Quite a kerfuffle stirring. The above should be even more alarming to the Obama
campaign than the other video being circulated. A report out of Canada says Obama’s
promise on NAFTA is just words.
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.
When contacted, an Obama aide basically delivers a non-denial denial, as you
can see in the video. Obama keeps his promises? What kind of blathering is that? When
you think about Obama’s moves on Exelon, rewriting legislation for them, juxtaposed
against him telling Iowa voters tougher legislation had passed, instead of the
truth, I’ve done enough research on the guy to know when smoke is being blown for votes.
Obama’s team is not denying the conversation CTV is reporting and it’s quite
plausible the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not
be taken at face value, and to add, because Obama has no intention of doing
what he’s campaigning on with regards to NAFTA. Obama welshing on his pledge to take public financing for the general election also comes to mind. It’s not like Obama hasn’t said one thing then done another before.
The Clinton campaign, however, said no one directly or indirectly contacted the Canadian
government. But in addition, the Clinton campaign said that they give
the Canadian government “blanket immunity” to reveal who supposedly
called them. I’ve confirmed both with the Clinton campaign.
On the flip side you’ve got allies a bit upset.
…..”Mexico does not support reopening Nafta,” he said. “It
would be like throwing a monkey wrench into the engine of North American competitiveness.”
Mexican diplomats believe a renegotiation could resurrect the commercial
disputes and barriers to trade that the agreement itself was designed to overcome.
Jim Flaherty, Canada’s finance minister, also expressed “concern”
about the remarks by the Democratic candidates.
“Nafta is a tremendous benefit to Americans and perhaps the [candidates]
have not had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the benefit to
Americans and the American economy of Nafta,” he said.
Nafta, which removed Ã‚Âtariffs on most trade between the US, Canada and
Mexico when it was implemented in 1994, has become the focus of debate about
the exodus of manufacturing jobs from Ohio ahead of the state’s presidential
primary on Tuesday. … ..
Canada is a huge trading partner, including oil importer, and they rely on NAFTA. The above exchange from the FT is likely at the heart of the Obama camp’s non-denial denial.
One question will nail this story down.
Will Barack Obama’s team also give “blanket
immunity” to the Canadian government, as Cinton’s team did, to release
the name of the person who called them to say the criticisms are only campaign
rhetoric, so don’t take them at face value?
“None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta,” Landry said.
It’s the easiest way to clear this up once and for all.
Oh, and to add, “inaccurate” is not the same as a flat denial.