NAFTAgate has exploded in Canada, with politicians of all stripes baying like Hyenas for the blood of the Prime Minister Harper’s Chief of Staff, Ian Brodie. No one is 100% sure what exactly Brodie leaked, but there seems to be little doubt that he leaked something:
Mr. Brodie, during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV.
The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing…
…
The story was followed by CTV’s Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton’s, had reassured Canadian diplomats.
Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report.
Fun stuff, but from unnamed sources. So did Brodie leak Clinton as unnamed sources are claiming? Did he leak Obama? How did Clark get the idea that Obama did it?
It wasn’t the later leaked memo, becuase that wasn’t out at the time. It seems like a big thing to mix up Clinton and Obama and you can be sure that while American journalists may not know the difference between NDP Leader Jack Layton and "a Labour MP" (since Canada has no Labor party) that no Canadian journalist would ever make the reverse mistake. We follow US politics almost as closely as we follow our own. Sometimes more closely. So I just don’t see how that gets reversed. Which makes me wonder if this isn’t perhaps some more spin; an attempt to say "they both said it, so at least we’re evening out the damage". And, incidentally, still helping McCain.
Which takes us to the memo. In the memo it was claimed that Austan Goolsbee, Obama’s advisor, reassured Canada that Obama’s talk of renegotiating NAFTA was just political talk and not serious. It was written by Canadian diplomat Joseph de Mora, as a routine memo. Folks now are claiming that he didn’t accurately write down what was said. Somehow I don’t believe that a career, non-partisan Canadian diplomat wrote down something substantially inaccurate. Just don’t buy it. Obama’s advisor said what that memo says. Bank on it.
On the other hand, if both reports are accurate, it looks like the Clinton campaign also reassured Canada. So, as best I can tell, assuming the Prime Minister’s office isn’t still running an op to damage the Democrats, both campaigns told us that the NAFTA talk was just political rhetoric and that they would do no such thing if elected. And you know what? That’s exactly what I would expect both campaigns to be telling both Canada and Mexico. The only surprising thing is that this was leaked.
But my main reaction to all of this is just that it’s incredibly stupid and boneheaded. Prime Minister Harper has ties to American Republicans. He agrees with them on a lot of issues, although he had warned them long ago that their policies were self destructive. I’m sure he’d much rather see McCain as president than any Democrat. But this is incredibly dangerous for Canada. Crossing a possible president, who will in any case even if he loses, still be in the Senate, probably for life, and will probably hold a grudge–incredibly stupid. Especially since I’m guessing McCain doesn’t pay people back any better than Bush does. Always remember Tony Blair. High risk, low upside. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Ian!
z
Roseanne Barr is funny. (But not in the good way.)
In a spin, lovin that spin I’m in, lovin that Olllllll barakmajic…..
More like funny in a on the money exactamundo kinda way.
We need both Hilary and Obama to publicly say again they will change NAFTA after all there are more state Primaries coming up where NAFTA matters.
Last I was in TO a couple of years ago, Jack Layton had his photo next to a picture of a marijuana leaf on an official campaign flyer. And he won.
I love Canada!
“..bow to Clinton..” ? oh brother
I think that both campaigns spoke with the Canadians, and I don’t see what the big deal is that the press has made out of this..the changes both candidates expressed were about “renegotiating” labor and regulation issues; as opposed to backing out of NAFTA. The problem here was that Obama denied it and then acknowledged it when the memo surfaced…that is what caused a stir, but he said he wasn’t aware of it at the time. Oh well. All things pass.
Well, of course. Because she has more delegates than he does.
Oh…wait.
Good piece by Gary Hart: Breaking the Final Rule
She could have picked a better phrase. A black man being urged to ‘bow’ to a white female… is just not going to go over well with some folks
Robert Reich had some interesting things to say about this topic. Hadn’t thought of it this way before:
http://robertreich.blogspot.co…..nafta.html
The Clinton camp is still implying that this was Obama. Surprise, Surprise.
Christ, it’s more than NAFTA, it’s allowing beneficial tax breaks for offshore factories and Cayman Island tax dodges (such as KBR). Don’t hold your breath; Obama, Clinton and McBush are bought and paid for and will deliver for their corporate handlers.
Maybe they’ll go for the gold today and endorse McCain again.
No less a luminary than Rosanne Barr! Wow…
The “big deal” here, is that the Clinton campaign took advantage of the situation to run this g-dawful ad.
No, the memo was about the Obama campaign, and the rumor was about the Clinton campaign. The two are not equal.
I get this type of argument all the time from conservatives– Oh well, people say Clinton did the same thing, it all balances out.
No it doesn’t.
One could, of course, discuss NAFTA itself. Is it good or bad for working americans or is it nuetral…and if bad, how should it be restructured- or should it just be abandoned- and if it should be abandoned, what’s the game plan? Does congress need to park it? If so- what’s the plan for dealing with Congress. Etc. Etc.
Instead, we discuss who said what when to some Cannuck- and no one knows the answer to that. I’ll take the possibility that Obama raised holy hell so they threw out the Hillary story also- like a referee’s make up call- but we may never know and some of us really don’t care.
Not so sure about that. Obama has been talking a lot about ending Tax Havens during this campaign, and he has already co-authored a bill to stop these:
http://levin.senate.gov/newsro…..?id=269479
Well she is entitled to voice her opinion and support, but I’m guessing by the 5 posted comments and the 105 pending, that they won’t be too kind.
You’d better get on the horn with Olbermann and Howard Fineman….stat!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOLEK2lr3CM
The issue isn’t that both campaigns reassured the Canadians about NAFTA. It was Obama denying that anyone from his staff had met with the Canadians. He could have just stated that the memo misrepresented what his advisor had to say and that would have diffused the issue. It was a minor issue made worse because of his misstatement and handling after the memo came out. These things happen, and what is more important is how the candidate rolls with the punches. Obama seems to show inexperience here, and this, more than any C-in-C rhetoric or foreign policy “experience” is where he is lacking, in my opinion. And this is why I would prefer him as President 4 or 8 years hence. OTOH, he may get seasoned enough after the democratic primary to withstand the real challenge that he will be faced with in the general election.
Hillary Rove Bush is doing a heckuva job.
-G
I know that NAFTA has hurt a lot of people and I hope that either of them would change it or dump it or whatever, but not one thing will alter our situation until we are out of Iraq – not the economy, not health care, not infrastructure etc. Everything needs to be tied to that and then we can move forward.
I was very disappointed last night at how Olbermann handled this story. He knew that it was based on an anonymous source and that the Clinton campaign had vigorously denied it- but he ran with it anyway as if it were a fact. Piss poor journalism–worthy of Fox..
Yes- I would feel the same way if it had been Obama being accused. I have no dog in this fight.
I suppose I took it too much as personal attack, the “strident leftist” part. The “bitching, moaning and whining” kinda of missed the mark, IMO. But as you say, she has a right to her opinion, so I suppose I shouldn’t demean it. Sorry.
These days I view Olbermann to be no better than Bill O’Reilly in his one-sided reporting. The first 10 minutes of his show is pure Hillary bashing. MSNBC gets certifiably deranged when it comes to her.
Eeeeks no, I wasn’t chastizing you *g*. I meant that with a huge truck full of sarcasm.
Yeah, what rwcole said.
The video you linked to clearly said “unnamed sources”, just as this post said. So you wasted my time sending me to that silly video.
But it’s cute that you think Keith and Howie are authoritative sources.
Next time you link to a video I won’t waste my time watching it. I have to go to work now. Bye.
Going by some of the logic posted here, I have derived at the following:
criticizing = bashing
bashing = vetting
ergo Hillary/Obama bashing = vetting
or?
I know, I know….Poo!
BLAME CANADA!!!
Talking to best friend in Wyoming. She is excited about tomorrow and going to the big Rally tonight.
Back on topic, boils down to no country interfering in our politics
o/t
Thornburg Mortgage Inc. also unable to answer margin calls
link
oh and Carlyle Capital today said it is facing “additional” margin calls
link
and that is some quality snark in the CR comments
LMAO
oooh off to read
Given the historic American-Canadian trading relationship, a relationship between two mature, developed first world economies, did NAFTA really change it in a fundamental way? No, so somehow I can’t get to upset about either or both Obama and Clinton doing some reassuring. The problems with NAFTA are the exploitation of a third world economy and workforce like Mexico’s at the expense of American workers. It benefits neither but is a windfall for corporate investors.
707
Just bought some stock—looks like a good buying oppportunity.
Say what, dial up?
Sheila: Times have changed
Our kids are getting worse
They won’t obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
Sharon: Should we blame the government?
Liane: Or blame society?
Dads: Or should we blame the images on TV?
Sheila: No, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their beady little eyes
And flapping heads so full of lies
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: We need to form a full assault
Everyone: It’s Canada’s fault!
Sharon: Don’t blame me
For my son Stan
He saw the damn cartoon
And now he’s off to join the Klan!
Liane: And my boy Eric once
Had my picture on his shelf
But now when I see him he tells me to fuck myself!
Sheila: Well, blame Canada
Everyone: Blame Canada
Sheila: It seems that everything’s gone wrong
Since Canada came along
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Copy Guy: They’re not even a real country anyway
Ms. McCormick: My son could’ve been a doctor or a lawyer rich and true,
Instead he burned up like a piggy on the barbecue
Everyone: Should we blame the matches?
Should we blame the fire?
Or the doctors who allowed him to expire?
Sheila: heck no!
Everyone: Blame Canada
Blame Canada
Sheila: With all their hockey hullabaloo
Liane: And that bitch Anne Murray too
Everyone: Blame Canada
Shame on Canada
For…
The smut we must stop
The trash we must bash
The Laughter and fun
Must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before somebody thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuuuuuus!!!!
Yes. I’ve noticed a change in KO…
What really pisses me off is “the Keith” undecided points in polls.
I view this as an ego thing, but maybe his producers are making him
do it?
Here we go again, Robert Reich shilling for NAFTA and the New World Order.
Our economy is based on American workers spending and saving money. Period.
Jobs and savings must be protected. There are no short-cuts.
WTF good does a Chinese or Mexican or Thai worker do for our economy?
I keep saying, we CANNOT have unrestricted trade with countries that do not have union labor, that do not have health care for their workforce, education for their young, retirement for their elderly
we cannot
when product is produced in a country where corporations are allowed to externalize these expenses, we must tariff that product
simple simple stuff
Obviously the Iranians are behind this. But I don’t worry. Because of this:
President Bush said today that “it’s clear our economy has slowed,” hours after a government report showed a decline in payrolls for the second straight month. But Bush said the long-term outlook is good, with a stimulus package enacted last month by Congress providing a “booster shot.”
Any wanna put odds on the chance of an elevated terrorism alert before the election?
-G
This is total BS, he’s right on target. Get a grip, the truth hurts.
Nothing for us, but it sure helps Dick Cheney’s bottom line.
-G
oh boy .. Scottish wingnuts meet Canadian wingnuts.
that puts me at ease that chimpy is on the job /snark
I fixed it for you. I figured you’d want all of those people who she has accused him of imitating to appear.
About the NAFTA thing, what surprised me is that a few weeks ago there was a news report about how the Mexican people are not thrilled with NAFTA any more than we are. Of course, the report was like a 25 words or less sort of report, so I don’t get the whole thing. I understand that we feel it’s taking our jobs, etc. etc., but maybe Ian could do a whole post on it sometime that explains why Mexicans are unhappy with the arrangement. In the meanwhile, I think I’ll go read what Robert Reich has to say, since I rather like him.
Well, we have a memo written by Joseph de Mora showing that Goolsbee said to take the NAFTA rhetoric with a grain of salt. We do not have a memo where a Clinton staffer said the same thing.
“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing…”
It could just be that there never was a Clinton staffer that called and Brodie just wanted to diffuse the situation. Clinton did give the Canadian governement the permission to release the name of the persons from her campaign who they talked with and as far as I know, the Canadian government has not come forward with a name.
It really doesn’t matter, does it?
Whether it’s Hillary or Obama, if we can’t meet McCain, we don’t deserve to win the election…
Does Brodie admit that he said this- or is it just the anonymous source who CLAIMS he said it?
Are we using colors or animals as indicators this year?
.
can one of the smart kids tell me if this portends ‘exposure’ for parent Carlyle Group ?
These days I view Olbermann to be no better than Bill O’Reilly in his one-sided reporting.
Amazing, do you read this blog, daily kos, the newspaper maybe? She’s getting everything she deserves.
WE ain’t beating anyone.
Scratch and sniff….Not looking forward to code brown.
-G
The Iranians are injecting themselves into the internal workings and leaks of the Canadian government. And when McCain wins the election, and with the help of Canada’s PM, Iran can, and will be dealt with. Plus it’ll be good for our’s and Canada’s economy. So everything will work out fine.
And didn’t George W. Bush advise us a couple of weeks ago that our economy was “strong”. So McCain should be the desirable and seemless successor to Bushonomics.
What some of you fail to realize is that most FRIENDLY foreign governments such as Great Britain, Canada, Mexico, Israel and France WANT McCain to win. They know that the policies of the Democrats vis a vis trade would kill their economies. So the Prime Minister of Canada leaking the information is hardly “dirty pool”.
my only point of major disagreement is that i think chapter 11 of nafta has no place in any trade agreement we enter into. with canada or any other country.
The range close early there deadeye?
Ah yes. Now I remember. I’ve had a few “debates” with you before and you’ve always ended it like that.
You’re right…silly me for thinking you’d engage in some sort of constructive dialogue for once. I’ll be sure to ignore your comments in the future as well, you busy beaver you.
There’s a lot unknown about this issue, and I’ve seen several different reports saying contradictory things. I do know Hillary is still trying to play it into some sort of false storyline however. She just can’t stop with the BS, can she?
http://tpmelectioncentral.talk….._ameri.php
Breaking…Glenn Greenwald is now reporting on the circulating (and secret) House FISA bill that gives Bush everything he wants with only symbolic gestures included for the idiot base of the Democrapic party.
They will pass immunity and we will kiss our Constitution goodbye for real and the sheeple will STILL vote for the Democraps in the fall. The sheeple of this retched country deserve all the shit that is coming their way. Every heaping shovel of shit is deserved.
Then they’ve been flat out lying to me, right to my face. Thanks for letting me know. I’ll tell them what you said. What would we do without folks really in the know.
There’s a nasty recession coming our way. 65,000 more jobs just eliminated. Gasoline prices set to spike again, and a bag of groceries is now a mattter of getting less, for more money. $15,000,000,000 permonth for unwinnable wars, and a ridiculous stimulas package. But on the plus side, the Middle East is getting ready to explode.
Olbermann is a breath of fresh air.
marijuana or maple leaf? the maple leaf is part of the flag of canada.
You forgot South America.
Wonder how secure that Paraguayan (sp?) ranch is.
Gee, remember “back in the day” when we got to do punk rock with Donita at this time on friday? Now it’s the moron hour!
all you come here with liberty lee is the kool aid, you should try some fact checking before you drop these rediculous statements
economies always thrive under the democrats and assets are always redistributed to the elite few under the republicans
come back tomorrow with a differant flavor of your koolaid
Why anyone is surprised that FRIENDLY foreign leaders (not unfriendly ones like Iran or Venezuela) wants McCain is beyond me. McCain is good for trade and defense of Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, France, Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan. The world would come unglued if the Democrat candidates were to assume control over their defenses or trade. Of course they are trying to help McCain. Expect friendly leaders globally to try to help–quietly, but try to help indeed.
The Freedom Agenda has been a marvelous success, Bush is Lincoln and the Democrats will give you higher gas prices.
-Daily Turdblossom
Jacque and Jack
I resemble that.
-G
to the piont of a national emergency where elections are suspended?
we will not be surprised
I’m happy to pass on the information to the Vice President.
Read Paul Loeb’s take at Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..90254.html
It doesn’t seem that what you are saying is necessarily the only way to see things.
The Federal Reserve is charged with price and employment stability.
I rest my case.
Brodie/Rove/Brodie/Rove
I really have a difficult time understanding how anyone could conclude, based on the last almost eight years, that John McCain should become the next president.
Hey Liberty, are you aware that there are 12,000 Canadian Nam Vets?
I kinda would rather do music on a Friday afternoon. I enjoyed Donita.
Umm…are you not paying attention? The worldwide economy, and especially the US Economy, is in the dirt right now. The dollar has the lowest value ever in history, and oil is higher than ever in history. For the last 7 years, we have been under Republican rule. 9/11 happened under a Republican President’s watch and a Republican Congress.
190 proof kool aid…
Save your key strokes.
Are we prepared to say George W. Bush’s foreign policies are a success? Are ready to say we feel safer and are better off than we were eight years ago?
This whole NAFTA thing is pissing me off again. It’s wrong, it’s not fair and I’m tired of the bullshit tactics
My wife just had an over the back fence chat with our gooper neighbor. She’s hurting economically and says that she regrets putting Clusterfuck in office and will never vote gooper again….another convert.
So, let me get this straight on this NAFTA thing according to the MSM:
Obama is a big ol’ liar.
Hillary is a big ol’ liar.
McCain is a Straight Talker.
Funny how that works out, isn’t it?
Now that is some cool Kool-aid
Yes, I applaud the service of our Canadian compatriots who served in war with the exception of the deserters who left the cause.
I know, I know…my arm goes all Strangelove on me when I read that crap.
woohoo
yes he does not pay attention, he believes wahtever the neo fascists tell him, comes here to try out those talking points
KO does a wonderful job every night.
I hear ya!
And did the trick with the ping pong balls?
Up thread they said he’s as bad as Billo!
The real story on this NAFTA story, is that the shit-stirring was leaked verbally and then in the form of 124 memos to media sources from someone in the Canadian Government who is sympathetic to BushcoMcBushco…what Obama’s person or HRC’s campaign may or may not have said, is really not a big deal.
Is someone arguing that the people of France, Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan feel safer and better defended as a result of the actions of GWB?
Don’t remember that one- but there was somethin with a banana.
Everybody but the Spaniards.
TxExspeedy- thank you, sir. What Mr. Loeb relates was made clear days ago. Obama’s advisor didn’t do anything other than reiterate Obama’s stated position. It amazes me…after all the complaints about the media’s “They both do it” spinning I’ve read on liberal blogs, I’m quite surprised to see some of the same complainers now engaging in the same thing. Oh, well.
Frankly, I don’t like NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, the DLC, or the so called “third Way”. At all.
Praedor (snark about to fly…)
It is AXIOMATIC that every single blessed D is better than every single rotten R.
So, ‘this’ FISA business must be a bulk mailing of ‘black’ and we’ve nuthin’… (to worry ’bout). Them pore D’s, all being spied ‘pon and frightened right out of their widdle wits (what’s ‘in’ this for them? Lifelong sinecure, ‘cuz they know, even if we don’t, that we’ve no where else to go.
The ‘winning side’ is money and power. Not the Constitution and certainly not the people, we is all ‘quaint’ but powerless, cute but foolish and generally not overmuch ga-bothered; yet.
Mo’ bettah, now?
Christy has a shiny new post upstairs requesting that we hit the phones and faxes once again, I assume, since that’s what she’s named her post.
Didn’t make it to Alongapo City huh?
KO is the only watchable MSM source right now, helps keep my hand away
from my throat.
Not a big deal? Are you kidding me? What you call not a big deal may have been the main reason Clinton bagged Ohio. Or, I should say…the main Rovial projection she used to bag Ohio.
news alert—
canadian ndp leader jack layton, mentioned in ian’s post above, is going to be on ed schultz show in a minute about the memo thing……..(i quit listening to ed shultz, in fact, i detest him, but was desperate for news today, i don’t have cable……….)
Ooops, that’s Olongapo
could you clarify?
Raven, you be safe traveling this weekend, ok?
what i want to know is, Why didn’t Roseanne say “Kiss the glove.” instead of “Bow to the woman.” Pardon my french but, Roseanne, honey, you can just sit on it and rotate.
I know…I don’t mean it in that context…it is a bigger deal that the Canadian Government, in bed with Bushco, is interfering in our elections. The way it has been capitalized on by opposing campaigns is typical shit throwing, but the bigger story is the interference from Canada. Obama and/or Clinton didn’t really say anything we don’t already know.
Both KO and Shuster circled the wagons with Tweety after the latter had to apologize to Hill, and KO really went off the deep end after the Shuster fiasco. He gave a typical jock explanation for this some days ago when he remarked how refs got mad when they felt that someone was working them. It was as asinine a rationale as any, and completely ignored how insane Tweety had become in his obsession with Hill, or how foolish Shuster’s comments had been. MSNBC might as well rename themselves Obama Broadcasting Corporation given how he can do no wrong in their eyes while Hillary gets pilloried for daring to breath. I have lost much of my respect for KO since and now see him as yet another male chauvinist jerk, albeit from the “left”.
plantsmantx—at 111—”
Not a big deal? Are you kidding me? What you call not a big deal may have been the main reason Clinton bagged Ohio. Or, I should say…the main Rovial projection she used to bag Ohio.”
for the kazillionth time, NO IT ISN’T……no, no no no no no no……no….
that is not factual.
there are many reasons hillary, as you say it, ’bagged’, ohio, this is not one of them..…she won all but 5 counties, out of 88………you’re tellin’ me she won 83 out of 88 counties because of a ’rovian’ nafta gaffe by obama???? that only five counties didn’t fall for this ’trick’?????
uh, no.
Well she is getting an earful in the comment section. But I expect all kind of wierdness is going to continue and escalate
Wow. randi rhodes is pissed off!! She is advocating all folks to find their nearest Obama campaign headquarters and phone bank, canvass, etc. She said she tried to stay out of it but her antics has pissed her off to no end
Hmm! So Clinton asserts that Obama was misleading the public about her stands on NAFTA, yet her own campaign was the one that was actually assuring the Canadians “take it with a grain of salt” what she says publically. And she hypocritically attacks Obama for “talking with the Canadians when it was her staff doing what she was accusing Obama’s staff of performing.
And Harper NOW says (after OHIO, of course) that the assertions that Goolsby made such statements mischaracterizes the conversation and that Obama’s public positions were the same as his private ones. But he has never rescinded the statements his Chief-of-Staff made about the Clinton campaigns position. Which is oddly curious?
Why did Hillary win Ohio?
Well as far as I know, there was never any DOUBT about Ohio. Hillary has always led there and by a sizable margin. There is no event here that requires explanation.
Oh it was Mary Jane. It talked about views on drug legalization.
And what gets me about Hillary’s use of this material from the Canadian gov’t sources is that on February 27th, when the original statement came out that HER campaign had surrepticiously contacted the Canadian gov’t to assure them that they were not going to renegotiate NAFTA, they issued a statement DENYING IT as utterly false.
But when a similar statement came out about OBAMA it is suddenly fodder to take him down in Ohio. Amazingly, the Canadian government is utterly reliable and these leaks are unimpeachible.
So instead of saying, “Well, there are a lot of strange sounds coming out of “sources” up North in the Conservative government that don’t mesh with reality” when the Obama “leak” came out…they ripped into the opposing candidate as a LIAR, a demagogue and a Charlatan.
Someone – presumably in the Canadian government – leaked the de Mora memo. That allowed Clinton to paint Obama as two-faced on NAFTA. That may have influenced the Ohio primary. That primary win certainly gave Clinton some momentum for her campaign.
If all that was intentional on the part of the Canadian government, it was an attempt to influence the US election. If the US government did something similar to influence a Canadian federal election, I can assure you there would be ranting and raving about political interference by people north of the border.
cinnamonape–love ya dearly, but drop the ’took obama down in ohio’ rant……….cuz it isn’t true.
83 out of 88 counties voted for her. 5 went to obama…….i am tired of people insulting ohio by making people think that ONE NEWS STORY could make an entire population change their vote……..gimme a break.
you live here? you know how people were going to vote here? you know how they voted? and why?
oh.
I’m cognizant of the fact that the Conservatives are meddling in U.S. politics. They did it by lying about what Mr. Goolsbee said. And it’s obviously working.
“The way it has been capitalized on by opposing campaigns is typical shit throwing,”
How has Obama thrown shit by capitalizing on this? Unfortunately, he’s seems not to have capitalized on it at all, even though given the circumstances, it wouldn’t be unfair at all for him to do so. That very statement about how (both) opposing campaigns are supposedly capitalizing on this in a shit-throwing manner is a perfect illustration of the media, and now the liberal blogs, engaging in that “they both do it” behavior. Clinton capitalized on it in a shit-throwing way. Obama did not. The Clinton camp gave the Canadians secret assurances about NAFTA. The Obama camp reiterated his public position.
Oh, and now Keith Olbermann is one of the bad guys??
If she didn’t need to use it why did she? Why did she have to make herself a hypocrite if it was unnecessary? On February 27th after a similar statement made by Brodie in front of several reporters, her campaign denied the accuracy of leaks coming from the Canadian government. Dirty tricks, they said.
But when statements ascribed to Goolsbee emerged they jumped all over these, aired commercials about how Obama was lying about his NAFTA positions (a position he, BTW, had kept since he was a State Senator in Illinois).
You are correct that Clinton may have been able to win Ohio without the “gaffe”. But you forget that these Primaries are not won or lost by who wins a majority or plurality in a State. It’s done by margins, delegate by delegate (precinct by precinct).
You know very well (or should) that winning “counties” means nothing electorally. Otherwise Hillary would have a 94%-6% delegate lead in Ohio. Many of those counties were so rural that Cleveland has a population 15 times the size. So how many working people, unemployed, and labor union rank-and-file were swept away by these deceptions from the Clinton camp…when in reality she has voted for a number of McNAFTA’s that lack the environmental and labor protections that originally existed in the Canadian-US Trade Pact? When she has defended NAFTA, until recently, as a treaty that has produced more jobs in the US than it has lost?
That’s never been Obama’s stance…he’s been consistant about this since he was a State legislator…NAFTA must be renegotiated. If the negotiations are not successful it may be scrapped (allowing the earlier Canadian-US agreement to remain in effect).
Dmac- Are you saying that not one single voter was swayed by this web of lies? Not one?
Then why disgrace oneself and use it? That’s positively Nixonian over-kill, if what you are saying is true. She mocked, slandered and misled the public about Obama and her own NAFTA stands..and it didn’t matter?
No, Hillary’s camapign KNEW it mattered. Her advisors KNEW it mattered. And her Ohio pollsters and team KNEW it mattered. They needed to win delegates. And to do so they needed to make some voters think that Hillary’s stands on NAFTA were somehow better than Obamas.
The issue is not “counties”…it’s delegates. She needs every delegate that she can get.
NAFTA was a hot issue to trot out ahead of Ohio
because something like 200,000 jobs were lost
after NAFTA went through.
Who was in the WH at that time anyway *g*
bah I miss the edit function…
cinnamon–Many of those counties were so rural that Cleveland has a population 15 times the size. So how many working people, unemployed, and labor union rank-and-file were swept away by these deceptions from the Clinton camp
=========
i’ve posted this stuff over and over again, it’s getting tiresome.
i live in one of those counties of which you use as an example. he didn’t campaign in my entire region except for one appearance that was invitation only, pissed people off.
his wife appeared once, both of them days before the election.
bill was here all over the damn place, chelsea, and hillary all over the damn place and THEN the three days before the election made an 88 county swing right up to election day.
i got 37 calls on the phone from the clinton campaign, i got ZERO from obama………..ZERO……i logged them all.
i am serious…….i know people all over the state…….i do not know of one person who swayed to clinton over the nafta thing……
however, this i will tell you, i do know of obama workers/supporters that went to hillary because they were dissastisfied with barack’s nafta explanation in a private meeting in westerville, ohio……..days before the election. and they backed him from the minute he put out the call for volunteers. you don’t hear that shit on the news, do ya?
next thing you’re gonna ask me–who’m i for? dodd.
i’m just sick of people using ohio as an example of manipulation, like we would be manipulated like a toddler who wants a sucker….all because we didn’t vote how you wanted….nope.
I don’t think that it was probable that Obama would win Ohio. In fact, the Clinton campaign consistently sized down expectations there as the election drew near. Most who looked at the long term delegate counts said she needed a 66% win in Ohio and Texas to obtain the needed delegates (given probable Obama wins later down the road). But the campaign kept saying that they “only” needed a win in those States (eventually they reached the point where they were saying “Obama has to win three of the four”). So the reality is that a 74-65 delegate split was a massive defeat, delegate-wise. One might wonder how a 54-44% vote could produce such a delegate split? The secret is that Obama won races that were competitive at certain split points.
But exit surveys indicate that he was hurt by the attacks on him regarding NAFTA. Late deciding voters, particular those in categories that in prior elections had turned heavily in his favor (White Males, Independants, those making >$50K, and White Protestants switched almost 50% from what they showed in other elections). Of the seven polls in the last week only two showed the differential that Clinton eventually received in %age, and two…the last ones the day before the NAFTA revelations…showed Obama closing to between 6% and parity. Then it fell back after the rapid strike attacks regarding NAFTA.
BTW One of those polls that showed a 10% win by Clinton…SURVEY USA, has recently shown that either Clinton or McCain would win the state by 10% over McCain. Of course, that was before the attacks. But if one really believes it had no influence, then the Ohio vote (as is NY, California, Massachusetts, are in the bag. It’s the other States that need to be won over. And there it’s Obama that has much highr potential according to Survey USA.
and cinn–
people keep forgetting that gov ted strickland and senator john glenn both endorsed hillary here.
two revered humanitarian politicians in this state…….although only one reason among many, i think that had more to do with it than the nafta gaffe.
i also forgot to add, that i am in the third poorest county in the state, this whole region is on the bottom…….and they went hillary. the larger city counties went obama……..
something to think about. here’s an example of his failed campaigning here–the front man obama used here was gary wilhelm, former chair of the dnc, who was involved in a land grab here last year…..google gary wilhelm lake snowden albany ohio hocking college…….he’s not well-liked around here at all, yet he was saying that he likes obama because of his rural strategies, well, gary’s rural strategy is to take public lands and develop them for his profit…….all true……..my best friend here was involved in fighting it…….good guys won.
so, when people keep slingin’ out things about ohio, they really don’t know the facts about my adopted region or where i came from or my state.
Speaking for the PMO, Sandra Buckler says that there were no reassurances from the Clinton campaign about HRC’s NAFTA position being mere posturing.
That should read
Of course, that was before the attacks. But if one really believes it had no influence, then the Ohio vote (as is NY, California, Massachusetts, and other solid blue states) are in the bag. It’s the other States that need to be won over. And there it’s Obama that has much higher potential according to Survey USA .
Dmac- then why did Hillary use the NAFTA attacks when she knew that the Canadians had tried to slander her with the same method?
WHY? You haven’t explained why a campaign would slander another Democrat. That’s especially so if it didn’t result in a single delegate switch? Why?
Does Hillary simply have a mean streak, or something?
And you are correct…relative to Clinton, Obama didn’t spend as much time or money campaigning in Ohio. He spent the last month campaigning in other States. That is why he won those elections. Hillary ceded those States and set up a firewall, and pumped all her resources into Ohio and Texas. For that she won 74 delegates to Obamas 65 in Ohio. And she probably didn’t even win the delegate count in Texas.
cinn-
i’m not the fucking enemy.
i am not a foaming at the mouth cynic like the rest of you are becoming over this fucking election.
you all are becoming what you say she is, in my book.
i jumped in because i’m just tired of the ohio slams.
this was about why did hillary win ohio.
i gave you a few reasons.
as i explain one thing, it changes to another.
did you google gary wilhelm lake snowden albany ohio hocking college?
nice rural development strategy there, huh?
you’re supposed to be an environmentalist, right? you think this is ok?
and mr. why at 136 just debunked the ’hillary started the nafta thing’……..
and cinn–i stay the hell out of the poo fighting around here, but just thhis once–maybe she tried to use the nafta thing cuz there might have been a shred of truth to it, i wrote above that people in his campaign quit over it days before the election……..cuz they didn’t like his explanation, people who’ve worked on his campaign since it started….sure made me wonder…..but, we aren’t privvy to everything, ya know?
bonkers: Is that the best you got? That looks like a pretty weak tie-in to the NAFTA story to me. Of course Josh is a centrist so he strongly favors Obama, as you know if you’ve been reading TPM.
(Note– although I disagree with Josh about many things I consider him a national treasure for having single-handedly saved Social Security from the Pukes a few years back).
Yes, I’m at work so I guess that makes me a “busy beaver”.
Josh is a centrist, so he favors the non-DLC candidate?
He favors the “post-partisanship” candidate who wants to “reach across the aisle” in a “spirit of bi-partisanship” to “move on” and “get things done”, and who admires “Benedict Ronald” Reagan.
Harper is trying to help McCain, because Harper is a movement conservative and he agrees with McCain on many issues. It has little or nothing to do with substantive economic issues, and a lot to do with ideological issues.
I’m afraid I come down on the side that says “the Obama leak is substantiated by a written document written by a career nonpartisan diplomat” (believe me, our diplomats are professional). The Clinton leak, otoh, comes from unnamed sources who blame Brodie.
My judgement is that they both probably reassured Canada. But in terms of actual evidence the evidence against Obama’s campaign is much much more convincing.
The US has tried to influence Canadian elections more than once. We certainly have complained, but it hasn’t stopped. You keep your conservatives (who helped Harper win his electoral victories) from interfering in our elections and getting people like Harper elected in the first place, and we can talk. Harper wouldn’t even exist, let alone be in power if the US conservative movement didn’t exist.
None of which is to say I approve of this interference. I very much don’t, both on moral and pragmatic grounds. But you may rest assured that over the last fifty years the US has interfered in our politics far more than the other way around. It isn’t even close.
Ian, did you read Rick Salutin’s column in today’s Globe on NAFTA?
What did you think?
unfortunately they’re behind a subscription firewall. Overall I tend to agree that the US wanted NAFTA and nothing significant will change. Frankly if I were in power in Canada I’d just give the 6 months notice on NAFTA. The benefits haven’t outweighed the costs imo though I think some studies have shown a net dollar benefit (but I consider the hand tying not worth it). And Mexico has been creamed by it – it isn’t even close for Mexico. They should just leave and renationalize things like the food industry.
“Hmm! So Clinton asserts that Obama was misleading the public about her stands on NAFTA, yet her own campaign was the one that was actually assuring the Canadians “take it with a grain of salt” what she says publically. And she hypocritically attacks Obama for “talking with the Canadians when it was her staff doing what she was accusing Obama’s staff of performing.
And Harper NOW says (after OHIO, of course) that the assertions that Goolsby made such statements mischaracterizes the conversation and that Obama’s public positions were the same as his private ones. But he has never rescinded the statements his Chief-of-Staff made about the Clinton campaigns position. Which is oddly curious?”
And the Clinton campaign has apparently used this story to attack Obama’s integrity. I think it was on Keith’s show that I heard the Obama campaign is looking at this story very carefully. But what worries me is that they don’t want to push back on the story. They want to attack Clinton’s positions on Nafta. I think their not pushing back is a mistake.
03.07.08 — 6:21PM TPM -
Here’s the latest from the Canadian Press:
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama’s campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office said Friday.
With the NAFTA affair swirling over the U.S. election and Canadian officials skittish about saying anything else that might influence the race, it took the PMO two days to deliver the information.
After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for — or received — any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday.
“The answer is no, they did not,” said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.
That response will come as a relief to the Clinton campaign, which has angrily denied that it has engaged in the kind of double-talking hypocrisy of which it accuses Mr. Obama.
–David Kurtz
I think folks are not getting it. I don’t know what Hilary’s folks said or not. What I do know is that the odds of that memo “mischaracterizing” the conversation are minimal. And that memo related to Obama.
And anything Harper is saying right now is pretty meaningless. Whatever anyone said to them, I would expect the Canadian government to publicly deny everything.
Obama’s advisor almost certainly said what he is said to have, well, said. Clinton’s campaign may or may not have, though I personally believe that Clinton’s full of it on NAFTA, based on her record. (I would love to believe otherwise, believe me.)