Obama, Canada, NAFTA and Some 'Straight Talk'

posted by John Nichols on 03/01/2008 @ 09:52am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (62)

Subscribe Now

Did Barack Obama's campaign quietly contact Canadian officials to tell them not to take seriously the Illinois senator's tough talk about renegotiating trade agreements?

CTV, the well-regarded Canadian news network, reported this week that a top Obama adviser contacted the Canadian government to calm fears that the senator was serious about rewriting pro-corporate deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement to benefit workers, farmers and the environment. According to CTV, the Obama adviser told the Canadians 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."

After that report aired on Wednesday, an Obama campaign spokesperson claimed in an interview with CTV that "no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated."

The problem, of course, is that CTV has a very credible source -- a a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy -- who has provided the network with details of the call and a timeline.

Of course, the source is now being pressured to tell a different story by superiors. But few serious observers of the trade debate -- with its history of back channel communications -- doubts the scenario as it was first reported.

Attempts by CTV to get the Obama camp to respond to specific questions about the conversation and the timeline in question have so far proven unsuccessful.

According to CTV, "the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago."

CTV did contact Goolsbee, but he's not cooperating.

The network reports that "(Goolsbee refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters."

It is starting to sound an awfully lot like the Obama campaign may have gotten caught telling Canada one thing and Ohio something different.

What's the bottom line on this story? According to the network: "Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position."

And what's John McCain 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," says the likely Republican nominee. "I certainly don't think that's straight talk."

On this point, McCain's right.

Comments (62)

What!??

Obama follows the DLC line on NAFTA? But is trying to win a manufacturing state by triangulating?

I am shocked, shocked that gambling is going on here.

Do you know who has not gone behind the backs of the working man to assuage ruffled feathers? The Evil One, Nader. So, I guess you guys are right at the Nation, we should ignore Ralph, lest he draw attention to such issues as un-fair trade agreements.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/01/2008 @ 10:27am
Can we just call the elections off this year, and try again next year, with a different set of candidates for the nomination?

Posted by ZERO 03/01/2008 @ 10:26am

And leave Chimpy in charge? Gosh no. No. Please. No.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/01/2008 @ 10:29am
Maybe McCain could come up with some straight talk for Rev Hagee the Christian Hater. I wonder if the Maverik knows the Rapture index is a-risin'. (due to ricin in Sin City)

And then some straight talk about how NAFTA has failed in most of it's main publicly professed goals. It has not reduced illegal immigration. It has not produced a net increase in jobs in the US. It has not reduced corruption in Mexico. It has driven down wages in the US and made CEOs wealthier.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/01/2008 @ 10:35am
Good for Obama to let the Frosties know, campaigning is very different from governing! In campaigns, the only yardstick is winning or losing.....in governing, as the Dem Congress Re-found out since Nov. `06, is another ballgame entirely.

Maybe Obama is growing in maturity and actually preparing himself to be something more than just a Magic campaigner.....he's actually letting our foreign trade partners know that it will be, mostly, business as usual.

NOT a knock on Obama at all....just the reality of the Presidency that Obama needs to be cognizant of......as Clinton is certainly `experienced' in!

Posted by Happy at 03/01/2008 @ 11:26am
Wasnt it proven to be false by the Candadian ambassador. What amaze me about this election is that peole seem to think that everything they hear is truth. Shockingly they are people who make stuff. Not everything you read is the truth even if it comes from the New York Times. Thats what I'm learning thanks to this election.

Carol

Posted by harriscrl3 at 03/01/2008 @ 12:16pm
Strike one against Obama! Just wait until Nader's running mate, Matt Gonzalez manages to get some media attention. He is the true visionary: charismatic, intelligent, anti-war, anticorporate.

Posted by nursevic at 03/01/2008 @ 2:06pm
BLOG | Posted 03/01/2008 @ 09:52am

"Did Barack Obama's campaign quietly contact Canadian officials to tell them not to take seriously the Illinois senator's tough talk…."

Duh. Obama, like all politicians, will say whatever is necessary to get elected. Elections are popularity contests. Once they are in office, expect little change and you won't be disappointed.

Posted by Downtown at 03/01/2008 @ 2:07pm
It seems the tide is turning. Obama now the frontrunner, seems to be receiving significant heat, and his every word (no matter how beautiful) is under a microscope. It is about time. Let's hold Obama accountable for his words. This idol worship is what gets Americans in trouble. It seems folks fall in love with some rock star and forget their best interest. It's time the issues surfaced and the US Magazine beefcake shots and interviews cease. What kind of politics is this when a candidate is featured on gossip magazines and Hollywood hype. Let's get real people. Think about this guy as a leader and not the next "American Idol."

Posted by books at 03/01/2008 @ 3:06pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Zero

good diagnosis, good prognosis, but what is the remedy?

Posted by emile duBois at 03/01/2008 @ 3:53pm
Posted by ZERO 03/01/2008 @ 3:32pm

Happy: business-as-usual has produced:

* an unmaintainable and already disastrous security situation in the Greater Middle East,

The Israeli/Palestinian situation is a soap opera which won't end until its Right to Exist is recognized.....business as usual ("BAU"), for now.....Saddam gone & Iraq improving, a PLUS......Iran weakening economically and unrest is on the cusp, PLUS.....Iran meddling in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, BAU..

* a huge and growing government budget deficit,

And, may I ask, was there no deficits before Bush 43? In any case, there is ZERO chance of sustained Surplus....pols will always attempt to buy vote; especially when there are Surplus.

* the rapid loss of good American jobs to foreign countries, with the corresponding sapping of the American physical economy,

Positioned properly, as quite a few states have done, jobs have been growing, even overall in the US, though more so in states like TX. But, if Big Oil is driven into the ground, TX will become just average while we import even more oil...which will help our ports and dockworkers, though!

* a currency in a rapidly worsening 7-year decline,

Has to happen! Basic Int'l Finance 101! Fully anticipated this 2~3 years ago of the acclerated pace of decline....was off by about a year!

* a health care "system" that is providing less and less health care overall, that is choking businesses, and adding costs to individual households rapidly,

Not from what I see in Houston.....TX Medical Center putting up new buildings like mushrooms after rain.....in the suburbs where I live, at least one to two major hospital branches are opening each year along w/associated professional buildings. From the macro GNP perspective, medical care is taking Larger pieces of the pie, NOT less....w/Boomers retiring....will explode....we will need lots of care!

* two unmanaged economic bubbles,

Bubbles are part of human existence......no amount of regulaitons after the horses have left the barn, will prevent another bubble, in anything......bubbles know how to adopt faster than regulators! Key is to ride the bubbles long enough to make decent money and bail out w/actual gains. I'm an expert at this!

* a situation in which the richest 1% sees its wealth explode while the wages the remaining 99% rely on have remained stagnant or shrunk in real dollars.

Don't explain popularities of `stuff' like iPods and bg-screen TVs....which I don't have, and no, I am not in the top 1%. I bet lots of people reading this has spent far more on consumer this-and-that than I have. I don't even have cable or DISH TV...just analog over-the-air free TV!

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

Look at all the time us bloggers have to blog....especially those using company time to do so. If these folks worked for me, they are stealing from my customers who must pay for these unproductive time or I just have surplus workers....some should be let go! Being entertained while blogging & being paid........does that show up in any statistical measure of HAPPINESS?

Life in these US, other than a small minority, is too cushy. Most polled say the country is headed in the wrong direction by something like 75%+, but half+ say their own situation is just fine. So, are they wrong about themselves or are they wrong about others' `suffering'? Don't believe the gloom and doom the MSM pushed thinking that help it to make money......it doesn't!

Posted by Happy at 03/01/2008 @ 4:11pm
time for the REAlITY CHECK this is a bogus story. just FOLLOW THE MONEY. who?? was it that brokered a multi-BILLION dollar deal to mine URANIUM in KAZAKHSTAN by a CANADIAN mining corp. why BILL CLINTON who stand to benefit?? BILL CLINTON was paid untold millions in fees just another reason hillary won't release her tax returns or divulge an income statement. now it is my WILD guess that if OBAMA leads a new government in washington he will SQUASH this deal through the U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL neither the UNITED STATES or RUSSIA benefits from MORE URANIUM floating loose on the market in the unstable mideast and it is a huge security problem for ISRAEL. that nafta garbage is just a backdoor smear attempt by some of BILL's NERVOUS CANADIAN corperate VAMPIRE buddys. NO NUKES!!!!!!!!

Posted by reality check at 03/01/2008 @ 4:33pm
Posted by ZERO 03/01/2008 @ 3:32pm

All good points, though goofy & goggle-eyed right-wing stooges will see this as "business as usual" and blame everything on Wilson & FDR, etc. etc.

Best of all, in the Emperor's news conference yesterday, when asked about the impact of $4/gal. gasoline, El Presidente said, "Wait, a minute. You're predicting $4 gasoline?" -- oblivious to the fact the folks in Cali are paying more than $4 already.

Yeah, this cheap war for cheap oil has worked out great. And if Mad Mac wants to be the next Prez, all he has to do is promise to stay in Iraq another 50 years to make sure we continue to get more cheap oil like we have so far.

This Iraq war deal is starting to make the Clinton energy tax idea (floated in 1993 and greeted with the howls of knee-jerk right-wingers like HAPPY) look like the Deal of the Century.

But don't try to confuse HAPPY and LVLIBS by presenting the facts. They've read Limbaugh's book and they know that you win arguments with "liberals" by denying the facts & hosing them down with straight propaganda.

Posted by goyadad at 03/01/2008 @ 4:57pm
NICHOLS What's the bottom line on this story? According to the network: "Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position."

Sounds fishy to me. None of it makes sense, politically. Plus, what a risky ploy.

My guess is that we are not getting the full story. Maybe more will emerge that will clarify it. This doesn't sound like Obama's M.O. Very strange story, eh?

Posted by jackwells at 03/01/2008 @ 6:17pm
Excuse me Mr. Nichols but did you say "the well regarded news network" in relation to CTV? You have got to be kidding. I live in Canada and it is anything but well regarded and it would not be the first time they chased smoke based on rumor versus fact. Have no doubt about it, the Conservatives under Harper would burn Obama in a minute if they had proof he had done anything of the sort. When the Canadian Embassy says there was no such call I think you should take their word for it. The other thing you need to be sure of is that many Canadians would love to re-open NAFTA.

Posted by s_charles at 03/01/2008 @ 6:52pm
There is some data that shows net American jobs have increased because of NAFTA. That has sometimes meant net losses of jobs in some states and industries but overall there has been an overall benefit as the following article indicates.

It is interesting to note that it is not ideologues with no real financial stake in the outcomes, as on this forum, but exporters and farmers who know when they are on a winner that support these sort of agreements (for those not in the know there is a multiplicity of such bi and tri (plus) lateral free trade agreements between Asian countries and between Asian countries and the EU with some Asian-US treaties in the pipeline or being processed now. It is arrogant foolishness to assume that these sorts of agreements cannot produce win-win outcomes.

Whether Obama contacted officials in Canada or not is unimportant. We can only assume he is not a Luddite wrt to free trade and knows that America will only prosper through the right sort of trade agreements i.e. those that benefit American exporters as well as the other parties. That may lead to renegotiation but that is light years away from rejecting, in principle, the importance of agreements like NAFTA. That he rails against NAFTA to win votes in states negatively affected by it just means he is your standard run of the mill politician (for which we can all be thankful). We all know what rightly happens to village idiots like Kucinich and Paul:

http://tinyurl.com/yua4ec

Incidentally I noticed someone was bemoaning the low USD. However that is just the sort of short-term medicine our economy needs. Our booming export industries are witness to the value of that medicine.

Posted by harvey 79 at 03/01/2008 @ 7:40pm
Reading some of the comments, I see some are skeptical about CTV or whether this story has any credibility. Certainly it puts Senator Obama in a very bad light. Singaling a foreign government that you are about to lie/pander to American voters ain't too pretty. Anyway, for those who might be interested, you may view video of some of the original reporting here [youtube.com], here [youtube.com], here [youtube.com], and here [youtube.com]

The written stories are available online at http://ctv.ca

To learn about CTV look here. [tinyurl.com] To learn more about Tom Clark, intrepid investigative journalist, who broke this story look here. [tinyurl.com]

Also for fun you could try this cute survey about "NAFTA-gate" [vet4hill.googlepages.com]

I think John Nichols should be commended for getting the reporting on this story dead on correct. I also think this shows very well the dangers of hiring the inexperienced and untrustworthy. We should take a collective pass on Senator Obama. The voters he's been lying to should get his apology.

Posted by v4hill at 03/01/2008 @ 8:48pm
well, given the probushian nature of the morons currently holding the reigns in ottawa,

i wouldn't doubt that harperites let this one out..........

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/01/2008 @ 10:07pm
and ctv................

well it's not one where i go to get "news", that's for sure.......

well, maybe stock tips.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/01/2008 @ 10:09pm
Nichols is coming off like Novak in the Flame case here.

Who's the source? Where is he? An Obama adviser "can't be contacted?" Lololol... Why is the American media running on this story with NO source? CTV is widely known in Canada as the Fox News of the North, which Nichols would know if he ever left Washington.

This is a non-story, and well beneath The Nation's usual standards. Go with actual journalism next time, Johnnie Boy - it works better.

Posted by sjduskin at 03/02/2008 @ 01:14am
Has anyone stopped to think that someone could be calling in favors also? Look at how the article started. That ONE person talked to a Obama campaigner. By the end it says that many head people had been privy to this information from the person. Maybe the CVT are getting information from someone who is attempting more aggressive smears. I am not ruling out the fact that it is true by any means, but look at it from all angles before you automatically start saying he must be hung or else you are just being tools of the media as usual. How many major sources have been disproved in the past.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 02:30am
This is an article from Newsweek that shows Obama and Clinton are babes in the woods when it comes to free trade and how the world is likely to react to their reactionary policies:

WORLD VIEW

Fareed Zakaria

WHAT THE WORLD IS HEARING

"A senior Latin American diplomat says, 'We might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave on trade.'"

Mar 10, 2008 Issue Newsweek:

http://tinyurl.com/25uwgz

Posted by harvey 79 at 03/02/2008 @ 02:39am
And how does it make sense? Like many have pointed out, a campaign is a campaign and can get dirty, and I don't put dirt past Obama.

But in such a closely contested election in which, so far, his playbook has worked so well, why risk getting caught in a lie to reassure people who can't even vote for him?

Posted by Rintrah at 03/02/2008 @ 07:30am
The Big Lie, that NAFTA has benefitted average Americans. It has driven down wages, it has done absolutely nothing for illegal immigration, job growth is stagnant, the "service economy" is in India, Ireland and low wage healthcare and restaurant jobs in the US.

Does anyone else notice that no matter what happens, the neo-cons have 3/4 full cups? Five years of war? hey it's all good news, Raytheon is doing great! US dollar down, causing most Americans to pay more for most things? Hey, some exporters are doing OK. Gas $4 gallon? It shows how well globalization is working.

As long as the top 5% are doing good, the rest of us should just suck eggs. They need to get 7% more wealth, controlling 85% is just not enough for them.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/02/2008 @ 09:54am
Not all Bushs fault, much is due to the ongoing effects of un-fair trade agreements negotiated by Bill CLinton and authorized by a republican congress.

Jobs

One of the most important measures of economic well-being is the number of people with jobs. The number of jobs in the economy increased 2.38 percent per year under Clinton, but it has decreased 0.17 percent per year under Bush.9 While it's clear that the economic downturn in 2001 was not Bush's fault, the sluggishness of the recovery is unprecedented in the period since the federal government began issuing detailed employment reports in the 1940s. There have been 1.7 million jobs created since September 2003, which may sound like a lot, but that number falls short of the 1.8 million jobs that must be created per year just to match population growth, and it falls far below the 3.7 million jobs that the administration predicted would be created when the president signed his 2003 tax cut into law.10 This slow job growth is largely attributable to both the failure of the administration's fiscal policies (which targeted tax cuts to stimulate savings rather than spending) and the failure of its trade policies (which have done a poor job of opening foreign markets to spur export growth, and have not created the conditions for an orderly decline in the value of the dollar, which would have helped ease the trade imbalance).11

Full-time vs. Part-time Jobs The change in the number of jobs does not provide a complete picture of employment in the U.S. economy. Not only did the Clinton years produce many more jobs than the Bush years have, but they also produced more full-time jobs compared to part-time jobs. This is an important indicator because in an economic slowdown many displaced and new workers resort to part-time work as a second-choice option. Granted, some people might prefer part-time work because they have children or attend school. But, overall, a decrease in the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs implies that a greater share of workers have less stable work with fewer benefits. The ratio of full-time to part-time work rose under Clinton by 0.11 percent per year, but it has decreased at an annual rate of 1.67 percent since the beginning of 2001. In fact, the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs has not only reversed direction, but as of September 2004 it has fallen below what it was before Clinton took office.

Jobs with Good Wages

The economic well-being of American workers is determined not only by whether they have jobs -- ideally full-time jobs with benefits -- but also by how well their jobs pay. This indicator is a weighted index based on the change in the number of jobs in different income quintiles under Clinton and Bush.13 A positive value represents job growth biased toward higher paying jobs, which reflects an upwardly mobile economy. A negative value represents job growth biased toward lower-paying jobs, which reflects a more downwardly mobile economy. The score of 4.70 during the Clinton administration means that the economy produced significantly more jobs in high-wage quintiles than in the low-wage quintiles. In contrast, the score of -1.0 during the Bush administration substantiates reports that new jobs created under Bush have generally paid worse than the jobs that have been lost. For example, from 2000 to 2003, the economy added 540,820 jobs in the lowest-wage quintile. Meanwhile, 451,440 jobs were lost in the middle quintile and 357,900 jobs were lost in the two highest quintiles.14

Americans with Health Insurance

Since most working Americans with health insurance get it through work, changes in the share of Americans who have health insurance is another indication of the quality of jobs in the economy. Under the Clinton administration, the share of Americans covered by health insurance went up 0.12 percent annually. Under Bush, there has been a 0.55 percent yearly decrease. Even more striking is that 5 million more Americans were without health insurance in 2003 than in 2000 and 3.8 million fewer Americans had employment-based health insurance.16

Median Household Income

Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton

Poverty Reduction

Poverty statistics are telling indicators of the country's economic health. The number of Americans below the poverty line fell 2.29 percent annually in the Clinton years, but has since gone up 4.33 percent annually in the Bush years.-http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=2 95&contentID=252964

Posted by crabwalk at 03/02/2008 @ 10:04am
Novak in the Plame case?

Do you mean that example of rightwing nutjobs interfering with national security, like Drudge outing the Young Prince?

Or the Vice Presidents Chief of Staff outing a covert CIA agent involved in the hunt for wmd's, then lying about it to the FBI and a Grand jury during a time of war against wmd's?

Or the Pentagon outsourcing it's next tankers to ..... France!!! During a war the French knew would go wrong? Well, at least the French workers will be able to afford a large Freedom Fries.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/02/2008 @ 10:13am
I love all the people on here condemning Obama based on unsubstantiated reporting, which has been denied by both the Obama campaign and by the Canadian embassy. It isn't even clear what was supposedly said and in what context. Give me a break. This is worse than the NYT piece against McCain in terms of proof of wrongdoing.

C'mon, I expect a little bit more critical thinking from progressives.

Posted by bridoc at 03/02/2008 @ 12:03pm
I don't know what Obama wants to do exactly with NAFTA but he rather speak it strong and clear before the whole issue turns against him. Better to do it by himself than wait for debates that will show poor credibility.

Posted by Frank42 at 03/02/2008 @ 1:18pm
The Canadian media has lately been rife with stories about the "far left" Obama and his protectionist zeal. Our newspapers here are mostly conservative. The two major parties are staunchly pro-NAFTA despite the fact Canadians always opposed it.

Posted by GuyCybershy at 03/02/2008 @ 1:30pm
ATTENTION MR. NICHOLS:

CTV is not a good source.

do you quote FOXNEWS?

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 1:32pm
CTV got hoodwinked by a Clinton campaign dirty trick. It happens to the best of media outlets sometimes.

Posted by libhomo at 03/02/2008 @ 1:49pm
Bashing NAFTA with crooked "talk" is politically expedient and even understandable in Old Economy northern states. The educated and economic literates mostly know that he's blowing smoke up folks' ass, even most Libs/Progressive on this blog.

What I read today, on the Rezko issue--with his trial starting tomorrow--is where I think Obama will have a lot to explain away. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that Obama couldn't have bought his million dollar house without Rezko's buying the next door lot using just Mrs. Rezko's name, the first real estate deal in Mr. Rezko's entire real estate dealings, to have this arrangement.....you see, when the Obamas bought this house in 2005, Rezko was already under huge clouds of controversy and a dozen lawsuit. Obama knew all of this at the time but, perhaps hadn't figured that he'd be running for POTUS so soon after becoming Senator in Jan. 2005, uh, with Rezko's fundraising help!

Some worry about Obama being assassinated....what about Rezko being taken out by an Obama fanatic? There, something for the Conspiracy-minded, like the French bimbo who won the Academy Award for a movie I never heard of!

Posted by Happy at 03/02/2008 @ 1:52pm
CTV got hoodwinked by a Clinton campaign dirty trick. It happens to the best of media outlets sometimes.

Posted by LIBHOMO 03/02/2008 @ 1:49pm

more like CTV wants to help mccain (or clinton if need be) in order to help their buddies in viceroy harper's cabal.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 2:05pm
I go to Toronto frequently (am from there) and see CTV news all the time. They do reasonably good news, but I don't know this reporter, although he has excellent credentials. You have to remember that Stephen Harper is a Bush mini-me, and his representative in the Canadian Embassy could be pushing a certain line to discredit Obama; his government (not the people of Canada) want Republicans to win the next election.

(Let me be clear, however: I will bet you that 90% of ordinary Canadians, if not more, want a Democrat in the White House and want a Democratic Congress. Also, I do not think that the Canadian people are as enamored of NAFTA as the corporate elites are. Canadians are ideologically to the left of the U.S. Harper got elected because the federal Liberals had just endured their umpteenth corruption scandal. But it is my impression that Harper has to tone down his ideology to maintain acceptibility there and he is out of synch with most Canadians.)

Another thought: My parents watch CTV all the time, and they are very pro-Hillary. It makes me wonder if CTV has an anti-Obama bias (for some reason). My impression is that the media establishment in Canada are centrist (not right wing like our media establishment) and market-oriented (which makes them liberal in some ways because they have to appeal to a very multi-cultural society).

I understand the political realities here. I don't believe that Obama or anyone else (including Dennis Kucinich, if he had gotten the nomination and been elected president) will really be able to renegotiate NAFTA unless there is an extremely compelling and unrelenting populist movement to do so that a politician would ignore at his peril.

However, if someone in Obama's campaign did go behind closed doors and say this to the Canadians, it shows poor judgment. But then, the fact that Harper government wants to "help" show Obama as having bad judgment plays right into the hands of *all* Obama's opponents who want to make him out as a naive lightweight.

I need more back story about the actors involved in this vignette and their connections and motivations in order to figure out what really happened and who is really benefitting from this.

Posted by alexathymia at 03/02/2008 @ 2:05pm
Posted by HAPPY 03/02/2008 @ 1:52pm

NAFTA's the principle reason SO many mexicans are now knocking on your door.

that and the clinton era world bank-imf cabal.......

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 2:06pm
and his representative in the Canadian Embassy could be pushing a certain line to discredit Obama; his government (not the people of Canada) want Republicans to win the next election.

Posted by ALEXATHYMIA 03/02/2008 @ 2:05pm

these people think harper's some tree-hugging socialist...........

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 2:08pm
A short article form talkleft.com, something along the line of "Is it real, or is it MemoRox?" Something you won't find in the star-struck MSM still experiencing thrills up their legs.......

A Skeptical Progressive Examines Obama's Record, Concludes " Count Me Out"

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008

Posted on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:40:00 AM EST

Matt Gonzales is a progressive and the former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He's also a former public defender, former Democrat and green party candidate.....

He started thinking he didn't know too much about Barack Obama other than the change meme, so he did some pretty exhaustive research on his voting record. As a result, he says, "Count Me Out." Check out his issue by issue comparison and then his conclusion:

Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about "change" and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama's style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I'm glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.

I think Gonzales' view is even more telling when you consider who supported him for Mayor in 2003. It wasn't the Democratic establishment, it was the change folks, including: [More...]

....a mix of college students, unemployed dot-commers, artists and activists old enough to remember the 1960s.

As to how he did, running as a Green candidate:

Still, with Democrats representing 54 percent of the registered voters and Greens 3 percent, Gonzalez said his 47 percent showing should send a message to the two major parties that voters will respond to candidates willing to take on the political establishment.

I've already said I don't buy Obama's change meme, and I'm heartened to see Gonzales isn't either. I hope some of Obama's more progressive, educated and youthful voters give it a second and third look.

Posted by Happy at 03/02/2008 @ 2:12pm
NAFTA's the principle reason SO many mexicans are now knocking on your door.

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/02/2008 @ 2:06pm

Hmmmmm...., I wonder who the millions and millions of folks were, that got some kinda AMNESTY when Reagan was the POTUS? Whoever they were, I don't think they knocked on our doors.....they don't know what doors look like, at least, not American doors!

Posted by Happy at 03/02/2008 @ 2:16pm
google:

nafta corn mexico subsidies.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 2:20pm
first hit:

U.S. Corn Subsidies Said to Damage Mexico

Published: August 27, 2003 The more than $10 billion that American taxpayers give corn farmers every year in agricultural subsidies has helped destroy the livelihoods of millions of small Mexican farmers, according to a report to be released on Wednesday.

Prepared in advance of critical trade talks next month, the report by Oxfam International argues that the subsidies given American corn farmers allow them to sell their grain at prices far below what it costs to produce. That has led to cheap American corn flooding the Mexican market and pushing the poorest Mexican farmers out of business, the report said.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E3DB1039F934A1575BC0A 9659C8B63

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 2:22pm
There, something for the Conspiracy-minded, like the French bimbo who won the Academy Award for a movie I never heard of!

Posted by HAPPY 03/02/2008 @ 1:52pm

Hahahahaha, You think the Oscars are based on movies you have heard of. Tell me how many of those short format movies you have heard of. You should see the movie she plays Edith Piaf. It was amazing and she more than deserved that Oscar. Maybe instead of criticizing someone because YOU haven't chosen to see something you should educate yourself as to the reason she got it and SEE the movie. I'd heard of the movie without even bothering to search for it. This is why the Oscars are chosen by people within the industry, because they actually bother to see movies not just the popular ones. They don't allot the awards based on what's popular they base it on what was good, which don't always coincide.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 2:54pm
This is why the Oscars are chosen by people within the industry, because they actually bother to see movies not just the popular ones. They don't allot the awards based on what's popular they base it on what was good, which don't always coincide.

Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/02/2008 @ 2:54pm

Guess that's why not many people watch the Oscars anymore....our opinions, expressed through the buying of tickets & DVDs, don't mean much and frankly, the "people within the industry", I couldn't give a rats' ass for their opinion....they want to produce artistic garbage they enjoy amongst themselves, power to them! BTW, doesn't this line of discussions mirror out last on Superdelegates...aren't they supposedly the "insiders"...except, you're NOT being consistent!

Posted by Happy at 03/02/2008 @ 3:08pm
Posted by HAPPY 03/02/2008 @ 3:08pm

The problem is happy not all movie are advertised well. So why should a small independent movie get no chance to be recognized by the world while trash like shoot em' up is rezognized. Film as in art on top of being a business so whether you call it artistic trash or not there have been many movies that are artistic trash that are great movies. Casablanca and Citizen Kane come to mind.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 3:13pm
BTW, doesn't this line of discussions mirror out last on Superdelegates...aren't they supposedly the "insiders"...except, you're NOT being consistent!

Posted by HAPPY 03/02/2008 @ 3:08pm

And this doesn't really play. You are talking about a group of artists recognizing other artists. Rather than a government which policies affect everyone not recognizing the people it affects. I don't think the Oscars have any bearing on your life. As much time as we invest in people like Paris Hilton I don't think she truly matters much, I do however think that Bush, Obama, Clinton and McCain matter.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 3:17pm
Whether you think so or not Happy film is like any other art. It's just an art that has drawn people to it more than paintings or sculpting. So the Oscars are a time for the recognition of movies that are artistically well done rather than popular. If we only judged on popularity there would be no short film category, documentary category, cinematography, editing, sound mixing, sound design. All of those categories are recognitions of art. There couldn't be a best actor because acting is artistic garbage as you put it. Most filmmakers consider themselves artists. But I'm guessing from your line on this discussion that you hate art too. I guess the world should just be business as usual.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 3:23pm
What is remarkable to me is that no journalist has ever pointed out that by all the measures mentioned by both candidates as reasons to renegotiate NAFTA (environment, workers' safety, pensions and the like) Canada has nothing whatsoever to fear. In addition, Canada would be more than eager to reopen the infamous Article 11.

Posted by ishtar at 03/02/2008 @ 4:37pm
....film is like any other art......I'm guessing...you hate art too....

Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/02/2008 @ 3:23pm

I generally don't consider "film" as art but I know that many people do and lump it w/the `Performing Arts'. There are artistic elements in it, yes, but so do much of my work repairing my houses. Films of today particularly, is overly staged, most every aspects down to sound & effects.....and the makers can produce multiple versions depending how they cut & splice....not like a Van Gogh self-portrait or Michaelangelo's David.

I hate the art? I just saw "Hello Dolly!" w/Leslie Uggams in the lead--she's now in her mid-60s' and played Kizzy in Roots, something before your time but you may have heard of--and "Love Janis" earlier this year, and "A Christmas Carol", all live theater/musicals in just the past several months. Right, I hate the art!

Let's just say we have a difference of opinion of what is `Performing Arts'!

Posted by Happy at 03/02/2008 @ 5:05pm
Sounds like Canadian "Swift-boating" to me! I went to the CTV website...they are all about Hillary~

Posted by creektara at 03/02/2008 @ 5:33pm
Posted by HAPPY 03/02/2008 @ 5:05pm

I don't lump it in with performing arts. Film is one of few mediums that require many different arts. Cinematography, moving pictures, Acting, Sound design, scoring, editing. I used to work in Theatre so I have an appreciation of theatre. I am a photographer by hobby not by trade. I work in editing for film and television. I consider it an art just like many many other people consider it an art and most of us don't consider it a performing art. We consider it a mesh of skills performed by many different people. You say a film can be cut in many different ways to say many different things but there is only one way that will give it the power that it should have. Casablanca would not be remembered if it was cut any differently. Citizen Kane was made famous not by it's phenomenal acting but by the leaps and bounds it made for film technology in the areas of cinematography and sound design. Art is opinion you may not consider film art but many many many people do and not just as a performing art. Calling it a performing art is an insult to the majority of people who work in film considering most of the work done in film is by the people behind the scenes not in front of the camera.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 7:41pm
RE: Obama ... and Straight Talk ...

The extremist Moulitsas (spelling?) of the Daily Kos once mocked Hillary's demand to include Florida dem vote as the "40 state insult strategy". Now here comes the Obama's "200-million-working- Americans insult strategy" - no experience needed, just grab it! Read this.

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

Does Experience Matter in a President? David Von Drehle Time Feb. 28, 2008 A story is often told at times like this -- times when American voters are choosing among candidates richly seasoned with political experience and those who are less experienced but perhaps more exciting alternatives. Once upon a time, the torch was passed to a new generation of Americans, and a charismatic young President, gifted as a speechmaker but little tested as an executive, was finding his way through his first 100 days. On Day 85, he stumbled, and the result for John F. Kennedy was the disastrous Bay of Pigs. For scholars of the presidency, Kennedy's failure to scuttle or fix the ill-conceived invasion of Cuba is a classic case of the insufficiency of charisma alone. No quips, grins or flights of rhetoric would do. Kennedy needed on-the-job training, as he later admitted to a friend: "Presumably, I was going to learn these lessons sometime, and maybe better sooner than later." Unfortunately, when a President gets an education, we all pay the tuition. Barack Obama basks in comparisons to J.F.K., but this is one he'd rather avoid. In the run-up to what could be the decisive contests for the Democratic nomination, Obama's relatively light political résumé -- eight years as an Illinois legislator and three years in the U.S. Senate -- continues to be the focus of his rivals' attacks. Hillary Clinton advertises her seven years in the Senate and two terms as First Lady, saying "I am ready to lead on Day One." And the message has gotten through: by clear margins, voters rate her as the more experienced of the two candidates. The fact that this hasn't stopped Obama's momentum doesn't mean he's heard the last of it -- not with John McCain, who

Posted by HelenDAO at 03/02/2008 @ 10:05pm
Sounds like Canadian "Swift-boating" to me! I went to the CTV website...they are all about Hillary~

Posted by CREEKTARA 03/02/2008 @ 5:33pm

we call that "kayaking".

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 12:15am
Dear Mr Nichols, I went to the CTV website and searched Barack Obama and found nothing. I looked for the article about Sen Obama and NAFTA and found nothing. As of March 3rd 2008, the Chicago professor has said " the Canadian writer has misquoted me and that 1.I was invited to the Canadian Consul as a professor from the University of Chicago NOT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN. 2. I was there for about 40 minutes. 3. We discussed NAFTA for about three minutes and 4. The memo from the Canadian Counsul's official DOES NOT REPRESENT IN ANY WAY MY COMMENTS ABOUT NAFTA." I think a retraction of your article is in order.

Posted by JJASON at 03/03/2008 @ 08:55am
Posted by JJASON 03/03/2008 @ 08:55am

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080302/nafta_de mocrats_080302/20080302?hub=Canada

DATELINE: ONE DAY BEFORE OHIO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [who's gonna notice]

..................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.

"I've learned to take with a grain of salt what opposition politicians say about trade deals during election campaigns," Prime Minister Harper "said". Echoing the sentiment was Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of The New Republic, on CTV's Question Period on Sunday.

"I think this is really a kabuki dance done in preparation for (the primary in) Ohio, which was a state that's been hit very, very hard by layoffs," he said. Beinart said that nationalism is a powerful force during a presidential campaign, but the realities of governing would prevent NAFTA from being overturned.

"Think of the consequences for America's relationship with Mexico and Canada if the United States were to somehow pull out of NAFTA. I think it's virtually inconceivable," he said. The Canadian embassy denied it was ever called by either camp, but Republicans are still accusing Clinton and Obama of misleading voters.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

i feel queasy..........

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 10:11am
I think the critical part of this story is not so much what the candidate's positions are on NAFTA, but instead about Obama's campaign saying one thing in public and another thing behind closed doors. Obama's campaign is largely based on how he will transcend beyond "politics as usual" and will lead instead with hope, honesty and inspiration. Obama claims his strong suit is his ability to unite people with straight talk and exercise good judgment in spite of what is convenient within the realm of political positioning. If Obama's platform is true, this closed door meeting between Obama's top economic advisor Austan Goolsbee and Canadian officials is in direct contradiction with his primary campaign rhetoric. This meeting sounds like the usual political game playing that happens behind the scenes and he's certainly not being a straight shooter to the American public. Both Obama and Clinton believe in globalization and free trade (both are far from being protectionists). They also agree that NAFTA has not been favorable to certain parts of America, particularly in places like Ohio where thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost. The Canadian memo has no reason to embellish or misconstrue what was said in the meeting with Goolsbee. The American public and media has been so enthralled with Obama's speeches that they are not realizing that although inspirational, Obama is still a politician and is not always doing what is "right"- he is doing what is convenient. It is worse that something like this would happen in Obama's campaign compared to any other candidate because it seems that his whole campaign is based on his holier than now rock star image.

Posted by debbsterosu at 03/03/2008 @ 10:12am
Has anyone considered that Stephen Harper's right wing government may be trying to influence this election? Does anyone remember how they arrested 39 Canadians 2 weeks before the 2006 mid-term electionfor 'terrorist activities'?

I think you have to take this with a grain of salt because the Canadian government already has high environmental and worker's rights and safety laws. Renegotiating NAFTA to include those provisions for Canada would appear to be a no-brainer. The only people who stand to lose money on renegotiating NAFTA are the robber barons of Mexico who heavily rely upon the status quo to remain rich and powerful while their country starves.

Posted by veeve at 03/03/2008 @ 11:01am
I know it's easy to predict and then see double-dealing everywhere, but I've given McCain, Clinton, etc. years of benefit of the doubt (including McCain's recent NYT fun-and-games), and I'll do the same for BHO. Anyone here ever been in a meeting where someone else summarized what you said differently than you meant or even what you said? Just asking.

Posted by gmcole at 03/03/2008 @ 11:18am
Posted by VEEVE 03/03/2008 @ 11:01am

Of COURSE! I never suspected those lousy stinkin' right-wingers... the Canadians...bunch of fascists, for trying to stop Obama!

(heheh....j/k FROSTY)

Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 12:23pm
Regarding the leak from highly placed Canadian source...consider this...Pamela Wallin former Canadian Consul General in New York, current Senior Advisor on Canada-U.S Relations...very chummy with Harper Government and former CTV News Anchor....wonder if she knows Tom Clark's phone number?

Posted by newsmanFred at 03/03/2008 @ 1:45pm
This shouldn't surprise anyone. On Obama's website itself, he claims that the free market is the greatest thing since sliced bread. So much for change.

Posted by badtimmay at 03/03/2008 @ 2:39pm
The Associated Press seems to have cleared up this story. John Nichols might want to amend his blog to reflect the new information. Here is what the AP said:

Obama adviser says Canadian memo misinterprets his comments

03/03/2008

By NEDRA PICKLER / Associated Press

Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as "political positioning," according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press that was rejected by the adviser and held up Monday as evidence of doublespeak by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

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.

"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 said. "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."

Goolsbee disputed the characterization from the conservative government official.

"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," he said.

The meeting was first reported last week by Canadian television network CTV, which cited unnamed sources as saying that Goolsbee assured the Canadians that Obama's tough talk on the North American Free Trade Agreement is just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously. The Obama campaign and the Canadian embassy denied there was any inconsistency between what the candidate was saying publicly and what advisers were saying privately.

NAFTA is widely opposed in economically depressed Ohio, which holds its presidential primary Tuesday and is a key battleground between Obama and Clinton. Both candidates said in a debate in Cleveland last week that they would renegotiate the trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico, which is the largest trading partnership in the world, and threaten to pull out if it doesn't include more protections for workers and the environment.

Clinton said Monday that Obama's campaign gave the Canadians "the old wink-wink."

"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," she said in a statement. "That's the kind of difference between talk and action and that I've been pointing out in this campaign."

The memo obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 "introductory meeting" between himself, Goolsbee and the consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.

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.

"I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced," Obama said in the debate last week.

Goolsbee said he has been surprised that such a banal and trivial meeting with a low-level consulate official has created so much controversy and resulted in such an inaccurate depiction. He said he was invited to the consulate to meet the officials and get a tour.

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.

He said he responded that Obama is not a protectionist, but that the Illinois senator tries to strike a balance between the economic struggles of working Americans and recognizing that free trade is good for the economy.

"That's a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered," Goolsbee said of memo's description of "political positioning." "A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy."

Tristan Landry, a spokesman for the Canadian embassy in Washington, said DeMora was not available for an interview Sunday. His only comment on the memo was to say that although consulate officials reach out to U.S. campaign officials to seek their views, "Canada does not in any way seek to interfere in U.S. electoral politics."

Canada supports NAFTA and does not want to see it interrupted.

The Canadian memo said that when Rioux "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.

"As Obama continues to court the economic populist vote, particularly in upcoming contests like Ohio, we are likely to see a continuation of some of the messaging that hasn't played in Canada's favour, but this should continue to be viewed in the context in which it is delivered," DeMora wrote in the closing section.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Goolsbee's visit was not as an emissary from the campaign, but as a professor from the University of Chicago. He was not authorized to share any messages from the campaign, Burton said.

Burton, who was on the call while Goolsbee described his visit to the AP, said, "It all boils down to a clumsy, inaccurate portrayal of the conversation."

Asked if he agreed with Burton's summary, Goolsbee said he did.

Posted by dspener at 03/03/2008 @ 2:56pm
This whole thing brings out my paranoia. We have two remaining candidates. The more experienced and better qualified - Biden, Dodd, Edwards, and Richardson - are gone. The most courageous and idealistic - Kucinich - is gone. What we are left with is (please forgive me for saying this) the two with the most marketable gimmicks. I will gladly vote for either of them, and I am not saying that their only value is race or gender. But as we clamor for change we should be aware that packaging, rather than content, has played the major role in this case. My fear is that this NAFTA-gate business and the potential Rezko business will be the undoing of our beloved Obama. And I know that the right wing media is frothing to bring out its attacks on Hillary, and who knows how successful they might be? What if this was all orchestrated by the Illuminati. Okay, that sounds crazy, but I'm just sayin'...

Posted by mrsmith71 at 03/03/2008 @ 6:29pm
Posted by leroy-rogers at 03/06/2008 @ 10:59pm

Do we already have here the latest? or have I hit on something in The Real Scoop? [TheLiaisonReport.com]

Posted by leroy-rogers at 03/06/2008 @ 11:07pm