Canadian network CTV reported that even as Obama was publicly attacking Bill Clinton's role in NAFTA, and arguing for a drastic overhaul, he'd had a top staffer call the Canadian ambassador and arrange a meeting to reassure the Canadians 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 and his campaign spokespeople also said it was false. On Feb 29, CTV then reported that a NAFTA conversation may have occurred earlier in Chicago with University of Chicago economics professor and senior economic advisor Austin Goolsbee. A follow-up March 3rd leak then sent a supposed memo summarizing the meeting to the major US media outlets, quoting Goolsbee as saying Obama's statements were more "political positioning than the clear articulation of policy plans."
John McCain similarly attacked Obama for the presumed contradiction in his stand, saying "I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian Ambassador and telling him something else. I certainly don't think that's straight talk." The week before, key Clinton ally, Machinist's Union head Tom Buffenbarger used recycled language from ads the right-wing Club For Growth ran against Howard Dean by dismissing Obama supporters as "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies." He now attacked Obama again by saying, "Working families cannot trust a candidate who telegraphs his real position to a foreign government and then dissembles in a nationally televised debate."
These attacks unquestionably made a difference. They flipped voter perceptions on an issue where Obama should have had a key advantage. In 1994, union, environmental, and social justice activists were so angry at Clinton's staking all his political chips to pass NAFTA that many sat out that critical election, helping lead to Gingrich's win. Now Clinton ended up getting a majority the 55 percent of Ohio voters who expressed a sense "that trade takes jobs away," a majority of those worried about their family's economic situation, and a majority of union members, whom Obama won in his recent victories. She won a 10 percent plurality in a state where Ohioans overwhelmingly picked the economy as the top issue. And she won overwhelmingly with late-breaking voters, the opposite of practically all of Obama's other campaigns. Most important, by casting doubt on Obama's integrity, the cornerstone of his campaign, they made him seem like just another hack politician who'd say anything to win. This gave the supposed scandal a probable impact in Texas and Rhode Island as well, even though NAFTA was less of a central issue there.
But as the CBC report and others makes clear, the core of the story turned out to be false. The Canadian government contacted Goolsbee to clarify Obama's position on trade, not the reverse. Although Goolsbee did meet with Canada's Chicago consul general George Rioux (not, as was reported in the original leak, Ambassador Michael Wilson), there's no evidence that he ever described Obama's position as mere political posturing. Instead, they met February 8, before NAFTA began to dominate the campaign, and discussion of the trade agreement took up just two to three minutes of the hour-long meeting. Goolsbee responded to Canadian questions by clarifying that Obama wasn't pushing to scrap NAFTA entirely, but that the agreement needed labor and environmental safeguards--basically what Obama had been saying in public. The memo was simply inaccurate, as even the Harper government now acknowledges after a firestorm of criticism by opposition parliament members, who've accused Harper's staffers of trying to help their Republican allies across the border by attacking the more likely Democratic candidate. In response, Harper called the leak "blatantly unfair," pledged to get to the bottom of it, and said "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html
Loading...
@idicula1979 (continued) Trade agreements are very delicate trade-offs on all sides, a way to avoid the alternative--beggar-your-neighbour trade wars. I certainly would not advocate dropping all trade barriers against all other economies (which well might be a race to the bottom), but in the case we are discussing (as of 3 years ago), the negotiation of higher environmental and labour standards for all three members of NAFTA would probably be a win for all parties, *including* their workers.
HCherns 3 months ago
@idicula1979 The theory behind trade agreements is that it is possible to have a positive non-zero-sum arrangement, one that benefits both parties. I have sympathy for workers in countries with low wages and terrible conditions, and I don't think that it would help them to build high-tariff walls against their products. Furthermore, building such walls would also disadvantage domestic consumers, who would have to pay much higher prices to support domestic labour. (continued)
HCherns 3 months ago
@HCherns NAFTA and other free trade agreements don't apply to other first world contries like Canada and England,or France that have ahealthy middle class and trade union policy and thus free trade with them equates to a fair trade.But when it comes to Mexico and other less developed countries where a business can just go and navigate through the rights of the union and working people thay is unfair trade and if you are ok with this it might as well be a race to the bottom for the working class.
idicula1979 3 months ago
Lies.
jmkpns 1 year ago
I'm afraid that I can't really understand your comment--who is trying to "force us all to be like Mexico," and what Olbermann's reporting (this piece seems to have no particular opinion in it) has to do with anything.
As I understand it, both Clinton and Obama (and those even more opposed to NAFTA) are essentially complaining that NAFTA's environmental and labour standards are too low, and have to be raised, bringing Mexico up to Canadian/US ones--you have a complaint with that?
HCherns 3 years ago
Exactamundo!
JRBeaman 3 years ago
Yeah, reduce our capability by trying to force us all to be like mexico. Both Canada and US loses bigtime. Oberman is a hatefull ass-hole.
JRBeaman 3 years ago
good , jack layton I respect how he put it down man it should have mr.layton as prime minister,,cause wit this harper is still dealing with Bush wit this Nafta.With the Clintons dont be fooled she still wants that deal..
notchsupreme 3 years ago
Many thanks for the reference. I agree that Obama's stance seems to be nuanced, and I particularly appreciate his emphasis that NAFTA has to be made for the advantage of Mexican workers as well as American ones.
Neither C nor O seem to have mentioned Canada's part in NAFTA much. Many Canadians are already disgruntled about power and water guarantees, unworkable dispute resolution mechanisms, and Section 11, and are agitating to get Canada out of NAFTA, or drive a much harder bargain.
HCherns 3 years ago
What exactly would Obama and Clinton want to do with NAFTA, anyway?
There is a lot of feeling against NAFTA in Canada, especially on the left. If C & O just want to strengthen environmental and labour standards, and maybe reform the resolution of disputes, they would likely get a lot of support in Canada; if they would just like to tilt it more towards the US, they may discover that the US doesn't have a lot of bargaining power in this, and that pulling out may be worse than the status quo.
HCherns 3 years ago