Obama Camp & Canadian Embassy Strongly Repudiate NAFTA Story (UPDATED)

This news report from Canadian Television is pretty disturbing:

"Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned...Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources. The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value."

It's hard to see any problem with Obama's campaign making contact with the Canadian embassy. But there is a huge problem if a top staff person for Obama's campaign really did "reassure [the embassy] that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value."

Right now, Hillary Clinton is trying to pretend she never supported NAFTA, when the historical record clearly shows she did. Obama's past record is much more clear -- he has always said he opposed the NAFTA trade model, even drawing criticism for that position from his hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune.

But this CTV report is troubling, in that it implies he's deliberately trying to fool voters on this issue. We'll see if Obama's campaign issues a statement telling us what happened. Again, I see no problem with Obama's campaign contacting the Canadian embassy and giving them a heads up about his campaign message. The real issue would be if the campaign officially told the Canadians that the candidate's campaign promises on NAFTA are lies.

UPDATED: I've updated the headline here, because Obama's campaign has just issued a forceful statement in response to the CTV story. Here it is:

"The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama's consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy -- that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

On balance, I'm strongly inclined to believe the Obama camp on this one. He's a guy who has said he's been against NAFTA since he was a candidate for the Senate, and has taken heat for it. The Canadian officials quoted are conservative, pro-NAFTA politicians with an interest in tamping down the push to reform our trade policies. And the article itself is very thinly sourced. My guess is Obama's campaign at some point contacted the Canadian embassy as a courtesy, and that was spun into this story - without direct quotes, of course - claiming his rhetoric would not be followed through on.

Bottom line, however - this story, though likely inaccurate, highlights the need for us all to keep the pressure on both candidates, and ultimately, on the new Democratic administration and Congress in 2009. If we want to reform trade policy, we're going to have to really hold all politicians' feet to the fire.

UPDATE II: From the Politico's Ben Smith - a repudiation of the story now from the Canadian embassy:

A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta.

"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta," Landry said.

He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.

"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.

"There is no story as far as we're concerned," he said.

Comments

[Inkslayer]

CTV has now named names -

The conversation took place between Obama’s senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Obama is as gifted a liar as Bush.

.

[jeffrey1978]

CTV has updated their story and stands by it. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229?hub=TopStories

[sideways74]

CTV stands by their story, maybe HoffPo will rename thier story again, but I doubt it.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

[Didi47]

"I called CTV to verify the story, especially given the Obama campaign's cries that it's "inaccurate." After asking Greg McIsaac of CTV if they were sticking by their story, he quickly called me back with verification. The facts of our story are accurate."

"Canada has a 'truth in broadcasting' law. this story had to be more than gossip in the beginning or it would have never made it to air."

"As for the ambassador, his name is Michael Wilson and he is DC based as is the reporter who broke the story. Tom Clark, the reporter, is actual CTV's DC bureau chief."

Michael Wilson Has not denied this story.

[democrattotheend]

Has CTV cited any sources or provided any evidence to back up their story?

[ndolomar]

wow -- this new and improved "vetting" is somewhat funny:
1. imply he's a closet conservative
2. say he's too liberal
3. say his words have no substance
4. borrow heavily from his rhetoric
5. say he's anti-israel
6. say he's too pro-israel

it wouldn't surprise me if there really is an attempt on both the clintons' and mccain's camp's parts to paint him in the most negative light possible -- even if it means resorting to making fun of his name. clearly, the people who want to "propel" this nation forward are incredibly scared of someone whose campaign actually might accomplish what they're promising -- much more successfuly than they would. as we're edging closer to november, i'm sure many people are going to have that "obama" reconsideration moment, in which they question just how likely his presidency would be -- and they may hesitate and, out of fear, not vote for him. i sincerely hope that doesn't happen. i hope if you feel strongly that he represents a positive change in direction for this country (and the world), don't let your own fears or the fears lobbed on you by obama's opponents make you choose. fear should not be a motivator for progress; it's an obstacle.

[sideways74]

Canada's labour and environmental standards are higher than the US and Canada will also not shy away from removing Oil and Energy. This would be a compelling reason why campaigners reached out to Canadian Embassy and said - don't worry about it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080228.wnaftaottawasb28/BNStory/usElection2008/

[Countess]

This probably came from Clinton smear central direct to CTV but at least it has now been corrected.

[Democrat08]

Show me the proof....

[Didi47]

"I called CTV to verify the story, especially given the Obama campaign's cries that it's "inaccurate." After asking Greg McIsaac of CTV if they were sticking by their story, he quickly called me back with verification. The facts of our story are accurate."

"Canada has a 'truth in broadcasting' law. this story had to be more than gossip in the beginning or it would have never made it to air."

"As for the ambassador, his name is Michael Wilson and he is DC based as is the reporter who broke the story. Tom Clark, the reporter, is actual CTV's DC bureau chief."

Michael Wilson Has not denied this story.

[S1m0n]

The future President Obama will find significant support among the Canadian public for a NAFTA revision which adds labour and environmental protections, although the present canadian conservative (minority) government is likely to howl both loud and long.

The subordination of the environment to NAFTA's mandated race to the bottom is the worst feature of the treaty, and of 90s-style globalisation in general.

[sideways74]

Are you retarded? Canadians have higher labour and environmental standards.

[Democrat08]

Has anyone followed up with CTV and get their backing to substantiate their story?

[nacilbuper]

Canadian Embassy: Report on Obama NAFTA Convo Is False

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/canadian_embassy_report_on_oba.php

[Didi47]

"I called CTV to verify the story, especially given the Obama campaign's cries that it's "inaccurate." After asking Greg McIsaac of CTV if they were sticking by their story, he quickly called me back with verification. The facts of our story are accurate."

"Canada has a 'truth in broadcasting' law. this story had to be more than gossip in the beginning or it would have never made it to air."

"As for the ambassador, his name is Michael Wilson and he is DC based as is the reporter who broke the story. Tom Clark, the reporter, is actual CTV's DC bureau chief."

Michael Wilson Has not denied this story.

[Researchguy66]

Amazing how quickly that resolved itself. It's so unlike Obama to try to be on all sides of an issue..if Hillary's the quessn of triangulation, Obama's the king of omni-angul­ation...or pan-angulation...or circum-ang­ulation...­I can't decide which one I like better...opinions?

[Democrat08]

Of course you are going to believe the denial...weak sources

As David writes:

"The Canadian officials quoted are conservative, pro-NAFTA politicians with an interest in tamping down the push to reform our trade policies. And the article itself is very thinly sourced."

....if this was HRC's camp-everyone would be calling her a liar...the source and story with the picture of Obama in Somali dress in Drudge Report was also "conservative" and "very thinly sourced" but didn't hear anyone talking about the source of that one.

David writes:

"My guess is Obama's campaign at some point contacted the Canadian embassy as a courtesy, and that was spun into this story - without direct quotes, of course - claiming his rhetoric would not be followed through on."

Really? You know the inner workings of Obama's camp now? You were there to back this claim up?

And David, you failed to mention the Clinton campaign was adamant their campaign did not call Canada and issued immunity to the Canadian gov't to disclose who supposedly called from Clinton's campaign. Haven't heard any such thing from Obama's camp.

Link here: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/report_obama_campaign_official.php

[sideways74]

Senator Obama's contact admits to making contact and now Canadian Embassy denies there ever was contact. Something is fishy here.

http://esi.ctv.ca/datafeed/urlgen2.aspx?vid=34692

[pithylittlegeek]

Michael Wilson, the Canadian Ambassador is the former FInance Minister of Canada, under Brian Mulroney. He held this positino when NAFTA was signed, so he certainly has some self-interest in the subject.

[ljsfolly]

Ok just think about this whole thing. If barack's person called and said don't worry we will talk about this down the road one thing but to deny it's importance I think Barack will have to explain. But.....neither one will really see much done with the Congress unless it is overseas. Not Cananda not Mexico (maybe). It's what the campaigns do unfortunately wrong words were used and Barack will have to cover his butt on this one.

[OhPlease2007]

* New York Times: Despite Nafta Attacks, Clinton and Obama Haven’t Been Free Trade Foes - Part 1 *

By Michael Luo, Published: February 28, 2008

As they have tussled for votes in economically beleaguered Ohio, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have both excoriated the North American Free Trade Agreement while lobbing accusations against their opponent on the issue.

Lost amid the posturing, however, is that both have staked out nuanced positions in the past on Nafta and have supported similar trade deals. Although their language has become much more hostile to free trade as they have exchanged charges and counter-charges, neither of them would have been mistaken in the past for an ardent protectionist or a die-hard free trader.

Instead, both appear to have been part of the conflicted middle ground within the Democratic Party that is groping for a proper balance between being friendly to free trade agreements, believing they are beneficial to the economy, but also seeking to level the playing field for the United States when it comes to labor and environmental standards and addressing job losses that come with globalization.

“The bottom line,” said Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch division of Public Citizen and a fierce free trade foe, “is neither of the current Democratic candidates were in the category of leaders fighting for improving U.S. trade policy to try to come up with different terms for globalization, but in the course of their campaign they have come to see both the political necessity and the substantive problems, pushing them to some interesting new thinking.”

Source:NYT(Despite Nafta Attacks, Clinton and Obama Haven’t Been Free Trade Foes, Michael Luo, February 28, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28nafta.html?ref=business

[OhPlease2007]

* New York Times: Despite Nafta Attacks, Clinton and Obama Haven"t Been Free Trade Foes - Part 2 *




"There is clearly a large dose of politics behind the vigor with which the Democratic contenders are attacking each other on Nafta, full of parsed quotations and misrepresentations. Mr. Obama has accused Mrs. Clinton of full-throated support for Nafta in the past, while Mrs. Clinton has leveled the same charge against Mr. Obama.

In the minds of hard-core opponents of free trade, both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have checkered records in the Senate on trade agreements. Both voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement but supported a trade pact with Peru last year, citing the inclusion of labor and environmental provisions that were not part of Nafta.

Opponents, however, said crucial provisions in Nafta that led to jobs being shipped overseas were also part of the Peru agreement. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were also among only a dozen Senate Democrats who voted for a trade agreement with Oman in 2006.

“They’re hedging their bets,” said Representative Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat whose district in the northern part of the state has been decimated by job losses. “They’re trying to have it both ways, and you can’t.”

For Mrs. Clinton, her past on the issue poses a special dilemma as she stumps for votes in Ohio, where Nafta is extremely unpopular, given that it was her husband, President Bill Clinton, whose administration pushed through the trade agreement, making it a top priority and counting it as one of his legislative triumphs.

She now says that she supported the trade agreement as a loyal member of the administration but had reservations in private, although there is scant evidence of this in her public statements because she typically espoused Nafta’s benefits.

But Mickey Kantor, who is a friend and supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and was the United States trade representative when the agreement was pushed through, said in an interview in December that Mrs. Clinton raised concerns about the lack of provisions for labor and environmental standards and wanted to tackle health care instead."

[OhPlease2007]

* New York Times: Despite Nafta Attacks, Clinton and Obama Haven"t Been Free Trade Foes - Part 3 *



"David Gergen, a senior adviser in the Clinton administration, recalled Mrs. Clinton being “extremely unenthusiastic” about Nafta. Her feelings did not necessarily flow directly from her objections to the agreement, he said, although Mr. Gergen said he remembers her being dissatisfied with aspects of it. Rather, he said, Mrs. Clinton badly wanted to move on to health care and worried the Nafta fight would alienate constituencies like organized labor that she needed for that battle.

The Obama campaign has seized on past statements Mrs. Clinton made about the positive effects of Nafta, including one from 2004 when she said “on balance Nafta has been good for New York and America” during a news teleconference. But she said in the same teleconference that past trade deals needed to be revisited with an eye to enforcing labor and environmental standards.

Similarly, the Obama campaign sent out a mailer in Ohio that drew the ire of Mrs. Clinton that quoted her as saying in Newsday that Nafta had been a “boon” to the economy, a word she had not used directly but was part of the newspaper’s assessment of her position on the trade agreement.

For its part, the Clinton campaign has sent out its direct mail piece that quotes Mr. Obama in 2004 while he was running for the Senate praising Nafta, declaring, “Ohio needs to know the truth about Obama’s position on protecting American workers and NAFTA.”

The mailer, however, selectively quotes from a pair of news articles on statements made by Mr. Obama about Nafta. It said, for example, that he declared that the United States should pursue similar agreements but leaves out comments he made about the importance of protecting American interests and workers.

The mailer also quotes Mr. Obama as saying that the United States “benefits enormously from exports” under Nafta but again fails to mention that he also stressed the importance of fighting for “fair trade,” as well as free trade.

At Tuesday’s Democratic debate, Mr. Obama struck a similar balancing act, saying he did not believe it was possible to “draw a moat around us.”

But he also echoed promises made by Mrs. Clinton during the debate that he would be “an advocate on behalf of workers as president.”"

Patrick Healy contributed reporting.




http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28nafta.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=business&adxnnlx=1204225316-n+Z2O5Xh6leL51P0+NqB3A