I just saw in Slate that Barack Obama has been sending a messenger to Canada to tell them (who he has to tell, Slate doesn't specify) that his whole Anti-NAFTA thing is just a show to impress the yokels in Ohio. Don't worry, he's really a free trader just like us. He just needs to say these things to get elected so that he can protect NAFTA.
It reminds me of LBJ sending messengers back to Houston to tell his financial backers that he didn't really believe in Civil Rights, that he only said these pro-civil rights things so that he could keep control of the Senate from the Northern Liberals and Republicans. Really he was a segregationist just like them. Really.
He has taken a page from the Master, while Clinton is sampling Walter Mondale.
| Barack Obama
| NAFTA
|
This story is incorrect. The news is now reporting that in fact, it is Clinton who has been secretly talking with Canada about her NAFTA stance.
Comment #1 :: link :: March 6, 2008 04:49 PMSo taking Ohio union members for a ride is a good thing now?
Or did misinterpret?
Comment #2 :: link :: March 6, 2008 05:22 PMPlease provide a link to your "news" source.
Oh, wait, screwing over our best ally must be the meritorious thing (although I think meretricious might be a better word....)
Comment #4 :: link :: March 6, 2008 07:02 PMThe Clinton thing is running on the front page of Yahoo right now, although the story is it may be that both campaigns tried to reassure Canada.
Here's two links:
1) Clinton campaign assures Canada (too?)http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080306/pl_afp/canadausdemocratsvotediplomacy
2) Who cares? NAFTA is not the problem - it's China that's stealing all the Ohio jobs anyway
http://www.slate.com/id/2185739/
It's all the usual much ado about nothing type of political hissy fit. Too bad this is what passes for issues-based campaigning ...
Comment #5 :: link :: March 6, 2008 09:30 PMIn Slate today:
NAFTA Nonsense -- Explaining the Clinton/Obama spat over trade policy. By Daniel Gross
"Clinton has charged Obama with making calculated remarks in front of one audience while sending equally calculated signals to a broader constituency—which is a triangulator calling a three-sided figure a triangle."
Comment #6 :: link :: March 6, 2008 10:39 PMSee also Guardian blog post and Globe and Mail.
Stop blaming Austan Goolsbee!
Comment #7 :: link :: March 7, 2008 05:18 PM