An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« “Deficit Hawk” Voinovich Wants to Amend Federal Budget Process

Audio: BBC speaks w/TMV blogger re: impact of Samantha Power incident »

Canadian Prime Minister’s Office Says Clinton Campaign Didn’t Give Private Assurances On NAFTA

Posted by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief in Politics.
Mar 7th, 2008 | Comments

The see-saw narrative continues in Canada with possible continued implications to the political campaign here: the Canadian Prime Minister’s office now insists the Clinton campaign didn’t give any private assurances on NAFTA, and it only came from the Obama camp:

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.

The so-called NAFTA-gate affair took a bizarre twist this week that threatened to ensnare Ms. Clinton after having already damaged Mr. Obama at a critical phase of the U.S. election.

We ran THIS POST that detailed reports of comments from one of the Prime Minister’s top aides that in reality it had been the Clinton campaign that had given the assurances. So now there’s the PM’s aide versus the PM’s spokesman.

And each camp — Obama and Clinton — can now pick the version to believe, according to their political bias.

David Kurtz writes at TPM Election Central:

I’m starting to think that covering American politics is far easier than covering Canadian politics. But trying to cover the interplay between them both? A challenge of an entirely different magnitude. This NAFTA story offers no easy answers, no obvious heroes, and a passel of possible villains pointing their fingers at each other.

But one thing is certain: the timing of the report — coming right before the Ohio primary — seemed a bit smelly.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

elrod

Joe,
I don't think the Canadian PMO is still insisting the wink-wink comments came from the Obama camp either. The title of the article says only Obama offered a "briefing," which refers to the Goulsbee memo. But the Canadians have already acknowledged that they completely mischaracterized Obama's and Goulsbee' s position. You might want to mention that in your original post, which now says, "the Canadian Prime Minister’s office now insists the Clinton campaign didn’t give any private assurances on NAFTA, and it only came from the Obama camp." In fact, the Canadian PMO seems to be insisting now that private assurance came from no camp.

Cupples

Joe,

Is it really as clear cut as the PM's aide v. the PM's spokesperson? Brodie didn't make a definitive statement that HE (first hand) had talked with a Clinton Campaign person. Below are a two paragraphs from the article you're referencing:

"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."

In other words, Brodie was stating second, third (or maybe tenth) hand that someone from Clinton's campaign had called the EMBASSY.

Still, we have a problem. The Canadian gov hasn't yet provided a memo (and there should be one if Clinton's surrogate talked with diplomatic staff, which routinely memorializes such conversations). Clinton publicly gave her permission for the Canadian government to publicly share any such memo, if it exists.

There IS a memo summarizing the conversation with Goolsbee -- though the accuracy is questionable. Inaccurate or not, before the memo came out, some people in Obama's campaign (NOT Obama) DENIED that the Goolsbee conversation had even taken place or (if it had taken place) that NAFTA had not come up.

The memo (and Gooslbee's response to it) indicates that even if the Canadian staffer got some of the meat wrong, a conversation DID take place and NAFTA did come up.

If the Canadians find a memo showing that Hillary had nudged and winked and deceived American voters about her NAFTA stance, I'll be front and center with the criticism -- not making excuses for the candidate's misleading double talk.

Cupples

Elrod,

the Canadian gov loves NAFTA, and it's scared senseless over the prospect of having greatly upset a possible U.S. president who might later try to re-negotiate NAFTA.

What that government did was careless (even stupid). It should never have let the Goolsbee memo float around, knowing that it could be damaging to a U.S. candidate.

In which article are Canadian officials quoted as stating that the consulate staffer had "completely mischaracterized" Goolsbee's end of the conversation? And which article cites the Canadian government's saying that neither candidate offered reassurance over NAFTA?

Cupples

Elrod,

I re-read the article that Joe's post cites. It says this about mis-characterization of Goolsbee's conversation:

"Mr. Goolsbee insists the Canadian memo mischaracterized his position."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RT...

That's NOT the same as the Canadian government saying that the conversation was mis-characterized. I might have missed a more recent article. If you have one in mind, please share the link so that I'll be better informed.

casualobserver

"But one thing is certain: the timing of the report — coming right before the Ohio primary — seemed a bit smelly."

Since the candidates made NAFTA an Ohio issue prior to Naftaquiddick, you may speculate it was smelly, but it seems to me to be rather relevant timing. Why should they be afraid of the issue? Why should they deny/hedge/manipulate on their positions. Why couldn't Obama have taken 5 minutes, asked Goolsbee what he said, and then respond factually to the press along with a clear reiteration of his NAFTA position.

If there is doubt as to what his position is, why can't he just say it again himself.

This constant drip, drip, drip is going to take its toll.

blog comments powered by Disqus