NAFTA-Gate, Redux
Try to follow this, if it’s possible, from Canada’s Globe and Mail:
- The Canadian Prime Minister’s chief of staff (Ian Brodie) is locked in a room with the Canadian media on Feb. 26th (it’s “examine the budget day ” for the press)
- With some time on their hands, they start asking said chief of staff questions about the anti-NAFTA remarks made by the Democratic candidates during the debate, knowing there would be concern among Canadians about the suspension of such a key Trade agreement.
- Mr. Brodie reassures them by saying that someone from Clinton’s campaign said to take it with a grain of salt, not to worry.
- Government officials do not deny this conversation, but qualify it by saying that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of mentioning any specific candidate.
- CTV assigns the story to their Washington bureau correspondent Tom Clark.
- Clark goes on air with the story that Barack Obama gave advance notice to Canadian diplomats not to worry about the upcoming anti-NAFTA rhetoric.
- The Clinton campaign jumps on the bandwagon, gaining many Ohio voters who see her as the champion of the laborer who will beat NAFTA and foreign trade into submission.
How do we go from Hillary Clinton’s campaign reassuring Canada that they’re just tossing rhetoric to attribution to Barack Obama?
Was it an error? Was it intentional? Who knows. What it is, is under investigation. Serious investigation.
Given the deep influence this so-called scandal had with Ohio voters, it surely appears as though the Canadian government and press had a hand in manipulating the outcome of the Ohio primary, mostly with the barbed attacks on the Obama campaign about how he “lied” about the memo and “spun” it.
The Canadian government confirms that it’s standard procedure to meet with Presidential candidates and that representatives of both campaigns have met with Canadian officials. It also follows that when NAFTA is sure to become the subject of debate in a campaign, the responsible thing to do is talk to the officials of the countries most affected by it (e.g., Canada and Mexico).
But somehow, the players were mixed around so as to place one candidate at an advantage over the other. Why?
I’m sure there’s more to be revealed, and I’m equally sure that all hands will point to officials inside the Clinton campaign. Could that be why there seems to be a backlash on Mark Penn today? Are they inventing the scapegoat to carry the dirty deed?
Be sure to read Factcheck.org to follow the facts. I think this story will explode if confirmation can be put to the question of whether it was the Clinton campaign that made the statement.
Technorati Tags: NAFTAgate, Canada, NAFTA, Ohio, primary, election influence, Mark Penn, Mark Wolfson