Did Clinton cheat on NAFTA too?

Just days after Hillary Clinton seized upon reports that the Obama camp privately told Canadian officials their hardline on the North American Free Trade Agreement was only for political show, a report has emerged suggesting Clinton herself might have been playing a similar game.

Both candidates worried officials in Canada with their protectionist rhetoric during the primary campaign in Ohio, where the agreement is blamed by blue-collar workers for the decline in manufacturing jobs. Clinton and Obama both told Ohio voters that they would renegotiate the agreement and pull out of it entirely if sufficent protections for American workers weren't forthcoming.

But the Canadian Globe and Mail reported today that it was in fact a remark about Clinton's campaign, not Obama's, that triggered the furore.

It claims that the basis for the story was an offhand comment made by Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to CTV journalists during the media lock-up for the country's February 26 budget.

Apparently attempting to play down the impact of the candidates' campaign promises, Brodie told reporters that the threat was not a serious one, adding that someone from Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA rhetoric was mostly political posturing.

It quoted an unnamed source as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The source was quoted 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."

It is not clear how, if that was indeed the basis for the report, the Clinton campaign metamorphosed into the Obama campaign. The president of CTV, which broke the story, declined to comment tonight.

But should we really be surprised if either candidate, or both, privately gave such assurances? They are politicians after all, and only the most naive voter would believe that everything promised on the campaign trail would automatically translate into policy once safely ensconced in office.

As detailed here, officials at the British Embassy in Washington have told The Times that they are not overly concerned about the trade policies of either Democrat. One said: “There is a difference between what they say to get elected and what they do afterwards.”

A sad but universal truth.

Comments

[ty]

This is precisely why i can never vote for the Clintons (Yes they are both running). They are dishonest! I would not be so upset if they had even kept their big mouths shut instead of attacking Obama's credibility and character! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

[sherrian]

When is the media going to call Clinton a lier, like they were so quick to allow her to call Obama? Oh, thats right just let it go, right.

[Arye Michael Bender]

Our American press has become so politicized, that locating unbiased truth is becoming almost impossible. More and more am I having to go abroad (over the Internet) to piece together the truth.

- Arye Michael Bender -
San Francisco, USA

[anonymous]

>>But should we really be surprised if either >>candidate, or both, privately gave such >>assurances? They are politicians after all, >>and only the most naive voter would >>believe that everything promised

Generally speaking, we shouldn't be surprised. But common, Obama is running on the promise of "CHANGE" from the old ways of doing politics. Obviously folks are surprised to learn that his words are just hollow promises and that he is no different from any other politician.

[Tommy Peterson]

'too'? I've yet to see evidence that Obama did anything to reassure the Canadians. His advisor Prof. Austan Goulsbee held a private meeting with the Canadian consulate in Chicago in his role as a Professor at Chicago University, without the knowledge of the Obama campaign, and a memo summarizing the conversation did not accurately represent what he said. This is what everyone involved has said, and I've seen no evidence to the contrary. So it's not 'did Clinton do it too?' but 'did Clinton do it and then accuse Obama of doing it, when he didn't?' This is just like her 'since when do Democrats attack each other on health care' after she'd been doing it for weeks. I wouldn't trust her further than I could throw her, but unfortunately journalists love to be fed a juicy story and afterwards they hate to admit they might have got it wrong.

[billy]

The source of the "unnamed source" was the Globe and Mail - Canada's New York Times.

The confirmation/denial of the Obama affair came from the Canadian government, which is conservative. He's kind of Canada's George Bush in the eyes of Canadian liberals (the kind of people that don't think conservative minded people should have political representation).

[Silvino Ferreira Jr]

But is also true that this may cause a serious damage on Clinton's campaign, specially in Penssylvania.

[Doug]

Don't forget there is also a memo about alleging that Obama's economic advisor said the same as Clinton but the Canadian Embassy have now looked at the notes of the meeting and said they "may not accurately reflect what they were told" and "may have misrepresented the Obama advisor." So another question to ask is how the notes morphed from the Obama advisor saying they wanted environmental and Labour protections added to NAFTA (per Obama's public statements) to a memo which said Obama's NAFTA rhetoric was hollow?

[Jermaine]

I love your animation up top. I'm from the U.S., Pennsylvania infact, and there are so many who feel the same way. Bush and his supporters have kept the United States held back. I'm 26 and all of the people I know look to Europe for news on the United States because our media doesn't tell the truth, even though they claim. OBAMA 08 why? becuase he helped pass ethics reform, death penalty reform in Illinois, he released his tax returns, and he says things that people don't liked to hear all of the time, but need to hear. Like telling Americans of African descent that they are too hard on our gay neighbors, he is actually the only one that even mentions gays.