How Clinton Camp NAFTA Deception Swung Ohio Election
Submitted by: carol white on Thu, 03/06/2008 - 07:33
tags:
Set Up Buzz!
An investigation begun by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, reveals the startling information that it was the Clinton campaign that first contacted the Canadian government to "tell them not to worry because Hillary Clintons attacks on the NAFTA were mostly political posturing." And this is only the beginning of a story that not only calls into question Senator Clinton's victory in the Ohio elections, but underscores the ugliness of her smear campaign against Barack Obama.
A story by Campbell Clark in today's Globe and Mail reveals an intricate series of events, that apparently started with a remark by Harper's Chief of Staff, Ian Brodie during a Feb. 26 budget hearing.
Note Brodie is quoted here indicating that it was THE CLINTON CAMP who had contacted the Canadians to give assurances that her attacks on NAFTA were mostly "political posturing" and should be taken with a "grain of salt."
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 Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.
The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."
Now the plot thickens.
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.
There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, declined to comment.
...snip...
Although Mr. Harper has for days brushed aside allegations that his government interfered in the U.S. presidential campaign, yesterday he promised to "get to the bottom" of the matter and said laws may have been broken.
"It is not in the interest of the Government of Canada, and the way the leak was executed, Mr. Speaker, was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign," the Prime Minister said in the Commons.
Not only did the press put the words of Clinton representatives into the mouth of an advisor to Obama, but then Hillary Clinton made this the basis of a smear campaign against Obama. This is reminiscent of how draft dodger George Bush used the Swift Boat campaign to lie about John Kerry's war record. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about how the leak concerning statements by the Clinton campaign to the Canadian government was suppressed and re-released as a leak from unnamed sources slandering Barack Obama.
Set Up Buzz!
»
- carol white's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Those are some very strong conclusions
to draw from a developing investigation and story. We have an unnamed source providing an account while the Canadian government reports they are investigating the leak. But the Globe and Mail was not the first member of the Canadian press to suggest Clinton's campaign contacted Canadian officials. CTV reported the following on Feb. 27:
I believe this was the initial report from CTV where they first reported on the Obama campaign's contact too. From the same piece:
The Obama campaign offered a strong denial after CTV made their report. Then a memo contradicting the denial was made public. Clinton's campaign denied the report immediately and that is now being contradicted by an unnamed source. I think the best approach is to wait for something more conclusive to come out from the press or the Canadian investigation before adding more to the story than can be established at this time.
Well I certainly will try to stay on top of the story
Thanks for the information.
In earlier reports that I read, which were about the the discussion between Goolsbee's, who is an Obama's advisor and Canada's consul-general in Chicago, Georges Rioux, it was stated that Rioux and Goolsbee both said that the memo which the Clinton campaign used as the basis for their allegations, was not an accurate account of their discussion.
Hillary Clinton referred to the incident in speeches and the advertisement was released under her imprimature. I think in itself this was reprehensible.
Since their is now an official Canadian government investigation of the leak we should be learning more about the circumstances.
Back to the facts
The memo was obtained and reported by the Associated Press, which is what the press should be doing in a covering a campaign. It was not reported as a transcript but as:
The AP also spoke with Goolsbee and reported his disagreement with portions of the interpretation of the discussions. A full copy of the memo can be found at at Slate. The most recent piece from the AP can be found here as well as their first report and follow up the same day.
But let's be honest about the situation. This is an election where two politicians are running for the office of the President of the United States. Things are going to be used by one campaign against the other when the opportunity presents itself. They are both politicians. Each one has gone negative on the other in ads, mailers and comments. Neither is an innocent party and any suggestion to the contrary is silly. Elections are won and lost by people making mistakes that can be capitalized on by the other party. This is nothing new.
I read your links including the Slate story
I think the latest AP statement is the authoritative one at the moment. To me it sounds like both candidates may have given some kind of assurances to the Canadians that they did not intend to institute a protectionist policy. On the face of it that either candidate was talking about of both sides of his or her mouth on the issue of NAFTA. I heard Obama say similar things in his debates with Clinton--ie that he supported free trade but wanted to ensure quality controls on products, labor and environmental protections. He also has endorsed giving favored tax status to companies that produce the goods they sell in the United States.
What is objectionable is the Clinton camp using the memo that circulated to smear Obama, even though she would have known that what she said and what he said were most likely quite similar.
I don't see any reason to excuse the kind of sewer politics that we all criticize when it is the Republicans who are responsible, while condoning the same kind of smear campaign coming from a Democratic candidate. If we are going to change things in Washington, then we should start now by setting a higher standard in the election campaign. In my book, everyone does it so what's the fuss is a poor argument.
Quote of the day today ...
The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'.
- Larry Hardiman
-----
ePMedia ... get the scoop with us!
If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little. ~ George Carlin
Carol?
You are conflating a character smear with criticism of the actions of Obama's campaign. Don't forget that Obama's campaign denied any contact with the Canadian government a couple of times and it was certainly shown to be false. The memo that came out not only showed that Goolsbee had met with the Canadians but also clearly indicated that what the campaign was saying to voters should not necessarily be taken as a "clear articulation of policy plans." Like it or not, that is perfect fodder for a political opponent to use as a criticism. But it is hardly a smear or sewer politics. It will get much worse in the general election.
And again, lets at least try to be somewhat honest here in our postings on this site. The fact is both candidates have engaged in stretching the truth about themselves, their opponents and will probably continue to do so until we have a clear winner. Glass houses are shattered too easily.
Obama's mailer in Ohio about Clinton's statement on NAFTA was called misleading. How about attacking character in January?
Or we can go back to October:
If you want to support and voter for Obama, fine. But can we at least agree to some ground rules for posting here that include sticking to intellectual honesty instead of biased, emotional rantings?
One more thing
The Clinton campaign has denied contact with the Canadians from the beginning and continues to do so as late as this evening. The latest report from the AP also has Ian Brodie back walking on his statement that was alleged by the unnamed source. I don't know what to be the case or not here. I do know that so far no one has come forth yet with a document or on the record with anything credible that will contradict the Clinton denial. I would not be surprised if something does come out in the future that shows otherwise because this is politics.