Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

NAFTA-Gate Shocker: Did Hillary's Camp Lie and Frame Obama?

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 5:17 AM on March 7, 2008.


The Canadian Government says it was the Clinton campaign who told them not to worry about NAFTA, not Obama's.
Countdown: Hillary LIED, Framed Obama On Nafta Gate

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Video in your
mailbox!

 

Just when I thought I'd gotten a handle on the so-called "NAFTA-gate" story, it takes an unexpected turn.

Some Canadian news outlets reported last week that Barack Obama's campaign had reached out to Canadian officials, telling them to effectively ignore Obama's concerns about NAFTA, claiming the rhetoric was just political posturing. Those reports turned out to be false. Canadian news also noted that Obama aides had contacted the Canadian ambassador with the same message. That turned out to be false, too. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain read almost identical talking points, but much of the accusations proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless, given the attention and scrutiny, the largely controversy had a fairly significant impact in Tuesday's primaries.

Now, a new report out of Toronto suggests the original story may have left out some important details.

If the Prime Minister is seeking the first link in the chain of events that has rocked the U.S. presidential race, he need look no further than his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, The Canadian Press has learned.

A candid comment to journalists from CTV News by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most senior political staffer during the hurly-burly of a budget lock-up provided the initial spark in what the American media are now calling NAFTAgate.

Mr. Harper announced Wednesday that he has asked an internal security team to begin finding the source of a document leak that he characterized as being "blatantly unfair" to Senator Barack Obama.

OK, so the chief of staff of Canada's conservative Prime Minister decided he wanted to meddle in the Democratic Party's primary process. Clearly, that's wildly inappropriate.

But the odd twist is that it may have been Clinton who reassured Canadians about NAFTA.

From the Globe and Mail:

Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.

"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.

So, let me get this straight. If this report is right, the Clinton campaign gave assurances to the Canadians not to worry about her rhetoric on NAFTA. The Clinton campaign then spent a week hammering Obama on alleged assurances to Canadians about his rhetoric on NAFTA?

Based on reporting from the Canadian Press (what is effectively the Canadian AP), Ian Brodie chatted with reporters about Obama and Clinton, but somehow, the story only ended up focusing on the prior, not the latter.

"He said someone from Clinton's campaign is telling the Embassy to take it with a grain of salt," said one participant in the conversation. The source added, "someone called us [from Clinton's staff] and told us not to worry."

Josh Marshall asks, "So was Hillary bashing Obama for what her own campaign had done? Did they both do it? Was it all a set up?"

I guess we'll know more as the story unfolds, and at this point, many of the details appear a little murky. That said, if the Clinton campaign effectively hammered Obama for something they themselves did, this story might end up causing them some heartburn, too.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Digg!

Tagged as: canada, nafta, obama, clinton, olbermann

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Why Obama, McCain and You Should Care that Middle-Class Americans have no Idea what Congress is up to
Do you know what your member of Congress did today?
Post by Andrea Batista Schlesinger. August 21, 2008.
Poor Little Rich Man: McCain Can't Remember How Many Mansions He Has
McCain is out of touch with economic realities facing Americans.
Post by ZP Heller. August 21, 2008.
Scary: McCain Wants to Reinstitute the Draft
McCain on reinstituting a military draft: 'I Don’t Disagree.'
Post by Ali. August 20, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The videos Hillary Clinton does NOT want you to see!
Posted by: jhecht on Mar 7, 2008 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&feature=related

part 2 - spread it wide & far!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PARLIAMENTARIANS FROM THE THREE NAFTA COUNTRIES ANNOUNCE TASK FORCE
Posted by: Minutia on Mar 7, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MARCH 6, 2008

PARLIAMENTARIANS FROM THE THREE NAFTA COUNTRIES ANNOUNCE TASK FORCE
ON NAFTA RENEGOTIATION

WASHINGTON, DC – Following a conference held on March 5th at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which took a critical look at how NAFTA has impacted the North American region, legislators from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico agreed today to launch a Task Force to push for renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The Task Force on Renegotiating NAFTA, will be chaired by NDP Trade Critic, Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster), U.S. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), the Honourable Yeidckol Polevnsky (Senator for Mexico State and Vice-president of the Mexican Senate), and the Honourable Victor Quintana (Deputy of the State of Chihuahua, Mexico), with support from their respective political parties. Members of the Task Force undertake to promote within their respective legislatures the renegotiation
of NAFTA.

The objectives of the Task Force include transforming and rebuilding NAFTA in order to achieve a fair trade policy. This fair trade model is designed to safeguard the sovereignty of the three countries, and includes enforceable measures for the protection of workers and the environment, and allows for all three governments to regulate in the public
interest.

“In the United States, Mexico and Canada, income inequality has grown dramatically in the almost fifteen years since the free trade agenda took effect. In Canada, families are worse off today than they were when the first agreement was implemented in 1989,” said Julian. “More and more Canadians work harder without being able to keep up. Over 291,000
manufacturing jobs have been lost in Canada since 2002 with increasing hardships in softwood lumber communities and elsewhere in Canada.”

“NAFTA has sucked good American jobs away, destroyed the Mexican countryside, deepened our immigration crisis, wiped out the Mexican and middle and small business classes, not brought about promised investments in infrastructure, and hammered communities across the continent. It’s time for Mexico, Canada, and the United States to work together to change this flawed trade model”, said Kaptur.

“It is indispensable that legislators from all three North American partner countries work together to design an alternative project that
takes into account each nation’s sovereignty, environmental protection,economic competitiveness, migration, and labor rights,” said Polevnsky.

“We must work hand in hand with civic organizations to launch a progressive program that considers the well-being of human beings as the raison d’être of public policy. The Mexican Senate is looking forward to host this Trinational Task Force in the near future”, she said.

“I am pleased that our three nations are working together to build better trading partnerships that support the principles of social justice, environmental sustainability, and human rights”, stated NDP Leader,Jack Layton.

Members of the Task Force are scheduled to meet in the spring 2008, at a location to be announced soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no "IF"...
Posted by: Quannah on Mar 7, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
she's the one who made the call to the Canadians! SHE DID IT.

For all you McClinton-lovers out there, I hope this shows you what your candidate is REALLY all about.

This is why she will never get my vote. This is right out of Karl Rove's playbook! And I refuse to vote for anyone who would stoop to Rovian tactics, especially in the primary against another Democrat. And I believe she should issue a public apology to Obama... but we all know she won't. She has no integrity - as she's already proved.

Fuck McClinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There is no "IF"... Posted by: puddytat
» RE: There is no "IF"... Posted by: Quannah
» RE: There is no "IF"... Posted by: janewalv
» RE: There is no "IF"... Posted by: racetoinfinity
» RE: There is no "IF"... Posted by: janewalv
» RE: There is no "IF"... Posted by: Quannah
» RE: There is no "IF".... Posted by: johngary66
One lie in a field of lies
Posted by: peacelf on Mar 7, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Deeply buried in each individual lie that someone catches Hillary, Obama or any mainstream candidate in, there lies the ultimate LIE itself: that popular, mainstream candidates Hillary and Obama represent corporate interests. They will not make america safer or economically friendly to all americans until they make america more democratic by listening to the will of the people.

Ralph Nader listens and acts on the will of the people. Where are the skeletons in his closet? The only blame we can place on him is the bullshit "spoiling" the election for Gore in 2000.

Something is wrong with this picture.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Democracy Shifts Slowly Posted by: rgoalierob
» RE: Democracy Shifts Slowly Posted by: Basenjis
The Clinton videos you're not supposed to see
Posted by: maxloen on Mar 7, 2008 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
no mom, it wasn't me! I guess it depends in what the meaning of 'was' is.
A couple of live links to Hillary Clinton/Peter Paul videos:
Part 1, on youtube and this is Part 2.
Hillary's Washington would be exactly 'business as usual,' with the same merchants of corruption wearing the same old - but freshly pressed - sheep's clothes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Desperation
Posted by: rgoalierob on Mar 7, 2008 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In difficult times, you find the measure of a person.
Hillary has proven to be disappointing when things got tough. The crying episode was understandable, but the lying and cheating appear to be true reflections of her character. She appears more willing to side with McBush rather than her own party.
Now we know the REAL Hillary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton's dirty tricks will destroy Democratic hopes for the Presidency
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 7, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When has a member of one political party attacked a member of her own party by claiming that the opposition political party candidate would be a better choice?

That's astounding, isn't it? Claiming that McCain would make a better, more experienced president than Obama?

Then add in the dirty tricks and the well-known close linkage between U.S. Republicans and Canadian conservatives, and you get the Republicans colluding with Clinton to smear Obama - a new low in Democratic politics, all engineered by a desperate Senator from New York... or is it a desperate Republican Party, trying to swing the Democratic primary to a dead albatross candidate?

At least, we're getting a taste of what the next year will hold. But remember this: the real show will start the day after the election results are announced, regardless of which candidate is (s)elected.

P.S. Let's be honest here: John Edwards was really the only leading candidate who would have taken a long hard look at the environmental, currency flow, and labor/wage provisions in NAFTA. Obama might do so if the public keeps up the pressure, but the Clinton era was one of constant support for NAFTA and the IMF/World Bank system all around the world - from Argentina to Russia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is Goolsbee doing as an economic advisor to Obama?
Posted by: colonelswendlair on Mar 7, 2008 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issue isn't even what who said to a Canadian diplomat about NAFTA and similar trade deals, or whether the Canadian (minority) rightwing government undertook to sabotage Obama's campaign. We can take as given that Hillary is a complete fraudster when it comes to NAFTA, and unfortunately it seems that Obama is too.

The question is what Obama is doing with an economic advisor like Goolsbee. Goolsbee is described by the Wall Street Journal as a "centrist". He is praised by George Will, who is happy that economics is one of the few areas that is moving to the right, the evidence offered being that Goolsbee is being used by a Democrat as his top economic advisor.

And you don't have to believe the WSJ and George Will (although there is no reason not to, unfortunately, in this case). You can read Goolsbee's columns in the NYT business section and previously in Slate, which are on Goolsbee's website. It is illustrative to compare his columns with Paul Krugman's, for example.

I suspected that rightwingers were supporting Obama because he would run the Empire in normal fashion (as any of them would be called upon to do) but could "rebrand" the Empire; and/or because they had the whole process booby-trapped and were ready to hit him with something during the campaign that would ensure a Republican victory (as they surely do with Hillary). But no, it's worse. And no, I don't care that Goolsbee is a member of Skull and Bones from his stint at Yale. We don't have to go there, we can just read his copy, his columns, available for all to see.

I hope that Obama dumps Goolsbee (1) for being too frank with diplomats and (2) for failing to give Obama a heads-up and making Obama look like a liar. But I doubt Obama will dump him. If so, Obama deserves to go down, with Goolsbee like an albatross around his neck. Good riddance. Something a little less fraudulent next time, please. And obviously I don't mean Hillary, who stinks to high heaven, along with her husband -- their economic policies sank the Democrats and lost them control of both houses of the Congress and most governorships; we don't need more of her. But the noise about NAFTA and WTO (rammed through, like NAFTA, by Bill Clinton) should continue to dog both candidates all the way through Pennsylvania. It might even shift the national debate.

Of course, if Obama picked Lori Wallach of Public Citizen as a top advisor, he might save himself -- with us, not with the corporate media, which would surely try to hang him. But we would have somebody to defend, and we could try to prevail. That's a lot better than our options now. And our rulers are frightened by all the talk about revising NAFTA. They're afraid their "free trade deal" operation is falling apart. Hopefully they're right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush Liberman McCain Clinton
Posted by: gjohloc@hotmail.com on Mar 7, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take your pick. They are all the same. Real change won't come from HRC. She is just one in a long line of old style politicians who will sell us all down the river once she is in office. So this doesn't suprise me one bit. She is probably hiding a whole lot more.

Obama for real change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's an Illusion
Posted by: ronheri on Mar 7, 2008 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He said...she said...elephant V.S. donkey. One wants more tax cuts V.S. the other wants more big government. One wants endless wars V.S. I can end the war someday, somehow. Yada, Yada, Yada...One says, I'll fix healthcare by giving tax credits for consumers to buy health insurance V.S. I'll insure everyone through the government...Yada, Yada, Yada...same old BS This two party illusion fed by the mainstream media; while the truth is both parties are owned and controlled by the same forces. Only Ron Paul was willing to stand up to this illusion and give it to us straight. Only Ron Paul gives us any hope of getting through this oncoming Second Great Depression. Will he get elected? No. The power-elite are determined to have their One World Government. America as we knew her must fall, for them to be successful. The Not Federal/No Reserves will keep printing up those green IOU'S until we're awash with them and inflation will spiral out of control. How on earth did we let this happen???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nomomorons
Posted by: nomomorons on Mar 7, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So why is the lead in the MSM about the resignation of an Obama aide, and msnbc (whose Keith Olberman reported extensively on the Clinton latest slime) not even showing a correction of their Obama blame?

This is ludicrous!!

Hillary is either totally cynical, or she is quite possibly bi-polar. Or both.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nomomorons Posted by: Quannah
this story is a lie
Posted by: andrewstromotich on Mar 7, 2008 4:55 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the "NAFTAgate" story a few back is false.
it was not the clinton camp that secretly reached out to the Canadian government to assure them that they were lying to the american public with regards to changing NAFTA, it was the Obama camp.
so clinon did not "frame" obama, and clinton did not lie, it was actually Obama that was misleading the voters about his position, and he sent Goolsbie to reassure the "conservative" (canadian republicans) govt that he had no intentions of doing what he had promised publicly.

and even better, it was the "conservative" (republican) gov't that then mislead the press into believing it was a clinton aide and not an obama aide (goolsbie): why are the canadian conservatives (republicans) trying to help derail the clinton campaign while having private consultations with obama?

here is the story

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: this story is a lie Posted by: Quannah
» RE: this story is a lie Posted by: johngary66
» RE: this story is a lie READ THE LINK Posted by: andrewstromotich
» memo on meeting with goolsbie Posted by: andrewstromotich
» RE: this story is a lie Posted by: Quannah
Facts folks
Posted by: Schroeder on Mar 7, 2008 9:31 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there is anything whatsoever negative about Hillary and Bill Clinton, be assured all the media will be only too happy to jump on it, get whatever mileage they can get before they find out there is no truth whatsoever to the lie they've spread. Once they find it's a lie, they won't bother to tell anyone about the fabrications, they will have done what they set out to do. You know how I know that? Because I like Hillary and I can hardly stand to watch any of the television media and even some of my previously favorite left wing radio talk show hosts are among the Obama boosters. I don't dislike Obama, but I do see the media handling him with kid gloves.

If there is something criminal that the Clintons are involved in...well, you can also be assured the media will find it. Do any of you who think the media is kind to the Clintons have memory of anything?

The story IS A LIE. You will not hear the media go after Obama the way they have the Clintons. And for those of you with selective vision and hearing, you will never know that it is a lie BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE NOT TO.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

World of S**t
Posted by: Balanz on Mar 8, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a wonderfully distracting undertaking this is! And we are all relying on a source of information that has a stake in the game.

BTW I bet their interests are not ours. Before people continue to spout the "I (or my candidate, same difference) am more wounded than you" business we all should pause and look at the big picture. It is in the media conglomerates best interests to keep this soap opera/campaign going.

Hillary needed a media boost in New Hampshire, she got it. She needed help to stem her rapidly fading support in Texas and Ohio, she got that too.

Obama needed a big February to make it a race--he got the favorable coverage he needed.

What do these campaigns do with most of the millions of dollars we give them? They buy television advertising! Why is CNN doing so well (translating into better ad rates)? This campaing! Please let us WAKE T.F. UP!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Karl Rove dirty tricks anyone?
Posted by: Magginkat on Mar 8, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now it seems as if everyone jumped on the Hate Hillary bandwagon a little too soon and without asking the right questions? According to what I read today neither candidate passed this information to the Canadian government.

Karl Rove dirty tricks anyone? Didn't you find it the least bit interesting at the timing of Rove's so called departure from the Washington scene.

Here, from Thom Hartmann, are some interesting bits of audio that make it pretty clear that the Obama/Clinton rift is highly pleasing to some very powerful entities.

First, it's highly pleasing to the GOP--as well it should be, not only because it works to their advantage, but because the GOP itself has helped create the civil war now tearing up the Democrats. As several recent items have made crystal clear, Rush Limbaugh helped get out the vote in Texas and Ohio, so as to give a boost to Clinton and prolong the agony. And, thanks to Thom, we can now hear from Michael Reagan that the GOP does not want anyone to talk about the matter. (Reagan made this point, of course, off-camera.)


And the Obama/Clinton rift is also very pleasant to at least one sector of "the liberal media." Thanks to Chris Matthews' big mouth, we now know that his bosses are enjoying the Democratic Party's agony as much as Rush does.


Perhaps it's only that they like the brawl because it makes for lots of "drama," and, therefore, higher ratings and more advertising dollars. Or maybe it's because GE, a mammoth weapons manufacturer, has a vested interest in the war, which Bomb-Bomb would prolong forever (and no doubt extend as well). Let us not forget what happened on Election Night 2000, when
"Neutron Jack" Welch, GE's CEO, barged into the studios of NBC News, demanding that they second FOX's (bogus) claim that Bush won Florida.


It's a combination that would tickle Mussolini. So it's not enough to say that it spells trouble for the Democratic Party--for that party has, of course, done absolutely nothing to confront the far right and/or question corporate power. It's not, in short, the leading Democrats, but We the People who are most at risk because of GE/GOP and its mammoth cohorts in the media
and all throughout the world economy.

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Falling for the Okeedoke
Posted by: Balanz on Mar 8, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as the "Hate Hillary bandwagon" is concerned, if the information presented by MCM turns out to be the final truth, HRC and her campaign are at least guilty of using questionable information for political advantage. It is an advantage gained by solely damaging her opponent as opposed to building her own positives. It also served to throw off the stench of her experience as far as NAFTA (a WJC "victory") is concerned.

So much for promoting party unity!
Perhaps that is reason enough for sober, unemotional voters to dislike this candidate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Falling for the Okeedoke Posted by: johngary66
Let me see if I have this right...
Posted by: djnoll on Mar 9, 2008 3:43 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until this leak appeared, Obama was highly favored in the polls to take Ohio because of his stand on NAFTA and his determination to re-negotiate this disastrous treaty that put over 45,000 Ohioans out of work. Hillary kept touting how wonderful NAFTA and its ilk was for the country down in Texas, until she realized it was killing her in Ohio. Then her own husband says if she does not carry both Texas and Ohio, she can kiss the nomination good-bye.

Now, just before the election day, suddenly she is talking re-negotiation in Ohio and then this memo is suddenly leaked. She has used Rovian campaign techniques for months now, so why on Earth should we not believe that she was behind this little party, and that the she framed Obama as a last resort to win Ohio, and undo his truth and honest answers to the people of Ohio.

Well, it worked - the people of Ohio have once again proved that given scare tactics and lies, they are as gullible as it gets and they gave her Ohio. The woman who supported for 15 years the very treaty that devastated their economy, but they would rather believe lies about an African-American, then vote for one. I ought to know - my late father was raised in Ohio, and like most of the Northern states, as Martin Luther King knew, have more closet racists than they do people who can actually listen and think for themselves. After all, after being terrorized by the Bush ads, they gave us 4 more years of BushCo!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton didn' contact Canadian Government!!! See these
Posted by: bweisman on Mar 12, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to at least two sources, I have listed as follows Clinton did NOT contact Canada!

First, on C-Span Washington Journal 8:45 am March 9, 2008 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Senior Correspondent, Henry Champ stated that the Candian Consolate DID meet with OBAMA before Feb.8th in Chicago. The meeting was a casual meeting and supposedly innocent as Obama said he would regenerate environmental and labor standards within the old agreement. (I really don't think this is going to help the apparent job loss that occured as an unexpected event from this agreement and the approximately 25 other agreements that have been put through since.) Correspondent Champ said simply: "Obama handled it wrong, he denied the meeting occurred when it actually DID occur! Essentially, HE LIED about it!!
Correspondent Champ also stated the whole situation was quote: "Blown out of proportion"
However, Obama has been the one BASHING NAFTA not Hillary. That said, Obama is LYING to the AMERICAN VOTER when he says he is going to do something about NAFTA. "It's all campaign rhetoric" Obama was quoted as saying. Again, lying to the people about his intentions if he is elected!

See also this article posted on cbc news web
F:Clinton didn't brief Canadian officials on NAFTA stand PMO.mht

Apparently, the discrepancy occured when a Canadian reporter leaked that both the Clinton and Obama camps had spoke to Canada. Correspondent Champ said this was "Completely erroneous"

So check out your news sources guys before you swollow everything that is handed to you on the news circuit. By the way Keith Olbermann also jumped on the band wagon, presenting WRONG information of this meeting!

bweisman0001 3/12/08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]