David....
PLEASE PLEASE.. I know I'm not crazy..In the early a.m. hours this morning while "Googling" myself blind, C-Span was on my TV right behind me..They showed some repeats of Bush, Pelosi and Boehner and then I heard it.. I STOPPED AND TURNED MY CHAIR AROUND..What was on, well it was a close to TEN MINUTE Newscast from Canada, The anchorman, introduced the story, then it passed to a reporter in the field, now these 2 minutes I had seen on a YOU-Tube Video earlier yesterday, BUT.. the video continued on, through the very loud and contentious debate in the canadian parliament.. IT WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT STEPHEN HARPER was being lambasted for trying to protect his Chief of Staff, and also VERY clear that there seem to be the same secretive, protectionist attitude by the PM that his man could do no wrong. I could have been watching our House of Reps in rare form, however, we don't allow the raised voices and direct accusations here.. no the lady from....the gentlelady from..thats our style here in the US.. But I digress, the main point of the shouting match was the unambiguous statements made that in fact Sen Obama's "advisor" had made NO SUCH stament in the "leaked memo", that there was no doubt they knew the only comment made implying any such "wink wink" langauge was, in fact, made by Sen. Clinton's campaign .. The Honarable Mr Harper was basically " forced into agreeing to a COMPLETE investigation not a 1 step, as he agreed to before in a previous video, but A TOTAL investigation and a DEMAND that his Chief of Staff, Ian Brodie, be fired,,yes Ian Brodie the original instigator who made the casual comment about Clinton's reassurance to them that is was political talk and to be taken with a grain of salt, and somehow it was Sen Obama who was implicated in the NAFTAGATE two step.. the apolgies were profuse to Senator Obama, by all, and the anger directed at the PM who apparently runs that Parliament like George Bush has run our White House.. This Brodie character has apparently been involved in a few major unethical blunders in the past (hmm ..our Rumsfeld, Rove,Wolfowitz, Gonzales all wrapped into one).. Anyway they had a panel of four 2 women, 2 men ..political anylysts as we have here and AGAIN..it was evident that they knew what had happened and the insertion of the "wink wink" was not done by Obama, but by Clinton...There was a "slip of the tongue..??" made by one of the men speaking who, in fact said the name OSAMA then caught himself and continued on with his comments.. Now I do not claim to know anything about how the Canadian goverment is run, but they have as corrupt administration as we have IMHO, from what I heard last nite, as well as from some Canadian Bloggers.. Well to finally end this quite lengthy report, on come the "final analysis" by a man, standing alone, sort of like the Andy Rooney conclusion of a 60 Minutes program..Well, let's just say he made it quite clear that he holds no affection for the Senator from Illinois, even calling him the "messiah", (as HRC supporters refer to him endlessy..) and he rambled on about the overblown, in his opinion I guess, suggestion that the results of an American presidential primary could have been affected by anything to do with what the Canadian government did.. Ok he can have his opinion.. I have mine.. NOW to my point and to my reqest david.. I heard NOTHING today on any MSM channel about this, much juicier to Scarborough and Buchanan to report on the "monster" moment by Obama's advisor to a reporter in the UK..ok apology made, demand by Clinton that she be fired, so she's gone..BUT what happened to the video I saw ??? Dunno.. I went to the C-Span video site, I watch C-Span faithfully, but have never used their web site, and the only video referencing the NAFTGATE was listed as 2 min. long, so I scratched my head and clicked on and I saw basically the same thing I had seen on You-Tube earlier (which was useless).. What the heck happened to the rest of it..??? Who knows, but maybe you can help me find out David..I could die happy if everyone could see what I saw..I'm hoping for Keith O. to maybe report on it on his show tonite.. In the meantime, I'll just keep on reading and get the ol' blood pressure up..LOL
Hope In the Time of NAFTA
It is impossible to argue with any semblance of honesty that Hillary Clinton is telling the truth when she claims to "have been a critic of Nafta from the very beginning." Her statements over the last 10 years - including one just 3 years ago - declared her strong support for the job-killing trade pact. And no matter how many Washington insiders like David Gergen or Carl Bernstein appear on television insisting Clinton opposed NAFTA "from the beginning," we have the very clear statements from the candidate herself.
Yet, as I discuss in my new newspaper column, Clinton managed to avoid explaining the gap between her different statements in the lead up to the Ohio primary. Instead, she made the entire NAFTA debate about an uncorroborated report from the right-wing Canadian government designed to embarrass Barack Obama. It was a deliberate strategy to create what many are calling an "Archie Bunker" divide in the Democratic primary. Even more incredibly, the American media followed right along.
Of course, Clinton's campaign was implicated in the same "NAFTA-gate" story as Obama's campaign, but the American media (except for Keith Olbermann last night) has not reported that either. Instead, we have been treated to a fact-free theater of the absurd by journalists who are largely insulated from the factory closings and wage cuts that NAFTA symbolizes. And the tragedy is that the pressing questions about trade and globalization have been ignored at the very moment when polls show the public wants those questions answered.
I explore some of these questions in the column. Why, for example, are the very terms "protectionist" and "tariff" taboo, considering our country's economic history? How are "free" trade deals riddled with corporate protections still called "free?" Why do Establishment pundits get away with wrapping job killing, poverty-sowing trade deals in the rhetoric of altruism? And how is that almost no reporters are asking the candidates whether they are going to change the trade restrictions that, according to a troubling new report, could crush their much-vaunted proposals before they ever get off the ground?
The only presidential economic adviser publicly asking some of these questions was Austan Goolsbee - the same Austan Goolsbee who clumsily stumbled into Clinton's crosshairs this week.
I certainly don't agree with Goolsbee on a lot of issues - not surprising considering he has been affiliated in the past with the Democratic Leadership Council, one of Washington's most deceitful corporate front groups. However, his willingness to acknowledge the fundamental corruption of our existing trade policies sets him apart from both Clinton and John McCain's economic teams, which either tell us we need to merely shore up the social safety net, or do nothing at all. Goolsbee - in email exchanges with me a few years ago and recently in public forums - acknowledges the problem is much, much deeper and more structural, and that provides a glimmer of hope.
Read the whole column here. The column relies on grassroots support, so if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I just stated "Bad Samaritans, The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" by Cambridge Economist Ha-Joon Chang. The U.S. & Great Britain(among many others were Protectionist until they reached the zenith of their Economic Might, then they reversed policy course and preached 'Free Trade' with their competitor countries. A German economist in the 1840's/50s called this "Kicking Away the Ladder".
Your article is on the money, I thought I was the only one who noticed that no other news agency carried that story. I emailed Anderson cooper of cnn and got no reply. Obviously there's a double standard.Also the way this woman is going about trying to rough house the presidency is an outrage. And every woman should be embarrassed..
I'm just surprised by how willing the American media and people are still so willing to be manipulated by hypocritical politicians that rely on distorting the truth and smearing people's reputation - especially when there is so much at stake for the country. A news article in the Canadian Press proclaims: "Unlike Obama, Clinton camp unsullied by reported assurances over NAFTA" - citing one particular article that the media has done harm by harping on a non-story. As a Canadian, I am very well aware of the motive of our own Conservative gov't and oil exporters in twisting the truth - they are one of the most adept gov'ts we've had that are able to stifle the truth and paint mirages. The NAFTA article continued to say:
"There were renewed questions Thursday about the role of Hillary Clinton's campaign in a NAFTA controversy that has so far focused on Barack Obama and become a factor in his Democratic primary losses this week.
Clinton's camp was mentioned from Day 1 in a report that the two candidates have been talking tough on the North American Free Trade Agreement in public while their aides privately told Canadians not to worry.
That has become lost in a swirl of revelations that Clinton used to hammer Obama, costing him votes this week in Ohio.
The original CTV News report last week said lower-level Clinton officials made "indirect contact" with Canada to say her campaign rhetoric was partly for show.
It was apparently based in part on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, who reportedly mentioned to journalists in Ottawa that Clinton's people told Canadian officials to take her campaign with a grain of salt. ..."
Why wasn't that on CNN? If the news media were really objective - they would want to get to the truth of the matter and the extent to which the Clinton administration are willing to go to twist this race to end up giving America no choice again - you'll end up with more of the same. Obama has revived a listless and beaten America and given it the shot of the idealism and integrity it was supposedly built on. The land of hope is currently the land of the hopeless. It was a fairly bright guy who said that problems can't be solved with the same mind-set with which they were created. That should be Obama's slogan.
Anyone who truly believes that Hillary Clinton cares about anyone's job except her own is really hallucinating. She is a right winger which is becoming more obvious everyday. She is trying to transform the democratic party into an instrument of her neocon foreign policy. Rush Limbaugh and other right wingers are not just supporting her to make mischief but believe she is to the right of John McCain.
She did not do it alone. She did the the whores in corporate media 'taking her at her word' and ran it on a loop-guaranteeing Ohio-guaranteeing this thing will continue-guaranteeing the demise once again of the Dem Party.
Where are the Super Delegates? Cowering in a corner-unable to stand up to the Clinton slime machine-allowing the Party to be destroyed by them-AGAIN.
Well, in theory NAFTA could actually been seen as an attempt to help American workers and head off the threat from China and India.
The idea is that sending jobs to Mexico is better than seeing them leave (as they most inevitably would) to China and India. You keep the business close to home and build a strong North America with the cheap labor from Mexico. Their economy would then develop faster than China or India's (to a 1st world level) and they would then come back to the US for all the "service" work. The dollar also stays stronger that way.
But NAFTA was too little too late. The Chinese government refused to float its currency, and India started turning out millions of computer literate, english speaking workers.
But try explaining that to the american people, or fitting it into a 2 minute debate response while Tim Russert is quizing you on people's names.
Yes SHE Can... SHE is doing right now.
Yeah, Hillary has 35 years of experience: in DIRTY POLITICS!
She and Bill are world experts and wrote the book on how to lie, cheat and destroy anybody on their way to power.
Be smarter than that: Vote for change, vote Obama!
If the MSM won't cover it...perhaps maybe WE the people should force them. Start sending them emails. Bombard them with the story to make it happen. This is what Obama is speaking of...we need to hold ourselves accountable. We can't just sit and wait for others to do it. I did my share. I forwarded a couple of articles I've seen to lots of people...I'm hoping someone will make a YouTube video to share about it...so that can be circulated.
We need rise up and make our news and issue of it... I hope you all are with me!
i'm with you, SUNRAI. for the past couple of days, that's exactly what i've been doing. i've written to the associated press, reuters, the new york times (though their credibility has been questioned), the los angeles times, the washington post, et al. i've asked them why the clinton angle hasn't been explored. just because the clinton camp issued a firm denial, it doesn't mean that they should just roll over and say "oh, okay. that's fine then!" but apparently, hillary clinton has effectively castrated the msm. for all my work and eagerness, i got this wisp of an article that predictably got lost in a flurry of more senastional headlines:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080306/pl_afp/canadausdemocratsvotediplomacy_080306231944;_ylt=AiqN3ATkkw2NUW1d1minsG3kbeRF
i've also written to ctv news several times, asking for any comment or clarification of the issue, but nothing's happened yet. obviously. so i need more help!
Can someone explain to me how eliminating or re-negotiating Nafta is going to bring more jobs back to the US? Do you really believe a corporation operating in Mexico will relocate to the US if Nafta is eliminated or restricted? The answer is no and no. Those companies will relocate to other cheap nations. We need to take care of our neighbors and focus on the Far East where all the jobs are moving.
Well Chinampas it's like this...
Senator Obama's plan to renegotiate NAFTA is in the areas of more equitable wages and environmental concern. By forcing let's just say Mexican manufacturers to pay their employees higher wages then the people of Mexico can earn a living wage and won't need to come to the U.S. to work to support their family. Meaning less competiton for jobs in areas such as Construction Labor where here in Florida is almost 30% illegal immigrants.
With regards to environmental issues all three of the main countries involved U.S., Canada and Mexico are skirtiing pollution issues by not setting higher standards of compliance.
By renegotiating NAFTA and the other "Free Trade Agreements" the U.S. has, Sen. Obama said his position is...either you accept our goods (meaning made in the U.S.A.) or we won't be accepting your goods. Addidtionally, Sen Obama DID NOT take placing Tariffs on goods produced in countries like China and Mexico off the table during his interview on 60 Minutes.
Both of these measures would make American produced goods more attractive. Additionally, part of Sen. Obama's plan for economic guidance is to eliminate the 'wind-fall' profits that so many companies now enjoy from shipping jobs overseas by either forcing them to employ more Americans or jack the tax rates up on companies that continue overseas employment.
Critizism of Obama regarding Nafta is fair, period, whether Hillary brought it up or the public . He is
lying about Nafta, because he has voted to add Peru to Nafta, so obviously he approves of Nafta and Obama pretends he doesn't to get the middle class votes, in places like Ohio, Michigan and New York, where millions of jobs have lost. I feel the people who believed him and voted, supported or
endorsed him based on pro-union stance. Obama is an elist candidate and anti-union, anti working class period.
listen to yourself! Hillary clinton was on the BOARD OF DIRECTORS at wal-mart. think they benefitted from NAFTA much? It scares me how ignorant some of these Clinton supporters are. Actually look at her record and see whose interests she has been serving.
Yeah, she worked for childrens defense fund... for a year. Then left to work for Arkansas' biggest corporate law firm, Rose partners. Then left to become a wal-mart board member. I guess all those years of corporate shilling don't count as part of her "35 years." Oh, she's also on the DLC leadership committee. Have any of the populists supporting her looked at their agenda??? Didn't think so, or you wouldn't be acting like she's the second coming of John Edwards. The DLC is ANTI-POPULIST, NEWSFLASH!
Excuse me...but haven't you heard??? It was actually Sen. Clinton who told the Canadians..."Wink-wink" "take it with a grain of salt"
Obama DID NOT lie regarding what is now known as "NAFTA-gate". It was Senator Clinton using the politics she learned in her 35 years of experience...scrape your own dirt off throw it at your opponent and if it sticks, hope the news cycle has moved on before you're found out.
No you are mistaken and do not know what you are talking about? He opposed CAFTA because it failed to have substantive enironmental and worker protections. You are right he did support the separate Peru agreement which was an entirely different agreement that does contain these labor and environmental provisions. He has always said he supports agreements with those features and that is what distinguishes Peru from the CAFTA and NAFTA.
Well I guess it's a good thing that the media is covering up the fact that Hillary's camp pretty much said the same thing. Because in light of the way her camp smeared him with it, she would seem to be inviting quite the backlash if American voters ever found out.
Poor Hillary! Will the media ever stop dogging her?
It was a lie. You don't know that yet?
Geez.
"I certainly don't agree with Goolsbee on a lot of issues - not surprising considering he has been affiliated in the past with the Democratic Leadership Council, one of Washington's most deceitful corporate front groups. However, his willingness to acknowledge the fundamental corruption of our existing trade policies sets him apart from both Clinton and John McCain's economic teams, which either tell us we need to merely shore up the social safety net, or do nothing at all."
Well David, I don't agree with you on some issues. But this time, I agree completely. This whole issue is nothing more than a smear campaign based on an alleged contact and a comment taken out of context. If there is anything to this story about politicians grandstanding about NAFTA on the campaign trail and doing nothing when they get into office (a very real possibility with any candidate) it should at least evenly cut both Democratic candidates since HIllary's campaign allegedly made the same insinuations to the Canadian government.
I don't know if getting into office Barack Obama will do anything to change NAFTA. But he has been the candidate to push the NAFTA issue front and center to the American people, at least since Edwards dropped out of the race. And if he is hammering the NAFTA issue home to the voters on the campaign trail, he will feel their pressure to deliver something on the issue when he gets into office, making a changes to this ill-conceived trade agreement more likely than before.
Hillary CLinton made an all out effort to distract and claim it was Obama with the wink-wink moment...when in fact she delivered the now famous, "take it with a grain of salt". This does not excuse Goolsbee in anyway, but it certainly puts Clinton on display for the low down scum that she is...I pray to god they put out a commerical with that little WINK WINK comment...and then follow it up with the truth....Hillary "the true winker" Clinton.
Small points to consider:
"Implicated" is not "proof". As in "Obama is implicated in shady dealings with his campaign supporter Rezko".
There is a memo DOCUMENTING the meeting. That IS called "proof".
I know, they're just words. But they matter.
The memo you cite as "PROOF" was also vehemently denied by Mr. Goolsby who said he never used any such words. So it sounds as if your "PROOF" is based on a lie. Just like Senator Clinton's claim she isn't the same politics we've been treated to for the 16 years.
The problem with that memo is that it was not a quote of what the guy said it was not trust worthy proof. The Canadian government has stated this as a fact.
NAFTA by itself hasn't really done that much damage. The manufacturing jobs that were lost in Ohio didn't go to Canada and Mexico. They went to China, the Phillipines, India, etc. It did however pave the way for all the other crap trade deals that have screwed the American worker under both Clinton and Bush. Free trade...What a joke.
These people believe that market forces will provide the right direction and if you happen to get crushed, well, so what, you were probably just a lazy fuck anyway.
Are you trying to claim that Goolsbee, Obama's economic adviser, didn't have a meeting with with anyone from Canada about Obama's rhetoric on NAFTA prior to Ohio? Because, the memo shows that there in fact was a meeting that took place and exactly what was discussed -- no denying that. It is unfortunate for Obama that it was leaked, but like most whisterblown issues, we are the ones who benefit. Are you wishing for George Bush tactics of silencing the whisteblowers? Bet you wouldn't mind if it were the other way around and Hillary would have been exposed in the same manner.
*sigh*
1. Canadians initiated meeting, in Chicago, without the campaign knowing anything.
2. Memo does not quote Goolsbee directly. He says his language was misrepresented.
3. See above (and any number of other places) about Canada's right-wing PM and the Clinton campaign.
4. The rest is just hyperbole. Typical.
Why haven't MSM corrected this issue on NAFTAgate/Clinton.? Tell the voters of Ohio and Texas, Rhode Island, that it was the Clinton campaign behind this mess. You have a candidate in Sen. Obama trying to rise above all this politics of distruction and the MSM is the worst, not just Team Hillary. wink wink...my azz. More of the same with Bush, Hillary, and McCain. America will never be the respected nation we once was.
Immediately after the first break of NAFTAgate, Hillary gave the Canadian government full immunity to give the name of the "low level campaign" person who had spoken to the Canadian official. She was willing to be open and honest from the get go. However, Obama denied it and as sit turns out he was lying about it. Goolsbee (Obama's economic advisor -- a high level offical) had in fact had a meeting with a Canadian offical and there is a leaked memo to prove it. And, even though Hillary has given the Canadians the opportunity to identify her official, they still haven't. Perhaps there never was one?
Today, March 7, I searched every page of the Washington Post for an article on Naftagate. Not a single word or even an allusion to it in any other article. Is Keith Olberman the only newsperson worthy of our indulgence? Even the taking heads on TV refuse to hold Clinton's feet to the fire.
After the invasion of Iraq and Bush's other policies coupled with the news medias' complicity, I'm really fearful for this country. Then what is this nonsence about truth and justice?
What's unfolding before our very eyes is indeed frightening. THE WORLD IS WATCHING US!!!!!!
"Is Keith Olberman the only newsperson worthy of our indulgence?"
Yes. Next question.
Especially considering this new information is being reported worldwide, except in America. Just goes to show how we are being manipulated at all times. Its a scary thought, thank GOD for the internet. Its only a matter of time before TV becomes second hat.
Framing Obama as the pro-NAFTA candidate was shameless, worthy of something Rove and his Swift Boaters would do. Hillary is nothing if not ruthless.
Still, something about Ohio's turnout for Hillary bothers me. As as lifelong Ohioan, I find it hard to believe that Democratic voters here forgot that Clinton was instrumental in passing NAFTA or that his wife really had no problem with it until recently. Ohioans may be fooled from time to time, but they're not stupid. NAFTA is not ancient history here.
My worry is that a lot of Hillary's support came from relatively conservative Democrats here who will not vote for a black man. In other words, they're racists. The recent report of 25% of Hillary's supporters saying that they would vote for McCain if Obama were the nominee gives an idea of just how many there are out there.
I realize that a charge of racism is pretty serious, but I just cannot account for the Ohio vote disparity given the similarity between the candidates on virtually every position. I just don't buy the NAFTA deception, despite what these voters are telling pollsters.
I agree totally with Glory.
And why isn't the media making hay about the tax returns and donors to the Clinton library?
Sybill is getting a pass fromt he media. They are probably afraid of her after the David Shuster thing.
The NAFTA issue got out of control when, in the last debate, Tim Russert behaved as if Sean Hannity had e-mailed him the questions he should ask. Will you go back into Iraq to take out al Qaeda? Why do you go to a church where the minister praises Louis Farrakhan? Will you kill NAFTA if Canada and Mexico don't renegotiate?
Russert put both candidates in a corner. Desperate for votes, they went to the extreme (as Republicans did in every debate on guns, the Bible, tax cuts).
Nobody is going to reverse globalization and its effects overnight or "over-month." The debate wasn't between Kucinich and Nader, but between two pro-corporate Democrats who aren't going to make the stock market crash on top of a recession that is crushing American workers.
The issue is, Hillary *has* supported NAFTA and-- based on the 1993-2000 record she brags about-- would do *less* to protect American workers. She lied her way to an Ohio victory.
I expected Keith Olbermann's shocker of a story-- that it was the Clinton campaign that gave the Canadian government the old wink wink-- to be all over the Internet today.
Well, where uncomfortable truths are, you will usually find, not cnn.com or abcnews.com, but a David Sirota column.
Posted March 7, 2008 | 09:45 AM (EST)