Over the past few days there has been an ongoing flap regarding remarks about NAFTA allegedly made to the Canadian government by the Obama campaign. The story was that an Obama staffer had reassured the Canadians that Obama didn’t mean what he said about NAFTA. This story was pushed hard by the Clinton campaign even after the Canadian government denied it, andit may have played a role in Clinton’s recent win in Ohio.
Well, folks, guess what? The Globe and Mail says that it was the Clinton campaign that reassured the Canadians about NAFTA. The issue first came up in comments by PM Harper’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie.
At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio’s anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.
Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton’s musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.
Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.
“Quite a few people heard it,” said one source in the room.
“He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton’s campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry.”
Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.
Mysteriously, the allegation about Clinton changed to an allegation about Obama somewhere between Ottawa and the CTV’s Washington Bureau.
Gracious, will Senator Clinton’s face turn maple leaf red?
The Clinton’s have been waving as “proof” a leaked memo written by a Canadian diplomat claiming that Obama economic adviser Austan Goulsbee had given reassurances about NAFTA during a conversation at the Canadian consulate in Chicago. The Obama campaign has said the diplomat misrepresented by Goulsbee said.
See also Steve Benen, Liza, Eric Kleefeld at TPM, publius, and Josh.
David Sirota has more on what he calls the “Clinton-Lieberman Connection“:
Confusion and misinformation are two of the most powerful weapons in a desperate politician’s arsenal. They were used by Joe Lieberman in the 2006 general election against Ned Lamont, and exit polls suggest that they helped Hillary Clinton blast her way through yesterday’s primary in Ohio.
Over the last few weeks, Clinton has been telling Ohio voters she never supported the North American Free Trade Agreement – an agreement that has become a symbol of corrupt economic policies to many working-class voters. Clinton has made these claims expecting everyone to forget her speeches over the last decade trumpeting NAFTA as a great success.
Her direct quotes praising NAFTA repeatedly are not up for interpretation – and neither are her absurd claims to “have been against NAFTA from the beginning.” We’re talking about pure, unadulterated lying here – and lying with a purpose: To confuse enough voters into thinking she actually did oppose NAFTA and that her strong support for NAFTA is somehow the same as Barack Obama’s longtime opposition to the pact.
Are you taking notes, Pennsylvania? Or are you going to be snookered the way Ohio was?
Pam of the House Blend says she is encountering increasing numbers of Clinton supporters who say they will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee. In fact, they plan to vote for McCain, she says. This is the reverse of a charge aimed at Obama supporters a few weeks ago — that we were “losers” who didn’t understand political reality and would not support Clinton if she were the nominee. Rich, huh?
At the Washington Post, Adele M. Stan objects to this column by Linda Hirshman. Stan writes,
Hirshman … makes her claims as a feminist, and then tars fellow feminists — those who vote differently than her — with the right’s “liberal elitist” brush. For flourish, she uses the sexist technique of ridiculing two women prominent in the Obama campaign by focusing only on their physical attributes. (Maria Shriver is reduced to a description of her hair, while Michelle Obama is mentioned in the context of her fashionable shoes.)
Feminists who support Obama, Hirshman writes, care little for the working-class woman. Their votes reflect nothing more than a “turn to solidarity with their own class.” The same goes for college-educated women of all stripes who support Obama, all of whom are presumed, in Hirshman’s argument, to be well-off, be they social workers or administrative assistants. If we cared for the working-class woman, she says, we would vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton because she was the first of the two to offer a paid family leave proposal and proposes a “slightly more generous” health plan than does Obama. If we vote on the basis of, say, something as esoteric as foreign policy, we’re being elitist, because presumably everybody knows that foreign policy has no bearing on the life of the working-class woman.
Um, whose children are being sent to Iraq, again?
I wonder about some of these “feminists” who insist we judge Senator Clinton as Prototype of All Women and not on her record or opinions or how she conducts herself. Being judged as individuals, on what we do instead of on our physical attributes, used to be the feminist ideal.
Also in WaPo, Ayelet Waldman writes,
I’m a longtime Barack Obama supporter, not because I’m a snob in thrall to his sex appeal, but because I’m heartily sick of candidates who preach populism while accepting donations from PACs and corporate lobbyists. Obama has amassed an astonishing war chest from over one million individual donors, many of whom gave small contributions. Clinton, meanwhile, held a “Rural Americans for Hillary” fundraiser at the offices of Troutman Sanders Public Affairs — the Washington lobbying firm that represents Monsanto. More like “Rural, Multinational Agribusiness for Hillary.”
There’s more; highly recommended reading.
Update: See also the BooMan, especially the second half of the post.
Update 2: Keith Olbermann is highlighting this.
And the beat goes on, Maha, on and on and on. Lots of powerful info in your article and I have a terrible feeling that you’ll continue to have ‘powerful’ info to pass on to us from now until H. drops out, is kicked out, is indicted (there must be something)…
That said, Ms Hirshman apparently is unaware that when Bill was having all his zipper trouble, Hillary, short of calling his conquests – or victims – trailer trash, labeled them “crazy, stupid, vindictive or just plain liars.” In fact, according to her biographers if Bill’s women had been of Hillary’s ‘class’ she would have divorced him.
I am Democrat, have been for a long time. I’m not saying who I prefer to be the Democratic candidate because at this point the only thing that matters to me is that John McCain not become president. I will vote for whoever is the Democratic candidate because that is the only way to prevent John McCain from winning. Any Democrat who would vote for McCain to spite the Democratic candidate will ultimately only spite the country and stick with a continuation of the Bush administration.
Clinton supporters who plan on voting for McCain if she loses are essentially republicans who prefer phoney-baloney democrats(like Joe Lieberman?), but possibly have an image problem with seeing themselves as republicans proper– and presumably, prefer phoney-baloney faux-democratic politics over real democratic policy-making.
PurpleGirl is right. Is 100 years of Iraqi occupation better than sucking it up?
Maha,
One quick correction. Our prime minister, much as I hate him, is named HARPER, not Harder.
I have more to say, but no time now.
To be fair, there seem to be a number of Obama supporters who would stay home if Hillary gets it … I’ve not heard any say they’d vote for McCain, but a democratic voter staying home is essentially half a vote for McCain.
I’m just hoping this is all heat-of-the-moment stuff, and we can al get together after the nominee is named and agree that McCain must not be allowed to reign…
-me
Has anybody heard about this in the MSM? I haven’t.
The “leak” is making the headlines in Canada. Many people are saying that it was intentional on the part of the Harper government: our current (minority) government is mightily right-wing–at least by Canadian standards and Harper is definitely more a fan of the Republicans than the Democrats. If he can help his buddies out by smearing the Dems, then hey, why not?
This being said, I think both Hillary and Obama are playing the populist, demagogue card with their criticism of NAFTA. The left in Canada was very against it from the start. Although there are studies that show that it has been economically good for Canada (or at least the moneyed elite), we worry about a) our health care system being subject to lawsuits by American companies b) our cultural industries and c) the fact that we cannot stop the oil from flowing to the US, no matter what you (the US) do.
Blaming job losses in the US on Canada is a total joke. As the right keeps reminding everyone, we in Canada have got higher taxes, better, and therefore more expensive, social programs (maternity leave, universal health care, etc.). We are on the same side when it comes to job losses: on the other side is China. That’s where products are produced at a fraction of the price we North-Americans can make them at, where environmental controls are non-existent, where labour laws (if they exist) are laughable, etc. etc.
Although I sincerely hope the Dems win the White House, I am disappointed that “Blame Canada” has become more than a silly song on South Park.
So Clinton supporters would vote for the war monger McCain. I guess that shows where Hillary and her supporters really stand on the wars. Of course, Obama could get Hillary on the ticket as his running mate and solve the problem.
As for American job losses to Canada. Despite the higher tax rates, companies find the reduced burden of providing health care to their employees a big plus. So companies like GM actually move production across the border to avoid the health care burden.
It’s amazing we do not consider the implications of not having universal health care on the competiveness of our industries relative to those countries which do have it. Guess thats why we have lost 8 million manufacturing jobs over the years.
However, once Canada becomes a member of the NAU, socialized health care will be a thing of the past for you. It just does not fit with the neoliberal economics agenda which is to privatize those industries that are profitable, like insurance for the young and healthy adults, and socialize the health care for those elements insurance companies do not find it profitable to insure, like the elderly, poor and disabled. For those without insurance, no fear, once you get sick and end up on welfare or medicare, then you can get socialized health care.
This has been debunked, hope you have the integrity to report that on your site, especially if you’re going to be bashing the MSM.
gggchapelhill — last update here. And I wouldn’t call it “debunked.”