NAFTA Bluster? The Report That's Making Waves In Canada

A secret message from the Obama campaign to the Canadian government, cautioning against reading too much into Obama's rhetoric about rolling back NAFTA? It's the story of the day up north, but the Obama campaign today denies this up and down.

“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."

Update: The Canadian embassy also denies the report.

Still -- international intrigue. Backchannel diplomacy. Secret envoys. It's all very... presidential...

Comments

The big thing now is Trade Minister David Emerson talking tough about oil if the US moves to abrogate NAFTA.

It's nice to see the Democrats move beyond the unilateral, screw-the-rest-of-the-world approach of GWB.

Posted by Pithlord | February 28, 2008 12:28 PM

This is a non-story, why even post it?

The only question that needs to be asked is where did CTV get the erroneous information to begin with?

Posted by John | February 28, 2008 12:29 PM

Marc - why are you pushing this non-story further? You know as well as anyone that even the appearance of it can make an impact, even though it's been debunked. So you're essentially reporting non-news here, but the kind of non-news that can make an impact.

Posted by Dan | February 28, 2008 12:31 PM

"We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy."

That phrase has me convinced that there had been some contact otherwise the statement would have read something along the lines of 'there has been no contact with the Canadian Embassy'

Who gets a phone call through to an ambassador other than a high ranking campaign staffer? Make that very high ranking.

It now muddies the waters that the Canadians are now denying the report, but I would expect that. What foreign government would want to be involved in an American election however inadvertently?

Intriguing is the correct word to use in all of this.

Posted by Susan H | February 28, 2008 12:33 PM

As someone who has to pay attention to the rest of the world for my job I have to say this whole discussion about NAFTA is completely myopic in tenor and assumptions.

Had the reporters covering this campaign done just a little bit of leg work they could have discovered that in Mexico (you know, the *other* NAFTA signatory country) the idea of renegotiation has been around for quite a while. As a matter of fact the 2006 election there was all about RENEGOTIATION. So for the person above who thinks the idea of renegotiation is about unilateral diplomacy, obviously you are not informed of the politics of trade agreements with the countries in this hemisphere. These trade agreements are highly contentious and the governments that sign them have to fight tooth and nail to get them trough, precisely because they want the pact to include safety, environmental, wage, etc guarantees which so far the US has not pushed for or agreed to.

Want an example? Pay attention to what is happening in DC today regarding CAFTA and Costa Rica NOT joining yet because of pressure from within the country to get these guarantees even after a referendum approved the treaty back in October.

Posted by lfo | February 28, 2008 12:59 PM

Looks like someone jumped the shark. Hmmm.

Posted by Ann Hussien | February 28, 2008 1:07 PM

This really is silly, especially your last comments.

I don't know why in all of this it was lost that it was reported that Clinton's people may have done the same thing.

The Obama rebuke was very clear, a straight no. I don't see the story here Marc.

Posted by Jeremy | February 28, 2008 1:35 PM

So we have the word of someone who is linked to the original passage of NAFTA, against the Canadian embassy. So what was that story again?

Not to mention the proven track record of smears from the Clintons. Not to mention the "coincidental" nature of the story given Ohio.

Nice how you managed to sneak in a little smear there at the end.

Oh, and Susan H, don't I know you from somewhere...

Posted by JS | February 28, 2008 1:50 PM

I see the clinton camp is playing games agains with sending out false stories.

Posted by vwcat | February 28, 2008 1:55 PM

There's still something fishy about this. CTV may have been duped, but they certianly didn't fabricate this. Adding to the intrigue is the fact that both Clinton and Obama are, almost certainly, full of crap when they pretend to hate on NAFTA. (No credible US policy maker really wants to make substantial changes to NAFTA because they all know it's good for the US economy).

These seem to be the possibilities, in no particular order:

1. Some anti-Dem interest is playing a dirty trick by posing as an embassy official and duping CTV.

2. Some anti-NAFTA interest is playing a dirty trick and trying to force Obama to make a real commitment to scrapping NAFTA.

3. The Canadian Embassy is lying and the story is accurate. (Could be an Obama official made an offhand comment or stated a personal opinion.)

4. Canada's Conservative government is trying to sabotage Obama. (Unlikely that they made this up, but they may have sanctioned the leak if the story is accurate. I don't think this is a likely scenario, but there it is.)

Posted by Geoff | February 28, 2008 1:59 PM

I should add that I don't think Clinton is behind it, because she's just duplicitous on NAFTA as Obama--now she's in position of having to defend her sincerity too. Not that she isn't going to run with it...

Posted by Geoff | February 28, 2008 2:04 PM

Yet the article remains on the CTV News site.
http://www.ctv.ca/politics

Posted by Lucid | February 28, 2008 2:33 PM

""""
international intrigue. Backchannel diplomacy. Secret envoys. It's all very... presidential...
""""

I think you left out demagoguery...

Posted by Ninja Pirate | February 28, 2008 2:42 PM

I think you're all missing something big here.

There's actually no inherent contradiction vis-a-vis Canada. Obama says he wants more stringent labor and environmental standards built into the pact. Does anyone actually believe that Canada lacks labor and environmental standards today? I'm fairly certain they're way ahead of us on both.

Mexico is a different story, of course. But even if he did tell the Canadians "don't worry about it", well, he's right. They don't need to worry.

Posted by TH | February 28, 2008 2:46 PM

Things you won't hear about from The Atlantic:

1. On his recent trip to his country's outposts, FelipeCalderon met with one of Obama's co-chairs.

2. Obama recently spoke in code, signalling his support for Bush's SPP (spp.gov), aka "NAFTA on steroids".

So, this report doesn't come as much of a surprise. The only thing that would be surprising is if the MSM actually looks in to it.

Posted by TLB | February 28, 2008 2:55 PM

Why should a high ranking official of the Obama campaign be calling anyone in the Canadian government in the first place? Either there was a call or there wasn't. If there was, that's news. They have no business making calls like that. I share SusanH's questions. This should be investigated. Produce this phone records.

Posted by HAS | February 28, 2008 3:24 PM

I think the Obama camp just got caught with their hand in the cookie jar....again. Rhetoric, and empty words, that just about sums up the entire Obama campaign.

I think if he really wants to deny it, release the phone records, and say that the Canadian offical is a liar.

Let's see...using a Republican attack ad against another DEM is okay, b/c well...he says it is. Using someone else's words is okay, well...b/c he says it is. Equivocating and copying a competitor's positions are okay...(you see the pattern) b/c he says it is.

The evidence says he and and his campaign are well within their natural antics doing this, and then trying to issue and spin denial. I thought words mattered?

I say keep up with the story...their both full of crap, yet at least one admits their a politican. That means the other must have just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Posted by RRR | February 28, 2008 3:52 PM

This sounds like a MAJOR scam with epic ramifications. Obama is actually trying to merge us with Canada to form Canmerica. Somehow thoughthe MSM doesn't know the reel truth.

Posted by Tim K | February 28, 2008 5:15 PM

This has been proven to be false already. Why are you reporting this? Did the Clintons ask you to? They're probably the ones that started this. They will do and say anything to win, including lies.

Posted by Carolyn Grace | February 28, 2008 5:22 PM

CTV has two stories up about this and is keeping them up on their web page.
----One, posted 2/27, says someone from the Obama campaign called the Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson,
-----In the second, posted 2/29, CTV says that it has not been able to get a response from the Obama people about a conversation between an Obama economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Something is very strange here and I trust our press and/or the Obama campaign will get to the botom of it.
1st story:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227/
2nd story:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229

The union big-mouth that gave such an awful introduction to Sen. Clinton a while ago, Tom Buffenbarger from International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), has already been all over this with a press release. And Sen. McCain has decided to act as if the story is true and is condeming Obama (although you'd think he'd be a bit sensitive to stories bases on anonymous sources these days)

I'm smelling lots of fish.

Posted by Elizabeth | February 29, 2008 4:23 AM

CTV has two stories up about this and is keeping them up on their web page.
----One, posted 2/27, says someone from the Obama campaign called the Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson,
-----In the second, posted 2/29, CTV says that it has not been able to get a response from the Obama people about a conversation between an Obama economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Something is very strange here and I trust our press and/or the Obama campaign will get to the botom of it.
1st story:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227/
2nd story:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229

The union big-mouth that gave such an awful introduction to Sen. Clinton a while ago, Tom Buffenbarger from International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), has already been all over this with a press release. And Sen. McCain has decided to act as if the story is true and is condeming Obama (although you'd think he'd be a bit sensitive to stories bases on anonymous sources these days)

I'm smelling lots of fish.

Posted by Elizabeth | February 29, 2008 4:24 AM

Obama's campaign is delusional if they think that stonewalling will make it go away.

And this from the National Review, the question that still needs to be asked of Obama (if we can get a reporter with enough courage to ask it):

Is he lying or does he have an insane, out of control advisor?

See the full article at:
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

Got a moment for fun?
http://vet4hill.googlepages.com/catch22.htm

Posted by v4hill | February 29, 2008 9:16 PM

Arabic Primary Equity
Please forward this to a nearby community... this can circulate among
organization...I suggest that you see this a recommendation...

Economic Development - Direct Marketing - Pension Plan

Industry and Federal Government bear special responsibility for the
health of U.S. science and technology in the emerging global economy.
Several indicators, described earlier, imply a reduced commitment to
the U.S. enterprise by both the Federal and industry sectors -
especially to academic and basic research - over the last several
years, in spite of the growing importance of knowledge-based
industries in international trade. The potential impacts of
persistent negative trends in R&D support, and especially support for
basic research, on the U.S. economy and jobs are indeed troubling. As a
Nation we must renew our strong commitment to R&D to ensure our
continued pre-eminence in global science and technology. New metrics
are required to guide national R&D investments in all sectors to
ensure that we respond to the research needs in a rapidly changing
global economy.

OPTIONS CONSIDERED: http://www.globalpp.net/?id=cwmtrader

Posted by Mr Roger K. Olsson | March 18, 2008 9:22 AM

Arabic Primary Equity
Please forward this to a nearby community... this can circulate among
organization...I suggest that you see this a recommendation...

Economic Development - Direct Marketing - Pension Plan

Industry and Federal Government bear special responsibility for the
health of U.S. science and technology in the emerging global economy.
Several indicators, described earlier, imply a reduced commitment to
the U.S. enterprise by both the Federal and industry sectors -
especially to academic and basic research - over the last several
years, in spite of the growing importance of knowledge-based
industries in international trade. The potential impacts of
persistent negative trends in R&D support, and especially support for
basic research, on the U.S. economy and jobs are indeed troubling. As a
Nation we must renew our strong commitment to R&D to ensure our
continued pre-eminence in global science and technology. New metrics
are required to guide national R&D investments in all sectors to
ensure that we respond to the research needs in a rapidly changing
global economy.

OPTIONS CONSIDERED: http://www.globalpp.net/?id=cwmtrader

Posted by Mr Roger K. Olsson | March 18, 2008 9:23 AM