by John McCormick, updated
INDIANAPOLIS – Sen. Barack Obama said today that he found it "surprising" that Sen. Hillary Clinton's top strategist would have been involved with a lobbying effort for a trade deal with Colombia.
"On the issue of how Sen. Clinton wants to handle it, I think that's up to them, so I won't comment on it," Obama said when asked at a news conference about the recent demotion of Clinton strategist Mark Penn.
But he couldn't help himself from weighing in.
"I think it was surprising to me that a high-ranking – if not the highest-ranking – member of Sen. Clinton's team would be engaged in business activities and lobbying that was directly contrary to the position that Sen. Clinton had taken," Obama said. "Let me put it this way, I'm not surprised that Sen. Clinton found herself in an uncomfortable position as a consequence. I know that if staff of mine were putting me in that kind of position, I would get rid of them."
It was recently reported that Penn met with Colombian officials as part of his job as CEO of a global public relations firm, prompting Clinton to demote him and shake up her campaign team.
That nation had hired Penn to boost its efforts to reach a free trade agreement with the United States, a deal opposed by Clinton and many labor leaders.
Obama's campaign has used the controversy over Penn to try to gain support among union voters.
Clinton spokesman Jay Carson released the following statement in response: "When Sen. Obama's top economic adviser told the Canadian government not to take his anti-NAFTA rhetoric seriously, he first denied that the meeting ever occurred, and when that proved false he took absolutely no action. It's good to know he has a higher standard for our campaign than his own."
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Watch how quickly Obama's opinion of the Columbia deal changes whenever Bush agrees to tie a second costly stimulus package that the nation can't pay for to it. You'll need a stopwatch to time his flip-flop. Thanks, Nance.
Posted by: Jeff | April 11, 2008 10:38 AM
Once again the junior senator goes negative.
It was his campaign who went negative first.
And they did it not with facts (like Rezko, the U of C Daley seat Michelle occupies when it's convenient to her schedule).
But the Obama campaign goes negative with McCarthyism.
And, I notice after it was blogged about--they accused the Clintons of McCarthyism.
Hope HQ keeps their kids off the blogs today. Or at least the ones on the payroll.
Posted by: golden oldie | April 11, 2008 11:28 AM
Payback is a mother. I remember Clinton weighing in on the Jeremiah Wright issue and giving her opinion after it was clear she dropped that info a week earlier. NOW its his turn to weigh in. And YES its a direct conflict of interest to her campaign, but so his her husband Bill who put NAFTA in place. And now she is going to say she was against it. Save it lady. We already know those drug lords are paying Carson and contributing to YOUR campaign. But those Clintons just keep on shrugging off, issue after issue. HOW MUCH OF THIS will it take for folks to finally abandon her campaign???
Posted by: Keith Lifetime Southsider | April 11, 2008 1:34 PM
Once again the junior senator goes negative.
It was his campaign who went negative first.
And they did it not with facts (like Rezko, the U of C Daley seat Michelle occupies when it's convenient to her schedule).
But the Obama campaign goes negative with McCarthyism.
And, I notice after it was blogged about--they accused the Clintons of McCarthyism.
Hope HQ keeps their kids off the blogs today. Or at least the ones on the payroll.
Posted by: golden oldie | April 11, 2008 11:28 AM
GO- interesting how you close out your posts now with a pre-emptive strike against posters from the "other side"...
Perhaps to deflect from the possibility that YOU are a shill for the Clinton campaign?
Your training shows through in your posts.
Posted by: Jolly Roger | April 11, 2008 2:35 PM
I voted for Hillary and contributed to her campaign, as I believe she is the most qualified candidate for president.
I will continue to support her all the way to the White House.
HILLARY, OUR NEXT PRESIDENT !!!
Posted by: tsr | April 11, 2008 2:52 PM
No Jolly---it's just that, this journalist knows a ham-handed hack political blogger when she smells one.
sniff sniff.
Most of the campaign of the Obamas doesn't pass the smell test:
Emil Jones
Rezko
"I'm against the war/I vote for it"
I'm an environmentalist but take 'clean coal' and water down the policing of nuke releases in my own state
Rev. Wright's not a racist!
Oprah knows politics!
Michelle works hard at U of C!
So did I!
YOU NAME IT, THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN SMELL OF SPOILER IS GETTING STRONGER.
Bug off punks.
Posted by: golden oldie | April 11, 2008 4:17 PM
Jolly, take it easy on our resident senior citizen goldie, sometimes her caretaker mixes the meds up a bit and she gets a little fiesty. She probably lost her sense of smell in the 70's, so it is all foolishness.
HRC has made far more mistakes, far bigger mistakes, and many more blatent mistakes than any other opponent. She will loose soon and she has no one to blame but her own poor managment skills.
Posted by: Xcellentform | April 11, 2008 5:34 PM
It's a shame that the dems are against the trade agreement that would help companies like Caterpillar that would produce the heavy construction equipment that Colombia needs. Good paying jobs in towns like Peoria and Decatur. I always thought the dems were the party of the "working guy". Just another example that he dems are just a bunch of liberal elistist
Posted by: Terry | April 11, 2008 7:35 PM
Anybody that's ignorant enough to reject the free trade deal with Columbia needs to take a class in economics 101. In the short term it might be bad for the US (which I highly doubt) but no one can in the long term it will benefit both countries.
Posted by: Matthias Skiba | April 12, 2008 8:24 PM