.

"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/60minutes/main3894659_page4.shtml

Hello Ron,

Very well put. 

I am an Independent who has migrated to the right of the center line (after a fairly far-left past) precisely for the reasons you have enunciated so well here.  Given the usual limit of four or five ideological labels I will select "libertarian" inasmuch as it embodies the belief that every individual is capable of owning personal responsibility and capability.

A life half-lived in Canada (in separated chunks) and evolving interactions with supporters and politicians on both sides of the ideological divide has created in me a specific distaste for what I have - for lack of a better term - often referred to as "modern liberalism".

After a frustrating call to a Canadian radio show the word I have been seeking to sum up my dissatisfaction with what I have come to see as the wholesale abduction of the beliefs that I have held all my life (namely that mankind is a wonderful species, the world a wonderful place and Americans a wonderful people) flashed in my mind.

Condescension.

It is the condescension of those who believe they hold the simple answers to complex issues that I myself - no complete intellectual slouch, at least by some measure - have wrestled with for thousands of hours.

It is the condescension of those who attempt to reach down from the lofty heights they inhabit to offer inclusion and protection to those who neither ask for nor appreciate nor require their intervention.

It is the condescension of a twenty-year-old Kerry volunteer honestly stating to a camera that she "got better SAT scores than George Bush" as a means to convey her belief that this somehow makes her vastly superior to a person who despite failings has more pragmatic experience in life than she - or most of us - is ever likely to approach.

The same condescension I, regrettably, see in the eyes of Sen. Clinton as she impatiently tolerates the words of other speakers while waiting to interject the statements of wisdom she seems so aware they are not competent to grasp.  The same condescension that I read in the downward hand-gestures she uses to shush her own followers as she stands at a podium ready to grace them with her words.

This condescending attitude leads to the "Nanny state" approach that I find stifling in Canada, Singapore and much of Europe, as examples.  It leads to the aspects of modern American liberalism that divide both the population of this country and indeed the membership in the Democratic party. 

And it is the condescension that will lead myself and millions of others to switch our current support from the Democratic party and elect John McCain president of the United States, if it is presented as the only alternative.

I have watched with growing interest now-Senator-Obama for quite a few years.  It has been increasingly plain to me that this is a person who shares my own long-unpopular goal of advancing the social welfare of the national and global population while - and *by* - emancipating those same individuals, not by dictating to them.  That I am not alone in the belief that the principles that evolved to create the conditions and constitution of the country are *intrisically* *correct* - that "All Men are Created Equal", that Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Speech are not just ideals to be pursued but actionable *absolutes* that enable the achievement of the goal of advancing human achievement.  That the answers to solving the challenges of the world and of the individuals who inhabit it do not lie in *imposing* solutions crafted on some rarified intellectual high ground but rather in engaging each one of us in using the incredibly talents inherent in us all.

Until reading your thesis the exact words to describe my support for Sen. Obama have been elusive.  You have provided a very useful set of memes for me to digest and integrate towards that end, and for this I am grateful.

-cheers!

-chris

Hi folks!

Senator Clinton's campaign - and with her descendency, now Senator McCain's - is using Obama's asset (exceptional ability to galvanize Americans through his moving speeches) and trying to turn that into a liability.

As a serial successful entrepreneur and having led a dispirited product team (Cisco PIX Firewall) from a planned end-of-life to what continues to this day to be a world-leading multi-billion dollar success, I question that line of reasoning.

Yes he is passionate, and he is articulate, and he has plans for saving our country.  Trying to separate the three is like trying to take the cream out of Ice-cream. In fact it is Senator Clinton's - and to a lesser, but still marked extent, Senator McCains's - inability in motivating the youth and overcoming voter apathy in their long careers that we should be afraid of, and point to as a sign of their lack of qualifications to be the optimal commander in chief.

The best CEOs are the best salespeople for their company. They sell the vision and the message of the company most effectively using the power of words. If you cannot do that, why should you run for the job?

Senator Obama's power to motivate the youth and quash voter apathy is what can help us turn policy papers into reality.

I like the cream in my ice-cream.

-cheers!

-chris

Hi folks!

It is interesting that I am here at all. 

I was born in California in 1965 and grew up in Colorado, the youngest of that period's anti-war protester generation.  My family moved to Canada in 1978 and I wrapped myself in the far-left flag for years.  However, for more than ten years I have publicly argued against the Liberal movement and voted a fairly consistent right-of-center ticket.

In the early 1990s I spent a great deal of time arguing politics on Usenet and began a transition away from my peer group into a middle-land I have occupied since.  Debating against holocaust deniers and white supremacists, I found myself being attacked as well by self-identified minority leaders, feminists and others of similar stripe - because I would not agree that "only white men can be racists and sexists", nor that we should work to silence those we disagree with (however heinous their words), nor that reversing roles in inequality equations was desirable.  White supremacist groups tracked down my work address and sent me physical hate mail, while simultaneously I was publicly ridiculed by those claiming to support justice and equality under the banner of liberalism.

At the same time, I decided to volunteer at the local cable TV station in Toronto.  For five years I worked on the provincial opposition leaders' monthly shows: the Conservative leader (Mike Harris, later Premier of Ontario) and Liberal leader Lynn McLeod.   We had the same crew on Mike's show for 60 consecutive shows (Torontonian cable TV volunteers not at all being a conservative bunch) - yet I was the only volunteer to do more than 3 shows with Lynn (I did 60, also).  Mike showed up every month with one assistant and I saw him have actual conversations with guests with opposing views.  Lynn showed up with twelve self-important followers who so insulted the volunteers that they almost all never returned.  During this time I invented one of the first Internet firewalls and spent a great deal of time speaking to groups, businesses and governments, and in my spare time crewed TV shows for fun. With my long hair and volunteer position I seemed to fade into the background on the Lynn McLeod set - none of the followers ever learned my name, and Lynn's primary assistant Dave so disdained my existence that he uttered these words as he led a guest onto the set, within five feet of me: "We do most of this work ourselves, the rest of these people are volunteers and flubs" (Michael White, accomplished technical producer, quit due to that). In 1995 as I flew back from Ottawa after an energizing meeting with the Ministry of Defense I related this entire story in great detail to my seat-mate and, when finished, asked which party he was with. He was the federal Liberal Justice Minister.

My point is that my support for Barack Obama is not an endorsement for what the Liberal movement in the US or elsewhere has become - it is an endorsement of the man himself.  It is my strongest belief (as iteratively successful CEO and team leader) that the most important aspect of leadership is the ability to inspire and motivate.  There are relatively few leaders in business and many fewer in politics who I believe are truly great motivators, most leading politicians I would not send on a sales call.  Barack is definitively on my list of great motivators.

It is my hope that Mr. Obama is elected our next president. I believe his leadership will provide the motivation both domestically and internationally that will allow the country and the world to make the steps forward we are so capable of making.

It is also my hope that this period of Democratic leadership will help to purge the global left of the entitled condescension and ennui that has become its downfall.  Barack's words and Michelle Obama's aggressive "This change means *you* have to change!" message give me reason to believe that hope is not unfounded.

-chris

If you don't pay your fines for not being able to afford the healthcare that Hilary is forcing you to buy, will she be entitled to take your HOME away?

Even if you *did* pay it may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back and puts your family Outdoors under a bridge.  Statistically, I'd think that is inevitable to happen in some cases.

She finally conceeded that garnishment is the path for the non-compliant.  I think she needs to be asked: "What comes after that fails?".