« The tenacity of Hillary Clinton | Main | Column: McCain's muddled math »

Further updated: Naftagate

07 Mar 2008 07:38 pm

Curiouser and curiouser. Commenters on my previous post draw my attention to reports that the Clinton campaign also contacted Canadian officials to tell them the very thing that she excoriated Obama's adviser, Austan Goolsbee, for saying--namely, to take all the anti-NAFTA stuff with a grain of salt, it was all just politics. This is from AFP:

OTTAWA (AFP) — US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's campaign, while rapping rival Barack Obama for telling US voters he is anti-NAFTA and saying otherwise to Canada, tried to reassure Canada too, local media said Thursday.

A top aide of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper meanwhile was identified as the likely source of an alleged leak that provoked a diplomatic fiasco involving both US Democratic presidential contenders.

Last month, Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, purportedly made impromptu remarks to journalists about Clinton's US presidential bid, said Canadian reports.
The offhand comments apparently sought to downplay the potential impact on Canada of Clinton and Obama's attacks on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during stops in the US state of Ohio.

Brodie told reporters that the Clinton campaign had called the Canadian embassy in Washington to tell officials to take her anti-NAFTA rhetoric "with a grain of salt," said local media.

It beggars belief that if this is true, and Hillary knew about it, she would have made such a big deal about the Goolsbee meeting. This is what she said just before the Ohio vote:

NAFTA--I don't just criticize it. I don't have my campaign go tell a foreign government behind closed doors, "That's just politics. Don't pay attention to it."
I thought this campaign had eroded my capacity to be surprised by politics. I was wrong.

Update:

The NYT says (after getting around to this in the story's eighth paragraph) that the Canadian official who mentioned the Clinton campaign's intervention was muddled--or created the appearance of being muddled. Or at least, I think that's what it says.

But The Canadian Press said that this year Mr. Brodie did more than talk up the budget. According to the news agency, he also told a group of CTV employees that the campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York had contacted the Canadian government and told it “not to worry” about her promise to reopen the trade agreement. Canada’s economy is heavily dependent on trade and most of its exports go to the United States, making Nafta a delicate issue.

The news agency suggests that CTV picked up on Mr. Brodie’s remarks and began reporting the story. It apparently found, however, that in fact it was the Obama campaign that had offered the reassurances to Canadian diplomats.

Further update:

Is this the last word on this bizarre tale? (Dumb question, no doubt.)

OTTAWA — 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.


Comments (16)

I hope she finally gets caught in an out-and-out lie and we just end this mess. This is a perfect summary of her character and why she is no better than Bush on that important issue.

Clearly, Obama needs to get his attack on the Clintonista slime machine into high gear. The stakes are high for the Democrats. I believe many will vote for Nader if Clinton pressures and slimes her way into the nomination.

I feel so discouraged that we are just back to clintonian politics. She has dragged him down to their level. I, like many who support Obama, have to seriously consider voting for McCain if Hilliary is the nominee. I am a white woman over 50 but that is no incentive for me to vote for her.

I'm not sure that Obama needs to overstate this, but I think its fair to raise the point, to invite the press to scrutinize Mrs Clinton with the same level of professionalism, and to point out that despite her claims of unfair coverage, she is actually getting favorable, if not lucky, treatment, as this example illustrates.

Apparently the Obama campaign feels that her past public praise for Nafta is enough to maker their case that she is a flip flopper.

I do think its fair game to expose her political opportunism.

For those who don't know it, the Obama campaign has a strong direct mail component, and tends to be more aggressive in direct mail pieces than in TV ads.

I, like many who support Obama, have to seriously consider voting for McCain if Hillary is the nominee.
One is always free to leave one's ballot unmarked for that particular office --an option that, for me, looms as a distinct possibility.

The NYT report differs from every Canadian news report I have read, and I have read a couple dozen of them the past two days.

None of the Canadian news reports asserts that CTV did investigation and found that it was really Obama and not Clinton. As far as I can tell, the NYT inserted that explanation with no evidence to back it up.

Not one Canadian newspaper or CBC or any other media has suggested that Ian Brodie got confused when he said Clinton's camp was the one that called the embassy. Unless and until some evidence is presented, my conclusion will be that the NYT made this up.

The bottom line is that Obama needs to push this issue. If not, no major US news outlet will investigate or even discuss it.

What the hell is he waiting for?????

This is Obama's swift boat test. He needs to pass it. That does not mean vicious personal attacks. It means forcing plitics onto a higher level.
Joe

Joe,

There was a story in the Globe & Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home that supports NY Times reporting.

You're right, however, that there doesn't seem to be any follow up (at least in US press) about whether Brodie was confused or if BOTH campaigns contacted Canadian officials to reassure them about their NAFTA stances.

My guess would be that both campaigns did say something along those lines but that for whatever reason the focus shifted to Obama. This puts him in a tough spot though - true he can point fingers at Clinton's tactics but then you're stuck with a lousy argument: "See! We're both hypocrites!"

The extraordinary challenge for Obama will be to rebut the negative attacks but do so in a way that doesn't undermine his call for a new kind of politics.

WHY did Hillary Clinton, with her brains and Bill's mega-Rolodex of Democrats all over the country, NOT contest the caucuses? WHY did Hillary not even try to organize her supporters to attend and win the Idaho and Nebraska and all other caucuses?

Even extreme hubris is not a workable explanation; wouldn’t the 'inevitable' candidate want to roll up big wins everywhere, to show her strength?

Instead of running a campaign designed to achieve a big, clean victory, she has run a campaign so incompetently that the only win available to her now is an ugly, divisive, guaranteed-to-lead-to Democratic-loss-in-the-fall, split-the-Democratic-party-for-a-generation bloody win.

Now, in the last couple of weeks, her strategy has become more obvious; she's running a campaign to elect McCain!

Her below-the-belt comments praising McCain's experience over Obama's and her disingenuous answer to the question about Obama's faith on 60 minutes now make sense. A very smart woman like Hillary should have been able to give a straightforward answer to a simple question about whether Obama is a Muslim; but instead, she weasled on the question and then whined about her own difficulties.

Hillary has been around long enough to know that respectable Democrats do not provide sound bites for the Republicans; it is fine to criticize Obama, but it is NOT acceptable to denigrate a Democrat in comparison to a Republican. Not amongst mature professionals, at least.

The only reasonable explanation remaining is that Hillary is working to elect McCain. She's just not honest enough to join the Republican Party and work openly toward her goal.

Hillary Clinton: Working for McCain's election since Day One!

I've gone from thinking I wouldn't vote if Clinton were nominated to thinking I'd vote for McCain if Clinton were nominated to thinking I'll actively campaign for McCain if Clinton were nominated.

The thought of 4 or 8 years of her brand of politics makes me nauseous.

I completely agree with you Maggie. Except I went from being ok with Clinton to getting nervous about the tactics she was using in South Carolina, to outright disgust with her and her campaign. I can tell you now, if Hillary wins the democratic nomination I will be voting Republican this November. I didn't feel that way before Hillary went on the attack recently.

The Globe and Mail story linked above does not say that CTV did research and found it was Obama, just that their report ended up focusing on Obama.

But today just an hour ago the Globe and Mail ran a story in which PM Harper says it was the Obama campaign and not Clinton that reassured Canada . . .

Harper is not to be trusted.

But the kicker here is Obama. I do recall that Clinton floundered for weeks and looked helpless, so a few days of floundering and looking helpless does not necessarily doom Obama. But with Clinton one could expect dirty tricks and an October surprise to turn the tide. Sadly, I don't see Obama finding a response................

wish it were otherwise.

He had his chance with NAFTA, but he just gave Harper the chance to close that door. If Obama went first, then Harper's comment today would be seen as defensive. Now that Harper has already spoken, it would seem that Obama would be calling him a liar if Obama's challenges Clinton on her words to Canada. . . .

Frankly, Samantha Powers comments on Iraq don't look so good, either.

Maybe McCain would end the war faster than either Obama or Clinton.

Dejectedly

Joe

This (the suggestion that the Clinton campaign may also have talked to the Canadians about Nafta) was part of the very first CTV report on the subject more than a week ago. The Clinton campaign immediately denied it and asked CTV to report the name of any person associated with their campaign who was discovered to have had conversations about Nafta with the Canadian government. No such person was found. But, further investigation did lead to the discovery of the name of the Obama advisor who spoke to the Canadian Ambassador and to the memo confirming that conversation.

The Obama campaign is, at this late date, just using that initial confusion about which campaign was actually involved to muddy the waters and soften the impact of their campaign's blunder.

Esmense, you have your facts a bit mixed up.

* The CTV story stated that the Clinton campaign had made "indirect contact" with the Canadian government to make let them know that the. There was no "may also have talked" reported by CTV.

* The fact that CTV has not revealed its source does not mean that "no such person was found". It just means that CTV has not revealed its source. Other Canadian media have reported that the source was Ian Brodie, of the Canadian Prime Minister's Office, and that Brodie was speaking about the Clinton campaign, not Obama's.

* "Further investigation" did not lead to the name of an Obama advisor who spoke to the Canadian Ambassador. There is no evidence that the Ambassador was contacted by the Obama campaign or who might have done so. Obama denied any such meeting or call and so have the Canadians.

* What was found was a memo of a meeting between the Canadian Consulate in Chicago and a member of Obama's campaign. The Consulate's staff wrote their impressions of what that advisor had to say, namely that they felt the Obama message on the campaign trail should be viewed as one of "political positioning". They have since backed away from what they wrote, stating that it may have been a mischaracterization.

The whole affair is a cock-up, on all sides. It would help if everyone would stick to facts, rather than inaccuracies, when attempting to criticize. There are more than enough negative truths to go around.

andreb wrote: "* The CTV story stated that the Clinton campaign had made "indirect contact" with the Canadian government to make let them know that the. There was no "may also have talked" reported by CTV.

That's what I get for posting while tired. I meant to write, "*The CTV story stated that the Clinton campaign had made "indirect contact" with the Canadian government to let them know that they support NAFTA, despite Clinton's words. There was no "may also have talked" reported by CTV."


Any who has read this far down the page should read this, about new developments in this story. Truly remarkable stuff.


Put your Nose to the Grindstone!
-- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ebloggy.com/sherritrujillojz

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.


Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.