Daily Archives: March 7, 2008

Curiouser and curiouser. Commenters on my previous post draw my attention to reports that the Clinton campaign also contacted Canadian officials to tell them the very thing that she excoriated Obama’s adviser, Austan Goolsbee, for saying–namely, to take all the anti-NAFTA stuff with a grain of salt, it was all just politics. This is from AFP:

OTTAWA (AFP) — US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton’s campaign, while rapping rival Barack Obama for telling US voters he is anti-NAFTA and saying otherwise to Canada, tried to reassure Canada too, local media said Thursday.

A top aide of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper meanwhile was identified as the likely source of an alleged leak that provoked a diplomatic fiasco involving both US Democratic presidential contenders.

Last month, Harper’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie, purportedly made impromptu remarks to journalists about Clinton’s US presidential bid, said Canadian reports.
The offhand comments apparently sought to downplay the potential impact on Canada of Clinton and Obama’s attacks on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during stops in the US state of Ohio.

Brodie told reporters that the Clinton campaign had called the Canadian embassy in Washington to tell officials to take her anti-NAFTA rhetoric “with a grain of salt,” said local media.

It beggars belief that if this is true, and Hillary knew about it, she would have made such a big deal about the Goolsbee meeting. This is what she said just before the Ohio vote:

NAFTA–I don’t just criticize it. I don’t have my campaign go tell a foreign government behind closed doors, “That’s just politics. Don’t pay attention to it.”

I thought this campaign had eroded my capacity to be surprised by politics. I was wrong.


The NYT says (after getting around to this in the story’s eighth paragraph) that the Canadian official who mentioned the Clinton campaign’s intervention was muddled–or created the appearance of being muddled. Or at least, I think that’s what it says.

But The Canadian Press said that this year Mr. Brodie did more than talk up the budget. According to the news agency, he also told a group of CTV employees that the campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York had contacted the Canadian government and told it “not to worry” about her promise to reopen the trade agreement. Canada’s economy is heavily dependent on trade and most of its exports go to the United States, making Nafta a delicate issue.

The news agency suggests that CTV picked up on Mr. Brodie’s remarks and began reporting the story. It apparently found, however, that in fact it was the Obama campaign that had offered the reassurances to Canadian diplomats.

Further update:

Is this the last word on this bizarre tale? (Dumb question, no doubt.)

OTTAWA — Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama’s campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office said Friday.

With the NAFTA affair swirling over the U.S. election and Canadian officials skittish about saying anything else that might influence the race, it took the PMO two days to deliver the information.

After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for — or received — any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday.

“The answer is no, they did not,” said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.

I forgot to post my column on Hillary’s wins in Ohio and Texas. For the many readers of this page (I know there are dozens of you) who get to the column through my portal, apologies. Here it is, in full, to save you any further clicking around.

Tenacity and hard work check Obama momentum
By Clive Crook
Published: March 5 2008 19:41 | Last updated: March 5 2008 19:41
Barack Obama remains favourite to win the Democratic nomination, but his advantage over Hillary Clinton has diminished.

Thanks to Texas and especially Ohio, there is a gleam in Mrs Clinton’s teeth once more. Just as in New Hampshire, just as on Super Tuesday, she has checked his supposedly irresistible momentum. Will commentators now stop saying that anything about this race is “inevitable”? The answer, inevitably, is no: we are as slow to learn as Mrs Clinton is to know when she is beat.

Mr Obama is still the favourite because he continues to lead in pledged delegates, allocated by the primaries and caucuses. Overturning this lead appears, as a matter of arithmetic, to be beyond Mrs Clinton. However, this by no means assures Mr Obama the nomination. The winner is going to be chosen, in effect, by the party’s unelected “superdelegates”, who can vote as they like.

The two campaigns will bring every pressure to bear. Mr Obama will say his lead in elected delegates obliges them to vote his way. Mrs Clinton will strive to neuter – I mean neutralise – that position. She will call for the disqualified delegates of Florida and Michigan (which broke the rules on the timing of their primaries) to be reinstated; she will call for Mr Obama’s caucus victories to be given less weight (arguing that the caucuses are not proper elections); above all, if she leads in the popular vote, she will say that this trumps Mr Obama’s delegate lead. This last seems especially important and it is now within her reach.

If you include Florida and Michigan (where Mr Obama was not even on the ballot, but so what?) then she already leads in the popular vote. Excluding Michigan but not Florida, she is within 300,000 votes of catching Mr Obama. Without either of those states, she is within 600,000 votes, out of a total cast of nearly 25m. Pennsylvania and the other remaining states give her a reasonable shot at closing that gap. If she does, watch the zeal with which she adopts upholding “the will of the people” as her watchword, elected delegates be damned. If she does not, her chances are less, but there will be other angles to work.

What went wrong for Mr Obama this week? The main answer must be Mrs Clinton’s remarkable tenacity. For once, her posture and her strategy have fully conformed to each other: she has been fighting hard, while making the case that the country needs a fighter in charge. She has also talked up her supposed advantage on national security, using an advertisement that asks voters who they want picking up the White House phone at 3am to deal with some emergency. John McCain also approves of that message, but this fight can wait.

And pity Austan Goolsbee, Mr Obama’s brilliant economic adviser, who dropped his boss in it by apparently assuring Canadian diplomats that Mr Obama’s tough talk on the North American Free Trade Agreement was political positioning and no cause for alarm. The timing could not have been worse, since no state is more sensitive to the supposed hurricane of destruction unleashed by imports than Ohio. Unfortunately, Mr Goolsbee’s steer was probably wishful thinking on his part. In any event, Mr Obama will now need to toughen up his anti-Nafta line even more, if that were possible.

Months more of vicious intra-party strife, and a tainted winner at the end. Of course, John McCain, as of Tuesday the anointed Republican nominee, is still favourite to lose in November. Many commentators regard it as inevitable.

Clive Crook’s blog

This blog is no longer updated but it remains open as an archive.

I have been the FT's Washington columnist since April 2007. I moved from Britain to the US in 2005 to write for the Atlantic Monthly and the National Journal after 20 years working at the Economist, most recently as deputy editor. I write mainly about the intersection of politics and economics.

Clive Crook’s blog: A guide

Comment: To comment, please register with FT.com. Register for free here. Please also read the FT's comments policy here.
Time: UK time is shown on Clive's posts.
Follow the blog: Links to the Twitter and RSS feeds are at the top of the blog.
Schedule: Clive's column appears in the FT on Mondays and you can read an excerpt of it on this blog.
FT blogs: See the full range of the FT's blogs here.


« Feb Apr »March 2008