Whoops - Obama Adviser Did Talk NAFTA With Canadian Gov't
| Mon Mar. 3, 2008 7:32 AM PST
By now, everyone is familiar with the Canadian television report that alleged an Obama adviser went to the Canadian government and told officials that Obama's NAFTA-bashing is merely campaign rhetoric, and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Also well known are the Obama campaign's denials, and the Canadian government's denials.
Turns out, it may well be true. Someone leaked a memo to the AP that describes a meeting between Obama's senior economic policy adviser Austan Goolsbee and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago. In the memo, Goolsbee's comments on NAFTA on portrayed this way:
"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
Continues Below
Continued From Above
The Obama campaign has responded by saying Goolsbee visited with the Canadian officials strictly as a professor from the University of Chicago, not as an envoy from the Obama campaign. And for good measure, it is saying Goolsbee was misquoted. A spokesman says, "It all boils down to a clumsy, inaccurate portrayal of the conversation." Goolsbee calls the memo's summary of his views "ham-handed."
Ham-handedness aside, this is a gift to the Clinton campaign, which will use it to maximum effect in Ohio, where NAFTA has cost untold thousands of manufacturing jobs. Clinton herself has already said, "I don't think people should come to Ohio and tell the people of Ohio one thing and then have your campaign tell a foreign government something else behind closed doors. That's the kind of difference between talk and action and that I've been pointing out in this campaign."
The only good thing for the Obama campaign about this story, accurate or not, is that it came one day before the Ohio primary, and not one week.
Update: I like Noam Scheiber's take at the New Republic:
I suspect Goolsbee was doing what campaign officials often do, which is try to tailor his message to the group he was addressing without undercutting any core principles or stated positions. It wouldn't shock me if the Canadians heard a bit more of what they wanted to hear than what Goolsbee actually said (that's often the point, after all). And Goolsbee, who's trained as an economist, not a campaign operative, may have been a little casual in parsing his terms.
Comments
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Mon Mar. 3, 2008 8:21 AM PST.
All politicians are liars, HRC, BHO and McBush.
If back channel communications are the worst of it, I say "bring it on"
Let the candidates expose all of the other candidates dirty laundry - let the people decide and be informed.
As a reporter what have you done to confirm the bona fides of the memo and the facts?
Are you banking on "it may well be true." from Nedra Pickler?
Really, you are putting your credibility by reciting her "work" - that seems a bit weak and a little tenuous on your part.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Mon Mar. 3, 2008 8:24 AM PST.
If you have to include:
"accurate or not"
to qualify your piece - it is more gossip than news, eh?
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Mon Mar. 3, 2008 8:26 AM PST.
A March 27 Associated Press article by reporter Nedra Pickler -- headlined "Is Obama All Style and Little Substance?" -- falsely claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has "delivered no policy speeches" while campaigning "and provided few details about how he would lead the country." In fact, on March 2, Obama delivered what the Chicago Tribune described as a "major policy speech on U.S.-Israel policy," and news reports indicate that in campaign speeches across the country, Obama has offered policy proposals on Iraq, education, the environment, energy, and health care.
(from Media Matters)
I guess Pickler is an objective source?
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Mon Mar. 3, 2008 8:44 AM PST.
JS -
Conservatives say Obama lacks patriotism By NEDRA PICKLER
****
I heard there is some guy claiming to have had gay sex with BHO - also snorted coke.
"accurate or not"
The day before hte primary it could effect the vote, eh?
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Mon Mar. 3, 2008 8:50 AM PST.
The AP's Nedra Pickler asks disgraced Republican dirty-trickster Roger Stone for his opinion. Stone you'll remember is the guy who got caught making threatening phone calls to New York Gov. Spitzer's (D-NY) elderly father and last month set up an anti-Hillary group with the acronym C-U-N-T.
Surprisingly enough, Stone thinks the answer is yes.
(from TMP - Josh)
"accurate or not"
Hmmmmmm
Oh yeah! Pickler she's totally an unbiased source! After five minutes of research I've found several sources siting repug bias on her part, not to mention she's married to someone who works for Fox News.
Totally unbiased. Totally.
Well there went any chance that I would become one of the over a million contributors to the Obama campaign, I wish I had followed my gut and voted Edwards, not that the fascists in the DNC think my vote as a Floridian is worth any thing (no I'm not giving them any money either so they can stop asking). One thing I know for sure is that after Bill pushed NAFTA on us originally no one named Clinton can be trusted, and Obama has some convincing to do before he can be trusted either.
Submitted by John Wallace (not verified) on Tue Mar. 4, 2008 5:16 AM PST.
AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY AND THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION
The term 'Free Trade' is usually defined as the absence of tariffs, quotas, or other governmental barriers to international trade. There is no doubt that some recent free trade agreements have not been very good for the American worker. On the other hand, the agreements have been great for the large multinational corporations, particularly those that have moved their manufacturing plants from the United States to China, Mexico and other low-wage countries where they can hire people there for a few dollars a week. These corporations can now produce their products without worrying about the costs of meeting OSHA requirements, providing employee health care or pensions for its workers and then they can bring their products back into the USA to sell. These products oftentimes are not made to the same quality standards as when they were produced in America and as recents incidents involving Chineese imports have shown, these products can pose health hazards to Americans as well.
The supporters of many free trade agreements, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have always promised increased exports, better jobs and better wages. Under many of these free trade agreements, however, just the opposite has occurred. Under NAFTA, for example, the U.S. trade deficit has soared and now averages $55-65 Billion dollars per month; the U.S. has lost over a million manufacturing jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly. In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of either the United States or Mexico.
In 2005, a new mechanism was created to speed the further expansion of the NAFTA free trade agreement into a North American Union. It is called the Strategic and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)' The SPP is designed to facilitate the establishment of a North America Union through the "economic integration" of the US, Mexico and Canada. The most important feature of the SPP is that it does not require congressional ratification or the passage of any federal legislation by the congress of the United States. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States. How else would Mexican truckers be able to begin operating in the USA over the objections of Congress, American truckers and most of the American people?
The people and their elected representatives in congress no longer seem to have a voice when it comes to international trade. This is definitely a national sovereignty issue. International trade issues that affect 300+ million Americans should be made by the people's representatives in Congress, not by a handful of government bureaucrats and corporate elites who use their government connections to bypass congress and ignore our Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.
The goal of these international trade elite is to create an integrated North American Union, complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the proposed Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the destruction of our national sovereignty. A free America, with limited, constitutional government, would just be a memory.
Not all free trade agreements are bad, but I believe that the United States of America must withdraw from any international agreements that infringe upon the freedom, sovereignty and independence of the American people.
By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York's 20th Congressional District
www.johnwallaceforcongress.com
The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting) investigated this story, and as of today (March 5) have shown it was a complete falsehood, and was initiated as a way for the conservative Canadian government to have a malicious influence on the American presidential race. The government contacted BOTH campaigns. Obama's economic advisor met with the Canadian surrogate and in NO way said ANYTHING that they suggested he said. They are now admitting that. Obama's denial was absolutely the truth.
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Wed Mar. 5, 2008 6:44 PM PST.
As I understand it, the Canadian government has issued a statement flatly denying the conversation.
So why is anyone still talking about this in any other terms than HRC attempting to stick something on Obama that is totally false?
I'm sorry, did the progressive media go brain dead while I was away last week? I am hearing the echoes of false stories like this reverberating through places I would never expect to see them.
I have to wonder about the motivation, frankly. I know the commercial media is in competition for readers, so it makes sense that prolonging the horse race makes more copy.
But if you are in a position to actually affect what gets ink in your paper, don't you have a responsibility to yourself, your paper, and the US to stop reporting stories when they have been proven to be false?
It sure seems like you should.
I don't get it. I'm disturbed by it, and I am beginning to have zero faith in anything I read anywhere any more because it is all starting to seem like commercial BS or somebody's got an ax to grind.
-Wexler
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Thu Mar. 6, 2008 4:17 AM PST.
WHOOPS!
The entire NAFTA-gate controversy started with a comment by Harper's Chief of Staff.
He said that CLINTON'S campaign representative, NOT OBAMA'S, said that they ought to take the US political NAFTA chat with a grain of salt.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/BNS...
Hello....????
"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."
Hello???? Anybody from the press there? Bloggers? Progressives? Anyone interested in ending the fecal-slinging tactics of the Clinton campaign?
CHB? Alternet? Anyone?
Any Thruthers out there?
-Wexler
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Thu Mar. 6, 2008 7:02 AM PST.
Is this discussion now closed?
Before I say goodbye, let me point out that the reason why NAFTA came up in the first place is because Hillary Clinton needed to convince us that she has 35 years of experience. But oops... the voters of Ohio don't like NAFTA, so she has 35 years of experience MINUS the NAFTA deal, and any other thing that happened in the last 35 years that turned out badly.
I'm dismayed. The media has missed the point on this, the truth has been utterly twisted and distorted by politics, and even "progressive" news sources still don't get it.
Bye
This guy needed to do some more investigating. Then, on Feb 27, the Canadian network CTV reported that even as Obama was publicly attacking Bill's role in NAFTA, and arguing for a drastic overhaul, he'd had key economic advisor Austin Goolsby arrange a meeting with the Canadian ambassador where Goolsby reassured them that this was all just "political positioning," pandering for campaign trail. The likely source of the anonymous Valerie Plame-style leak was Ian Brodie, Chief of Staff, to a key Bush ally, right-wing Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and the US media jumped all over it as proof of Obama's hypocrisy. The Canadian embassy denied the story and Obama also said it was false. A follow-up March 3rd leak then sent a supposed memo summarizing the meeting to the major US media outlets, quotin Goolsby as saying Obama's statements were more "political positioning than the clear articulation of policy plans." Clinton made the controversy a centerpiece of her home stretch speeches and ads, saying "You come to Ohio and you both give speeches that are very critical of NAFTA and you send out misleading and false information about my position regarding NAFTA and then we find out that your chief economic advisor has gone to a foreign government and basically done the old wink wink, don't pay any attention this is just political rhetoric." She even ran a radio ad that misleadingly presenting itself as a news story, which concluded, "As Senator Obama was telling one story to Ohio, his campaign was telling a very different story to Canada."
Wexler: I don't know if you'll see this, but have you heard of ANYONE following up on this development? Nothing in the media again today. It's all over the Canadian press for the past 3 days, so it's obvious the media is disallowing the story of the Clinton's involvement (and instigation) of the "wink wink" moment. Nicky
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Fri Mar. 7, 2008 7:19 AM PST.
NAFTA-Gate Shocker: Did Hillary's Camp Lie and Frame Obama?
Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 6:17 AM on March 7, 2008.
The Canadian Government says it was the Clinton campaign who told them not to worry about NAFTA, not Obama's.
from: alternet.org
No now we know it is inaccurate - does that even matter?
Should all good journalists add a tagline of "accurate or not" then run with the gossip of the day?
WSY JS?
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Sun Mar. 16, 2008 10:05 AM PDT.
I wonder what it would take to get a correction or retraction of this bogus story?
???
-Wexler
