Fact Check on Inaccurate Reports Regarding Obama's Position on NAFTA and Canada

February 28, 2008

Canadian Embassy Has Denied The Report. "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." (Politico, 2/28/08)

"The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama's consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy -- that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

Going to be interesting to see what happens now given that CTV is standing firmly behind their story.

"The facts of our story are accurate." - Greg McIsaac, Communications Manager, News Information and Current Affairs, CTV

forces yet again.

... that CTV also stated the Clinton campaign had contacted them on this same matter. Would you consider that claim credible as well?

No, that is not what they said. they said that low level staffers, of who we don't know, said that Clinton had done the same thing. CTV contacted Clinton and the Clinton camp FLATLY denied it. Not only that but CLinton gave the CTV and the Canadian gov "blanket immunity" to release the names of any staffers who said such a thing or who supposedly called.

uh-oh, poor bob. he's gonna be crushed.

Can everyone please stop the name calling. The facts of this story need to come out.

Here is what we know:

1. CTV ran the story.

2. The Obama campaign says it is innacurate.

3. The Canadian Embassy spokesperson says that it is innacurate.

4. CTV says they stand by the story.

There will be other developments. Let's try to focus on finding out the facts before we all start throwing mud at each other.

The BIG QUESTION now seems to be:

Why did CTV run the story?

Who is their source?

Let's stop jumping to conclusions and get the facts out.

The New York Times:

Longtime Clinton Aide Returns to the Fray

Mr. Ickes's battles have often been as much inside the campaign as outside it. He and Mr. Penn have a long history of enmity -- they did not talk when both worked for Mr. Clinton when he was in the White House. In a campaign that often exhibits a decidedly corporate and somewhat antiseptic air -- personified by Mr. Penn -- Mr. Ickes is intense, emotional and, his friends say, idealistic.

He barely tries to hide his view of Mr. Penn. "Many pollsters, many pundits -- including our chief strategists, dare I say -- didn't think we were going to win New Hampshire," he said pointedly at his breakfast with journalists.

The New York Observer:

Ickes: Blame Penn:

Harold Ickes definitely doesn't buy the argument that Mark Penn isn't responsible for everything that has happened to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

...

Asked if Penn preferred the title of chief strategist to pollster, Ickes said, "Prefer it? He insists on it!"

When asked if Penn was therefore responsible for the campaign's strategy, Ickes said, "It's pretty plain for anyone to see that he has shaped the strategy of the campaign. He has called the shots."

"Mark Penn," he said, "has dominated the message in this campaign. Dominated it."

They're so busy running around saying, "It wasn't my fault!" that they seem to have forgotten about the campaign.

When you see heavyweight insiders starting this crap, you know the handwriting is on the wall...

; )  Let's play the parsing game. BO would it be true to say that someone from your campaign called someone sitting in the embassy building to talk about trade deals? How about to talk about the way that words sometimes are really just words? How about calling to say someday you will be rewarding for keeping quiet and not raising a stink and we will break your legs if you don't? wink wink.

Thanks for the post...I meant to say.

Stick with the story, Scan. Keep us updated. I think the other shoe is about to drop.

Great job, Scan.

How's your part of Texas?

We're kicking some serious ass here in El Paso.

John

http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/wa shington/menu-en.asp

so you believe the lone Canadian network who insists, despite their stunning lack of proof or inability to name sources, that because they "stand by their report", that the report is accurate?

that takes a gigantic leap of logic.

... this is what it would look like.

We now have two hit-diaries on the recc list flogging the same debunked claim, right below the recc'd diary debunking it.

Good grief people, even REDSTATE has realized this story is junk and let it go.

I really don't know what to think. What we need is a single diary where we can talk about the merits of this, instead of people assuming that the story must be true or false and raising bloody hell as a consequence.

What we have is an allegation from CTV, a reputable national Canadian network, citing "Canadian sources". It's not clear who they mean. In their article, they quote an Obama spokesperson as saying it sounds implausible, but that the Obama campaign does not deny that contact took place.

This morning the Canadian embassy denies that any such contact happened, but also says that it routinely communicates with the presidential campaigns. Nonetheless, the gist of their statement is that Obama's campaign didn't say this.

Obama's campaign issues a statement citing the Canadian embassy, and says also that the CTV report is "inaccurate".

CTV is standing by their story.

-------------------

So what to think? A few things that are striking:

1. The Canadian denial seems rather strong. This is worth considering.

2. The Obama denial seems rather weak. Saying that a lengthy article is "inaccurate" is not a strong rebuttal. The rest of the press release goes on to talk about previous comments on trade, but does not specifically or categorically what the report says. It's a very non-denial denial. That's also worth considering.

This actually reminds me not so much of the photo flap but the initial reports of John Lewis changing his superdelegate vote. There, the NYT flatly stated that he was. Lewis's spokesperson said the article was inaccurate, but didn't explain any further. The NYT stood by their story. Eventually we found out that Lewis had switched, though it's not clear if he had actually done so at the time that the NYT reported he had.

I find it hard to believe that CTV got snookered by "Canadian sources" who made up the whole thing. But that Canadian embassy denial is hard to get around as well.

breaking wide

Ah....has anyone contacted the Michael Wilson referenced in the original story?  And if not, WHY NOT? This report is NOT unsourced, as everyone keeps arguing.  See as follows:

"... 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."

this is gonna be interesting.  

I hope at the bottom of this story we will know who is lying.

I notice that the Clinton campaign has not apparently pushed this story at all. Compare this to Photo-Screwup, where the Obama campaign caused it to explode by slamming the Clinton campaign over a Drudge report.

just as a point of information
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUW0A pBGkGgu5CfdiXsMTzGe8jDAD8V3HL181

Not everything is connected to the Clinton campaign, leaks etc.

I am always skeptical of unnamed sources.

by the way...
Ohio
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php

Texas
http://www.pollster.com/08-TX-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php

No polls on how Canada will vote..
Do they have caucus?

In the story it says that both Obama and Clinton campaign had called the ambassador.  Clinton has FLATLY DENIED IT.

And Obama in an interview has FLATLY denied it.

Canadian embassy has FLATLY denied it.

Why is Clinton off the hook and Obama is not?

This is a bullshit story and you all know it.

It was probably concocted as a dirty little trick from Karl Rove.

At least the local Ohio media asked Obama about it. Of course, Obama denied it. CTV still stands by their story.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.as px?storyid=84196

I want to know!

CTV just aired another NAFTA story, they continue to stand by their claims.

Of note, the CTV Washington Bureau Chief claims that the source, a high-ranking embassy official, reconfirmed the story this afternoon (even after the Canadian embassy issued its statement).

You can watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMpbpov-H cA

Breaking: More On The CTV Obama NAFTA Story

something smells fishy here.

It seems both campaigns want to renegotiate labor and environmental standards in NAFTA, but I wonder if either campaign has any problems with Canada in regards to this. Is Mexico the only target of renegotiation of NAFTA?

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE.

Well, that explains it. He's the DLC's chief economist.

Obama is borrowing Goolsbee from the DLC for his campaign.

Oh, and by the way, Nuevo Liberal has obviously not watched the CTV video or would know that in the story, the source--at the highest level in the Canadian government--reconfirmed and described the conversation that took place with Goolsbee.

It happened, ObamaBots. Deal with it. Obama's economic advisor called someone at the "highest level" in the Canadian government, and told them not to worry about the NAFTA rhetoric.

Obama caught dead to rights LYING about NAFTA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMpbpov-H cA

Tonight, we get the video above, featuring CTV's Tom Clark who reconfirms their original story, which they stood by in their statement to me.

...Once again, it's about a lot more than NAFTA. It's the measure of the man's character that comes into question. Saying one thing in public to the American people in order to to get vote, then promising a neighboring government something else. It's anything but a new kind of politics.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

how could he lie about a DIRECT STATEMENT FROM THE CANADIAN EMBASSY?  that's just ASININE; the Canadian Embassy itself said no such call was made.  Bob was reporting a FACT, something CTV seems hard pressed to do.

this whole story reeks of desperation, trying to fabricate any dirt that'll stick to Obama.  pathetic.

that CTV is claiming that the Clinton campaign also made a similar call to the Canadians, right?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/
"* Blame Canada! CTV, the Canadian TV channel, isn't letting the story die that an Obama staffer warned Canadian officials to ignore the campaign's criticism of NAFTA. In fact, it even names an Obama official. The Obama camp has denied that any conversation like that occurred. Today's CTV story also repeats the charge -- largely ignored yesterday -- that the "Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton's words. The Clinton camp denied the claim.""

so the Clintons are also lying then, and this anonymous source CTV is quoting is still heroic in his or her "truthtelling", right?

something STINKS at CTV.

If it IS Goolsbee, he's got to go. I have no doubt his personal belief is NAFTA has done more good than harm in the aggregate (a belief I agree with) but ouch for political idiocy. Well there goes Ohio, time to change history.

Buffenbarger however, can (name any nasty thing here).

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 208/Talking_to_Canada.html#comments

Killer Quote from Politico: "Something to note: Goolsbee is a well-known Chicago economist, not a full-time Obama staffer, and there's no evidence that he was tasked by the campaign to communicate some secret position to the Canadians, whatever was actually said."

Yes, I am dining on crow. A big, heaping plate.

My apologies to SusanHu for calling her out on this story.

UPDATE 2: Story is breaking wide today.

As many here may know, I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, primarily because I think she is the candidate most likely to beat McCain in the fall. The media has given Obama a pass so far. Why? Because the media is owned by big corporations and the corporations control the Republican Party and profit mightily by them being in power.

Some will say this is conspiracy theory, but it is not, it's a fact. The right wing and their media are doing everything they can to propel Obama into the general because they know he is inexperienced in dealing with their brand of dirty tricks and attacks. They know they can take him apart once he's the nominee and the media pivots and not only withdraws its unwavering support for Obama, but fulfills their traditional role of enabling the right wing slime machine.

So what is going on here? Perhaps, having assumed Obama is going to be the nominee, that pivot has begun. Perhaps, they are thinking that prolonging the Dem primary and continuing to divide the party is good for McCain.  In any case we are witnessing the first significant opposition media attack on Senator Obama, and he's not handling it well.

Let's imagine that what happened here is that Austan Goolsbee, Obama's economic adviser and a known free trader did say something to the Canadians. He may not have, but if he didn't then what I'm going to say here is even more important:

Goolsbee has to get out there and clear this up!

One way or another the Obama campaign has to say exactly what happened and what was said. It will not go away. Facts are sticky things.

The Obama campaign made a huge error yesterday when the catagorically denied the story. As they say in politics, it is not the crime that gets you it is the cover up. If Mr. Goolsbee did say something to the Canadians now Obama is involved in an attempt to mislead the public. If he didn't there is the swirl of suspicion. In either case, the story will continue to fester and the hole he is digging himself will get deeper.

It is very tempting to for Obama supporters, as many here are doing, to say that there is nothing here, and it is time to move along. It won't work. Why not, it certainly works all the time for George Bush? But, George Bush has the media at his back. The media and their right wing masters are going to be going for Obama's throat on this one. They will not let up. Bottom line is that Republicans can lie with impunity and the media will cover it up. Their opponents can never lie at all or they will be ripped apart under the spotlight.

Please don't get angry at me. Writing this on this small circulation blog is not what is going to sustain the story. The facts will sustain the story, and as I say above facts are sticky.

Up until now Obama may have dodged this one. During the last year of campaigning, the media chorus would likely have washed over this story, but he is just beginning to experience their awful might. Even if he gets through the next few days and wins the nomination without this totally blowing up, he is laying the groundwork for all sorts of attacks on his credibility as they poke and prod into what actually happened in this case.

This incident demonstrates very clearly why I am very worried about the Obama campaign in the fall. He's kind like the kid who was born on third base, thinks he's hit a triple and takes a big lead off the bag. Clinton has been subjected to an opposition media throughout the campaign. Some will say she has done poorly because she is behind. But, recognize that this is in the face of the right controlled media allied with the Obama campaign. It's a double team, and they are doing everything they can to rip her down and build him up. Once the pivot is completed Obama will not recognize his media friends.  

And he has handled this one so poorly. One thing you never do is unequivically deny something with the other side has the facts. Yesterday he could have said: "My advisers have certainly had general talks about NAFTA and free trade with people in the Canadian government. It would be remiss not to talk to our closest ally, but I assure you that my stand on NAFTA is blah blah blah." If there were no talks he should have Mr. Goolsbee out there saying so. He should have put this to bed. He has to put this to bed. It will not go away, and just wishing it away and telling falsehoods or half-truths will only make it worse. Much much worse.

Instead, he has made a statement that no talks occured. I expect, if it comes out the Mr. Goolsbee did talk to someone, that the Obama campaign will parse Senator Obama's comments to the effect that it wasn't a talk with Mr. Wilson, or something like that, but that only works if you have the media in your pocket. Parsing his comments will only make matters worse, because instead of the story being about NAFTA, it will now be about Obama's truthfulness, and they will be all over it with repeated video snip clips, scorn and ridicule. We've all seen how they operate.

Here's the problem. We are still in the starting gate. This is a faily mild attack compared to what is coming. His stumble here is a harbinger of his destruction down the road if he gets the nomination and doesn't wise up fast.

One again, the final word is that the Democrat has to be a super expert at handling right wing dirty tricks and media attacks. Obama is demonstrating his lack of expertise already. This is a grave concern for our prospects in the fall if he gets the nomination. He needs to deal with this matter with honesty right now. It will not simply go away. The media free pass is ending.

Canadian Ambassador denying any contact with him or anyone in the Embassy in D.C. It's factual because Obama's rep called someone in the Canadian CONSULATE IN CHICAGO! Notice that the Ambassador keeps stressing  Embassy in DC and doesn't add all the consulates in US in his denial!

"In his Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade war. "

Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a  Commerce Appropriations Bill, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices.