Article Tools
On June 3, Barack Obama finally clinched the Democratic nomination. Barring an act of God, he will be the Democrats’ presidential candidate this fall — making history as the first African-American to become an official party nominee for president of the United States.
Obama’s supporters went wild. But his victory speech in Minneapolis-St. Paul, in which he lavished praise on his opponent Hillary Clinton, indicated there are yet more difficult choices ahead. “She has made history, not just because she is a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she is a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight,” he said. Expect much buzz about whether or not Obama will select Clinton as a running mate in the days to come.
Meanwhile, on a conference call to members of her party’s New York Congressional delegation, Hillary Clinton indicated she’d be open to serving as Mr. Obama’s vice president, if asked. And in her speech, she made no concessions, instead saying that what she wants is for the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for her to “be respected, heard and no longer to be invisible.” She won the primaries in South Dakota and Puerto Rico handily, adding to a string of wins that include such major swing states as Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Obama easily sewed up the 2,118 delegates needed to secure the nomination on June 3 with the help of several superdelegates — including Democratic Caucus chair Rahm Emanuel — who declared their allegiance to his camp throughout the day. However, the senator from Illinois essentially won the nomination on Saturday, when the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee agreed that Florida and Michigan could participate in the national convention in August by sending half the number of delegates.
This solved the problem of seating delegates from those states, while not awarding those delegates en masse to Clinton. (Clinton had won both states by running candidates on the ticket — despite the fact both campaigns had agreed to a Democratic Party decree not to do so, to punish both states for moving their primary dates up to January, in defiance of the wishes of party brass.) Obama gained a total of 68 delegates from Florida and Michigan combined; Clinton did not get the delegates she needed to catch up to Obama’s lead.
It will be difficult for Obama to resist Democratic Party pressure to include Clinton on the ticket, even though other candidates, such as John Edwards, might be a better choice politically. Like Clinton, Edwards represents the constituency of white, working class voters that Obama has had difficulty winning over — yet polls suggest Edwards does not have the polarizing impact on voters that Clinton does. He might also be a more moderate choice for Canada. Unlike Clinton, Edwards has not targeted Canada as an unfair trade partner within NAFTA; also unlike Clinton, he didn’t make it a habit to blame Canada for harbouring the 9/11 terrorists — well after that theory’s due date had expired. He is, however, most definitely a trade skeptic: he called for the renegotiation of NAFTA early on. What’s more, after endorsing Obama in May, he stated he would not run as vice-president.
So what does this all mean for Canada? Talk in the Obama camp of renegotiating NAFTA has been muted of late. The day after his victory, Obama made a speech by satellite to the Service Employees International Union’s convention in Puerto Rico in which he did not mention opposition to NAFTA or skepticism on trade deals once. (In keeping with their policy to prioritize domestic media, the campaign spokesperson Bill Burton did not respond to requests for comment on why the campaign has gone quiet on NAFTA; what detailed plans to renegotiate the treaty might be; or what those plans mean for relations with Canada going forward.)
For his part, Senator John McCain made a speech the night of June 3, in which he congratulated Obama on his victory — then slammed him for his stance on, among other things, trade pacts. “Senator Obama pretends we can address the loss of manufacturing jobs by repealing trade agreements and refusing to sign new ones,” said McCain. “The global economy exists, and it is not going away. We either compete in it, or we lose more jobs, businesses and dreams.… But he feels he must defer to the special interests that support him. That’s not change we can believe in.”
The following day, campaign spokesman Doug Holtz-Eakin commented to Canadian Business that regardless of the Obama campaign’s recent silence on the debate over trade deals, the candidate’s voting record speaks for itself. (Obama has opposed several major trade deals, including the current deal pending with Colombia, on the grounds its terms do not adequately safeguard the environment, or the rights of workers.) “Senator McCain, by contrast, has demonstrated unwavering commitment to international trade deals throughout his time in politics,” said Holtz-Eakin. “The lines are drawn. We look forward to a vigorous debate.”
A debate there will be — one that, it is increasingly likely, will have reverberations far beyond idle campaign rhetoric. Sources in Washington indicate Congressional members, taking their cue from Obama’s rhetoric in the primaries, are now scheduling debate on the renegotiation of NAFTA into their calendars for the fall session. As Congress is the body that has final say over trade treaties and what happens to them, this indicates the discussion over NAFTA should be taken much more seriously. Watch this space.
Rate this article
