More Questions, More Concerns on Obama,Trade

Barack Obama's campaign has been trying for days to convince voters in the March 4 primary state of Ohio -- as well as other states that have suffered as a result of trade deals that benefit corporations, not workers, farmers, consumers and the environment -- that they're not saying one thing to Americans who want the next president to take tough stands on trade policy, and another thing to trading partners and corporate donors who want to maintain the current free trade regime.

Unfortunately, the paper trail keeps upsetting the best laid plans of what until now had been a meticulously-managed campaign.

At issue since last week has been a simple question: Did a top economic adviser to the Democratic presidential frontrunner tell Canadian officials not to take seriously Obama's tough talk about renegotiating deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement?

The Obama campaign has offered a string of non-denial denials, dismissals, obfuscations and roadblocks to media inquiries.

But, now, from the Canadian government comes a memo on a meeting between Obama's senior economic policy adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and Canadian officials in Chicago.

The memo, written by Joseph DeMora, a Canadian consular aide, explains that, "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."

The memo goes on to note that, "He (Goolsbee) 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."

Goolsbee, who for days directed questions about the incident to the Obama campaign, is now offering another non-denial denial.

"This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language. He's not quoting me," Goolsbee says. "I certainly did not use that phrase in any way."

But did Goolsbee convey the impression that Obama would be saying one thing in Ohio and then doing something else altogether as president?

And what, if anything, did Obama know about these back-channel discussions?

Have there been other discussions? With representatives of other countries? With campaign donors? With corporate lobbyists? With members of Congress such as free-trade fundamentalist Rahm Emanuel?

Of course, Hillary Clinton's campaign is banging on about this matter -- even cutting new television ads with regard to the issue.

John McCain is saying things, as well. Indeed, he's making a big deal about "straight talk," or the lack thereof.

But don't get lost in what the other candidates are saying.

Focus in on this core question: Is Barack Obama playing games with the trade issue that he has made central to his appeal to the voters of Wisconsin, Ohio and other industrial states where concerns about deals such as NAFTA runs deep?

And if he is doing so, will he end up planting the seeds of distrust similar to those planted by Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004 on the trade issue? If he is talking out of both sides of his mouth, and if there are more revelations to come in this regard, then Obama is doing serious damage to his fall prospects as a Democratic presidential nominee.

Gore and Kerry never "got" the trade issue. As such, they never sent the right signals to swing voters in key states. It cost both former Democratic nominees dearly. Barack Obama sounds a lot better. That may be enough for a primary fight. But if he wants to win the presidency, he is going to need to be a lot better.

The Obama campaign should stop spinning and take this controversy a lot more seriously. And they should answer the essential questions: Do Obama and Austan Goolsbee agree on trade policy? If so, what precisely is the policy they agree on? If not, what are their differences? And if those differences are significant, might it be time for Obama to get a new senior economic adviser?

Comments (67)

1. "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up"....how old is that political truism?

   And even though Hillary is TOTALLY hypocritical about NAFTA (how does she attack something she called an accomplishment of her Hubby and part of her "35 years of experience")....

   if it's not too late, this could really hurt the Obama "image" (80%+ of what Obama is) on being "new and honest".

   Not sure it figures into it that much this late in the game, but throw it into the mix as a reason I think she easily wins Ohio (as well as pulls out a squeaker in Texas) tonight.

   Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 4:05pm

2. I just wish these legitimate questions on Obama showed up LATER, after HRC is knocked out!

   Posted by Happy at 03/03/2008 @ 4:07pm

3. Good to see a little dose of healthy skepicism on the part of TN...So in Nichols honor, I WON"T do the Obama chant!

   Posted by TransitDave at 03/03/2008 @ 4:08pm

4. Okay Metteyya...your time time to shine. You're up to bat!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 03/03/2008 @ 4:09pm

5. The Obama campaign should stop spinning and take this controversy a lot more seriously. And they should answer the essential questions: Do Obama and Austan Goolsbee agree on trade policy?

   Obama has made it "crystal" clear that he opposed NAFTA because of the lack of protection for workers, consumers, and the environment (The Talk). All of his activities in the US Senate, particularly on the Peru agreement, were to put in the protections that were missing from NAFTA (The Walk).

   So both Obama's words AND actions are consistent with a "qualified" free-trader, who is sensitive to the damage free-trade agreements can do to workers, consumers, and the environment, but nonetheless would rather fix these agreements than close our borders like a protectionist.

   Hillary, has not been as clear as Obama. She supported it when her husband made NAFTA one of the "centerpieces" of his administration, and she supported as recently as 2004, claiming it was "good for New York". So when Hillary says she now opposes NAFTA, it is she who should be getting the rough treatment on this, not Obama.

   This "conservative" official in the Canadian government obviously would prefer to see a weakened Obama candidate in November by helping Hillary drag this out through the convention, so I say f..ck him and anything he has to say!

   Posted by Metteyya at 03/03/2008 @ 4:11pm

6. Nichols is very unconvincingly trying to stir up a controversy about the "spotless" candidate, B.O.

   So a campaign operative who may or may not be on the staff who will make policy in this area has said things (or had things reported about things he is reputed to have said) on trade policy which squinted at in the proper light may appear to refract a certain scintilla of inconsistency in Obama Speak.

   Yawn.

   Last time I checked, Obama has not issued any formal statements on what he would expect from a reformulated NAFTA. I think this is why it's referred to as a treaty "renogiation" not a renunciation, as was the case with W's approach to the ABM treaty.

   Is he just going to take the position that he never said anything critical about NAFTA, it's okey dokey with him once he gets in office? Nothing suggests this, even remotely.

   But we do get a sizable portion of our oil from Canada, our #1 trading partner, and it would be pretty . . . naive? to just say, "Screw you. We want our jobs back and you'll take the terms we offer and learn to like 'em." NAFTA needs a complete re-evaluation, but to think we can just junk it and go back to 1992 is . . . Well, you know the word--I just used it.

   Posted by goyadad at 03/03/2008 @ 4:12pm

7. I agree with "Happy." Can we just wait 2 days before hammering him on this? These are legitimate concerns, but c'mon. One step at a time, unless, of course, you think HRC has more integrity and would better serve us in the White House.

   Posted by roselr at 03/03/2008 @ 4:13pm

8. ERRATUM: treaty "renogiation"--> treaty "renegotiation" (Or treaty "Rogainization" -- I sometimes get confused when I type so fast.)

   Posted by goyadad at 03/03/2008 @ 4:17pm

9. Who in the Canadian government leaked this memo? Most unusual behavior.

   Wonder if it has anything to do ... nah, it couldn't possibly ... to do with the much-publicized close lady friend of Bill's who is a member of the Canadian parliament?

   Just asking. Pretend it's 60 Minutes & this is instead of the secret religion question.

   Posted by sloper at 03/03/2008 @ 4:33pm

10. ogre negation

    Posted by jackwells at 03/03/2008 @ 4:37pm

11. I think it is funny how much importance is imparted on policies announced during campaigns. All the candidates are saying what they think they need to in order to get elected. I know I am jaded but when candidates get into details on what they are going to do once elected I just laugh. From their healthcare plans to trade, they do have a significant amount of sway, but they will first have to get these "plans" through congress (and in regards to NAFTA, other signatories to the agreement). Congress is just a little bit influenced by corporations and special interests and I seriously doubt whatever the final products are on trade changes or healthcare that they closely match what the candidates are proposing during their campaigns. These "plans" are nice straw dogs. If Obama is saying that he wants to rework NAFTA, ok that would be nice, but we will see what happens in the end. What should be important to voters is where the candidates are on issues not what their straw dog plans state. What is that saying again? Best laid plans of mice and political candidates....

    What I don't get is why Obama's folks are even having discussions with the Canucks? Seems a little premature to me.

    Posted by Extraneous at 03/03/2008 @ 4:44pm

12. It turns out Obama is a politician who says things he thinks people want to hear, and will govern as he sees fit once elected. Imagine that. The government can't protect anyone's job, and it's time the libs wrapped their heads around that.

    Posted by bagehot at 03/03/2008 @ 4:48pm

13. viceroy harper to the rescue!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 4:58pm

14. I find it amazing that Bill Clinton signs Nafta into law. Hillary supports it (although we are now supposed to believe she really didn't) and now it is more of an issue for Obama than it is for her.

    Posted by loria at 03/03/2008 @ 5:42pm

15. Obama looks worse and worse by the day, and his corporate contributions are probably the worst thing so far. Obama has received a lot of money from shady industries like health insurance and second-rate lenders.

    And I don't trust him on trade and american sovereignty either. He's been trying to hard to sell out to the mexican loby to still be taken seriously on nafta or illegal immigration.

    What happened to John Edwards???

    Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 5:54pm

16. This is not a surprise to me, and I will probably vote for Nader. These DLC types are not to be trusted. However, the country, and possibly the world, is in the process of an economic collapse, and the "Investor Class" is about to lose a lot of money. Ordinary people will lose their jobs, homes, and, possibly, their lives. Free Trade will not bring recovery. Protectionism and New Deal economic solutions would pull us through it. Whoever is President in 2009 has a tiger by the tail. I don't see a Franklin Roosevelt in the wings coming to the rescue in 2012!

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 03/03/2008 @ 5:57pm

17. What happened to John Edwards???

    Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 5:54pm

    John Edwards VOTED FOR NAFTA and is therefore just as phony as Hillary on this issue.

    You can't vote for these agreements when in the senate and have ANY credibility with thinking people, which explains Hillary's appeal among the uneducated. Hillary thinks she can fool voters by not having them look too closely at her record, and this makes her a garden variety "say anything, do anything" politician that we no longer can afford in the White House.

    Posted by Metteyya at 03/03/2008 @ 6:01pm

18. Mett, he did?????

    Man, this is depressing...

    Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 6:02pm

19. I just wish these legitimate questions on Obama showed up LATER, after HRC is knocked out!

    Posted by HAPPY 03/03/2008 @ 4:07pm

    I agree with you Happy but the problem is, it's not the Republicans launching this it's friends of Clinton.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/03/2008 @ 6:04pm

20. Canadian officials say they didn't mean to imply a shift on NAFTA by Obama

    Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign just alerted reporters to this statement from the Canadian embassy in Washington. It reads, in part:

    The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, 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. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

    In case you're not up to speed about the testy arguments the Democratic presidential campaigns have been having, the statement refers to reports that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said something to Canadian officials that led one of them to write that Goolsbee had "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."

    Clinton and her campaign aides, led by spokesman Howard Wolfson and strategist Mark Penn, have been accusing the Obama campaign of saying one thing about NAFTA in public and then reassuring the Canadians in private. Obama and his aides, led by campaign manager David Plouffe and spokesman Bill Burton, have been saying that no such thing happened -- and that Obama is really serious when he says NAFTA was "oversold" and needs to be "fixed."

    The brouhaha began late last week, and at first the Obama campaign maintained that no one associated with it had spoken to any Canadian officials. Then reports began to surface about Goolsbee having spoken to those officials. Plouffe said "the story's just not true" when asked about the reports.

    Then Sunday, the Associated Press broke the news about the Canadian memo -- while also reporting that Goolsbee said his comments had been misinterpreted.

    A short time ago, Plouffe was pressed further about what had gone on during a conference call with reporters.

    He made the case that the stories had been wrong all along because Goolsbee had not been meeting with any Canadian officials on behalf of the Obama campaign or in his capacity as an adviser to the senator -- but rather in his private capacity as an economics professor at the University of Chicago.

    Posted by Metteyya at 03/03/2008 @ 6:05pm

21. Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 6:02pm

    I misspoke: Edwards was NOT in the senate when NAFTA was voted on but he did vote for opening up trade with China.

    This exchange between Edwards and Gephardt in Iowa in 2004 is interesting:

    GEPHARDT: I got a trade treaty with Jordan that really paid attention to labor & environmental rights. The Gephardt amendment is in law in the country, and it got markets open, like in Japan, where we've had to face unfair trade practices. Now, everybody up here, except Kucinich, voted for NAFTA and voted for the China agreement. They did the wrong thing. We need to bring up conditions in these other countries so that we work toward a global marketplace that works for everybody. You can't do that if you give in to bad trade deals, like most of these candidates did.

    EDWARDS: I didn't vote for NAFTA. I campaigned against NAFTA. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president. Gephardt has sent out mailings attacking and identifying all of us and putting us in the same category.

    GEPHARDT: Well, you weren't in Congress when NAFTA came up. But you voted for China.

    Posted by Metteyya at 03/03/2008 @ 6:13pm

22. Oh come on, if trade agreements were funded to work the way they were initially voted to, none of this would be an issue-- this is the result of 13 years of repub majority congressional lousy logic rule and how far it's sunk into our collective reasoning.

    Look we're going to trade with as many countries as we can if there is profit in it. The problem is/has been when the agreement is 'not' made fair for the workers on either side of the border. If the initial agreement was funded to support its corporate regulation responsibility and oversight for workers rights and fair treatment, collective bargaining, as well as environmental protections and conservation-- this argument would be moot. But like all the other rotting smelly programs that repubs touched for the last decade or more, it's been run into the ground per mean spirited 'good-ol'boy' profits that benefit only new con supporters/servicers of dic'tator philosophy.

    One could believe in a government run 'well', but then one would need to first precede that belief with an extraction of new con repubs from said government, otherwise its an insane belief and thus illogical to assume it's the fault of the programs that repub new cons infected. It's like a disorganized painter blaming the uncared for brushes for his screw-ups. It's like jailing the gun for the murder. It's like blaming the relief goods for never getting to New Orleans

    Don't blame Obama for a necessary and good idea gone bad per repub new con mismanagement and greed. Understand someone has got to fix the problem and what the problem really is.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/03/2008 @ 6:33pm

23. Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/03/2008 @ 6:34pm

    Yeah, ALL of the conservatives are now "openly" rooting for Hillary, including FOX News!

    I wonder why conservatives are suddenly in love with Hillary? Could it be that they think she is their best shot at winning in November by being either a weak nominee herself or by helping them make Obama a weak nominee through a convention fight?

    Don't figure!

    Posted by Metteyya at 03/03/2008 @ 6:52pm

24. If you look at the memo there is nothing damning there, even if it was all true, which is still denied. There is nothing here other than someone in Obama's campaign telling someone in the Canadian government to calm down, relax, and not get too bent out of shape about all the NAFTA talk when it is going to be at least a year before anything happens with it. Nowhere in here is there an implication that Obama is not serious about retooling NAFTA, and nowhere is there an implication that he hasn't been completely honest about his plans with the American people.

    I'm pretty sick of your hyped up stories here John. Just a week after even progressives were critical of the NYT piece against McCain that was based on even more evidence than this piece, here we have progressives attacking Obama like they have a real story, which they don't.

    Posted by bridoc at 03/03/2008 @ 7:05pm

25. Following are excerpts from the Canadian memo posted this afternoon by the AP. According to the same AP article, the 2 or 3 minute exchange between Mr. Goolsbee and an unnamed, low level, Canadian official occurred during a visit to the Canadian Consulate which was extended by a member of the Canadian government. Also, Mr. Goolsbee was not speaking either as an emissary or as an official representative of Senator Obama who is neither the Democratic Party nominee for US President nor the winner of the general election.

    Clinton said Monday that Obama's campaign gave the Canadians "the old wink-wink." However, the memo in no way implies what Senator Clinton and her surrogates and some media outlets are inferring about Senator Obama's character, integrity, consistency and trustworthiness. In fact, it can be read as a summary report of an informal meeting of two low-level political employees.

    EXCERPT FROM THE MEMO "On February 8, CHCGO had an introductory meeting with Austan Goolsbee, a senior economic advisor of Illinois Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. While it was clear the campaign and Goolsbee himself have not been focused on Canada, he showed interest and enthusiasm for what HOM/Rioux had to say about the Canada-US relationship. He 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. 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. Should Obama win the White House, Goolsbee figures to remain a close advisor"

    "Noting anxiety among many US domestic audiences about the US economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. Consistent with CHCGO/WSHDC's analysis, 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. He also suggested that of the Democratic candidates, Obama has been the least protectionist. HOM asked whether we could expect to hear more of this as the elections progressed, Goolsbee thought not. In fact, he mentioned that going forward the Obama camp was going to be careful to send the appropriate message without coming off too protectionist."

    Also from the same AP article:

    "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.

    Posted by Jezreel at 03/03/2008 @ 7:17pm

26. Yeah, ALL of the conservatives are now "openly" rooting for Hillary...

    Posted by METTEYYA 03/03/2008 @ 6:52pm

    It's getting down right tight.....among Repubs on the Dem Primariy....LOL!!

    I plan to vote for BO but I heard on Rushbo's show today at least two Repubs are voting HRC tomorrow! Yep, sad but true, the divisive Dem battle between HRC & Magic is now splitting the Repubs voting in the Dem Primaries......Guess my vote for Magic will be cancelled out by some other Repub here in TX! Fine, so be it.....all the way to Denver!

    Posted by Happy at 03/03/2008 @ 7:19pm

27. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/03/2008 @ 6:33pm

    So, NAFTA was "fine" when originally pushed by Bill Clinton and when ...uh...What's-His-Face...was debating its merits against Ross Perot on Larry King back in 1994?

    Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 7:22pm

28. Obama... Clinton... doesn't matter. You don't get to be the nominee by being opposed to "free trade." Do we really think either senator is going to trim the benefits enjoyed by global businesses?

    Posted by Citizen54 at 03/03/2008 @ 7:37pm

29. See, in a perfect world Goolsbee would say he had been a loose cannon and fall on his sword. (I KNOW. It hurts me more than it does any of you, the mixing.) Then Obama could pick up someone lefter to give his economic team better balance, which could only be good.

    I'm not saying that will happen though. Bad stuff will happen instead.

    Posted by gloryoski at 03/03/2008 @ 7:47pm

30. if the repugs are for Hill it's because they're scared to death of the popular Obama. that's what they haven't faced in decades, someone who is popular. follow the crowds.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/03/2008 @ 7:52pm

31. This entire story has been blown completely out of perportion, and, it just happenes by chance the day before make or break primaries for HRC?

    Do some fact checking John, AP "reporter" Nedra Pickler is by-lining the AP story of the memo. Need I say more?

    I can't recall actually seeing such a biased non story on the nation before....

    Posted by TheCraftyB at 03/03/2008 @ 8:35pm

32. CTV in Canada broke on this "story". CTV, although not as appalling as FOX News (but then who is), is know to be the conservative news station. And CTV pretty overtly supports the extremely right wing government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is very closely aligned with George Bush. Prime Minister Stephen Harper would obviously prefer a President McCain to a President Clinton or President Obama. It is generally accepted that a Clinton nomination is better for John McCain than an Obama nomination Consulates, are, to a good degree, staffed by appointees of the Prime Minister. Hello!!1You figure it out. Canada, finally, gets to influence American politics.This was the subject of heated debate in the House of Commons today. Is is not, even a tiny tiny bit, relevant to Americans what goes on north of the border? Your story makes no mention of the Canadian politics behind the leaking of this now-confirmed-to-be-false story. Mr. Nichols. I love your writing. This is the first time I have been deeply disappointed in the lack of research behind one of your stories.

    Posted by yellowsnow at 03/03/2008 @ 9:09pm

33. CTV in Canada broke this "story".

    CTV, although not as appalling as FOX News (but then who is), is know to be the conservative news station. And CTV pretty overtly supports the extremely right wing government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is very closely aligned with George Bush.

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper would obviously prefer a President McCain to a President Clinton or President Obama.

    It is generally accepted that a Clinton nomination is better for John McCain than an Obama nomination

    Consulates, are, to a good degree, staffed by appointees of the Prime Minister.

    Hello!!1You figure it out.

    Canada, finally, gets to influence American politics.This was the subject of heated debate in the House of Commons today.

    Is is not, even a tiny tiny bit, relevant to Americans what goes on north of the border? Your story makes no mention of the Canadian politics behind the leaking of this now-confirmed-to-be-false story. Mr. Nichols. I love your writing. This is the first time I have been deeply disappointed in the lack of research behind one of your stories.

    Posted by yellowsnow at 03/03/2008 @ 9:14pm

34. Are journalists coming out of their Hannah Obama daze? From MSNBC:

    Obama tangles with the press

    Posted: Monday, March 03, 2008 5:58 PM by Domenico Montanaro

    From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan

    SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- Led by the Chicago press corps that has covered Obama for years, the candidate today faced a barrage of questions in what turned out to be a contentious news conference.

    Questions centered on why his campaign had denied that a meeting occurred between his chief economic advisor and Canadian officials as well as questions on his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago land developer and fast food magnate, now on trial for corruption charges........

    Much of the back and forth, though, between reporters and Obama was about his relationship with Tony Rezko, with reporters demanding to know why new details were emerging from the case though Obama and his staff had claimed they had been forthright with all the details.......

    Posted by Happy at 03/03/2008 @ 9:19pm

35. The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, 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. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

    Posted by METTEYYA 03/03/2008 @ 6:05pm

    hmmmm,

    now that the shit has hit the fan all the retraction in the world will not contain the stink....

    viceroy harper to the rescue!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 9:51pm

36. "You've got a right-wing government in Canada that is trying to help the Republicans and is out there actively interfering in this campaign," Democratic strategist Bob Shrum said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press.

    ••••••••••••••••••••••••••

    But sources told CTV News that both camps called Canadian diplomats in the U.S. to say the candidates didn't really mean it. They were just looking for votes in Ohio, where the trade deal is blamed for massive job losses.

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080302/nafta_democ rats_080302/20080302?hub=Canada

    sources????

    this is very stinky.

    very stinky.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 9:57pm

37. ....shit has hit the fan...

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/03/2008 @ 9:51pm

    very stinky.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/03/2008 @ 9:57pm

    Is that what your coniferous pine cone tells you?

    Sure seems a "stinky" way to raise the image of America....guess it's `Change'! "Yes, we can!"

    Time for the Obama chant.....got to get myself psyched up to vote for the guy tomorrow.......hmmmmmm......sorry, haven't got it down yet! Hey, Dave....little help!

    Posted by Happy at 03/03/2008 @ 10:14pm

38. i mean, mr lapdog harper sticking his mucky nose in this whole sordid election......

    it's stinky..

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 10:17pm

39. Of course Obama is playing a slick game: he wants to sound like he wants to protect U.S. jobs, but he is really a corporate Democrat at his core. I believe this incident did happen.

    Posted by philbq at 03/03/2008 @ 11:58pm

40. Obama won't emerge from this too well, because he's painted himself as above everything, with high morals, etc. He made himself out to be too perfect. The littlest dirt will seem enormous when this happens. Likewise, it's a no-win situation. Even if he says there was a misinterpretation, it's still the case that his senior economic policy adviser, Austan Goolsbee, stated his talk in Ohio was political positioning, also known as lying to get votes. That probably isn't going to sit too well with Midwesterners. It's also sadly appropriate that it took a foreign news agency to actually pop the Obama bubble. It's about time.

    Posted by stumped at 03/04/2008 @ 12:38am

41. It's also sadly appropriate that it took a foreign news agency to actually pop the Obama bubble. It's about time.

    Posted by STUMPED 03/04/2008 @ 12:38am

    it's stinky......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 01:01am

42. Liberal trade critic Navdeep Bains said given Harper's tight control on all communications within his government and his fondness for the Republicans, the fact that the memo emerged at all raises questions.

    "Things don't leak from this government. I question the timing of the leak and the impact of the leak."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 01:04am

43. ABC News says the leaker was Mr. Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie. Mr. Brodie reportedly learned of the conversation -which took place between Mr. Obama's economic adviser and a Canadian diplomat in Chicago - from Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 01:12am

44. The Canadian embassy says on its website that "at no time has any member of a Presidential campaign called the Canadian Ambassador or any official at the Embassy to discuss NAFTA."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 01:13am

45. stinky.........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 01:13am

46. "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.

    *

    They became "inaccurate" when they became known.

    Posted by stumped at 03/04/2008 @ 01:22am

47. Ah Oba-Macaca! he knows only how to attack HRC. Here and there he is in the same boat with Bush, or as Moulitsas loves to say, with Dick Cheney. Read this.

    ------------

    Obama says U.S. should not meet with Hamas Mon Mar 3, 4:59 PM ET

    SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday backed the Bush administration's policy of shunning contact with the Islamic militants of Hamas in its Middle East peace diplomacy.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    The Illinois senator has said he would break with President George W. Bush's stance of declining to talk to some other international adversaries but that stance does not apply to Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and is committed to the destruction of Israel

    Posted by HelenDAO at 03/04/2008 @ 02:11am

48. FZ, thanks for the Canada info.

    A favor done is favor earned. Looks as if yr rightwing PM has some US pols in his debt.

    But if Obama wins today & in Nov, yr PM won't be in the most enviable of positions.

    Posted by sloper at 03/04/2008 @ 06:57am

49. There is something really dirty about this. There was mention of BOTH campaigns reassuring the Canadians that it was all just political rhetoric, then suddenly it was targeting Obama and the charge against the Clinton machine became invisible as Clinton indignantly postured, even though the "experience" she claims includes the former accomplishment of NAFTA. It was interesting watching Harper washing his hands in denial of meddling--because there were loud hecklers shouting in the background which everyone ignored.

    Please god, if there is a god that is good and decent, and I mean this, please don't saddle us with the sleazy Clintons again. They only promise to drag us down.....no hope....no hope.

    Posted by Lil at 03/04/2008 @ 07:25am

50. Yellowsnow--Nichols has a soft spot for Clinton. You must forgive him, her brash, strident tones makes him go all wobbly and maybe Nicholson was right about certain men intrigued by the idea of saluting a woman. Unfortunately it blinds him to the larger picture and trend of the Clinton machine to use any means necessary to destroy the village if it means they can't live in the biggest house anymore. Other than that, he is pretty good--and of course if Clinton manages to claw her way up and give it all to McCain it will provide much fodder to run future columns.

    Posted by Lil at 03/04/2008 @ 08:30am

51. just like the mid 2006, mid u.s. election toronto "terror" arrests............

    stinky.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 09:15am

52. stinky.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 09:15am

53. Posted by HELENDAO 03/04/2008 @ 02:11am

    As noted on the other thread...brilliant move, HELEN.

    Using "Macaca" COST George Allen his election in 2006...and you want to use it for Her Majesty?!??!!?

    Ooookkaaaayyy.....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 09:18am

54. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/04/2008 @ 09:15am

    Goddamned Canadians! Can't trust those sneaky bastards, can yo.......

    uh...

    oops....

    .

    ...

    .

    (heheh...j/k, bud)

    Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 09:19am

55. i am soooooooooooo pissed.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 09:28am

56. (Cross-posted from TPM Election Central, "Goolsbee Tale Becomes An International Incident..." in response to a "where's the memo" post:)

    This page at least purports to have it. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/03/03/nafta gate-leaked-memo-of-obama-advisor-and-canadian-consul-meeting.aspx

    It certainly seems to support the idea that Goolsbee did not initiate the meeting, although it does not say so directly.

    Maybe the memo is all over by now, but it's the only place I could find as of an hour or so ago.

    You should also look at responses on The Nation blog, e.g, Frosty Zoom. He is Canadian, is very smart and informed and has other info and links.

    [Add for here: Even though he probably has me on ignore.]

    Posted by gloryoski at 03/04/2008 @ 09:40am

57. There is one candidate for President who opposes corporate written trade agreements and has a two decades long history of fighting them.

    It should be obvious that he is not one of the two Democratic Party frontrunners.

    Posted by john.halle at 03/04/2008 @ 09:44am

58. nafta = oil.

    harper = oil.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 09:56am

59. Posted by JOHN.HALLE 03/04/2008 @ 09:44am

    Yes, and it SHOULD be obvious, except to the delusional...

    that he doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected. (after 4 times, I might add)

    Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 09:56am

60. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/04/2008 @ 09:28am

    Don't worry, FZ....it's not like we Americans are going to hold the average Canuck responsible for their leaders.

    After all....you wouldn't do that to us, would you?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 09:57am

61. Posted by MASK 03/04/2008 @ 09:57am

    never.

    even for those who've "miscast" votes.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 10:05am

62. the worst part is that "because canadians" said it,

    it's gotta be true.

    rrrrrrrrrrrrr......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 10:06am

63. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/04/2008 @ 10:06am

    Yeah, that is ironic.

    Here you guys have this reputation for being so "nice", even innocent....which means if you (or one of your guys) DOES do something underhanded...

    nobody believes that "a Canadian could DO such a thing!".

    Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 10:25am

64. I really wish you people at the Nation would read up on what the Canadian government has said on this issue. I get sick of doing your research for you.

    UPDATE 1-Canada defends Obama over NAFTA flap http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/03/03/2008-03-04T000047 Z_01_N03391783_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-OBAMA-UPDATE-1.html

    Posted by nodeceit at 03/04/2008 @ 10:33am

65. Posted by NODECEIT 03/04/2008 @ 10:33am

    but the timing........

    enough to muck up ohio,

    not enough for any retraction to gain traction......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 10:36am

66. The comments from Obama's supporters are interesting. While some think that these issues are legitimate but do not want them to be discussed now...in other words, shove these issues under the rug until after the primaries....Hmmmmmm...interesting. Is this new face definition of honesty and forthrightness?

    Posted by kevin99999 at 03/04/2008 @ 11:44am

67. If the "kitchen sink is working" as another of your headings indicates, the Nation will be partly responsible by countenancing the kind of journalism that poses a series of questions and implies without proof that answers have either never been provided or contain some nefarious derivation. Goolsbee says the summary (not even a quote) by the Canadian official was inaccurate. This is not enough for this author. Nor for other writers apparently is the fact that over 200 stories have been published on Rezko and Obama and the simple explanation that Rezko was courting Obama's favor as he did many other Illinois politicians and that he got nothing back from Obama is deemed insufficient, since it is lacking in intrigue. And now worth mining one more time not because the stories or facts have changed but because of the coincidence of the Rezko trial on unrelated matters. The Clinton campaign denied supplying Drudge with the Somali photo. Their denial was accepted. On other matters Clintonian, reporters persist. All of it seems to emanate from journalists who no longer report, in the old-fashioned sense, but just regurgitate or not based on the prevailing winds and the apparent necessity to post something, anything, on a daily basis.

    Posted by cinder at 03/04/2008 @ 2:43pm