« Obama Action Figure
Guest Voice: McCain Cold-Shoulders Warm-Up Host »



Guest Voice: Obama, NAFTA, Canada And The Blogosphere

February 29th, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief


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 EST

So 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?



This entry was posted on Friday, February 29th, 2008 at 12:27 am and is filed under News, Mike Huckabee, Elections, MSM, Internet, NAFTA, Newsweek Blogitics, Journalism, Media, Barack Obama, Media Criticism, 2008 Elections, Politics, Internet News Media, Canada, Hillary Clinton, Democrats, Blogging. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 13 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I think this is the first link to Larry Johnson. I used to skim over to his sight, but his rabid support of Billary ended my visits to that site. The sites bias is evident by the Billary ads in the sidebar. Like Marsh, they(LJ) cherry pick all that is bad for Obamama, even though they criticized W for his love of cherries.
    • ^
    • v
    Good piece! And CTV is backing down now.
    • ^
    • v
    I readily accept that without specific facts, i.e., naming parties of the call, the time of the call and salient quotes from the call, nothing is proven.

    But, MaryL, if this your idea of backing down by CTV, then we don't comprehend the English language the same way........."Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position."

    And Kathy, can you provide the link to where you provided your taker on the NYT article suggesting McCain had an affair with the lobbyist?
    • ^
    • v
    I hear that Joe Gandelman in a phone call to the Daily Kos office said that everything on this site is a spoof. Never mind that Joe denies it and so does Daily Kos. It'll be all over the blogosphere soon. This is news. Why should we believe the dismissals of both people supposedly involved in the communication? Amazing.

    You mean they really can't find anything Obama has prevaricated on and have to make something up? Wow.
    • ^
    • v
    casualobserver, my English is just fine, thank you. (And my French ain't shabby either, given I was born and raised in Québec). Here's the entire quote from the most recent CTV story, not just the bit you pulled out without a link:

    "Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position.

    NDP Leader Jack Layton said in question period Thursday that Canada should take advantage of any openings to renegotiate NAFTA.

    "Why won't the prime minister take the lead here, exercise some sovereignty and bring about some change here that would be good for workers?" he asked.

    However, Harper had a warning to anyone contemplating renegotiation of the trade deal.

    "If a future president actually did want to open up NAFTA, which I highly doubt, then Canada would obviously have some things we would want to discuss," Harper said.

    But Harper also noted that assertions made in the heat of political campaigns should be taken with a grain of salt. During the federal election in 1993, former prime minister Jean Chretien threatened to back out of NAFTA's precursor -- the Free Trade Agreement, which was signed by the Tories in the 1980s. "

    That sentence you quoted referred to the FIRST wave of the story -- re some UNNAMED senior source -- and then talked about the NDP and the Tories confirming their positions re NAFTA, not their positions re the original CBC claims.

    * The NDP thinks it's hunky-dory that we renegotiate.
    * The Tories think that renegotiations are a double edged sword and that Canada may be looking to improve some elements related to our interests.
    * And Harper isn't that worried about any candidate's stance on NAFTA, and thinks that things could change once Obama or anyone else gets into office.

    This is hardly a case of senior Canadian officials confirming the original story. Just pretty calm business as usual up here.
    • ^
    • v
    Damn. I didn't set off the CTV quote properly. It starts at the second paragraph ("Sources at ...") and ends at "But Harper noted ...".
    • ^
    • v
    Hardly "calm business as usual"!

    I am writing from Toronto, Canada, at the moment...and people up here are PISSED!

    This story has dominated the newspapers for the past couple of days. The current conservative government really does not want to re-open NAFTA.

    It was a brutal national debate getting it approved in Canada - in the 1988 election, and later with NAFTA - on a scale of the US debate over Iraq. I had friends who were deeply involved in this, and a national election ended up being called on only one issue: free trade. FYI: Canadian politics is defined by anxiety about the American empire...and American lusts for Canadian oil, water and actors.

    The NDP were opposed to free trade, and lost. Not surprising, they welcome Obama re-opening it...as it would effectively send Canadian politics into another crazed spiral that could only benefit them as the smallest party in the country.

    So this story makes perfect sense, really. The government doesn't want to upset the Dem's...and so are officially denying it. But they are leaking to CTV as a warning...and backing this up with public warnings about shutting off Canadian oil to the US.
    • ^
    • v
    MaryL...being from Quebec, you probably remember Prime Minister Mulroney...who I see is also in the newspapers the past couple of days.

    His reputation was destroyed by free trade/NAFTA, and his closeness to Reagan and the Bushes. I gather he is probably as radioactive in Canada as "W" is in the US.

    I doubt the current Prime Minister wants to go down in flames as well.
    • ^
    • v
    Macan, I read the Toronto and national papers and listen to talk radio like CFRB. Is this being discussed, yes, but it's nowhere near the level of passion people are displaying over the Chuck Cadman bribery scandal, or the George Smitherman adult diapers story.

    I think we're in wait and see mode up here.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, someone may have talked to someone, or not.
    That's the basic story line for this entire election season. Allegations, denials and having to choose who is telling the truth.

    Regardless of who is phoning whom, Obama opened a can of worms by speaking so strongly about NAFTA, although 'renegotiate' is actually vague enough to give cover to a wide variety of outcomes.

    The press and the blogosphere just make it worse, by hyping their own interpretations and protestasations. In this, I fault his supporters as much as his detractors.
    Obama is an intelligent man, and since he dove into the minefield, he is more qualfied to find a way out. What's more, I'm sure he can do it better, i.e. while preserving a patina of calm reason
    Let's hear him speak, and by now it's imperative that he explain exactly what his position on NAFTA and other trade deals is.
    "Renegotiate' is not suffiicient. This is a subject both Obama and Clinton should address in more detail, lots of details.

    Oh, I forgot, this is election season. Back to soundbites.
    • ^
    • v
    and since he dove into the minefield, he is more qualfied to find a way out. What's more, I'm sure he can do it better, i.e. while preserving a patina of calm reason
    Let's hear him speak,

    I'm with you there.......and if you watch the youtube clip of him responding to the press on the plane, he only comments that the Canadian embassy has denied the conversation. Call me a Republican troublemaker, but why wouldn't he choose to respond from the perspective of his own organization, instead of only repeating something external and already known?

    Further, what's ironic justice here is that if we are to assume both D's only want to tweak environmental and labor standards of NAFTA, the Canadians are hardly the ones to pick on anyway.
    • ^
    • v
    CasualObserver wrote: "And Kathy, can you provide the link to where you provided your taker on the NYT article suggesting McCain had an affair with the lobbyist?:"

    I don't think you're referring to something I wrote, C.O. I'm familiar with the news story you're talking about, but -- unless I'm having a more severe senior moment than usual -- I never blogged about it. :-)
    • ^
    • v
    It's worth remembering that both Clinton and Obama threatened to opt out of NAFTA unless there was renegotiation in the debate. Obama mostly just agreed with her; however, he's being remembered with this issue because someone may or may not have said the threat wasn't that serious to the Canadian ambassador, while Clinton's camp either actually wishes to opt out or doesn't mean it, but no one spilled the beans.

    This fabled communication could have been almost anything. If Obama directly called the ambassador and said he didn't mean what he said to Ohioans, that's one thing. If some economic advisor decided on her or his own to call Canada and said something like, "we don't want to opt out of NAFTA but we can't completely rule it out if circumstances in the future warrant it, but you know how campaigns are, haha," that's a rather different circumstance.

    This is the way politics used to operate of course. A poltitician went from audience to audience telling them what they wanted to hear. With the internet, you almost can't do it anymore because the video will show up on YouTube eventually, for example Mayor Nagin's "chocolate city" line or Allen's "macaca".

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Obama Action Figure
Guest Voice: McCain Cold-Shoulders Warm-Up Host »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.