BREAKING: CTV Names Obama Adviser Austan Goolsbee In NAFTA Story

There is now more coming out of CTV on the Obama NAFTA matter.

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

CTV LINK: Opponents slam Obama after CTV story on NAFTA

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 question to the campaign headquarters.

...

But just yesterday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.

The denial from the embassy was followed by a denial from Senator Obama.

"The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don't know who the sources were," said Obama.

Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position.

Who knows what to think of this? Seems like CTV is standing by the story. Wonder what this guy Austan Goolsbee could tell us?

 

Named Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee (clickable link to UofC bio)

 Obama: It did not happen.

•  The Canadian Embassy Said It DID NOT Happen

  and CTV looked like a fool with this non-story.

  by slinkerwink on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:46:09 AM PDT

  •  I know...

    ...but CTV is standing by it's story, and it seems Goolsbee's not answering questions.

    This story does not seem to be over yet...

    by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:48:32 AM PDT

    •  CTV is a right-wing organization. I don't trust

      their 'reporting' on this matter.

      by slinkerwink on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:49:44 AM PDT

      •  Let's not jump to conclusions...

        It really doesn't matter who anyone trusts or what anyone thinks at this point. This is just going have to play out. I don't think the revelations are over yet, and the sooner the facts come out the better.

        There has been too much mud slinging on both sides of this matter so far. Jumping to conclusions and slinging mud around only gets people in trouble and when future facts come out makes them regret statements made due to their rush to judgement. Let's be measured in our response to this new information.

        by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:54:02 AM PDT

        •  Uh. The Canadian Embassy reconfirmed their denial

          so who is this Canadian source? If it's Michael Wilson, he's the original author of NAFTA and would want to push this in spite of the confirmed denials from the Canadian embassy.

          by slinkerwink on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:55:23 AM PDT

          •  Maybe...

            ...but what's the point in speculating at this stage?

            by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:56:46 AM PDT

            •  Wait.. isn't that what your Diary is?

              I agree - let's not speculate.  The embassy says it didn't happen.

              by Yoshi En Son on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:59:37 AM PDT

              •  I tried very hard...

                ...for it not to be speculative.

                Given the diaries on this yesterday, I tried very hard to just deliver the news here. If you think something is speculative I'd appreciate you pointing it out.

                by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:02:51 AM PDT

              •  oh, c'mon

                Now we just accept oficial denials because they are politically convenient?

                Look, both Clinton and Obama are supporters of the corporatist free-trade agenda who have to demagogue now that Ohio is up for grabs.

                I prefer Obama to Clinton, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that this story is true. The denial from the Embassy is self-interested damage control by folks who don't want Obama to pay a price for having taken the effort to reassure them that all this talk of cancelling NAFTA is just for public consumption. If the Clinton campaign didn't make similar reassurances that would only reflect the fact that she doesn't have to because her pro-NAFTA credentials are not in doubt.

                by Christopher Day on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:11:44 AM PDT

            •  There's as much point to speculation...

              ...as anything.  That's what we do in the blog world :)

              As for this story, as I noted below I think it matters more to online activists than it will to most people in the "real" electorate.

              It's likely to get brought up at a debate at some point, but the Canadian government's position is a pretty strong defense.

              by Jonathan on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:00:56 AM PDT

              •  We will see

                ... :)

                by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:03:37 AM PDT

          •  Reagan and Bill Clinton denied their charges, too

            Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.  As MediaFreeze suggests, we need to wait and see.

            by dkmich on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:45:37 AM PDT

      •  BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA

        but you'll jerk a Drudge storyall over this site.

        by dhonig on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:08:45 AM PDT

        •  are you going to keep whining?

          by slinkerwink on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:09:19 AM PDT

          •  well why should you be allowed to

            get away with such a blatant double standard? some people may call you a hypocrite.

            by Zain on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:10:37 AM PDT

  •  You have ZERO credibility

    on this, given your astounding pimping of an unsourced and denied Drudge story.

    by dhonig on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:07:25 AM PDT

    •  your sig line's interesting.

      by slinkerwink on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:08:20 AM PDT

    •  really, their hypocracy is astounding.

      just two days ago they were standing with drudge. now they condemn when hillary people stand with canadians. i know who i trust more.

      by Zain on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:09:43 AM PDT

      •  Ummm...the "Canadians" are saying it didn't

        happen and even the source is backtracking.

        He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication

        .

        Looks like CTV was had.

        by Morgan Sandlin on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:14:04 AM PDT

        •  Don't trust anyone...

          Denials and/or accusations are both meaningless.  We'll find out the facts, I'm sure.  I would think CTV would be eager to back up their story.

          by dkmich on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:47:34 AM PDT

        •  Full quote

          But on Wednesday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.

          link

          by moira977 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:02:26 AM PDT

      •  Difference?

        Clinton never denied the story ("We don't know")

        Obama did, as did the Canadian government.

        by VirginiaDem on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:57:57 AM PDT

    •  I think

      you've pretty much reached the level of spamming now.   This is the second thread in which I've seen you jump all over this user.

      by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:18:07 AM PDT

      •  I think the user

        has pretty much reached the level of spamming, whoring his blatant hypocrisy everywhere, desperate for the approval of Obama supporters.  He's a hypocrite.  I'll call it wherever I see it.

        by dhonig on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:29:34 AM PDT

•  ouch n/t

  by Zain on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:47:29 AM PDT

•  Glad to see...

  ...CTV actually named someone.  Perhaps now this story can be cleared up.

  Unfortunately, I suspect that, no matter what the ultimate explanation turns out to be, some folks will still claim Obama's campaign is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

  by Jonathan on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:49:45 AM PDT

  •  Oh, and...

    He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.

    This is kind of important, as is the Canadian government officials' reconfirmed denial.

    by Jonathan on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:51:52 AM PDT

    •  Then he's going to need to clear that up...

      Don't you think?

      What kind of miscommunication?

      by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:55:39 AM PDT

      •  Perhaps

        I think this has already been dealt with about as well as it could be -- if people trust this news story in the first place, they likely also trust the Canadian government's denials.  Most people aren't familiar with the in's and out's of Canadian politics.

        The bottom line is: I think this story matters a lot more to the blog world than the real world -- as with most things in campaigns :)

        by Jonathan on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:58:26 AM PDT

        •  Not if you live in Ohio or MI. n.t

          by dkmich on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:49:30 AM PDT

      •  Obama doesn't have to clear anything up....

        Looks like CTV ran with a bad source. Its their problem.

        by Morgan Sandlin on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:10:38 AM PDT

    •  Exactly Jonathan...

      Looks like the "source" is trying to backtrack...

      though Hillary is 44 will run with this.

      Thank heaven's for Trix and a few other Clinton supporters here, otherwise I could never bring myself to even consider voting for Clinton.

      Hillary is 44 is losing votes for Clinton with almost every post.

      by Morgan Sandlin on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:09:25 AM PDT

•  CTV is a tool of the right wing.

  I can't stand watching them, they're so smarmy, and I've run out of barf bags anyway.  Doesn't surprise me they're bald faced liars to boot.  Instructions came from White House, funneled through Harper Bush-Lite "Conservative" government.

  by object16 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:51:01 AM PDT

  •  That's certainly a posibility...

    It seems something smells fishy here. If that's the case, I think we certainly want to know about it.

    This matter has gotten both sides of the Dem primary screaming at each other. Wonder who benefits from that?

    But, of course that's all just speculation. This is still an evolving story and as I said above jumping to conclusions is pretty pointless until more facts are known.

    I think this pretty much assures that the press will be asking more questions.

    by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:00:56 AM PDT

    •  Online, yes

      Other than that, I don't think it's as big a deal as we do in the blogosphere :)

      by Jonathan on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:04:15 AM PDT

  •  Instructions from the White House? Oh, come on

    Let's not get into tinfoil hat territory here.

    by Hlinko on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:54:36 AM PDT

    •  No tin-foil hat. just the facts.

      Does Faux not collude with the White House minions.  Same deal for CTV, just a subsidiary of Faux.   Open your eyes.

      by object16 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:07:20 AM PDT

•  All the continuing life of this story does...

  ...is hurt us in November.  Its pretty obvious that both Obama and Clinton are just handwaving about NAFTA, but it is an issue that resonates in at least 3-4 states that are likely to be very close in the GE.

  The continuing life of the CTV story only undermines the advantage we might derive in the fall, through contrast with McCain's position, by making our presumptive nominee look like a phony.

  Especially because its kind of a non-story, can't we please just let it die?

  by Minerva on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:51:37 AM PDT

  •  Media Freeze is a Hillary supporter, I think

    so he or she has an interest in reviving this story from a right-wing news organization.

    by slinkerwink on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:54:18 AM PDT

    •  Perhaps

      However, I think he/she is playing fair on this one.

      This story does have the potential to do some damage to Obama's standing among a small percentage of the electorate -- or at least, it did.  We'll have to see how it plays out now.

      by Jonathan on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:56:17 AM PDT

    •  Yes I am.

      That's not a secret at all.

      But, I try very hard to be civil respectful and thoughtful in my commentary. My particular interest is the tactics of the main stream media.

      This diary is not commentary though. It is a breaking news report. I think it is everyone's interest to run this to ground, wherever it leads.

      Facts are sticky things. It does no one any good to have these sorts of mysteries lying around.

      by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:08:47 AM PDT

      •  You do understand

        that this:

        I think it is everyone's interest to run this to ground, wherever it leads.

        Is pretty much classic concern trolling.  You have blanket denials from everybody involved except an anonymous source and a crappy ass news org.   Yet you still feel the need to "run this to the ground"?  I'm glad you are so concerned, but come on...

        by bawbie on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:10:48 AM PDT

    •  Slinkerwink is an Obama supporter, I think

      so he or she has an interest in reviving the bullshit 'Hillary sends picture' story from a right-wing news blog, Drudge.

      Really, of all people, you need to get out of this one.  Just sit on the sidelines and look for something where you have not pissed all your credibility down the drain.

      by dhonig on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:14:00 AM PDT

      •  Obama clearly denied this story -

        as did the embassy.

        Link us to anything from Hillary's campaign which outrightly denies the story.

        Because, given how willing she's been to jump into the cesspool, I'm not willing to believe that she can't find enough guts to say, "Drudge lied" or even "Drudge made a mistake."

        Because those are the options.  Either someone there did it, and they are afraid to cop to it, or no one there did it, and they are afraid to stand up for themselves.

        by sheddhead on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:00:40 AM PDT

  •  Well, it's not good

    On the other hand, stuff like this happens in campaigns.  McCain has had plenty of embarrassing stuff come out about him.  The "lobbyists" story over the last couple of weeks involved McCain making several false statements that later had to be corrected.  And remember his "I don't really understand economics" comment?

    The Obama campaign has handled this well, and I find the speed with which they respond to things very encouraging.

    by Jonathan on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:54:47 AM PDT

•  just another dirty trick, this time the flunkies

  are canadian and it was probrably reversed if anything, this angle was already debunked

  by TAPayne on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:54:57 AM PDT

•  more of the kitchen sink

  of course they have to keep spreading doubt and fear, who would expect any less of them.

  by norahschronicles on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:58:06 AM PDT

•  nees to be cleared up but

  I don't care much otherwise.  

  by Into The Stars on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:59:13 AM PDT

•  I just read your Prince Harry diary

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

  This is too funny.... READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH.

  Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

     AP
     Posted: 2007-11-10 19:17:00
     LONDON (Nov. 10) - Chelsy Davy has broken up with her boyfriend, Prince Harry, a newspaper reported Sunday.

     The News of the World said that Davy, a Zimbabwe-born woman who has been studying at a college in England while dating the prince, ended their three-year romance this week after losing patience with his playboy lifestyle and lack of commitment to her.

     Chelsy Davy, 22, here with Prince Harry, 21, at the Cricket World Cup in Antigua in April, has reportedly ended their three-year relationship.

     Clarence House, where Prince Harry lives with his father, Prince Charles, and his brother, Prince William, declined to confirm the report, saying it doesn't comment about the royals' private lives.

     Prince Harry, 21, graduated this year from Britain's elite Sandhust military academy after training to become an army officer. He hopes to one day serve on the front line alongside his colleagues if called to wars such as the one being fought in Afghanistan.

     * MediaFreeze's diary :: ::
  *

  Apologies to the diary police. I'd say more, but there is not much more to say...

  Douchebag.

  by poblano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:59:40 AM PDT

  •  That was a joke...

    ...and not a very good one. I regret it.

    I apologize for that. Particularly given what Drudge did yesterday.

    by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:13:36 AM PDT

•  Hmm

  This is not good. The story does not seem to have gotten a lot of coverage yet as the Obama campaign responded so quickly but this could give it new life.

  Goolsbee better step up and clear this up, fast. This is not what Obama wants dominating the headlines on the last fews days before the election, particularly with the Rezko trial on the horizon.

  by ahania on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 03:59:43 AM PDT

  •  The Canadian Embassy re-confirmed their denials

    they've got a rogue official somewhere in the embassy saying otherwise.

    by slinkerwink on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:02:11 AM PDT

    •  Rogue??? How do you know that? Link?

      IF Obama is manipulating and lying through his teeth, how does that make him a better candidate than Hillary/  

      Rabid supporters can embrace what they like and deny what they don't, but it doesn't change the facts.  I have no vested interest in any candidate, and I would like to know the deal.

      by dkmich on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:54:02 AM PDT

      •  Well pardon but I think you do

        You might not be for someone but looks like you are against someone. You make snide comments on Clinton true, but Obama seems your standard of a bad candidate whose bad is worthy of focus.

        And that's OK, but your interest does seem vested.

        Just lead or key lines on your diary page are a clue

        For being a unity candidate, he sure is slicing and dicing up America.

        Although race, religion, and age are a part of this diary, they are extraneous to  the topic.  The focus of this diary is unity and trust.  If you run as a uniter, shouldn't you have to act like one?

        I think Jane Hamsher explained why when she asked and answered: Is Barack Obama a profile in courage or a political opportunist?

        The answer wasn't very good for Obama.

        Clinton as awful as Obama on trade.

        by joynow on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:51:02 AM PDT

        •  Much of what you quote is prior to Edwards

          dropping out.  But you are right in that I don't like Hillary or Obama. I just can't get excited about either of them, but I do know that either of them is obviously better than McCain.  If I had a magic wand, I would pick me :~), Dean, Feingold, B. Sanders, Kuchinich, even Nader.  Hillary and Obama are too corporate and establishment for me; and trade is my number one issue.  

          by dkmich on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:40:13 AM PDT

  •  I think now that the person has been named...

    ...the campaign is in a position to put this to bed completely.  I suspect we'll have a statement from the person in question noting that there must have been a miscommunication, and that will be that.

    by Jonathan on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:03:30 AM PDT

    •  That's true.

      It calls for rapid response, and the Obama campaign have been getting better and better at that. There's something fishy about this whole story re: the timing etc. But CTV have called their bluff by naming names. Obama needs to put this to bed (as I'm sure he will).

      by ahania on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:24:38 AM PDT

•  The only thing I ever want to see a headline with

  BREAKING is the story that tells us our troops are coming home from Iraq. Other than that, it's all window dressing and bullshit.

  by tazz on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:02:50 AM PDT

•  The BREAKING make it sound much more dramatic

  then it actually is.

  by Into The Stars on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:03:34 AM PDT

•  Always knew Obama is a two-faced liar

  and opportunist.  Recommended.

  by ecoast on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:03:55 AM PDT

  •  This is really sad...

    Watching the leftwing blogosphere tear itself apart during this primary is really upsetting. What do you think everyone is going to do once it's decided? Are you going to vote for McCain if it's Obama? Or is everyone who has trashed Hilary going to vote for McCain, if it's Hilary? This contest has become so heated and vicious that we are really hurting ourselves (any idea how painful it is to shoot yourself in the foot?). Let's not forget the real definition of "the dark side." If I have to spend another 4 years under a rightwing administration because of this nonsense, I may throw myself under a bus. Ever heard of aiding and abetting the enemy? You need to figure out where your loyalties really lie...

    by catsmith on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:36:44 AM PDT

  •  I am repulsed.

    Not just that some (not going to use the nouns springing to mind) posted this, but that someone else saw fit to tip it.

    This, truly, is what Hillary and her supporters and her campaign stands for.

    Anti-hope, anti-truth, anti-positives.

    Her supporters can't even diary reasons to vote for her, and haven't for weeks.

    by sheddhead on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:04:14 AM PDT

•  Check your title - is it Goolsee or Goolsbee? nt

  by catsmith on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:11:23 AM PDT

  •  Corrected

    Thx

    by MediaFreeze on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:15:55 AM PDT

•  mcCain is on it

  This from ABC News

  I agree that this needs to be neutralized. Who is Goolsbee and what authority does he have? Obama might want to replace his economic advisor - pronto!
   

  by zozie on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:11:43 AM PDT

  •  It's funny McCain would pursue discredited story

    by slinkerwink on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:19:56 AM PDT

    •  This is the pot calling the kettle black.....

      I don't agree with McCain or anyone pushing this story (see my comment below.)  But I find it amusing that you have the nerve to be indignant after this hit job diary .....

      SECOND UPDATE: Clinton Staffers Circulate Picture of Obama in Tribal Costume Hotlist
      by slinkerwink [Subscribe]
      Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:00:12 AM EST

      you reap what you sow......

      by AnnieM on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:38:24 AM PDT

      •  You mean the story Clinton couldn't deny?

        Yes, what a hit job.

        by VirginiaDem on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:00:19 AM PDT

        •  Ah no, I mean the story Clinton did deny....

          As I said in a comment below "I think it's important to remember that the candidates don't approve every move by every campaign worker and they don't always KNOW what every campaign worker has done.  This has happened to Clinton as well.  I think we should reserve judgment and give the Obama campaign the benefit of the doubt.  However, I also advocated against blaming Clinton for the Drudge native dress piece .....so what do I know?"

          by AnnieM on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:21:14 AM PDT

  •  Who Is Goolsbee?

    He is one of Barack Obama's inner circle of advisors.  He is the guy who writes Obama's economic policy positions.  He's also a hardcore free-marketer and Globalization advocate.

    by bink on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:26:06 AM PDT

    •  I could imagine he's disgruntled by BHO's

      180° switch on the issue.

      by burrow owl on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:33:13 AM PDT

    •  Goolsbee

      has always caused me great reservations when it comes to Obama.  He is a Chicago School of Economics grad which, after reading The Shock Doctrine, always throws big red flags for me.

      by TracieLynn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:03:56 AM PDT

•  I said yesterday I'm sure it happened

  both Obama and Clinton are pandering like hell on NAFTA for Ohio votes it's all bullshit.  But that Obama advisor fucked up by saying it outloud.  Should be smarter than that, please.

  by duha on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:15:27 AM PDT

  •  Saw on tv someone saying simliar things

    about both of them.  they said they were pandering to voters and they'd never really pull out of NAFTA because it benefits too many people.  

    If true (big if) I can't say I'm surprised.  I don't think they would say it was just all talk, but more that they weren't going to do anything rash.  

    I don't think less of Obama for it.  

    by Into The Stars on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:19:14 AM PDT

  •  What do you mean by that? NAFTA is seriously

    flawed as is the approach of the WTO.

    by IndySteve on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:46:44 AM PDT

    •  NAFTA ain't going away is what I mean

      by duha on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:58:06 AM PDT

  •  So you are assuming it's true? nt

    by joynow on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:56:11 AM PDT

•  I think it's important to remember.....

  that the candidates don't approve every move by every campaign worker and they don't always KNOW what every campaign worker has done.  This has happened to Clinton as well.  I think we should reserve judgment and give the Obama campaign the benefit of the doubt.  However, I also advocated against blaming Clinton for the Drudge native dress piece .....so what do I know?

  by AnnieM on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:21:12 AM PDT

•  I don't care

  I don't expect candidates or campaigns to  be honest, and I think the NAFTA posturing by both Hillary and Obama is exactly that- posturing.  Neither will repeal NAFTA.   The most we can hope for is that they'll add more worker and environmental protections.  No, this perspective doesn't make me a cult member.  I am far from idolizing Obama.  I'm just a realist who wants a dem in the White House.

  by ClaryinVT on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:21:26 AM PDT

  •  They won't repeal it but neither say

    that is their goal do they?

    Don't they say they'd repeal it IF they couldn't renegotiate or rework it to make it fairer?

    On a broader basis the only times I've heard Obama talk about trade he always says globalization is here to stay but it needs to have more protections and have them enforced and blah blah. He has the extra tax credits for "patriotic employers"...

    And I bet either one will make sure they get at least some tiny thing done about NAFTA just to look good.

    by joynow on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:02:56 AM PDT

•  what is wrong with this picture?

  Austan Goolsbee refuses to speak?

  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 question to the campaign headquarters.

  ...but he's one of the best speakers in the world!

  As a high school student at Milton Academy, a prestigious New England preparatory school, Goolsbee became one of the most decorated competitive speakers in the nation. In 1987, he became the first extemporaneous speaking competitor to go through an entire year of competitions placing only first. This included winning the NCFL national championship in extemporaneous speaking for the second time and winning the National Forensics League's national championship in international extemporaneous speaking as well as placing second in the nation in original oratory.

  As a student at Yale he debated on the APDA circuit. In 1990 he and partner Dahlia Lithwick were runners up for National Debate Team of the Year. He and partner Jon Wertheim placed second at the national championship. In 1991, he and partner David Gray were the National Debate Team of the Year. Goolsbee finished as the 3rd best speaker at the World Debate Championships in Toronto.

  It makes me think that there is something to this story.  Not as published, but there must have been some sort of conversation between Goolsbee and someone in some consulate...
  the above is from wikipedia...

  by jeroly on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:25:52 AM PDT

•  MediaSleaze is from MyDD - says it all doesn't it

  by Jimmy Crackcorn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:25:58 AM PDT

•  I'm really not sure why this is a story

  So ...

  A mid-level Obama adviser, who has no decision making authority whatsoever, makes an impolitic, dinner party-type comment to a low-level Canadian official, who has no decision making authority whatsoever, with whom he probably runs in the same circles with since they both live in Chicago.

  Who the hell cares?  There's no indication that this is the official position of the Obama campaign, or even the unofficial one, or even that Goolsbee was speaking on the Obama campaign's behalf when he said this.  And even if he was, it's a completely non-binding comment made to a Canadian official of trivial rank, and made a year before Obama would take office and before he had so much as as shadow cabinet in place.  

  Campaigns have dozens of mid-level staffers, who in turn have conversations with hundreds of people each month, which means tens of thousands of permutations.  Most of those amount to little more than shooting the proverbial shit.  What's remarkable is that the Canadian official felt self-important enough to make a story out of a casual conversation.    

  by poblano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:29:38 AM PDT

  •  Goolsbee is not a mid-level advisor...

    he is close to Obama and on the short list for a key economic position.

    by IndySteve on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:48:55 AM PDT

    •  He doesn't even work for the campaign full-time

      And he is at most an adviser -- not someone who has the authority to speak as the mouthpiece of the campaign.  If David Plouffe had said this, it rises to a different level, I suppose.  But the diarist is making it out as though Obama swore a blood oath with Pierre Fucking Trudeau.

      by poblano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:52:51 AM PDT

      •  As a friend and confidant of Obama...

        he is a senior economic advisor. He has downplayed the effect of NAFTA and promoted globalization in his professional life. I hope that this will be the end of his influence.

        by IndySteve on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:57:18 AM PDT

        •  That's a completely separate issue

          If you have a problem with a sort of centrist economist having Obama's ear, that's your right.  I personally envision Obama as someone who is capable of building a team that provides him with several different perspectives from different sides of the spectrum, and I think that's a strength.

          But the point is, there is no indication that Austan Goolsbee was speaking on behalf of anyone other than Austan Goolsbee.  Why would Barack Obama feel the need to direct some kind of official conversation to placate a low-level official in the Chicago branch of the Canadian consulate?  

          by poblano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:08:28 AM PDT

          •  Exactly

            Goolsbee talked to a low-level official in the Chicago branch of the Canadian consulate.

            Who cares.  If it was one of Obama's main campaign managers reaching out directly to the Canadian embassy than I would be concerned.

            by Drdemocrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:15:45 AM PDT

        •  Do you have any links

          that say Goolsbee is a "close to Obama" on a "short list" and a "friend and confidant"?

          The only times I've heard of the guy is when people here freak out about him.  Any links you have for those assertions would be nice.

          by bawbie on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:15:57 AM PDT

          •  NYT

            NYT article about Goolsbee/Obama

            by Brilliant Orange on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:50:46 AM PDT

            •  Links

              These articles refer to Goolsbee as:

              Chief Economic Adviser

              Top Economic Adviser

              Chief Economic Adviser again

              by Moresby on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:08:25 AM PDT

              •  So I take this to mean that no one

                has any indication that Goolsbee is anything more than an economic adviser?

                No one has any story that says they are "close" or that he's a "friend and confidant"?

                by bawbie on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:46:20 AM PDT

    •  He is one of his economic advisors

      which doesn't necessarily mean he's authorized to speak for the campaign in a case like this.

      But he might have done it anyway if he had some friend their he wanted to reassure.

      I doubt what Obama or Clinton are saying is just hype. They might not dislike NAFTA as much as they say, that can be hype, but I bet either would work hard to get some little change on it to keep some credibility.

      by joynow on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:12:18 AM PDT

  •  I agree, but.....

    I think people are responding to the hypocrisy at Daily Kos which puts the same kind of story about a HRC staffer on the recommend list.  

    by AnnieM on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:50:26 AM PDT

•  What do you get when you cross a Goolsbee ...

  with a Huckabee?

  Invent your own punchline.

  by Moresby on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:31:35 AM PDT

•  I hope this means Goolsbee is off the team...

  his views are far too Clinton-esque. He downplays outsourcing as a problem, promotes unfettered trade and is a Chicago school economist. His presence on the Obama team has made me hesitate in supporting Obama more strongly...

  by IndySteve on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:43:22 AM PDT

  •  I don't see why you don't understand

    that Obama is a very smart man you likes to hear all sides of an issue before making an decision.  The fact that an "adviser" isn't in lock step doesn't mean he's going to overly influence the resulting policy.  

    by bawbie on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:17:24 AM PDT

•  Not only did the Canadian denied this...

  The story claims that the Clinton's campaign did the same thing...where is the balance or outrage for this crap of a story.  Second, by now, you should know no one is buying this crap.

  by jamaicanblood on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:56:19 AM PDT

•  What does "perhaps a miscommunication" mean?

  As reported on CTV:

  But just yesterday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.

  Let's be logical here...in whose interest is it to report this story and keep it going? Step across the border for a moment and pretend to be Stephen Harper or one of his minions. Who would you rather see sitting in the White House when your hero George Bush exits the place? What's going to happen to your precious SPP now?

  Before we jump all over this thing, remember that CTV also said

  The CTV exclusive also reported that sources said the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton's words.

  Looks like someone wants to reassure Canadians that they don't have to worry about what the Democrats are saying about NAFTA...in the process they may even sway the results of the primary and the election since this story is providing so much red meat for the "other side".

  Is there any point in asking people not to take the bait?

  by catsmith on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:59:20 AM PDT

•  So Goosbee talked to a Canadian consulate

  from Chicago?  Who knows what he said.

  So what.  Obama's campaign said that he never talked to the Canadian ambassador.  Canadian embassy said that the Obama campaign never reached out to them so the story stands.

  by Drdemocrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:13:36 AM PDT

•  I think that Obama is still fine here

  Goolsbee talked to a mid-level Canadian consulate from Chicago during dinner.  That could have been Goolsbee position and not speaking on behalf of the Obama campaign.  He may have felt that it was just rhetoric.  That doesn't mean that is Obama's campaign official position.  Also, there was no formal reach out to the Canadian ambassador which has been confirmed by the Canadian embassy.

  I still don't see the discrepancy.

  by Drdemocrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:28:11 AM PDT

•  Big difference between consulate and embassy

  The Canadian Embassy is, of course, in Washington. A consulate, like the one in Chicago, would handle passport renewals, visa applications and assist Canadians who might need help when traveling. There would be no reason to provide assurances about a diplomatic matter to a consular officer. IF this happened at all, it was two guys who happened to know each other talking over a beer in a bar, not the Obama campaign consciously reaching out to the Canadian government. This story is simply becoming silly.

  by cadejo4 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:37:44 AM PDT

•  CTV already botched its initial story

  They originally claimed that the communication was made with Michael Wilson, the Canadian ambassador to the US, and they've now backed way, way away from that.  It was basically an outright lie.

  Good perspective on the whole thing here.

  by poblano on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:38:24 AM PDT

  •  Thanks a lot....

    for your post and links.  This whole thing seems to be a tempest in a teapot.  Breathless.  The second link as you stated seems to provide some good perspective.  

    I just hope that Marth 4th ends this madness.  The negative campaigning and attacks are just exhausting.  And now I hear there is some possible dust up in Texas about lawsuits and caucuses.  Enough already.

    by Ladyhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:56:09 AM PDT

•  A miscommunication

  This story still is bullshit.  

  A high ranking member in the Canadian embassy who gave CTV this story including a timeline says that perhaps it was a miscommunication.  Sounds like this person made this shit up.  Sounds like GOSSIP.  

  Sounds like Goolsbee, an Obama economic adviser, may have talked to a Canadian consulate from Chicago over dinner in Chicago.  This Canadian consulate may have said something to somebody in the Canadian embassy.  Now this high ranking Canadian embassy member who gave the story to CTV is saying that there WAS PERHAPS A MISCOMMUNICATION.

  This story was just made up by the high ranking Canadian embassy member and related it to CTV.  

  Both Obama's campaign and the Canadian embassy said that they did not talk to each other.  Sounds like they did not.

  Still a bullshit story.

  by Drdemocrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:44:58 AM PDT

•  Is he a "Senior Advisor?"

  That's the problem with a campaign with hundreds of players. Who is the guy? Volunteer? Employee? Someone chit-chatting and over-representing his position?

  by MrMichaelMT on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:47:33 AM PDT

  •  Chief or Top Economic Adviser

    These articles refer to Goolsbee as:

    Chief Economic Adviser

    Top Economic Adviser

    Chief Economic Adviser again

    by Moresby on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:21:12 AM PDT

•  Note the Bio in the Link!

  Nowhere does he claim to be part of the campaign. If he were a "senior advisor" he'd have it on his website. Garbage.

  by MrMichaelMT on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:49:14 AM PDT

•  Sounds like the CTV embassy source said

  that it was a miscommunication.

  Sounds like the CTV's Canadian embassy source is BACK TRACKING from his story that he originally told CTV that it was the Obama campaign who talked to Michael Wilson, the Canadian embassador.

  This story is BULLSHIT.

  by Drdemocrat on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:03:26 AM PDT

•  The Canadian Media is arogant.

  I can't ever remember a time when any Canadian media outlet admitted it was wrong.  They are just lap dogs for the Conservative government, even the CBC.  

  You would think the biggest story would be about allegations that the Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a 100 million dollar insurance policy to get an independent MP to bring down the government, that the Conservatives won and got into power.  

  No the biggest story is NAFTA.  The talk radio whackos and the MSM have always said that a Democratic President would get rid of NAFTA and now they have their proof.  NAFTA isn't exactly the problem as much as it is China.

  I have been criticized for saying that when Russert forced them to say in front of an Ohio audience that they would tear up NAFTA, I knew it was going to be big trouble.  And you bet Russert knew he would be stirring up a big debate by his question.  He badgers candidates puts them on the spot with yes or no answers.  

  Well I think the answer should have been they would revisit the agreement, and other agreements around the world with other countries.  

  This is going to be a real sore spot.

  If I was the Obama campaign I would just change the subject and talk about McCain, and the war.

  Talk about McCain's cozy friendship with Hagee and their desire to start a war with Iran.  Show the people that if Hagee's buddy McCain gets elected he will serve for a guy that calls Catholics whores, desires to turn the Jews into Christians, by getting into war with Iran.  McCain's line that there will be other wars should scare the life out of people and so should his alliance with Hagee.

  Right now the Right is trying to associate Obama as some sort of friend of the dictators, and they need to counterattack quick.  Before this sticks to Obama. They are trying to scare people that Obama would be some sort of buddy of our enemies, well we need to scare people that McCain is a buddy with extremist who want to start World War III.  

  by kanuk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:11:40 AM PDT