Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Crap that Passes for "Hist... | How Many Times... »

Thursday, March 6, 2008

The New NAFTA-Gate?

posted by on March 6 at 11:10 AM

Did both the Obama and Clinton campaigns give private assurances to the Canadians that their NAFTA rhetoric was just… rhetoric? If so, you can bet the Obama camp wishes they’d known this before the vote in Ohio.

Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton’s musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

“Quite a few people heard it,” said one source in the room.

He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton’s campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt… That someone called us and told us not to worry.

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton’s assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected.

(Although, I have to say, this story reads in a very strange way—jumping from the alleged Clinton call straight to the Obama campaign being on the defensive in a manner that doesn’t make intuitive sense, or at least doesn’t track with the narrative we’ve heard so far, which is that Obama was on the defensive because his campaign had made private assurances. Maybe a string of typos in which the writer replaced “Obama” with “Clinton”? If not, the plot certainly thickens…)

RSS icon Comments

1

I have met Ian Brodie once up at Western once.

Posted by vooodooo84 | March 6, 2008 11:16 AM
2

I bet Will in Seattle has met him. Twice. And was invited to his wedding. And got drunk with his sister. Twice.

So there.

Posted by elenchos | March 6, 2008 11:22 AM
3

Not only the Obama campaign, but the voters in Ohio who may have been swayed by the charge against Obama on this topic, would probably have liked to know that Clinton is herself accomplished at the "old two-step" (as she called it). Of course, it's almost unforgivable that any American alive in the last 15 years would NOT already be aware that the Clintons are capable of duplicity in the extreme.

Posted by Trey | March 6, 2008 11:23 AM
4

Frankly, it doesn't matter, since the economists in either administration aren't going to allow anything to happen to NAFTA, nor should they. They're just pandering to the dunderhead protectionist vote.

Posted by Fnarf | March 6, 2008 11:26 AM
5

I don't see how it's pandering to say you want to tweak NAFTA to add more labor and environmental protections. And to say you are willing to use "the hammer" of opting out to show you are serious.

If they were saying they were to junk NAFTA and that was that, it would be meaningless pandering.

Also, saying "the economists in either administration aren't going to allow anything to happen to NAFTA" is like saying "the generals in the Pentagon aren't going to allow any President to invade Iraq without enough troops."

Posted by elenchos | March 6, 2008 11:34 AM
6

Fnarf, it actually matters if some voters in Ohio voted for Clinton simply because they thought Obama was two-faced and Clinton was not. But, you're correct in that NAFTA will remain in place.

Posted by Fitz | March 6, 2008 11:35 AM
7

It is pandering. The voters in Ohio couldn't give a shit about the environment or labor conditions. They don't want to lose their jobs. Who does, but those jobs are being lost to Asia. Quit blaming NAFTA

Posted by Mike | March 6, 2008 12:01 PM
8

The point of the argument is that Americans are losing their jobs to foreign competitors who don't have the same standards for workplace safety, pollution, etc. That's why they give a shit about environment and labor conditions.

Neither Hillary or Obama is simplistically "blaming NAFTA." They are both saying NAFTA needs to be adjusted, not trashed.

Posted by elenchos | March 6, 2008 12:13 PM
9

Nope, don't think I've met him. I could be wrong, though. Canada's got a fairly small military and I have been at official functions, so it's possible.

But it does point out that Senator Clinton lied when she said she'd be "tough" on NAFTA - since she PHONED the PM of Canada to say the exact opposite - and urged him to phone Sen Obama's campaign aide.

Looks like the liar is ... Sen Clinton.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 6, 2008 12:16 PM
10

Um, elenchos, I think you'll find that Canada has far TOUGHER labour laws than the US. Jobs are being outsourced to China and India--who last I checked weren't really part of the NORTH AMERICAN free trade agreement.

And both Mexico and Canada have signed more international treaties protecting labour standards--not to mention environmental standards--than the US has.

Shamless, ridiculous pandering. Good of the Canadian government to call them out on it (if indirectly).

Posted by DeanP | March 6, 2008 1:23 PM
11

NAFTA isn't just Canada and the US. It's Canada and the US and Mexico. And no, Canada does not have overall less lax standards than the US.

Which is why tweaking NAFTA a little to bring all 3 countries into line is not that radical. Which is why it is silly to be making Obama and Clinton sound like some kind of anti-trade protectionists. They're both just saying lets make a few changes in NAFTA.

And they're not promising that will bring back all the lost jobs to Ohio.

Posted by elenchos | March 6, 2008 1:36 PM
12

Canada does not have overall more lax standards, I mean.

Posted by elenchos | March 6, 2008 1:37 PM
13

Well, nobody can bring the lost jobs back to Ohio, unless they start building wind turbines, solar cells, geothermal plants, and other alternative energy tech from the money we're currently spending like fish overseas in Iraq ...

McCain/Bush 08 says it might take a Hundred Years before they stop doing that ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 6, 2008 1:53 PM
14

NAFTA is not a popular concept in Canada. With the softwood lumber debacle, it seems like the US can pick and choose when it wants to honour NAFTA and when it doesn't.

Posted by km | March 6, 2008 6:12 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).