Remember this story, from February of this year?
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.
How about this story where a memorandum emerged that recounted the meeting Obama senior adviser Austin Goolesby had with Canadian diplomats during which he said the very same thing? The Obama campaign denied it all and shoved Goolesby deep into the background and the story mostly blew over.
Which brings us to today.
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.
“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.
In other words, what Obama’s people told the Candians was competely accurate and the campaign’s denials were so much hooey. I have to wonder if voters in the midwest aren’t ready to hope that they can change their vote after they find out that the Obamessiah lied to them.
(via memeorandum)
Tags: Barack Obama, Free Trade
