Obama Campaign: Don’t Take Obama’s NAFTA Rhetoric At Face Value
February 28th, 2008 at 07:12pm Matt Margolis
CTV (Canada) reports that Obama’s rhetoric against NAFTA is only rhetoric, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
“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.”
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJYMgX4JuU]
Greg McIsaac of CTV stands by the story, despite denials by the Obama campaign, and has said on record,”The facts of our story are accurate.”
HAT TIP: The Flyover Report.
UPDATE: Camp Obama denies… gee, ya think? More from NRO’s Jim Geraughty… Still more…
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
38 Comments
1. congressive | February 28th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
You’re behind the curve on this one. Proven false by primary sources.
Roy Norton, the minister of public affairs for the Canadian embassy, is flatly denying that any Obama campaign official spoke to the Canadian ambassador in recent days or told him that Obama’s anti-NAFTA stump speech is merely “campaign rhetoric.”
“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.”
(Ed. Note: Off topic part of comment deleted)
2. Obama2008 | February 28th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Deleted - off topic.
3. Ricorun | February 28th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Deleted - off topic.
4. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
congressive, so which is worse? That Obama will sabotages US law (the NAFTA TREATY)? Or that he says he will, and really won’t?
Just how do you think that “President” Obama would circumvent this particular Treaty? And do you think it’s a good idea? You know, most of our oil and lots of our lumber comes from Canada.
5. Carl Gordon | February 28th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Deleted - off topic.
6. Obama2008 | February 28th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Deleted - off topic.
7. Ricorun | February 28th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Kahn: And do you think it’s a good idea?
Do you? Seriously, do you? If so, why? If not, why not?
Whatever else can be said, NAFTA is one of those issues that cuts across traditional partisan lines. Duncan Hunter was one of those against NAFTA. Huckabee is too. McCain isn’t. Romney and Giuliani weren’t. And prior to the last few days I thought Obama wasn’t but Clinton was (the Hillary part of Billary anyway). Apparently, I was wrong.
Apart from my impressions though, if you research this particular topic I think you’ll find that it is another of those issues that is hard to place on the partisan guidelines that exist now.
8. Casper | February 28th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
The heck with NAFTA. Personally, I think we should take over both Mexico and Canada. It solves our immigration problem, because everyone would then be an American. If gives us a much smaller border to defend and all of their oil is now our oil. Besides, if Global warming really happens, all of that land in Canada is going to become much more valuable.
9. Ricorun | February 28th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Have you been nipping the bottle Casper? Lol!
10. Casper | February 28th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
No. Just having a little fun.
I do have a point though. I think it’s time to start looking for solutions outside of party lines for some of issues our country faces today. Name calling and belittling someone else’s view point doesn’t really fix anything.
Sometimes it’s fun to look at an issue from out side of the box.
Besides, you have to admit that taking over Canada and Mexico would solve a lot of our problems. Of course it would create a lot more, but what the heck.
11. Some Assembly Required | February 28th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Canada has oil, water, and trees… Mexico has Cocaine… I say Mexico first then Canada.
Really though, NAFTA was created with the best intentions but has become a mistake. Also, if I’m not mistaken, both candidates said they would withdrawal from NAFTA, ONLY if they could not RENEGOTIATE it. To what exactly, unsure, but thats still not saying they will withdrawal from it on a whim.
12. Casper | February 28th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Some Assembly Required,
Mexico has great beaches, great food, and oil. The cocaine comes from Columbia. Canada has diamonds, hunting, and great beer. I suggest we take them both at once.
13. Some Assembly Required | February 28th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Casper,
You really arn’t a friendly ghost are you….
All these years I’ve been living a lie!!!
14. Some Assembly Required | February 28th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
The great beer in Canada is now owned by Coors. So technically the US already has that. However it’s the water that makes the beer taste so good. Important to note as well, Budweiser looks as if it will be taking over Labatts so the US will soon Conquer Canadian beer
Since were in Mexico why stop there… Brazil has some mighty fine looking women and one hell of a Football (Soccer) team.
15. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Mexico has like 20 states. How many representatives you think the 50 million people in Mexico City alone would get? Talk about shaking up our political system.
But the FBI would have a field day trying to clean up.
We tried taking over Canada once before. War of 1812. Didn’t work out too well.
NAFTA - so? Is it good or bad? I like free trade. At least I do in concept. Is this attack on it by Obama pandering or what? Why is he against it? And since it is actually, a law… what could he do about it?
16. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Oops, meant to say like 29 states.
17. Casper | February 28th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
“Oops, meant to say like 29 states.”
And Canada has 13 provinces and territories. If we rounded it to an even fifty, between the two we could have 100 stars on our flag.
“The great beer in Canada is now owned by Coors.”
I guess that’s only fair since the Broncos are owned by a Canadian.
As for NAFTA, I’m not sure how I feel about it either.
18. Some Assembly Required | February 28th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Kahn,
This is one of the issues where Obama loses points with me. He is against it because the US is losing Manufacturing jobs to China and other places. As for what he can do about it I’m am not entirely sure. So much business is wrapped up in NAFTA I do not believe there is much which can be done aside from renegotiating and enforcing it. I’m a little confused as well where he plans on applying stiffer taxes to companies who outsource labor to countries such as China. This would create NAFTA a non issue would it not?
19. Some Assembly Required | February 28th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
“And Canada has 13 provinces and territories. If we rounded it to an even fifty, between the two we could have 100 stars on our flag.”
Theres a whole new bag of worms with Quebec and St. Pierre (France). But, if the US can take over Tim Horton’s and threaten to shut it down, Canada will drop to it’s knees.
20. Gozer the Carpathian | February 28th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
ROFL!
I’ve joked about this for years and I still think it’d be a good idea. Though I think if we did it right it wouldn’t be a take over but more of an annexation.
21. neocon | February 28th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Obama2008,
Please clarify something for me. You summonsed God’s Mercy in post #2 on behalf of those who don’t believe in evolution.
Of which belief set are you?
22. Casper | February 28th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
“But, if the US can take over Tim Horton’s and threaten to shut it down, Canada will drop to it’s knees.”
Of course Canada could always retaliate by taking over Starbucks.
23. Kahn | February 28th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Too many Starbucks.
Funny that a discussion of Obamas positions has turned into a joke. Actually, from almost the first post. Thats how insane the discussion is. Just in case you Democrats didn’t notice…
24. Freedom1 | February 29th, 2008 at 12:15 am
So, is Obama a liar?
25. Mark Noonan | February 29th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Freedom1,
Yes.
26. Mark Noonan | February 29th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Congressive,
CTV is standing by its story - so, we’re left to figure out who would have the more vested interest in lying about this…Obama and the Canadian Embassy, or CTV?
If CTV is lying, it will eventually be found out and be a massive hit to CTV’s credibiltiy, likely resulting in the loss of jobs by reporters/producers. Not much incentive to make up a story out of whole cloth - it can, and does, happen, but it doesn’t seem likely in this instance.
Now, Obama must keep the union people on his side and anti-NAFTA rhetoric is his most potent weapon against Hillary in the battle for union votes - Obama has a definitive interest in this story not becoming a big issue. The Canadian Embassy also won’t want to rock the boat of the man who stands at least a 50/50 shot at being the next President of the United States.
On balance, it is more likely that the Canadian embassy is lying to protect Obama than any other set of circumstances.
27. congressive | February 29th, 2008 at 1:44 am
CTVglobemedia and co-owner Comcast have a LOT to lose if Obama wins and renegotiates NAFTA. They benefit greatly from reduced, and in some cases, eliminated regulations for inter-country broadcast products and labor laws. Ever wonder why so many American TV products are produced in Canada, eh?
They are FAR from being disinterested parties in this election cycle, hence, the motive is there for them to soil the playing field. But, of course, it is unprecedented that any “news” organization would distort for political reasons, right?
Obama’s camp denies the allegation, but more importantly, the Canadian ambassador in question denies any contact with any presidential campaign about NAFTA. So, if you think Obama already controls Canada, well, he’s a great and mighty world leader already, so we might as well elect him president, right?
Right you are.
Sadly, I sense another “renegotiate” = “abandon” as in “redeploy” = “cut and run” debaucle on the horizon.
As for Mexico, we won’t be overtaking it any time soon. I just got back from working in Guadalajara, and that place kicks American suburbia’s behind to the curb. There are shopping malls with Sears and Chili’s and Embassy Suite Hotels and even a WalMart Superstore, nice cars, groomed neighborhoods and an amazing Hilton with an in-house spa where I stayed.
Mexico is NOTHING like what most Americans think. They’ve got a strengthening peso, cheap gas, and a lower unemployment rate (according to the CIA) than us. We are their “welfare to work” program. We’re being left behind, dumping trillions into a hole called Iraq, all for nothing.
Check it out sometime. Puebla has great $40 peso latte’s, and you can get a delicious $350 peso steak in Monterrey at the Safi, and be sure to tour the GIANT Kraft Foods factory on your way to the airport and say hello to all those lost American jobs.
At least I’ve done my best to bring back some of those American dollars.
28. Some Assembly Required | February 29th, 2008 at 7:54 am
I’ve had Tim Horton’s coffee. Starbucks and their fancy pants latte frapochino’s (sp) have nothing on a large double double for $1.50. I think they put crack or nicotine the coffee, it’s almost as if it’s addictive. It still surprises me their are not more open in the US.
29. NeoClown | February 29th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Obama likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth.
On one hand he says Hillary was nothing more than a First Lady, flying around the world having tea with world leaders and that doesn’t count for experience.
Then out of the other side of his mouth he is more than willing to give Hillary complete credit for her husbands efforts with NAFTA.
Which is it BHO? Experience, or no experience?
BHO says he is willing to open communication with other nations and talk to leaders such as Castro - while at the same time he talks about closing our borders and doing away with NAFTA.
Which is it BHO? Open or closed?
BHO doesn’t have a clue. Obama ain’t nothin’ but a player.
30. Kahn | February 29th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Obviously, this story is a ploy to obscure Obamas position. He says he’s against NAFTA in Ohio, where they’re against it. Then with a wink and a nod he tells the Canadians not to worry about it. That way the Texans, who like NAFTA can believe whatever they want.
It is a very cynical and cowardly thing to do. I though he was supposed to be the bright new hope? And engine of change? Instead he’s a sleezy Chicago politician. Great.
31. Eric T | February 29th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
This is the issue that most of the democrats I work with get excited about. People don’t like seeing entire sectors like the manufacturing sector, get shipped out of the country. I don’t believe Obama will really do anything about it. I would nt vote Obama at gunpoint. But this is the issue Obama has strength on, Clinton can’t take a stand on it without NAFTA history being brought up to make Clinton look like a hypocrite.
Many in my state can point to NAFTA as the reason their wages were cut in half, pensions eliminated, homes foreclosed on.
The GOP hopefully, can see why, Obama is doing well, and come up with some stuff that makes sense. Huckabee, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, Mitt had plans and ideas to Protect American Sovereignty, jobs, the economy.
McCain has not addressed any of this stuff, do we just assume more of the same? I hope not, I like seeing growth in the 401k or IRA, but the inflation and stagnant, or decreasing wages, is an issue. These are intense issues. Hard times for alot of folks. The other GOP guys had some REAL good ideas and seemed to know alot more about creating jobs and the economy.
I sure don’t have the answers, the only thing I can think of that might help folks struggling is them credit cards that you could transfer the balance to a 0% interest card for a few months. They don’t seem to be around anymore, just the 32% interest cards.
32. Kahn | March 1st, 2008 at 1:06 am
Eric, but Ohio and Pennsylvania lost jobs BEFORE NAFTA. An China is the culprit these days.
Where do you live that you think this is an issue?
33. Eric T | March 1st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Kahn-
Michigan,
I watched NAFTA level this state. It is a hard sell. Pushin NAFTA is like trying to sell AIDS or cancer to somebody.
If your a small time laboring man NAFTA is bad news. If your a corporate executive looking to improve the companies bottom line, your view may be different.
34. Eric T | March 1st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Kahn,
You are right!
I agree with you that China is where jobs are relocating to these days. I got a clip from Bloomberg check it out.
ICBC Deposes Citigroup as Chinese Banks Rule in New World Order
By Aaron Kirchfeld
Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) — There’s a new world order for banks, and the Chinese, for the first time, are the biggest, with a market capitalization that has made perennial No. 1 Citigroup Inc. a distant also-ran behind Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China Construction Bank Corp. and Bank of China Ltd.
“The tables have been completely turned,” said Daniel Yergin, the Washington, D.C.-based chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc. during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The reversal of fortunes is the clearest sign yet that shareholders are betting on banks in the emerging markets rather than the U.S. institutions that dominated the financial landscape for most of the past century. As recently as 2003, there were 13 American banks ranked in the top 20 and not a single Asian rival, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Now, there are four Asian and six U.S. institutions. The collapse of the subprime mortgage market wiped out almost $100 billion of value from the three biggest U.S. banks in the past six months.
It was just a year ago that Citigroup was the world’s biggest bank by market value, and ICBC was beginning its fourth month as a publicly traded company.
Today, Beijing-based ICBC is the largest financial-services firm and Citigroup has tumbled to seventh on growing concern that the 196-year-old company is no match for a bank based in the world’s fastest-growing major economy that has more customers than the combined populations of France, Spain and the U.K.
“As far as the financial industry is concerned, in August you went from one world to another almost overnight, especially in the U.S.,” said Yergin, whose book “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power” won the Pulitzer Prize in 1992.
The following is a table of the world’s biggest banks by market capitalization in current U.S. dollar terms, showing their rank at the end of January 2008, 2007 and 2003.
1/31/08 Mkt cap ($bln) 1/31/07 1/31/03
1 ICBC 277.514 4 NA
2 Bank of America 195.933 2 2
3 HSBC Holdings 176.788 3 3
4 China Construction 165.234 7 NA
5 Bank of China 165.087 6 NA
6 JPMorgan Chase 159.615 5 9
7 Citigroup 140.698 1 1
8 Wells Fargo 112.365 11 4
9 Banco Santander 109.862 12 23
10 Mitsubishi UFJ Financial 105.412 9 22
11 ABN Amro+ 103.643 34 29
12 UniCredit 97.591 15 32
13 Intesa SanPaolo 89.954 16 46
14 BNP Paribas 88.487 14 15
15 Goldman Sachs 87.602 18 18
16 UBS 84.878 8 7
17 BBVA 78.302 19 25
18 Sberbank 77.713 31 109
19 Royal Bank of Scotland 76.023 10 6
20 Wachovia 75.401 13 8
+ RBS, Santander and Fortis agreed to buy ABN Amro in 2007.
To contact the reporter on this story: Aaron Kirchfeld in Frankfurt at akirchfeld@bloomberg.net
35. Eric T | March 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
American History with the Chinese has been relatively peaceful. My grandfather, and many other US soldiers clashed with Chinese troops supporting North Korean forces in that war. But that was half a century ago. Since then, America has helped grow the Chinese economy and many of their people may now enjoy a higher quality of life than just a few years ago.
BUT
“The reversal of fortunes is the clearest sign yet that shareholders are betting on banks in the emerging markets rather than the U.S. institutions that dominated the financial landscape for most of the past century.”
I think this is the key. China lures in Business with low wages and stocks that accelerate like missles.
I think these guys are doing just fine and don’t think they really need anymore help growing their economy. In fact, I’d almost be concerned enough to take protectionist measures to steer U.S investors back towards our stocks and creating jobs here.
If the US just keeps going with more of the same, Soon we will be at the bottom of the list. a second rate economy, 2nd rate military. a second rate country.
36. Blogs For Victory »&hellip | March 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
[…] it’s hard to take anything Obama says seriously. We know his rhetoric on NAFTA is merely rhetoric that cannot be taken seriously, are we supposed to believe that Barack Obama, who is even more liberal than Hillary Clinton, would […]
37. Blogs For John McCainR&hellip | March 4th, 2008 at 8:11 am
[…] week I reported on B4V that a member of Obama’s campaign told a Canadian official not to take Obama’s NAFTA […]
38. taxes oil gas producers&hellip | March 29th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
taxes oil gas producers
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok.