Memo Gives Canada’s Account of Obama Campaign’s Meeting on Nafta

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: Memo Gives Canada’s Account of Obama Campaign’s Meeting on Nafta
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: March 4, 2008

The denials were sweeping when Senator Barack Obama’s campaign mobilized last week to refute a report that a senior official had given back-channel reassurances to Canada soft-pedaling Mr. Obama’s tough talk on Nafta. While campaigning in Ohio, Mr. Obama has harshly criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement, which many Ohioans blame for an exodus of jobs. He agreed last week at a debate with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that the United States should consider leaving the pact if it could not be renegotiated.

On Monday, a memorandum surfaced, obtained by The Associated Press, showing that Austan D. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who is Mr. Obama’s senior economic policy adviser, met officials last month at the Canadian consulate in Chicago. According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.” It also said the professor had assured the Canadians that Mr. Obama’s language “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”

Campaign officials said the memorandum inaccurately described Professor Goolsbee’s comments, as well as Mr. Obama’s position. “At no point did anyone in our campaign convey to anyone that there had been any backing away from Obama’s position on Nafta,” a campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, said Monday. Mr. De Mora did not respond to requests for an interview, nor did Professor Goolsbee, who campaign officials said was unavailable for comment.

Nevertheless, the controversy, which drew fierce attacks from Mrs. Clinton and Senator John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, put Mr. Obama’s campaign on the defensive at a crucial moment....The memorandum exposed Mr. Obama to accusations of hypocrisy on a touchstone issue, although Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have engaged in posturing on Nafta as they scrapped for votes in Ohio. The two have used language that has been much more hostile in tone on free trade than the nuanced positions that they had staked out in the past.

The memorandum raises questions about the transparency and the ability of the campaign to address problems before they grow....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04nafta.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

[Dhalgren]

1. Man, feet of clay suck...

Obama has got to deal with this better than he has so far. This fall is going to be extremely ugly and Obama has to do better than this...

[papau]

2. But But - - Team Obama says this was debunked - the Canadian consular officer lies?

[antigop]

3. "Clinton now trying to pretend she never really supported NAFTA is really stunning."

http://www.politicswest.com/20681/did_clinton_explicitly_support_nafta

However you feel about NAFTA - and if you are a typical American, polls show you likely do not like it - Clinton now trying to pretend she never really supported NAFTA is really stunning

http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/a-trade-transformation.html

During Clinton's 1996 visit to Texas, United Press International reported that she "touted the president's support for NAFTA." In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband's "successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA." The Buffalo News reports that in 1998 she "praised corporations for mounting 'a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.'" And last year, her lead Wall Street fundraiser told reporters that Clinton remains "committed" to NAFTA's "free" trade structure.

Clinton's attempt to hide this history emulates a principle pioneered by George W. Bush in this, the age of stenographic journalism. As he made his unsubstantiated case for war, Bush proved that the media are willing to present politicians' lies as fact. Clinton simply figures that if she says she has "long been a critic" of NAFTA, then the assertion will be transcribed as truth.

That said, her U-turn is about more than dishonesty — it is about the public will.

Back when Clinton was the Democrats' presumptive nominee, she wasn't saying much about trade. And in amassing her much-vaunted "experience" in Congress, she never led a fight to reform NAFTA. But now that she is in a competitive nomination contest, Clinton has to try to make her record palatable to voters rather than to corporate lobbyists — and that means reflecting America's understandable anger.

Just more hypocrisy from Madame Windsock.