Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- "Thinly-Veiled Threats"? White House Suggests Arizona Republicans Put Up or Shut Up
- POTUS at the All Star Game: No Bailout for the National League? "No, We're Out of Money"
- POTUS Tells Michigan Things Will Get Tougher As He Introduces New Plan for Community Colleges
- Michelle Obama's Father NOT buried at Burr Oak
- Missing Mayor
- Obama Wants to Avoid the Dirt for First Pitch
- Michelle Obama's Burr Oak Cemetery Connection
- Obama Expects Unemployment Figures to “Tick Up for Several Months,” Despite Economy Stabilizing
- President Obama Joins With McCain to Eliminate Raptor Fighter Jets
- President Obama Tries to Get the Momentum Back on Health Care Reform
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
NAFTA Confusion
March 06, 2008 10:05 AM
Buried in a Canadian Press story about the NAFTA controversy is the intriguing notion that all of this began, as ABC News' Jennifer Parker has reported, with the Canadian Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie.
CP reports Brodie told a room full of reporters about the Democratic candidates' anti-NAFTA rhetoric that, according to a source, "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."
The original CTV story did mention that low-level Clinton staffers made contact with the Canadian government, but this would seem to imply higher-level contact, if Brodie was chatting about it.
Needless to say, the Clinton campaign denies it. "We flatly deny the report," says Clinton spox Phil Singer. "We did not sanction nor would we ever sanction anyone to say any such a thing. We give the Canadian government blanket immunity to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from."
- jpt
March 6, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (43)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Why is this Clinton-NAFTA-Canada story not headlines in the USA? It really baffles me, considering the harm it did to Obama in Ohio, especially. How can we get this in the news?
Posted by: Christine | Mar 7, 2008 8:55:47 PM
I can't believe Hillary? None of this makes sense to me. Hillary has shown that she is now better than George Bush when he looked in our faces and lied and mislead us in going to war. Now here we go again. What I am really disappointed in is how the news media covers this. Why put Obama's name to this scandle and not Hillary's. Hillary claims the news media has been unfair to her and that is yet another lie. The news media has bent over backwards to support her run for the highest office. One that she does not deserve. If she is the nominee I can not vote for her after being a Democrat all my life. I will do a write in for Obama or vote for McCain. Hillary absoultly scares me.
Posted by: Lyra Talarico | Mar 7, 2008 11:50:00 AM
Karl
Pullin a Romney means bashing the other guy/gal for a position you hold (or used to hold the day before in the case of Willard).
Hills pulled a Romney. She castigated O for doing the very same thing she was doing. Clever politics - and it don't make her a perpetual victim.
She claims to be tough enough to stand up to anyone. Now either she is or she ain't. And everytime she cries no fair - it looks like she ain't.
54 40 or fight!
Posted by: The Commander Guy | Mar 7, 2008 10:33:38 AM
Het the Commander Guy -
It is documented that Obama people met with canadian officals. And the Obama camp finally admitted it. Now the Canadian gov't is saying Hillary's camp contacted canadian officials but no one on either side can confirm that so stop making Hillary the scapegoat for Obama and his incompetence. He is such a whiner - he wond 11 straight wins and then he loses 3 states and he starts crying - give me a break. The guy is a jerk.
Posted by: Karl | Mar 7, 2008 8:02:31 AM
There has to be some voters in Ohio and Texas who now feel extremely sold down the river by the media. Gee, no surprise this story is hidden in the back pages.
Posted by: SE Croft | Mar 7, 2008 7:10:29 AM
there were more paragraphs in the actual story - the canadians said they didn't know why the story said clinton when it should have said obama! the corrective wording gets left out, i see.
Posted by: so saddened | Mar 7, 2008 1:55:12 AM
What is wrong with this picture?
Clinton, McCain, and Obama are all active Senators.
Instead of pointing fingers at each other or suggesting what can be done about NAFTA, why are they not doing something about it?
Time to get back to your day job, Senators. Remember, the one you were elected to do?
Posted by: ken | Mar 6, 2008 11:21:55 PM
its absolutley absurd that people think theres an Obama bias, when this story, which is now the BIGGEST STORY IN CANADA, can only get on blogs in the United States.
Can we get you another pillow, Hillary?
Posted by: John | Mar 6, 2008 11:21:07 PM
Americans are been fooled to believe that the press are not hard on Obama while in actual case they are killing his campain and painting him dirty. They wait for any little news and they blow it out of proportion. When this came out to suggest the actual distortion came from Clinton campaign the press refused to make it a headline and actually trying to downplay it. Then they will come out in the morning to ask if the press is hard on Clinton and easy on Obama and people will vote. Hillary refused to see the post racial era but Obama is a genius and will defeat the press, Hillary, Bill and the republicans. How about asking if the press is giving hillary a free pass. Anyway Obama must have expected this double standard the press and hillary are doing.Hillary and her campaign spoke to Canada and the press convinced the Ohio public that it came from Obama just to punish him and he lost. He lost Ohio because of that and he knows it and the press knows it. He is still lucky and the Onus is on him to make it public.If he is waiting for the Press to do his job then he is stupid. The press dislike him but the people like him and he has to be realistic and face the challenges that follow him
Posted by: dave | Mar 6, 2008 10:24:23 PM
This would be funny if it were the only scandal the Clintons were involved in, at the present.Type these into a browser.
1. Peter Paul vs Clintons
2. Chinagate
3.Partners of Rezko giving money to Clintons.
And reason Hillary brought Maggie back was because she sterilized the Foster scene from Whitewater.
Obama isn't perfect he has stated that fact. But the Clintons are dirty.
Why won't they release documents reguarding her experience, and tax returns?
And McCain is being compared to Jane Fonda during Nam he made 35 propaganda videos for the Vietnamese during the war and gov. refuses to release his records or those records.
Just type viet vets against McCain into a browser and see the great war hero.
Just like sports the rookie is the best.
And he's now an emty suit he has passed 2280 bills compared to Hillarys 50.
Posted by: rockon | Mar 6, 2008 9:40:49 PM
WHY ISN'T THIS ON YOUR FRONT PAGE??????? Maybe ABC is in bed with the Clintons.
THE FINGER POINTER IS USUALLY THE GUILTY PARTY.
Posted by: Rhoda Penmark | Mar 6, 2008 9:34:22 PM
WHY IS THE MEDIA NOT SHOUTING ABOUT THIS STORY LIKE THEY DID WHEN IT WAS THOUGHT THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN LIED???? ARE YOU AFRAID HILLARY IS GOING TO WHINE THAT THE MEDIA IS ATTACKING HER?
Posted by: KFleming | Mar 6, 2008 8:39:51 PM
Why isn't this front-page news? Clinton shamelessly dupes the voters of Ohio and Texas and frames Obama? What a travesty of democracy.
What is wrong with the Press??
What makes Wolfson babblings NEWS? Absolutely pathetic!
Posted by: BZS | Mar 6, 2008 7:15:11 PM
Ugh.
It also seems that the Canadians are now saying that the leaked memo's author likely misinterpreted Goolsbee.
But, damage done. Mission accomlished, eh Hillary?
Posted by: Tungsten | Mar 6, 2008 7:12:14 PM
Of course this news story would be buried in a blog and not on the front page ,Hillary Clinton has 35 years of media contacts. I think us Obama supporters need to turnoff our TVS, they are not to be trusted.
Posted by: Tommy from FL | Mar 6, 2008 6:47:14 PM
I'm thinking the NAFTA/Clinton connection shouldn't be buried in a blog, but on the front page, like Obama's conveniently released story (right before March 4).
Posted by: peahen | Mar 6, 2008 5:17:21 PM
Mary Miles....you are WRONG! Our Prime Minister WANTS Clinton to WIN, so McCain CAN beat HER...Be real...Clinton has more Lobbyist donations than ANYONE! If not McCain, Clinton will play the games...Obama is a threat to the Lobbyists, they DON'T want him to win...
Posted by: sue | Mar 6, 2008 4:36:07 PM
HA! Clinton doin' the ole "WINK, WINK"!
Looks good on HER!
Posted by: sue | Mar 6, 2008 4:31:55 PM
There are lots of nuances but let's get above all that and at least say this:
Either they BOTH said the same thing, or Clinton did and Obama didn't. So either way, it's very low for Clinton to not only accuse Obama (something he either didn't do or at worst they both did), but also make such a huge deal out of it.
Posted by: Foo | Mar 6, 2008 2:45:11 PM
These are media's jobs.
I don't see lots article about Mc Cain in this news because Mc Cain has no Rep Opponent and he is taking a break.
Posted by: fake | Mar 6, 2008 2:44:03 PM
Post a comment

