Skip to main content

Barack Obama's disciples keep blowing smoke and waving mirrors at the memo written by a Canadian consular official in Chicago, outting Obama's double-speak about NAFTA. But in spite of all the spin and wishful thinking, the memo won't go away.

This spin-doctoring comes in various flavors, the crudest of which is a diary on the recommended list with 500 recommendations on Daily Kos, CBC Exonerates Obama.

Weirdly enough, in this "refutation" of the story about Obama's lead economic advisor Austan Goolsbee talking to the Canadian consul and another consular official at the Canadian consulate in Chicago, the words consul, consulate, consular, and Chicago do not appear.

The "refutation" of a story about the consul never mentions the consul. It never mentions the consulate. Forget about Chicago! Forget about the Canadian consular official who wrote the memo.

Forget the memo!

Please!

Canada is seriously embarassed by the appearance of meddling in a U.S. election, and they really, really want it to go away, but nobody is directly contradicting the consul, George Rioux, or Joseph DeMora, the consular official who wrote the memo. The closest thing to a denial that Obama's disciples can find is an anonymous source in the Canadian Embassy in Washington, who says the memo may be mistaken.

An anonymous source says the memo may be mistaken.

So what? I can find an anonymous source who says the earth may be flat. "George Bush may be smarter than Einstein," according to an anonymous source.

Meanwhile, back in reality, the memo itself still nails Obama for bullshitting about NAFTA, and the facts don't change just because Obama's people hope they disappear and have the audacity to deny them.

So along with this update I'm republishing my original diary, "Obama's Big Lie About Nafta," which relies solely on direct quotes from the memo written by a Canadian consular official about a meeting between Obama's lead economic advisor and the Canadian consul in Chicago.

There is no serious dispute about the facts.
 

Barack Obama's lead economic advisor says that "Obama's tough talk on the North American Free Trade Agreement is just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously."

As reported in the New York Times today, Austan Goolsbee, who has been Barack Obama's economic advisor since Obama's Senate campaign in Illinois, told Canadian consular officials in Chicago that "much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy."

Obama's double-speak about NAFTA was revealed in a 1,300 word memo written by a Canadian consular official, Joseph DeMora, recounting a meeting between himself, Goolsbee and the consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.

The closing section of the memo specifically mentions Ohio:

"As Obama continues to court the economic populist vote, particularly in upcoming contests like Ohio, we are likely to see a continuation of some of the messaging that hasn't played in Canada's favour, but this should continue to be viewed in the context in which it is delivered."

So as Obama "continues to court the economic populist vote," we can expect to hear a lot more "campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously," but it's "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy."

Goolsbee and the Obama campaign claim that Mr. DeMora's report of the meeting is "completely crazy."

Completely crazy!

So either Obama has been lying about NAFTA all along, or the Canadian Consulate in Chicago assigned a lunatic to report on a meeting with Obama's lead economic adviser.

You decide.






Addendum: In the comments, "Thomas C" refers to a Globe and Mail story about who leaked the memo, and whether the Clinton campaign made similar assurances to Ian Brodie.

The Globe and Mail story affirms my account of the memo:

Days later, the leak of the internal Canadian diplomatic note revealed that Mr. Obama's adviser, Austan Goolsbee, spoke to Mr. Rioux on Feb. 8.

In a summary of the meeting written by Canadian diplomat Joseph de Mora, Mr. Goolsbee was described as indicating that Mr. Obama's NAFTA stand "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

The Globe and Mail also says that the possibility similar assurances were made by the Clinton campaign is based on "a terse, almost throwaway remark that Mr. Brodie made to journalists from CTV, according to people familiar with the events."

Since the story about the consular meeting with Mr. Goolsbee in the New York Times included actual quotes from the memo, a formal diplomatic document, instead of impressions about "a terse, almost throwaway remark," I went with the story that had a solid source, instead of a "story" that didn't.

On a different subject, readers without the functionality of "trusted users" to see hidden comments may be surprised to learn that out of 74 comments on this diary, 24 are now hidden.

Originally posted to Jacob Freeze on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:33 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hmmmm, (13+ / 0-)

    okay - put down the pipe it is clouding your judgement.  Although I really had to laugh when you wrote....

    Meanwhile, back in reality

    "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

    by newfie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:38:23 AM PST

  •  "There is no serious dispute about the facts." (12+ / 0-)

    Well, there is when they are twisted and used as propaganda by  the opposing campaign, despite there also being some evidence that they participated in the very same act of allegedly reassuring the Canadians.

    Or would you have Obama and his supporters lie down while Clinton stabbed him in the back and endorse McCain?

    "We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."

    by Grass on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:40:37 AM PST

  •  political cartoon in today's paper (canadian) (18+ / 0-)

    windsor_star_february_6th_2008

    Join Hillary in Texas & Ohio for the "Speeches from the Big Chair Tour"

    by soros on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:41:55 AM PST

  •  The canadian governmen denied (15+ / 0-)

    and apologized.
    the story is dead. let it rest in peace.

    Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt. William Shakespeare

    by notquitedelilah on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:42:33 AM PST

    •  But but but the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maxomai, paintitblue

      supposed newscast didn't say consular it only said diplomats in Chicago.  And an ambassador is a diplomat - ergo PROOF POSITIVE!!!! And who says the film clip was a CAnadian broadcast?  They were speaking English not Canadian!

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:46:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But there was (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maxomai

      no signed affidavit testifying that they were telling the truth that the memo was not accurate.  AHA!  What more do you need?

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:48:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But the story isn't dead... (6+ / 0-)

      ...because this guy Brodie, Harper's chief of staff, was heard by various reporters claiming that it was HILLARY's campaign that contacted the Canadian government to deliver the message that Hillary's anti-NAFTA rhetoric "should be taken with a grain of salt."

      NAFTA-gate lives, and now it is Hillary's turn to answer the questions.

  •  Hillary Partisan CTV Swiftboat attack (7+ / 0-)

    Canadian Government apologizes for election tampering.
    which is probably ILLEGAL, according the prime minister Harper.
    It was CLINTON CAMPAIGN  that fed the bogus lines to right wing Canadian gov't lackey, then regurgitated by right wing operative at appropriate
    SWIFTBOAT time.
    Please read yesterdays diary about this, on recommended list,
    read the Toronto Globe and Mail, read and learn,

    delete diary,

    and get lost you SWIFTBOATER!!!

    •  Hold on there (0+ / 0-)

      Babbalouie.  Where you getting the hoohah about Clinton campaign?  You really don't need to do that.  It will serve to inflame the whole silliness.  You got a link?

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:51:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  agreed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maxomai, paintitblue

        please stop accusing clinton of complicity on this. It takes the story to an unrealistic level and the story itself is very real.

        Was Hillary a hyppocrite? Yes. Was she involved in the leak and everything else? Probably not.

        The GOP on the other hand...

        •  You need to read the rec'd diary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scoopster

          that is up now. There is much more to this story and it involves Hillary and it's gaining legs. It's already hit several news sources.  

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          •  Can you please (0+ / 0-)

            provide the quote where ANYONE from any campaign is shown to have "involved in the leak"?  What you can show - if you read the original article in the Globe and Mail - is that a reporter overheard a conversation that Harper's Chief of Staff was having with another reporter.  That Globe and Mail reporter heard Harper state that the Clinton campaign had reassured "the embassy" to take the rhetoric with a grain of salt.  Just to follow you have party A listening to a conversation between party B and party C about what party D may have said to party E. Of course we don't know where party C heard this - maybe directly from party E but maybe through parties F.G or H.

            I have less doubt that the above conversation took place than I do that this is a plot by the Clinton campaign to plant a story about Obama.  That she used the leaked memo to her advantage is a bit disingenuous to say the least.  But let's not leap to more nefarious activity than that.

            Also the bigger story is that the Haprer government created and leaked the memo not what any oficial stated that anyone said.

            "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

            by newfie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:06:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  There you go you Koolaid drinker (0+ / 0-)

          SHE WAS COMPLICIT IN THIS.
          You are doing Karl Rove's work for him, he's laughing his ass off because of people like you.
          Keep drinking the McKoolaid, umm, yummy.

      •  Don't you read the recommended diaries. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scoopster, DJShay

        Clinton campaign was the one that was talking to Canadian gov't about this, and telling them NAFTA talk was just about getting elected.  The right wing operative coordinated with propaganda CTV outlet to swiftboat our candidate just before the election, and accuse Obama of doing what Clinton actually did.  It doesn't get any worse.

        •  I read the link that (0+ / 0-)

          ThomasC provided.  The one you should have included.  The one that perhaps you shuold have read before you wrote

          It was CLINTON CAMPAIGN  that fed the bogus lines to right wing Canadian gov't lackey, then regurgitated by right wing operative at appropriate
          SWIFTBOAT time.

          Then perhaps you would have written your statement to be more accurate.  To wit, you have no clue as to whether the Clinton campaign fed any lines, bogus or otherwise, to anyone.  That Harper's Chief of Staff stated that someone said something that he felt should allay fears that the US would trash NAFTA wholesale is apparent.  That it was a deliberate "swiftboat" perpetrated by Clinton, as your statement implies, is not supported.

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:57:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Good catch (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tbetz

      Here's the link to the Globe and Mail story:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/hom e

      I'm curious if our diarist believes Hillary should start answering questions about this.

      •  Revised link (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scoopster, newfie, tbetz

        Sorry, this is clickable:

        http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...

        •  Thanks for the link. (0+ / 0-)

          Personally I do not see a major problem with either campaign wanting to reassure the Canadian Government that their intentions are not to throw out NAFTA wholesale.  From what I hear there are a few points that the Canadians would want to change as well.  I think it would be somewhat prudent to clarify one's message to avoid the whisper down the lane.  I say this because what I have heard from both candidates was fairly mild (note: this is limited to the debate discussion since I am not in Ohio and have not read or heard anything else the candidates may have said about NAFTA).

          The bigger deal is not the original report on CTV but the leaked memo from the Harper government.  At that point it becomes a more willful act to affect the course of the Democratic primary.

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:07:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Way to cherry pick your quotes. (7+ / 0-)

    I can do it to.

    Goolsbee "was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy

    See that? The debate over free trade not the debate over NAFTA. He's saying that Obama is not a protectionist even if he does support altering NAFTA, which by the way is CONSISTENT with what Obama says on the trail.

    Here's what the memo says about NAFTA

    On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

    Oh wow. What a liar. That's almost word for word what he says in his stump and what he said at the debate. If he's giving them the "wink wink" he's not very good at it.

    And finally the money quote:

    In a statement, the Canadian Embassy expressed regret on how the discussions have been interpreted.

    The statement said "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

    How about an apology?

  •  I can do it "too" not "to" *sigh* (0+ / 0-)
  •  I'm Canadian (13+ / 0-)

    and it is absolutely ridiculous to treat what happened as an honest mistake.  You have to know Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, to realize that NOTHING ever leaks from his government by accident, certainly not memos about confidential conversations with low level diplopmatic officials. You should also listen carefully to what Harper has been saying.  He has ignored the fact--now widely confirmed and reconfirmed by Canadian journalists--that it was his chief aide that started the initial rumour.  The furor in Canada has to do with  the leak from the PM's chief of staff, not anything Obama said about NAFTA.

    You also have to know that CTV is a conservative tv station--not quite Fox news, but certainly a media outlet with a specific political agenda. Somehow the story that Clinton campaign people called Canadian officials to reassure them that the NAFTA talk was political posturing made news as an Obama adviser reassuring Canadian officials.  Mistake?  That was compounded two days letter with a "leaked" memo.  Again, this is a government that NEVER leaks anything by mistake. Stop making excuses for the Harper government.  Canadians aren't embarrassed, they are furious with the manipulations of their neo-con government.

  •  i seez what i wants to (10+ / 0-)

    Photobucket

    It's not the tragedies that kill us; it's the messes--Dorothy Parker

    by Libertaria on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:49:00 AM PST

  •  Is this a joke? (9+ / 0-)

    Hillbots starting to clap louder when the evidence behind their case falls apart. Sounds like Bush and WMD.

    What's next: Obama's trade-related, consular-program activities?

  •  Tempest in a teapot. (5+ / 0-)

    When do we get to see Hillary's tax records? How many millions did the Clintons get in Boratgate?

  •  Care for a Troll House Cookie? (3+ / 0-)

    They're delicious, made with chocolate chips.

    If I had enough time I'd post a recipe.

    In the meantime you need a roadmap and an apple. Goodbye!

  •  Clinton's NAFTA Lie (10+ / 0-)

    It appears that it was the Clinton campaign, not Obama's, who was playing footsie with the Canadians.  Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper is reporting that the source of the leak, Harper's chief of staff, was in fact quoted as saying that it was Hillary's campaign who contacted the Canadian government, telling them that Clinton's campaign stance on NAFTA was just rhetoric:

    "He [Brodie] said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

    This is your source for the Obama smear, Jake.  He says your girl is playing both sides of the street.  Any response?

    Oh, here's the link, Jake:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...

  •  You decide??? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxomai, Scoopster, tbetz

    For a second there I thought I tuned in to Bill O'Reilly.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:57:15 AM PST

  •  How 'bout thos tax returns? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scoopster, tbetz, o the umanity

    What's she hiding?

    I'm sorry. I'm pissed. I can no longer live up to the standard Obama sets.

    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:57:27 AM PST

  •  Jake? Jake? (4+ / 0-)

    Where's our diarist?  I'm curious as to his response to the Globe and Mail story.

    I suspect his position will be that it's OK for Hillary's campaign to play rhetorical games on the NAFTA issue and then contact the Canadian government in order to assure them that it's just politics, but it's wrong if Obama does it.

    That's the kind of attitude that is poisoning this campaign, poisoning this site, poisoning our party, and making John McCain a very happy man.

    Come out, Jake, and let us know your thoughts about the Globe and Mail story.

  •  Whatever happened with an Obama advisor, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    newfie

    and Canadian gov't officials in Chicago bear in mindthat our trade agreements with Canada are beneficial, we import more oil and Natural gas from Canada than from any other country. The Nafta agreement hurts us in regard to our trade with Mexico that trample on workers rights and pollutes our common enviroment. Also Nafta was signed by President Clinton and touted by Hillary and her husband as a victory.

    CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. A. Bierce

    by irate on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:00:39 AM PST

  •  See refuting complete distortions isn't hard (0+ / 0-)

    People should try it more often. heh. Especially Obama.

  •  "Barack Obama's disciples" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scoopster, marcoto

    More thoughtful insight from the Clinton insult bots. Does hating your fellow Democrats keep you warm at night?

    The perfect plan, Is not the man Who tells you, You are wrong

    by dss on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:08:14 AM PST

  •  Has Obama stopped lying about this yet? (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Jacob Freeze
    Hidden by:
    Scoopster

    It's kinda bizarre.

    Here's the skinny, minus all the obfuscatory fluff:

    The meat of the CTV report:

    On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Barack Obama's campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

    Totally caught out on his attempt to use NAFTA as a club in Ohio, Obama opted to lie:

    Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.

    Here is the relevant part of the memo:

    "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," a consulate staffer wrote, according to AP. "He 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."

    The CTV report was a direct reflection of the memo, but all was denied by the bellowing dittoheads here, launching into ad hominem attacks on CTV as the "FOX News of Canada," etc. No wonder this dishonest, vacuous campaign is tanking.

    •  *sigh* Once again (9+ / 0-)

         Goolsbee "was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy

      See that? The debate over free trade not the debate over NAFTA. He's saying that Obama is not a protectionist even if he does support altering NAFTA, which by the way is CONSISTENT with what Obama says on the trail.

      Here's what the memo says about NAFTA

         On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

      Oh wow. What a liar. That's almost word for word what he says in his stump and what he said at the debate. If he's giving them the "wink wink" he's not very good at it.

      And finally the money quote:

       

       In a statement, the Canadian Embassy expressed regret on how the discussions have been interpreted.

         The statement said "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

      Where did he lie? Tell me? The CTV report was blatantly false. And the memo, which is basically a non issue was leaked to because it gave the appearance of corroborating the bogus CTV story.

    •  Globe and Mail, JMKnapp (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maxomai, Ahianne, Scoopster, cadejo4

      Here's the link:

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...

      This is the very same guy who leaked this very dubious Obama memo, and he was heard by various reporters saying that it was HILLARY's campaign who was playing both sides of the street.  Any response, JM?

      •  The memo exists (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jacob Freeze

        ...and says what it says. Do you deny that?

        That is what CTV initially reported and Obama lied about. Again:

        Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.

        Who leaked it is a side issue. If you can come up with similar proof that Hillary's campaign did the same thing, then maybe you'll have something. No doubt this character is an unreliable source, but the memo is what it is, and has nothing to do with him.

        Facts are funny things.

        •  Brodie was heard by various reporters... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne, Same As It Ever Was

          ...claiming that Hillary's campaign did exactly what you are faulting Obama's campaign for allegedly doing.  Your apparent willingness to focus only on the Obama story, while ignoring the story emanating from the VERY SAME SOURCE for the leaked memo, is very telling.

          You are hereby charged with being a hypocrite of almost republican shamelessness, JM.  How plead you?

          •  The memo mentions Goolsbee (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jacob Freeze

            ...saying the same thing that CTV reported. That of course is the story, and the memo is the "source" that has caused Obama extreme embarrassment.

            What corroboration do you have that the Hillary campaign did the same thing?

            This is more evidence of Obamite cultlike behavior, as they've done nothing but attack the sources of this story, rather than addressing Obama's prima facie dishonesty.

            I particularly enjoyed how CTV instantly becoame the "FOX News of Canada" for daring to cast a negative light on St. Obama. That is a charge never laid at the feet of CTV before this. Of course, this was in the heady days before the consulate memo came out and cut Obama off at the knees.

            •  Your charge (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ahianne, Tonedevil

              of

              rather than addressing Obama's prima facie dishonesty

              has been directly debunked twice in this subthread and in the very memo you rely upon.  Yet you ignore those comments and continue jumping up and down and crying wolf.

              I'm sorry. I'm pissed. I can no longer live up to the standard Obama sets.

              by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:54:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. The campaign handled it badly (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne, Scoopster

          I don't deny that. The denial and subsequent "what the hell do we do" scramble was not pretty. HOwever, it does not change the fact that what Goolsbee says in the memo about NAFTA is EXACTLY what he says in his stump speeches? do you deny that?

          The original CTV report said that someone from the Obama campaign contacted the Canadian Ambassador. That was false information. ANd I think they were confused and caught off guard. The subsequent denials were handled badly. Obama blew it. But it doesn't mean the whole wasn't bs. The memo was used to corroborate the CTV when in fact they are completely unrelated.

          The Obama camp should have come out and been up front about the Goolsbee meeting from the beginning. LEsson learned.

        •  The memo says (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne, Tonedevil

            On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

          Far from a lie, this is exactly what Obama said in the Ohio debate.

          You can take lines out of the memo and divorce them from their context.  But when you do, it's you who's being dishonest, not Obama.

          I'm sorry. I'm pissed. I can no longer live up to the standard Obama sets.

          by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:52:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama lied about the contacts (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jacob Freeze

            ..and their (Goolsbee at least) giving assurance that the trade posturing was campaign bullshit. Obama (and his supporters) can continue to act like children and claim that every negative story on him is a "lie" because of some ridiculous parsing, but it doesn't really help his case.

            End of story.

    •  You are ignoring (4+ / 0-)

      the fact that the CTV report itself has been exposed to be a manipulation.  It's not Obama supporters saying that but the Globe & Mail and the CBC.  You are taking the same line as the Harper government.

      •  Ad hominem fallacy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jacob Freeze

        The memo exists and matches the CTV report.

        •  it does NOT match the CTV report. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maxomai, Ahianne, Scoopster

          On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama's campaign called the Canadian government within the last month -- saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry.

          First of all he's never said he would opt out. He said we should use the threat of opt out as leverage and also said on the stump that an opt out is not realistic. Second he did not call the Canadian government. They initiated the contact with him.

          That's what they were denying. The Goolsbee memo does not corroborate any of this. The language about "political positioning" was the stenographer's summary of a conversation about protectionism. Maybe taking a protectionist tone for political reasons is hyppocritical but that's splitting hairs. When it comes to the meat of what he said about NAFTA it matches his public statements. Period.

          •  If that's what they were denying (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jacob Freeze

            ...it's parsing in the extreme. What difference does it make if it was a phone call, or face-to-face meeting? The salient point is that Obama (Goolsbee) told them that his campaign rhetoric was BS political posturing. And note that his denial said no contact had been made on the issue.

            And I saw the Ohio debate--Obama threatened to opt out of NAFTA for the first time. I suspect this was to try to defuse the growing charge that he was pandering on NAFTA because he hadn't said he would end it.

            It was an empty threat, I realize, as he is a NAFTA supporter and wouldn't be so stupid as to get rid of it.

            But the heart of the issue is his dishonesty and pandering.

            •  Again, that's not what he said (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ahianne, Scoopster

              They were discussing the campaign rhetoric in reference to the fact that NAFTA was going to become a major issue on the trail. And that the frequency at which it shows up in his speeches is about political positioning and does not mean that Obama is a protectionist. These comments were summarised in the memo as what you just said. I don't really see that as hyppocritical.

              And again, you're ignoring the fact that the memo says he wants to renegotiate, which is what he said on the trail. There is no contradiction. The part about political positioning was referring to the overall tone of his speeches and the fact that someone might interpret them as protectionist.

              Obama said many times that he is not a protectionist. he said trade deals are a reality and the global economy is not going away BUT trade deals should have environmental and other standards in place.

              And yes, the way the campaign denied things was stupid. I acknowledge that. They handled this issue very badly.

            •  And btw, the embassy that wrote the report (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ahianne, Scoopster

              had this to say:

               

               In a statement, the Canadian Embassy expressed regret on how the discussions have been interpreted.

                 The statement said "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

              The memo was exploited for political purposes.

            •  And it's nott the phone call vs. face/face (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Scoopster

              That's not what's important. What's important is Obama didn't initiate the contact.

    •  actually, the Clinton campaign began this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scoopster, arielle

      They are the ones who called the Canadians to reassure them, not the Obama campaign. Of course, the Clinton campaign and its surrogates would never face the facts, would they? Here are the facts:

      Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

      The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

      The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."

      The entire article is here:

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...

      You owe everyone on this site an apology for peddling falsehood. Are you going to admit your dishonesty, or behave like a Clinton?

    •  Way to stay on top of the news cycle. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:27:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not sure if Clintons should point out lying (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Same As It Ever Was

      in other people.

      Lynch mob partipants volunteered, too.

      by cskendrick on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:25:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Will fellow democrats stop calling Obama (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scoopster, k9disc, Tonedevil

    partisan's "disciples".  This meme that those who support Obama are member's of a "cult" are playing by the RNC playbook.  Cut the shit.

  •  Many, many Canadians (0+ / 0-)

    are sympathetic to Obama's criticisms of NAFTA:

    NAFTA's legacy: the worst agreement we ever signed

    MURRAY DOBBIN, From the Globe & Mail

    March 5, 2008 at 7:10 PM EST

    In the aftermath of Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's threats to "renegotiate" NAFTA — or pull out — the usual suspects have been activated to tell the world how wonderful the deal has been for Canada and the United States.

    There is no doubt that the sector that devised the scheme in the first place and sold it to politicians have benefited greatly from this investors' rights agreement and its predecessor. The continent's largest corporations have greatly reduced regulatory impediments to their profits, radically lowered labour costs, gutted Canada's sovereign capacity to pass new environmental legislation and, in terms of investment restrictions, virtually erased the borders.

    All of those corporate benefits, however, have been extremely bad for other aspects of Canada and for ordinary Canadians.

    Sound familiar?

    throughout the decade, workers' real wages actually declined. They still have not caught up to 1981 levels. And the highly paid 220,000 industrial jobs lost as a result of NAFTA are gone forever, replaced by lower-paid jobs.

    NAFTA was supposed to unleash a flood of foreign investment — boosting our industrial capacity and productivity. Instead, since the first trade agreement was signed, more than 95 per cent of direct foreign investment has been used to buy up Canadian companies. Head offices and research and development money has headed south, and Canada has seen a steady decline in manufactured goods as a percentage of its GDP for the past 10 years.

    ...The environment has also suffered almost continuously since the deals were signed — and this is according to the Commission for Environmental Co-operation, the NAFTA agency responsible for monitoring the impact of the new regime.

    ...Canada is legally obliged to continue exporting the same proportion of our oil and gas forever even if we face a shortage.

    Next up is our water. The U.S. is already officially into its supply problems and it will, over the next 20 years, become a catastrophic crisis, outpacing even their predicted energy crisis.

    NAFTA defines water as a good — meaning that, as soon as any provincial government signs a contract to export bulk water to the U.S. (by river diversion or tanker), nothing can stop further exports.

    ...When its history is written, NAFTA could rightly be described as the worst agreement ever signed by a Canadian government.

    For the full article, go here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/...

  •  We've entered a time warp (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxomai

    What the hell? I'll just repost my comment to the original diary:

    An unfortunate diary (7+ / 0-)

    There are some great diaries up right now highlighting the furor in Canada going on at this moment over the conservative government's apparent attempt to interfere in U.S. elections. With so much that's interesting to report on this case, you've reduced it to mindless, candidate-diary drivel. Please delete.

    by cadejo4 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:06:48 PM PST

  •  Harper doesn't comprehend 'embarrassment' {N/T} (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Night Runner, Scoopster

    GWOT - Global War on Terra(-firma) - Bush's War on the Planet.

    by grndrush on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:22:34 AM PST

  •  NO Tip Jar, ANOTHER cowardly HRC Hit-Piece {N/T} (4+ / 0-)

    GWOT - Global War on Terra(-firma) - Bush's War on the Planet.

    by grndrush on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:24:41 AM PST

  •  Jake Freeze and JMKnapp (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scoopster, Tonedevil, o the umanity

    Neither appears willing to comment on the Globe and Mail story.  We're all familiar I assume with the acronym IOKIYAR - it's OK if your a republican.  Isn't this just an instance of IOKIYAC - it's OK if your a Clinton?  Here we have the very same source of the initial leak regarding Obama - Harper's chief of staff - telling Canadian reporters that it was HILLARY's campaign that was playing both sides of the street, and yet Jake and JM don't appear willing to comment.

    Jake and JM, come in from the cold.  Remember when we ALL abhorred Rove and his tactics?  Remember when we abhorred the effect Rovian tactics had on politics, the disgust and apathy such tactics engendered, and the way unscrupulous politicians used such tactics to avoid discussing the issues of importance to all of us?

  •  Hillary's LIES conned the folks in Ohio (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxomai, Scoopster

    but most of the rest of the nation seem to be on to her.

    Want to take a look at want the Canadian Parliament has to say about the issue?

    JustAThoughtThatsAll.com

    by Steve Everett on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:26:50 AM PST

  •  Read the Clinton memo (3+ / 0-)

    Turns out that Goolsbee did NOT make his contact during the run up to the Ohio primary, but Clinton DID.

  •  Funny there's no tip jar (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scoopster, Same As It Ever Was

    I'm done with diaries where the diarist is too chicken-shit to post one. That's usually a good sign that they're trolling...

    On second thought , let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place

    by o the umanity on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:28:40 AM PST

  •  Let it go (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    o the umanity

    Why don't you ask yourself what Hillary's position on NAFTA is? I can't keep track of her flip-flops...

  •  Memo contens don't match the meeting date (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxomai, Scoopster
    The meeting happened on February 8th, before NAFTA was being heavily campaigned on, before Wisconsin and Ohio were all the rage, before Obama's winning streak of primaries.  

    Check out my diary on the matter, which got lost amidst the primary shuffle:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    The date of the meeting, relative to the memo's contents as leaked to the news, is all you need to know to determine that the memo is NOT especially reflective of the events in the meeting.

  •  Clinton allegedly said the same thing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxomai, Scoopster

    as Goolsbee was alleged to have said.

    Brodie allegedly also discussed musings by Obama's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, saying people from her camp also told Canadians to take her NAFTA concerns with a grain of salt.

    Yet, only the alleged Goolsbee comment was reported.  Hmmm.

    If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

    by Paleo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:46:15 AM PST

  •  If it helps Hillaray anything is OK (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    o the umanity

    Meddling in an American election is ok. Launching unsubstantiated charges is ok. Pretending that the Hillary campaign itself did not give the Candadians a wink and a nudge on Nafta is ok.
    Just win.

  •  This diary is a big lie (0+ / 0-)

    The Canadian govt. has come out and said that memo about Goolsbee was not accurate.  And now we learn that is was actually the Hillary camp that told the Canadians to not worry about Hillary's tough words on NAFTA.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site