.
Update [2008-03-06 00:00AM PST by Oui]:
SEE COMMENTS: GROSS INTERFERENCE IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION
CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign called the Canadian government within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.
From the same source …
The CTV exclusive also reported that sources said the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton’s words. The Clinton camp denied the claim.
SAN ANTONIO — Barack Obama’s senior economic policy adviser said Sunday that Canadian government officials wrote an inaccurate portrayal of his private discussion on the campaign’s trade policy in a memo.
The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.
Goolsbee disputed a section that read:
- “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.”
“This thing about ‘it’s more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,’ that’s this guy’s language,” Goolsbee said of DeMora. “He’s not quoting me. “I certainly did not use that phrase in any way.”
Goolsbee “was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy,” the memo’s introduction said. “On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more ‘core’ principles of the agreement.”
Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Obama’s position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.
He said the visit lasted about 40 minutes, and perhaps two to three minutes were spent discussing NAFTA. He said the Canadians asked about Obama’s position, and he replied about his interest in improving labor and environmental standards, and they raised some concerns that Obama sounds like a protectionist.
.
The flier says, “Hillary Clinton believed NAFTA was ‘a boon’ to our economy.” But as The Politico’s Ben Smith and others have noted, Clinton never used the word “boon” to describe the trade deal. The word comes from a paraphrase of her position in a 2006 Newsday piece laying out policy differences between Clinton and her 2006 Senate challenger, Jonathan Tasini.
See the Obama campaign’s take on the issue here, and the Clinton campaign’s take
here.
Hillary & “trade”–some facts
≈ Cross-posted from GrandmaM’s diary — Obama’s NAFTA History and Duplicty ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Steve Clemmons weighs in with a clip from an economic forum he ran with Obama & Clinton’s people participating. Fleshes this out a bit
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002920.php#more
.
Great link and worthwhile discussion of trade agreements and enforcement.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."BTW, thanks for this diary and all that you do!
He needs to go, and now. Cut the losses.
More re this:
Source
I just watched this on CNN and the floor of the Parliment was HOT! Obama was interviewed and replied that he thought the response from the Canadians themselves was most forthright. Too bad there couldn’t be a bit of snark back at Clinton campaign for the consequences of assumptions affecting judgment.
.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Parliament:
“I certainly deny any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election. The American people will make the decision as to their next president and I am confident that whoever that person is … (they) will continue the strong alliance, friendship and partnership that we enjoy with the United States.”
Canada sends 75 percent of its exports to the United States and would be badly hurt if Washington pulled out of NAFTA. Government and opposition officials in Canada say they don’t believe the talk of withdrawal is serious.
Political rivals in Canada regularly accuse Harper of following the policies of U.S. President George W. Bush. Canada’s opposition left-leaning New Democrats have demanded that Harper fire Chief of Staff Ian Brodie, whom they accuse of leaking the document.
“I’m a little bit amused by the question of the leader of the (New Democrats) who is suggesting that we are so all-powerful we could interfere in the American election, pick their president for them. This government doesn’t claim that kind of power,” said Harper.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."This is what makes it clear that it’s some Conservative party ploy. Harper does this same oh-I’m-so-innocent-and-put-upon song and dance every time the opposition tries to call him on some shady trick he’s pulled.
.
Will the undecided Texas voter choose the underdog or try to go with the winner? Too close to call. The advantage for Obama is the two vote system in Texas with a caucus vote.
March 3, 2008 — A new InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research poll of Texas runs contrary to most surveys of the state’s Democratic presidential contest. We show Sen. Hillary Clinton with the lead. Only PPP, a Democratic polling firm based in North Carolina, also shows Clinton leading. All other polls over the race’s final days have Obama leading.
InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery: “Moreover, in an entirely separate survey that we conducted of early voters, Clinton led by a 55%-to-43% margin. While much of this early vote is probably accounted for in the poll cited above – because we ask the inclusive question, ‘If the election were held today?,’ the separate survey that measured Clinton’s clear edge among early voters may help explain Clinton’s overall edge in our poll.”
RealClearPolitics.com
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
(FactCheck.org) – It’s now clear that a Canadian news report that started this flap wasn’t accurate. No evidence has surfaced to show that any Obama “staffer” telephoned the Canadian ambassador in Washington, and all concerned deny that any such conversation took place. But it is equally clear that Obama’s senior economic adviser did visit Canada’s consulate in Chicago on Feb. 8, and that NAFTA was one of the several topics discussed.
Read more …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."PM Harper taking some heat. He’ll investigate the leak.
Reuters: Canada says leak was “blatantly unfair” to Obama
Imho, In Parliament, Mr. Harper was a dodgy…Now he’s expressing belated outrage, after the damage is done and only because it was made public that his chief of staff, Mr Brodie, has been linked to the leak.
Oh my, my.
NAFTA is not the most popular thingy in Canada. It gave too much to the U.S.A. Harper may soon face an election and would like the issue buried, just go away.
Even worse, Harper got elected on a pledge to “clean up government”, after the “blatant corruption” of the Cretien years. So far, he hasn’t really followed through on this, and a number of scandals have made him and his cronies look like fools. Hasn’t seriously dented his poll numbers, alas, but the media playing softball with conservative darlings is hardly new. If our opposition parties were on the ball, they’d be all over the media linking this to his pattern of duplicity and double-dealing. Oh well. At least this confirms it was intentional.
NAFTA up here is… Complicated. A lot of Canadians, especially young Canadians, consider it a mixed bag. Easier labour movement over the border is good, but the lack of environmental protections is bad. Easier sales of our raw materials exports to the US is good, but the two-faced American stance on protectionism (it’s fair play for Americans, but foul for Canadians) is bad. Obama’s apparent actual policies on NAFTA (to whit, keep the treaty but re-negotiate it to include stronger environmental protection and fairer trade) are likely to be very popular up here and spell Bad News for Harper’s government.
Hell, an Obama Presidency spells Bad News for Harper across the board. No wonder he’s pulling out the stops for Clinton and McCain.
Late post via TPM link
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home
THE ASSURANCE CAME FROM THE CLINTON CAMP.
So let’s see if I have the sequence of events right:
Hm. Something smells fishy here, and it’s not Obama…
Well, now the Harper government’s claiming that they never met with Clinton, but that the memo about Obama’s position is still factual. Keeping in mind that Harper’s a big Bush supporter, and likely to be a big McCain and Clinton supporter, this should tell you all you need to know.
The non-denial denial means that Goolsbee admits communicating the same general message the consular official reported. But hey, he didn’t use exactly ‘that’ phrase!
Very telling is that Obama refused and refuses to fire this laissez-faire advisor guy. If he had done that, quickly, instead of issuing denials and ‘qualified/fake’ denials, he would’ve done better last Tuesday.