Obama has backed away
from his promise to renegotiate NAFTA:
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.
This heat of the campaign argument isn't really accurate because Obama advisor Austin Goolsbee and the campaign itself discussed the campaign's position over weeks. Confirming earlier evidence
, it is now very clear that Goolsbee really did tell the Canadians that Obama was not being honest with the voters and that they could ignore the claims that he was making in the campaign. Goolsbee of course flatly denied that he had made these claims to the Canadians ( “It is a totally inaccurate story
”). So will anyone in the press ask the Obama campaign if it is true that the Obama campaign lied about Goolsbee not making the famed comments to the Canadians? That Goolsbee also apparently was less than forthcoming and covered up what he had done? Why didn't Nina Easton ask
not just about the change in positions but whether the Obama campaign had lied about their earlier denials about the statements to Canada?
Remember the Obama campaign slogan that "Only Barack Obama Consistently Opposed NAFTA."
Labels: AustinGoolsbee, Obama