Editor’s note: A controversy raged yesterday in the blogosophere (but not as much in the mainstream news media) over a Canadian news report involving Democratic Senator Barack Obama, his position on NAFTA and what his camp might or might have not privately told the Canadian government. Weblogs in many cases took predictable partisan positions. In this Guest Post blogger Kathy Kattenburg looks at the new media/political furor surrounding the story. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.
Obama, NAFTA, Canada And The Blogosphere
by Kathy Kattenburg
Yesterday, a new controversy blew up over a report by Canadian CTV alleging that an Obama campaign staffer had contacted the Canadian embassy and told an official there that Obama’s opposition to NAFTA is “just campaign rhetoric.”
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.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers’ jobs.
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.”
Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member’s warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.
“Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn’t intend to keep,” the 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.”
Despite the fact that (a) the Obama “campaign staffer” was not named, and that (b) the allegations in the story were blindly sourced — meaning that the article does not state how they got this information, who told them about the campaign staffer, who they interviewed for the story — Clinton supporters jumped on the charges without hesitation:
… The above should be even more alarming to the Obama campaign than the other video being circulated. A report out of Canada says Obama’s promise on NAFTA is just words. …
When contacted, an Obama aide basically delivers a non-denial denial, as you can see in the video. Obama keeps his promises? What kind of blathering is that? When you think about Obama’s moves on Exelon, rewriting legislation for them, juxtaposed against him telling Iowa voters tougher legislation had passed, instead of the truth, I’ve done enough research on the guy to know when smoke is being blown for votes. Obama’s team is not denying the conversation CTV is reporting and it’s quite plausible the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value, and to add, because Obama has no intention of doing what he’s campaigning on with regards to NAFTA. Obama welshing on his pledge to take public financing for the general election also comes to mind. It’s not like Obama hasn’t said one thing then done another before.
Over the screaming headline Shocker: Obama Reveals Fake Stand on NAFTA, Larry Johnson writes:
A Canadian medical professional (no more to protect anonymity) reports to me: “This story made headlines tonight in Canada in all major Canadian news networks. Barack Obama has been caught lying. Spread this as much as you can because it is true and factually supported. I think the people of Ohio as well as the rest of America, deserve to know this.”
(Original) Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Canadian media reveal Obama’s posture on NAFTA is solely “campaign rhetoric.” …
[snip]
Oh, that bamboozler. Imagine, for a moment, that you’re the head of state or diplomatic corps, or one of the chief politicians or government officials, for the hundreds of nations across the world. Wouldn’t you read this article and wonder WHICH OBAMA you’ll be dealing with, and IF he means anything he says?
The blogosphere has been buzzing about this story since early yesterday morning. Unfortunately, even bloggers who are not dedicated Clinton partisans — even some who like Obama – kinda lost their critical faculties on this one and accepted it at face value, despite the red flags all over it.
Kyle E. Moore at Comments from Left Field beat up on Obama at great length, and all the time I was reading his post, I was thinking, Why is he just assuming the story is true? Why would someone who already supports Obama and knows how well his campaign is run, be so quick to believe that a high-level staffer (or any staffer on that campaign) would be so stupid as to tell a top Canadian official that Obama’s opposition to NAFTA is only words, even if that were the case? And why would anyone who has come to respect Obama precisely because he has consistently taken the high road in the face of Clinton’s attacks be so willing to think that he would turn around and become a totally different person, based on one shoddily sourced story?
Well, as everyone who has been following this news item knows by now, the Canadian embassy has said, in no uncertain terms, that the CTV report is not true:
A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama’s denunciations of NAFTA.
“None of the presidential campaigns have called either the ambassador or any of the officials here to raise NAFTA,” Landry said.
He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.
“We didn’t make any calls, they didn’t call us,” Landry said.
“There is no story as far as we’re concerned,” he said.
Larry Johnson’s SusanUnPC’s response:
Obamadroids Frantic: Attack Canadian Media NAFTA Story
By SusanUnPC on February 28, 2008 at 1:31 PM in NAFTA, Barack Obama
UPDATE: “The facts of our story are accurate.” – Greg McIsaac, Communications Manager, News Information and Current Affairs, CTV (Taylor Marsh has the report in “CTV Stands by NAFTA Story.” Besides, this is a first-rate national news organization that wouldn’t go with an off-record story that wasn’t solidly vetted.)
Original: Now competing with my diary in the recommended list at MyDD:
BREAKING: Canadian Embassy: Obama NAFTA call story is a lie
by Bob Johnson, Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:24:57 PM ESTSo one person for the right Canadian government — a single official — issues a public denial to Politico’s Ben Smith, and that’s it? Even though the entire Canadian media are all over this story? Nationwide? And it’s the top story in Canada?
REMEDIAL POLITICS/GOVERNMENT 101: How many times has the Bush administration denied everything? (Along with every governnent on the face of the earth, thousands of times?)
And you’ve believed Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld — and every “official” government statement around the world — every time? Really? From a single official? Really?
Do I have a bridge to sell you!
Yet SusanUnPC has no problem believing a story that Obama is deliberately staking a position on NAFTA that he has no intention of honoring, based on a single official. And with the Obama staffer who allegedly contacted this single official unnamed and unidentified; presumably not even known to CTV; and with no independent confirmation from any other source.
Sure, that makes sense.
Nedra Pickler – of all people – called the CTV report “spin.” Here, according to her AP piece, are “the facts”:
Roy Norton, a minister at the Canadian embassy, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that Wilson and other embassy officials have expressed their support for NAFTA and their positions on other issues to officials from the three leading presidential campaigns — Obama, Clinton and likely Republican nominee John McCain.
But he said at no time has anyone from the Obama campaign told anyone at the embassy that his position on NAFTA is just for show. “It didn’t happen,” Horton said.
In a statement, the Canadian Embassy disputed the television story.
“The Canadian Embassy confirms that at no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian Ambassador or any official at the Embassy to discuss NAFTA. Last night, the Canadian television network CTV falsely reported that such calls had been made. That story is untrue. Neither before nor since the Ohio debate has any presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson or the embassy to raise NAFTA.”
On his campaign plane, Obama said: “It wasn’t true.”
His campaign also denied the CTV report.
Taylor Marsh prefers to believe CTV:
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[.]
[snip]
Will the journalistic stenography on behalf of Mr. Obama ever end?
To add a point here, since when do we automatically believe “spokes people?” Scott McClellan during the Scooter Libby trial comes to mind. Dana Perino on, well, just about any subject does too. There are all sorts of things that go on back channel, with a spokesperson the last one to know. As for McIsaac at CTV, the network stands by the “facts” in the story they reported. You’ll have to decide if that is any different on the merits.
Jazz at Middle Earth Journal is, to put it mildly, astonished by that last paragraph:
Ok. I’ve finished picking my jaw up off the floor. Please note the tone and lack of spin in the answer. Simply a flat denial. Obviously, the Press Secretary of the White House has one job and one job only – to spin the news in the best possible light to the press in an effort to make the President look good. Are we really to compare Scotty McClellan to Tristan Landry, whose phone has probably not rung in the last ten years on any matter more pressing than the toner cartridge running out in the office printer? What is the motivation for the Canadian embassy to suddenly go on record in defense of Obama and possibly releasing a flat out lie? To support McCain? To show a preference for Obama over Hillary to run against St. John?
I understand that Taylor has a lot invested in seeing Hillary get the nomination, and I understand that many people have their own preferences for their own reasons. But this smells of a smear piece against Obama over one of his better positions – that opposing NAFTA which we’ve written on here extensively.
One more question needs to be asked about this story, and Kyle E. Moore asked it, in an update to the post of his that I quoted from above: “Ben Smith says there’s no there there. Well… wish I had some Canadians around here to tell me how solid CTV is on its reporting…
Here is the answer, courtesy of one of Kyle’s readers:
CTV is notoriously conservative. They have become more right wing I think due to the CBC’s left of center stance……As a Canadian, I say take this story (or non-story as it is proving to be) with a large grain of salt.
Do you suppose that could, maybe, explain any part of this nonsense?
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.