Hillary Clinton's campaign team has never told any Canadian officials that their candidate's anti-NAFTA statements are just political posturing, the Prime Minister's Office said Friday.
In the midst of the so-called NAFTA-gate affair, the PMO clarified — two days after it was first asked a question about the matter — that Canadian officials never requested, nor received, a private briefing from Clinton's aides on her position on the continental trade treaty.
"The answer is no, they did not," Sandra Buckler, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said Friday.
So, can we get past this assumption that's making the rounds on the American blogosphere now that Clinton's staff talked to them? The cognitive dissonance about this story has been unbelievable, especially over at sites like Daily Kos that favour Obama, where the truth (on many fronts) has taken a back seat to known facts. So much for the "reality-based" community.
On Thursday nite, Keith Olbermann had this to say about NAFTAgate:
Olbermann: For a week now, Senator Clinton has bashed Senator Obama and even possibly won votes based on the story that Obama had publicly railed against NAFTA while a memo by a Canadian diplomat claimed Obama's campaign secretly assured them his stand "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans"
First of all, the memo Olbermann refers to was only brought to the public's attention on March 3, 2008 by the AP's Nedra Pickler - the day before Tuesday's primaries. Therefore, it isn't possible for Clinton to have been railing against Obama based on that memo before that time. (As an aside, Macleans' Luiza Ch. Savage published a copy of that memo on Thursday.)
Back to Olbermann:
Olbermann: In our fourth story in the countdown, Obama's adviser denied speaking those words and now we learn that a much higher source from Canada revealed late last month that the NAFTA promises came from a very different source, the Clinton campaign. According to an unnamed source speaking to that nation's equivalent of the Associated Press, the Canadian Press, it was Clinton's campaign that contacted the Canadian government to reassure them about Clinton's anti-NAFTA rhetoric. The Canadian Press reporting that the source heard the chief of staff to Canada's prime minister say in a room full of television journalists "someone from Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . someone called us and told us not to worry."
Olbermann then introduced his guest, Howard Fineman, and asked, "am I oversimplifying this or is this story now basically the opposite of what it seemed to be a week ago?" to which Fineman responds, "Yeah, it is 180 degrees different".
Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.
That was in the same story that alleged that Obama's campaign "told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously".
That's not "180 degrees different". It's exactly the same.
Fineman then said he "think(s) it was the Clinton camp that started the conversation with the Canadians about don't worry about NAFTA".
Except that no one has proven anything like that, Fineman.
Even after Olbermann pointed out that there was, as he put it, an "obscure reference" to the Clinton side in this, Fineman stated that he thought the Obama campaign didn't know about it until Thursday. Fineman then said the Obama campaign hadn't issued a "flat denial saying the story wasn't true". That's not true. The Obama campaign definitely fumbled its reaction to this story but it has issued denials since the story broke. Here's just one of them from this week:
When Mr. Obama's campaign and the Canadian government denied the allegation, a leaked document was obtained by The Associated Press written by a Canadian diplomat. It chronicled a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goulsbee and diplomats at Canada's Chicago consulate.
The Obama aide has challenged the wording of the memo and says it characterized the conversation unfairly.
Meanwhile, as soon as CTV news broke the story last Wednesday, their television reporter Tom Clark said the Clinton campaign was giving the Canadian government "blanket immunity" to release the name of anyone on her staff who may have been in touch with them. That's why the allegations against her were dropped so quickly. The Canadian sources haven't released anything to back up that claim. Apparently, someone must have thought the release of the memo later that week could be used against Obama and that's why the story, as it related to him, continued to have legs.
Fineman then went on to say that he thought the Obama campaign believed it "has the upper hand in the NAFTA debate" as an excuse for not responding more forcefully. In other words, never mind that a foreign government might be creating the impression that his NAFTA promises aren't true, they'll just ignore it and hope it goes away. Does Fineman really believe that's what happened or could it be that their economic adviser Goolsbee, who wasn't straight with the media as soon as his meeting with Canadian officials was revealed, has created a PR nightmare for the campaign?
Olbermann then cited the NAFTA story as another one of the Clinton campaign's recent screw ups. The fact is that there's no "there" there - not with this story. Olbermann and Fineman should have done more research before they went on the air with this in the fashion that they did. If you watch the video, you'll see a shocked and surprised Olbermann acting is if what he's reporting is proof that the Clinton campaign reassured the Canadian government on NAFTA despite the fact that his very words belie that incredulity.
Keith Olbermann has a lot of pull with Democratic and so-called "progressive" viewers, many of whom, at places like Daily Kos, (nicknamed Daily Obama because of the overwhelming support for that candidate there) now believe that he has nailed Clinton to the wall on NAFTAgate when no such thing has happened.
Olbermann is not responsible for how his viewers react to what he says, but he owes them the truth, not innuendo backed up with an overly-emotional response along with a guest who doesn't even know what he's talking about. For Olbermann to act as if he believed the unnamed source who fingered Ian Brodie (an allegation that has yet to be investigated) is either lazy journalism or biased reporting against Clinton.
I don't support either candidate and I'm no Clinton apologist. I just expect responsible journalism - not hyperbole that can be interpreted as facts. Sometimes actions speak louder than words and I believe they have in this case.
"I do think the term 'interference' is a little strong. It implies some intentional act. And I've got no way of knowing whether it was unintentional or intentional, or anything of that nature. But my statement of interference was not meant to mean intentional interference by the Canadian government, and unfortunately that's the way it got played."
- I have a hard time believing that Harper is serious about taking Dion to court over the Cadman affair when he and his minions continue to talk about it in the house. It seems to be they would instead be saying that "this matter is before the courts" if they intended to go ahead with the suit. On the other hand, if it does go to court, he and his operatives will be forced to testify under oath under the threat of perjury charges. Stock up on popcorn for that case. Lastly, insinuating that their Conservative candidate Dona Cadman (who is the source of this bribery allegation) is a liar does them absolutely no favours in that riding. How can the Conservative party support an alleged liar as their candidate? They've hung her and their party out to dry. This is a no-win situation for this government and they know it. Lather. Spin. Repeat.
- Even though Harper has denied that his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, was responsible for leaking the Obama/NAFTA story to CTV, he still refuses to name the person responsible. If the opposition (and concerned Democrats) can make a case that the leak amounted to political interference (a criminal offence), there may be a role for the RCMP to check into it.
Mr. Harper didn't address the original leak, but said the government will use “every legal and every investigative technique necessary” to find the source of a second leak — of a private Canadian diplomatic memo — to a U.S. media outlet.
Harper is only interested in finding out who leaked the memo, saying that may be "illegal" but the fact that his government may have planted that CTV story to interfere with the US election is just as serious and must be investigated as well.
Beyond that, as has been extensively reported, the optics involved in showing that Canada's government officials can't be trusted not to reveal private communications between representatives of our country and the US (or any other country) has damaged our international reputation.
There's also concern being expressed that the leak may have influenced the outcome of the Ohio primaries on Tuesday, where Clinton was victorious over Obama, but there's absolutely no way to quantify how that story may have affected Ohio voters.
It should also be noted that the Obama campaign completely mismanaged this story from the moment it broke with its economic adviser Goolsbee asserting that he just said "hello" to Canadian representatives - a claim he had to change after it was revealed that the meeting he had with them actually lasted 40 minutes and resulted in a 1,300 word memo that the AP released details of this past week.
This story is far from being over.
Update:
CBC News video on the Obama/NAFTA story-
Update #2:
The Globe & Mail has a new story up that (according to one unnamed source) points the finger at Ian Brodie as being the source. The G&M story needs more analysis so I'll get into that in a separate post on Thursday.
That's the question that immediately came to mind when I read this ABC News story which names Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, as the person who leaked the Obama/NAFTA story to CTV on Wednesday. Here's the money quote from that article that has denials and non-denials being flung about so carelessly now:
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.
According to ABC News:
Both the Canadian Embassy and the Obama campaign have repeatedly denied the CTV report.
However, a source close to the Canadian prime minister's office tells ABC News that the original communication was between Austan Goolsbee, Obama's senior economic adviser and an economics professor at the University of Chicago, and Georges Rioux, Canada's consul general in Chicago, about Obama's rhetoric against NAFTA.
According to the source, Wilson exaggerated the communication between the Obama campaign and the Canadian official during discussions this week with Ian Brodie, the prime minister's chief of staff, who leaked the story to CTV.
I had suspected from the outset that the Harper government was the source of that story since any talk of reforming NAFTA obviously has them worried - to the point where David Emerson threatened that oil and other energy resources might be on the table if a future Democratic president insisted on renegotiating the agreement - as both Clinton and Obama said they would during Tuesday nite's Ohio debate.
Putting aside the accusations flying back and forth between the campaigns, our government and various other unnamed sources, what we clearly have here is Harper's chief of staff trying to influence the Democratic primaries. NAFTA is a huge issue in states like Ohio and Texas, which are holding their primaries next Tuesday. And, with Emerson issuing his threats this week, it looks like it's a very coordinated effort coming straight from the top.
Susan Delacourt: Sourcing a cross-border smear. She notes what I spotted as well - you have someone "close to the Prime Minister's office" apparently slamming Ian Brodie and Michael Wilson. What's that about? Or are they all just so bloody incompetent that they have absolutely no idea what they're even talking about anymore? She's also posted an e-mail by Bob Rae on the entire affair. "This is Republican International in action," Rae writes.
As I wrote here last nite, CTV news reported that an Obama staffer contacted Michael Wilson, the US ambassador to Canada, to reassure him about Obama's NAFTA "campaign rhetoric".
Now we have two conflicting accounts of what happened from two different embassy officials.
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.
That's a much stronger denial that the one issued by the Obama campaign:
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.
"No, none," Norton told me when I asked him if Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., had spoken to any Obama advisers recently. He added: "Neither before the Ohio debate nor since has any presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson about NAFTA."
Norton did allow, however, that the embassy on the staff level had discussed multiple issues, including NAFTA, with the Obama and Hillary campaigns at various times, and had urged them to look at NAFTA in a positive light.
"We've impressed upon them the fact that NAFTA has been good for all three countries," Norton said. "They have made it clear that NAFTA is an issue of contention in the [U.S.], and that inevitably there would be discussion and debate surrounding NAFTA."
"They've heard us out on the issue of NAFTA and expressed understanding for our position. But the candidates and their campaigns have been very careful to refrain from making specific commitments," Norton continued, reiterating that no such conversation like the one described in the Canadian TV report ever happened.
So, who's telling the truth here? Tristan Landry? Ray Norton? CTV News? The Obama campaign? Without further information, (there is nothing about this story on Obama's official website), the only way to know is to see exactly what happens if Obama becomes the president.
Related:
Taylor Marsh reports that she has contacted CTV and they are sticking to their story.
"The facts of our story are accurate." - Greg McIsaac, Communications Manager, News Information and Current Affairs, CTV
Update, March 5, 2008:
I see from my referrals that I'm getting a lot of visitors to this post which was featured on Reuters' site. I've posted the latest news about this issue here. This story has developed on many fronts since I wrote this post so I'd urge those who are interested in keeping up to read my latest posts as I put them up. Thanks. And thanks for visiting. Feel free to leave a comment or two. -catnip
CTV News reveals that an Obama staffer was secretly in touch with Canada's ambassador to the US with a heads up about Obama's public stance on the NAFTA agreement, stating it was just "campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value".
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.
What Obama's staffer told Wilson flies in the face of what Obama said during Tuesday nite's Democratic debate in Ohio, where NAFTA fallout has seriously affected the economy.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you did in 2004 talk to farmers and suggest that NAFTA had been helpful. The Associated Press today ran a story about NAFTA, saying that you have been consistently ambivalent towards the issue. Simple question: Will you, as president, say to Canada and Mexico, "This has not worked for us; we are out"?
SEN. OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.
The reaction from the Obama campaign that someone on its staff had been in touch with Ambassador Wilson?
Via CTV - a non-denial denial:
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.
The Clinton campaign was also accused of contacting Wilson to reassure him. That charge that has been staunchly denied by going further than the Obama campaign did and granting the Canadian government "immunity" to release any information it might have of any actual contact from its staff that may have been made.
So, the obvious question is whether Obama's opposition to NAFTA is genuine or is it just a ploy to get votes from people who oppose it?
Via the CBC:
