Oh what a tangled web we weave when 1st we practice to deceive--
enough hope to go around for both sides-
All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos Video/Audio Advanced
More Questions, More Concerns on Obama,Trade 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The Nation -- Barack Obama's campaign has been trying for days to convince voters in the March 4 primary state of Ohio -- as well as other states that have suffered as a result of trade deals that benefit corporations, not workers, farmers, consumers and the environment -- that they're not saying one thing to Americans who want the next president to take tough stands on trade policy, and another thing to trading partners and corporate donors who want to maintain the current free trade regime.
Unfortunately, the paper trail keeps upsetting the best laid plans of what until now had been a meticulously-managed campaign.
At issue since last week has been a simple question: Did a top economic adviser to the Democratic presidential frontrunner tell Canadian officials not to take seriously Obama's tough talk about renegotiating deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement?
The Obama campaign has offered a string of non-denial denials, dismissals, obfuscations and roadblocks to media inquiries.
But, now, from the Canadian government comes a memo on a meeting between Obama's senior economic policy adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and Canadian officials in Chicago.
The memo, written by Joseph DeMora, a Canadian consular aide, explains that, "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign."
The memo goes on to note that, "He (Goolsbee) cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
Goolsbee, who for days directed questions about the incident to the Obama campaign, is now offering another non-denial denial.
"This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language. He's not quoting me," Goolsbee says. "I certainly did not use that phrase in any way."
But did Goolsbee convey the impression that Obama would be saying one thing in Ohio and then doing something else altogether as president?And what, if anything, did Obama know about these back-channel discussions?
Have there been other discussions? With representatives of other countries? With campaign donors? With corporate lobbyists? With members of Congress such as free-trade fundamentalist Rahm Emanuel?
Of course, Hillary Clinton's campaign is banging on about this matter -- even cutting new television ads with regard to the issue.
John McCain is saying things, as well. Indeed, he's making a big deal about "straight talk," or the lack thereof.
But don't get lost in what the other candidates are saying.
Focus in on this core question: Is Barack Obama playing games with the trade issue that he has made central to his appeal to the voters of Wisconsin, Ohio and other industrial states where concerns about deals such as NAFTA runs deep?
And if he is doing so, will he end up planting the seeds of distrust similar to those planted by Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004 on the trade issue? If he is talking out of both sides of his mouth, and if there are more revelations to come in this regard, then Obama is doing serious damage to his fall prospects as a Democratic presidential nominee.
Gore and Kerry never "got" the trade issue. As such, they never sent the right signals to swing voters in key states. It cost both former Democratic nominees dearly. Barack Obama sounds a lot better. That may be enough for a primary fight. But if he wants to win the presidency, he is going to need to be a lot better.
The Obama campaign should stop spinning and take this controversy a lot more seriously. And they should answer the essential questions: Do Obama and Austan Goolsbee agree on trade policy? If so, what precisely is the policy they agree on? If not, what are their differences? And if those differences are significant, might it be time for Obama to get a new senior economic adviser?
enough hope to go around for both sides-
All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos Video/Audio Advanced
More Questions, More Concerns on Obama,Trade 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
The Nation -- Barack Obama's campaign has been trying for days to convince voters in the March 4 primary state of Ohio -- as well as other states that have suffered as a result of trade deals that benefit corporations, not workers, farmers, consumers and the environment -- that they're not saying one thing to Americans who want the next president to take tough stands on trade policy, and another thing to trading partners and corporate donors who want to maintain the current free trade regime.
Unfortunately, the paper trail keeps upsetting the best laid plans of what until now had been a meticulously-managed campaign.
At issue since last week has been a simple question: Did a top economic adviser to the Democratic presidential frontrunner tell Canadian officials not to take seriously Obama's tough talk about renegotiating deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement?
The Obama campaign has offered a string of non-denial denials, dismissals, obfuscations and roadblocks to media inquiries.
But, now, from the Canadian government comes a memo on a meeting between Obama's senior economic policy adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and Canadian officials in Chicago.
The memo, written by Joseph DeMora, a Canadian consular aide, explains that, "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign."
The memo goes on to note that, "He (Goolsbee) cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
Goolsbee, who for days directed questions about the incident to the Obama campaign, is now offering another non-denial denial.
"This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language. He's not quoting me," Goolsbee says. "I certainly did not use that phrase in any way."
But did Goolsbee convey the impression that Obama would be saying one thing in Ohio and then doing something else altogether as president?And what, if anything, did Obama know about these back-channel discussions?
Have there been other discussions? With representatives of other countries? With campaign donors? With corporate lobbyists? With members of Congress such as free-trade fundamentalist Rahm Emanuel?
Of course, Hillary Clinton's campaign is banging on about this matter -- even cutting new television ads with regard to the issue.
John McCain is saying things, as well. Indeed, he's making a big deal about "straight talk," or the lack thereof.
But don't get lost in what the other candidates are saying.
Focus in on this core question: Is Barack Obama playing games with the trade issue that he has made central to his appeal to the voters of Wisconsin, Ohio and other industrial states where concerns about deals such as NAFTA runs deep?
And if he is doing so, will he end up planting the seeds of distrust similar to those planted by Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004 on the trade issue? If he is talking out of both sides of his mouth, and if there are more revelations to come in this regard, then Obama is doing serious damage to his fall prospects as a Democratic presidential nominee.
Gore and Kerry never "got" the trade issue. As such, they never sent the right signals to swing voters in key states. It cost both former Democratic nominees dearly. Barack Obama sounds a lot better. That may be enough for a primary fight. But if he wants to win the presidency, he is going to need to be a lot better.
The Obama campaign should stop spinning and take this controversy a lot more seriously. And they should answer the essential questions: Do Obama and Austan Goolsbee agree on trade policy? If so, what precisely is the policy they agree on? If not, what are their differences? And if those differences are significant, might it be time for Obama to get a new senior economic adviser?
