Obama: Renegotiate NAFTA or OPT OUT ("Pssst---Canada, We're Not Serious")---CTV Sticks by Story [UPDATE UPDATED]

Posted by Damozel |  We've pointed out before that Obama has consistently misrepresented Hillary Clinton's stance on NAFTA.  And whether you think NAFTA is good or bad for you or the economy as a whole, surely you have the right to know where the person you're voting for stands on it.  I know where Hillary stands because I've taken the time to read her public statements.  But how about Barack Obama?  Where does he stand on NAFTA?

Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned....Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."...   (CTV)

BWAH-HAHAHHAHAHAHA!  Sorry.  That just slipped out. 

But that IS coming out in the open a bit, isn't it?

A 'spokesman' for the campaign said this sounded 'implausible,' but didn't deny it.   And---based on the way Obama's supporters reacted to the Clinton campaign's determined silence respecting 'photo-gate'---I am assuming that Obama's supporters will concede that his campaign's non-denial on this point is equivalent to an admission.  Right?

So...was his staff member lying to the Canadian government or was Obama lying to the voters of Ohio?

Yet another spokesperson---presumably a different one---says not.

"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," [a] spokesperson said.

Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.

During Tuesday's debate, she said that as president she would opt out of NAFTA "unless we renegotiate it."(CTV)

Susan UnPC has much, much more.  She says

Imagine that YOU are one of those union members or factory workers whose jobs have gone overseas. Imagine that you’re hanging on to Barack Obama’s “rhetoric” about NAFTA. Imagine how you’ll feel when you find out that — wink, wink — it was just campaign talk. 

I’d be heartbroken.  I would feel utterly betrayed.(SusanUnPC)

Again:  even if you think voters in Ohio should realize that people elsewhere in the US and the US economy as a whole have benefited from NAFTA, and stop their whining, they have the right to feel differently about the loss of their jobs, homes, medical insurance, and college tuition funds.  And those who vote for Obama have the right to expect him to mean what he says or to say what he means. 

It's one thing for a politician to say what he thinks voters want to hear; but it's ratcheting misrepresentation up a notch or two to come right up and assure other that he didn't mean a word of it.

UPDATE:  Ben Smith at The Politico has one official's word that this never happened in a post called "Canadians Deny Obama's Call."

Marc Ambinder comments:

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...

Taylor Marsh (because 'partisan' doesn't mean 'wrong,' people) writes:

I called CTV to verify the story, especially given the Obama campaign's cries that it's "inaccurate." After asking Greg McIsaac of CTV if they were sticking by their story, he quickly called me back with verification. The facts of our story are accurate.

Then why are the traditional media and Obama blogs pushing Obama's side of the story that the   CTV story is "innacurate?"   That an embassy   spokesperson alone proves the reporting is wrong? Back channels exist, which   means skepticism should apply, especially with CTV standing by the facts of   their story....

Will the journalistic stenography on behalf of Mr. Obama ever end?

Memeorandum has more.

RELATED POSTINGS

RNC Tells Tenn. GOP to Cease 'Barack HUSSEIN Obama' Riff

The Intermittent Grace and Chivalry of John McCain, Intermittent 'Class Act'

MSNBC's Bizarre Debate Coverage 

A Hillary Supporter Considers Photo-Gate* 

Penn. Governor Notices Media Bias Toward Obama (or Against Clinton) 

Obama Pulls a "Rove" on NAFTA?

Comments

[Adam]

I am a little bit leery of posting on this, because this blog is generally more about the meta-political debate than the nitty gritty of the issues. But here I go.

- NAFTA has been a net boon to the US economy. There are winners and losers in free trade, for sure, but NAFTA has brought more winners than losers in the USA.

It's more than fair to raise issues about whether the growth is going more to the rich than the poor. To that I have two responses:
1) Every serious economic study that has been done on free trade has shown that the growth it produces is generally neither progressive nor regressive in total. Certainly, some working poor and working lower middle class employees lose jobs, but others gain them. The effects can be crippling to some localities, but enormous boons to other localities. (If you have seen a study that contradicts this, let me know.)
2) Even if this were not true, the issue should be economic equity and tax fairness, not free trade. If the overall economy grows, then a sufficiently progressive tax code should ensure that that who get the lion's share of the growth support social justice for the rest of society. In short, more tax income drawn from rich people can help fund health care coverage and college credits for the working poor.

- Ohio's (and Michigan, Western Pennsylvania, Indiana, upstate NY, et al) economy has done pretty well overall in the years since NAFTA. Most of the decline can be explained by:
1) Brain drain to other states, which has nothing to do with NAFTA, and
2) The various mistakes and crises of GM, Ford, and Chrysler, which also have very little to do with NAFTA.

- I think Clinton AND Obama are BOTH, essentially, blowing hot air on this one, and I'm glad about it. I think both of them would make good on the promise to renegotiate NAFTA if they get elected, but the changes won't exactly be dramatic. Besides, it's not as if Canada's labor and environmental standards are so much worse than our own. Mexico has some labor issues, but it's not Indonesia.

- Finally, and by far most importantly, NAFTA is small potatoes. The only reason this is getting play is because the labor unions educated a lot of people in Ohio about NAFTA, so they know what it is and blame it for a lot of bad things.

The real issue is how a new-and-improved USA will act towards the WTO. If the USA joins forces with the EU to negotiate labor and environmental standards that can be enforced worldwide, that will have a drastically greater impact than any change to NAFTA ever would.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

I don't understand what you mean about our blog's being focused on the "meta" political debate more than issues.

We've fairly extensively covered issues like Justice Department politicization, economic stuff, torture, some corporate crime, FISA, government contractor fraud.... Do you not consider those substantive issues?

Our topics page has more: http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/bnpolitics-topics.html

As for NAFTA, Damozel has very strong thoughts on the issue, because her South Carolina mill-town suffered terribly due to NAFTA. You will find, as I have, that some people argue for it and others argue against it.

Damozel's main point in this post was that IF (and it's still an IF) Obama misled the Ohio debate-audience about his stance on NAFTA, then it would pose a credibility (i.e., veracity) issue that our media should probe until they have answers.

How are you, btw?

[Adam]

I'm doing well, thanks for asking. Spring is coming to Colorado and the high snowpack may mean an end to the drought.

I suppose you're right about the serious issues covered here, DCupples, and I apologize for characterizing the blog as focussed on the meta-political discourse. I suppose *I* have commented more on the meta-politics, so... it's not you, it's me.

I agree that if Obama and/or Clinton are blowing smoke on this issue it does paint them as, well, typical politicians who will say what they need to get elected. But now it appears there are conflicting stories about "assurances-gate".

I could easily imgine that this was a conversation that could be interpreted more than one way. My guess is that someone in Obama's campaign may have said to a Canadian official something to the effect of, "don't worry, Canada should have no problems conforming to the standards that Obama wants tp add to NAFTA", which, depending on your point of view, is or is not a contradiction with Obama's statements at the debate.

I'm a free trade guy, and I think that Clinton and Obama are both, basically, pro-free trade. I take them at face value that they want to enforce more labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. The battleground for those changes will not be NAFTA, but the WTO.