Rational clarification needed (NAFTA): We now know that the Clinton told Canada not to worry.

[Buzz Clik]

She assured the Canadian government that her comments would simply be campaign rhetoric. This is huge news considering the viciousness with which they attacked Obama when the same claim was being made against him.

So, Clinton definitely told Canada that any anti-NAFTA comments she would make were pure politics and that they could ignore them.

Here's my question: Obama denied that charges, though not unequivocally. The aide who supposedly talked to the Canadians did deny it flatlly. So ... did the Obama campaign talk to the Canadians, or didn't they?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. How do we know that? What's the name of the Clinton person involved?

[Buzz Clik]

3. Ok -- we'll put you down as "I don't know." That's two of us.

[anamandujano]

21. We don't know when you stopped beating your spouse either.

[Nine]

8. We know it because the Obama supporters say it happened.

What, that isn't enough for you?

[Buzz Clik]

10. Thank you, Mr./Ms 97 posts. I'll weigh your comment against your vast DU experience.

[Nine]

13. And the fact that I have 97 posts proves your charge against Hillary?

The political world does not revolve around DU. There's actually a whole world outside the Internet. I'll bet you I've done more for this Party than you have.

[Buzz Clik]

14. Your 97 posts simply means one of a few things:

1) You're simply here to disrupt, visiting from another board
2) You're a short-termer with a singular agenda
3) You've been banned before and this is your new sock puppet

Regardless, your snotty remark didn't sit well with me. I tend not to take any shit from anyone. :shrug:

[CherokeeDem]

20. Hey....

I have only 160+ posts but have been guest at DU since 2001 and a member since 2004. I have a busy job and don't have the opportunity to post very often. While it is certainly true that there are disruptors to this board, not everyone with a low post is out to disrupt. Some may not agree with you but that doesn't mean they are wrong or right. For the record, I have over 30 years of experience as a Democratic Activist, have served as president of a huge Democratic Club, and have been a spokesperson for the Presidential nominees in my area in past campaigns. So don't just judge by posts numbers or if the poster purports a differing view...but how they behave. Even high posters are not immune to disrupt or bad behavior.

[Nine]

27. I suppose it's disruptive to ask for evidence of your phony accusation.

If you've found a single disruptive post of mine, report it. I've been more civil than 99% of the posters I see around here. I think your personal attack and accusation against me is what's disruptive. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for proof on your accusation against Clinton. You certainly seem to throw accusations around easily. Ever hear the one about now bearing false witness?

[DURHAM D]

2. You are in a two day old news cycle.

Try again. KO lied.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Hm. I've seen your rabid pro-Hillary posts. I'll wait for my requisite rational answer.

(If you can demonstrate to me that Olbermann lied, I'd love to see it.)

[DURHAM D]

11. Its everywhere honey. read up eom

[anamandujano]

22. It's a more comfortable space for them. Funny!

[joeybee12]

4. Amazing...you just can't admit that BO lied and it came out that

they actually did meet...give me names, dates, and more than just wishful thinking by the cult.

[Buzz Clik]

7. My goodness. That's the third pro-Hillary screed in a row.

and I'm still looking for a rational answer.

[cui bono]

6. That's what I heard. But a link would be good.

[Buzz Clik]

9. This all stinks of the Swiftboating of John Kerry. George the chickenshitted attacks Kerry's service

It appears that Clinton has attacked Obama for something that either both of them did (at best) or that she did all by her lonesome.

Either way, it sucks.

[NashVegas]

24. Yeah, Something With a Name of Someone In Her Campaign

Who would have been authorized to make such a call. That would be a good place to start.

[carlotta]

12. No, we don't know that

2 weeks have passed since this thing blew up and there is not one tiny shred of evidence that anyone in the Clinton campaign engaged in this. Nothing.

We do know for certain that Obama's chief Economic Advisor did attend such a meeting.

You guys who keep pushing this are thick beyond belief.

[Buzz Clik]

15. I'm "thick".

Ah. I ask a simple question, and you come back with the insults.

So Clintonesque.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Nevermind, people. I have no desire to get into yet another shit-fling with Clinton worshippers.

I withdraw the question.

[anamandujano]

23. Too bad the rabid herd of the BO cult is on a coffee break.

They could have helped you with your crap.

[Spazito]

17. There were two separate incidents....

First, timeline wise, the Prime Minister of Canada's Chief of Staff, while in the press lockup room, just prior to the release of the government's budget, stated the following in response to reporters' questions on the US candidates' positions on NAFTA as iterated during the debate:

snip

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 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."

end of snip


The CTV network, instead of reporting this incident by the Clinton campaign, reported as if it was contact by the Obama campaign:

"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."

Link to the above quotes:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/BNStory/National/home

The other and totally separate incident was, at the invitation of the Canadian Consulate in Chicago, Mr. Goolsbee attended a 40 minute tour of the Consulate and met with Canadian Consul General Georges Rioux where they discussed multiple issues including trade. A low-level staffer, Joseph DeMora, sent out a memo detailing his subjective opinion of the discussions that ensued, not with him but with the Consul General. After the memo became public, the following statement by the Consulate was issued:

"In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

Link to the above quote:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/03/obama-canada.html?ref=rss

There has been much, imo, misinformation, deliberate and otherwise, on these two separate incidents with many mixing up the two with only bits and pieces of the facts involved.


I hope this helps answer your question.

[Buzz Clik]

29. Many, many thanks

[woolldog]

18. From what I understand

there was a lower level meeting (at the Canadians repeated request) between Goolsby and a member of the Canadian consulate on Febraury 9, 2008. They talked about several topics including NAFTA. Goolsby disputes the accuracy of the summary contained in the infamous memo.

[casus belli]

19. Yes, Goolsbee did have a conversation with the Canadians.

And the controversy surrounding all of this was the result of a mischaracterization of his comments on the Canadian side - a characterization which the Canadian Embassy has since apologized for.

Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008 — The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.

http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/menu-en.asp?lang_update=1

[NashVegas]

25. So.

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Goolsbee disputed the characterization from the conservative government official.

"This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me.

"I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," he said.

....

Goolsbee "was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," the memo's introduction said. "On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Obama's position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrFPkleRZmbmPtPxHBGNAPSzfUtwD8V658RO0

Here's the orgininal memo. Not paragraphs 4 and 7

http://www.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/20070303canmemo.pdf

[anigbrowl]

26. There is going to be an official investigation in canada

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/310350

A 'privy council clerk' is kind of like a special prosecutor here.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. New Story: "Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about NAFTA"

Here's the http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home from the Canadian Press:

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.

That response will come as a relief to the Clinton campaign, which has angrily denied that it has engaged in the kind of double-talking hypocrisy of which it accuses Mr. Obama.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182292.php

[Buzz Clik]

30. So, the Canadians have now denied meeting with both and said they've met with both.

Fascinating.

One can take two impressions from this merry-go-round:

1. The Canadians are caught in the middle and are looking for a way out.
2. The Canadians are intentionally causing problems in our election.

At this point, only one thing is clear: Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA before and still does.

[Buzz Clik]

31. Your same article clears Obama AND implicates Clinton ... and then doesn't implicate Clinton:

Why did you cherry pick that article you posted?

The revelations about Mr. Brodie's conversation with CTV have left a key unanswered question that holds some implications for the U.S. election.

Sources who overheard that conversation say he specifically mentioned that Canadian diplomats did get assurances from the Clinton camp — and he never raised Mr. Obama's name.

That begs the question: why was Ms. Clinton's name raised at all?

Mr. Brodie does not deny downplaying the Democrats' anti-NAFTA rhetoric in a conversation with CTV, but he says he cannot recall mentioning any specific presidential candidate.

Ms. Clinton's team reacted furiously to the Brodie story and offered the Canadian government "blanket immunity" to publicly release the name of any campaign official who might have offered such back-channel assurances.

Christ. What a mess.

My guess is that Brodie was trying to upset the apple cart but got his facts totally ass-backwards. The Canadian government is now trying to get out of the mess gracefully.