A tried and true legal tactic is to "impeach" a witness. Under cross examination, a lawyer will attempt to catch a witness in a single lie. And, if done successfully, that witnesses' entire testimony comes into question.
Such is the case with Barack Obama over NAFTA. At the last Democratic debate in Ohio, Barack Obama pretty much said he would, best case, renegotiate NAFTA and, worst case, dump this entire free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. Of course, this campaign committment plays well to the labor unions who believe they have lost union membership jobs to NAFTA. (Forget about the fact that NAFTA has created jobs and trade that have greatly benefited this entire country!)
Now, comes the impeachment!
Apparently, Barack's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, had met with key personnel at the Canadian Consulate in Chicago to assure them that NAFTA wasn't in jeopardy and "anything" that might be said about NAFTA is really just the politics of campaigning. Oh, really? Just politics!
At first, both the Obama camp and the Canadian government denied such a meeting. Then, a Canadian government memo was leaked to the press and the reality of that meeting became all too true. Then, the Canadian government apologized for the "leak" of the memo. And, no longer were they denying that the meeting didn't occur; just sorry about the leak. And, since the release of the memo, Obama and his team have been dancing around this story like the ghoul-scene from Michael Jackson's "Thriller".
So, this begs the question of how much "more" of Obama-speak is real or just Politics. What's the real story on his relationship with his Church, his pastor, and the connection to Louis Farrakhan with respect to the Jews versus the Arabs? Why does Obama have at least two advisers, Samantha Power and Robert Malley, who have, at the very minimum, controversial opinions about Israel? (Note: In 2002, Samantha Power said that our U.S. military power should be used to "force" Israel to accept a Palestinian state). What is the story on "his" connection to the 1960's radicals such as William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn? What about the Tony Rezko? And, what about all those promises of getting out of Iraq and the near trillion dollars in "goodies" for things like "green-collar" workers, permanent $1000 tax rebates to all the middle class, etc? Are they just "politics" in words, only?
If you look up the word "flimflam" in the Dictionary, you get this definition: "a trick or deception, esp. a swindle or confidence game involving skillful persuasion or clever manipulation ..." A lot of people have, for months now, said that Barack Obama is "hollow" in what he says. Others flatout say his public opinions are in complete contrast to his beliefs. I say he does both. He is truly the political version of the FlimFlam Man. And, the national press corps now senses that it might be the case. There is the taste and smell of blood in the water with the NAFTA incident. Don't expect the national media to give Obama anymore "milk and cookies" and a comfy pillow to sleep on. The honeymoon is over. Expect the national media to act more like sharks as as their eyes roll back and they come in for the kill. Obama probably never saw that kind of press coverage in the "comfort-zone" of Democratic-controlled Chicago!.