February 8th -- Obama, NAFTA, Goolsbee, Canada?

It's February 8th, just after Super Tuesday, before Obama's remarkable winning streak of 11 primaries.  NAFTA was mentioned, but was decidedly NOT a big word on the campaign.  In fact, Russ Feingold was the biggest person mentioning NAFTA in a campaign context at that time, calling both candidates out for NOT mentioning it, pointing out that it'll be a good thing to talk about once they get to Wisconsin:

http://www.madison.com/...

"They could both be stronger on trade, a lot stronger," says the senator, who grew up in the auto-making city of Janesville and who has made himself an expert of the trade concerns of factory workers and family farmers. "It could be a very good issue for one of the candidates if they were to really step up on trade."

February 8th was when the Canadian consulate met with Goolsbee...

The date isn't mentioned in the AP reports, but I found it here:

http://www.ctv.ca/...

DeMora wrote the memo after a Feb. 8 meeting with Goolsbee and Canada's consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.

So, having established that the meeting occured on February 8th, and that there just wasn't a lot of discourse about NAFTA on February 8th, why would a memo emerge with this wording?

http://customwire.ap.org/...

Goolsbee disputed a section that read: "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. 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."

I can't blame Goolsbee for disputing that section, because it just wasn't true at the time of the meeting.  Apart from Illinois and Minnesota, the campaign hadn't really been in the Midwest states where NAFTA plays as a big issue.  It wouldn't have gotten a lot of words spoken about it, since there weren't a lot of words to say and anxieties wouldn't have been high.

"This thing about `it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me.

   "I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," Goolsbee said.

Chronologically, he couldn't have used that phrase, unless he had a crystal ball!  While it wasn't hard to predict NAFTA would be a big issue, there were 3 groups of 8 primaries prior to Wisconsin, and two more weeks before Ohio.  One more bit that makes chronological sense:

He said he responded that Obama is not a protectionist, but that the Illinois senator tries to strike a balance between the economic struggles of working Americans and recognizing that free trade is good for the economy.

   "That's a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered," Goolsbee said of memo's account. "A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA.

Again, NAFTA wouldn't have been at the forefront at the time.  This sounds like a rarity in political discourse...  a consistent statement.

Based off this, my conclusion is that the characterization of Goolsbee's remarks by the Canadians was made weeks afterwards.  Perhaps it was the consulate guy trying to be pro-Obama, perhaps it was some sort of smear formation on the part of conservatives in Canadian government -- I dunno.  The timing of the meeting alone makes a compelling case for the veracity of Goolsbee's statements, and for questioning the spew that's emerged from  the Canadian government over this matter.  

•  the Canadian officials are calling for Brodie,

  the chief of staff for Stephen Harper (who's sort of like Bush) to step down for leaking the memo to the press.

  by slinkerwink on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:04:55 AM PDT

  •  It's unclear if the memo was written to be leaked

    It is clear that the memo isn't consistent with the politics of the Democratic primary at the point that the meeting happened.

    by other72384 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:08:26 AM PDT

•  As someone who lived in Canada for 8 years

  I will tell you that Harper would love more than anything to be a lackey of the Republicans.

  He would love to be invited to Camp David and play golf with the American (Republican) president.

  Canadian Tories are like this. Mulroney was Reagan's little lap dog.

  I miss that old bastard Chretien. He wasn't afraid to tell Bush to sod off, and he had nationalistic pride in Canada, which modern Tories lack.

  by Oothoon on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:08:37 AM PDT

  •  I could believe that

    I live due north of Canada (north Windsor :) ) and get my dose of CBC.  

    I just question if Harper's government actually "fabricated" anything, or if it was the Canadian consulate folks who wrote something silly and Harper's staff just took advantage.  The denial from the Canadian embassy:

    http://geo.international.gc.ca/...

    suggests that they consider it a goof on their part to  have characterized Obama things the way they did.  It looks just short of throwing one of their own under a bus to defend Obama.  

    by other72384 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:15:24 AM PDT

  •  That sentiment is true

    Harper is a Republican poodle.

    He does not, however, golf.

    by FrankFrink on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:54:12 AM PDT

•  Does anyone here or elsewhere on this planet,

  believe the problems we have with NAFTA and what is known as "free trade" is a problems with the Canadian government? This story like the Resko connection(Obama bought a house at fair market value, it's not like he used political connections to exercise emminent domain and steal someones farm for a baseball park ist it?), is a creation of the atwater/rove school of politics.

  by irate on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:24:08 AM PDT

  •  Like Resko, this is really a story

    But, it's not really about Obama.  Resko did his story-worthy badness pretty independently of Obama.  The Canadian government and CTV spread story-worthy bogosity independent of Obama.  Unfortunately, both have Obama's name on it, so it's turned into guilt by association season.

    The test here isn't so much about these issues as about Obama's handling of these issues.  Thus far, Obama has been truthful, with no less than the Canadian embassy confirming his veracity.  But it's unclear if the truth alone will set him free as far as the media goes.  I think he needs to play up on the old politics of silly season, an ad specifically to address lies and desperate politics point by point.

    by other72384 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:42:25 AM PDT

•  It seems that each time right before voting

  something spills out to the media  to make Obama look bad. If you notice right before each voting primary something spills out on him and runs in the MSM directly trying to hit him before voters hit the polls. It has been a pattern sense feb 5th. But I don't feel it will change his unstoppable streak.

  by norahschronicles on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:32:37 AM PDT

  •  I agree with you

    I think he will sweep all four states today..Hillary can't win this...she won't be able to get the percentage points high enough to make a difference...

    by RubyGal on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:42:58 AM PDT

•  This IS Why Hillary Should Stay In the Race

  When a candidate's senior economic advisor makes a statement, it's safe to assume that he's speaking on behalf of that candidate. I'm sure as time goes on we'll be seeing more missteps by Obama. Perhaps we'll get more information about Exelon and Obama's fib to an Iowa crowd that he got legislation passed that actually never became law.

  In short, if Hillary stays in the race and fights for the nomination, she may well save the Democrats from nominating the guy whose own baggage has yet to be sorted through.

  by Frank Cocozzelli on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:34:13 AM PDT

  •  I'm not so sure this is an Obama mistake

    Here in Canada it appears that our most partisan PM ever, Harper, may have had his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, leak a memo that was spun.

    Our Canadian ambassador, Michael Wilson, is unlikely to have exaggerated or to have spun this item.

    The leak may have been intended to harm Obama because Harper is Republican lite but it looks like it will come back to bite the PM's Office. Haper has a minority government and there are two scandals at his doorstep. We'll see.

    This might not have anything to do with Obama at all.

    At least that's the way it looks from my snowbank outside Toronto.

    by paul2port on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:41:00 AM PDT

    •  Here's the Problem for Obama

      Austan D. Goolsbee, Obama's senior economic advisor did in fact meet with members of the Canadian government: that is not in dispute.

      That being the case, then what prompted this meeting? Something clearly was discussed and there is a high presumption the topic was NAFTA. Combine that with the fact that the answers coming from the Obama camp are not exactly convincing. For example, on CNN  yesterday I saw Obama campaign advisor David Wilhelm being questioned about the meeting and he never gave a straight answer.

      Wilhelm's ducking and weaving speaks volumes.  

      by Frank Cocozzelli on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:55:02 AM PDT

      •  Canadian consulate asked to talk with Goolsbee

        While I'm sure the fact that he's an Obama advisor had something to do with it, Goolsbee is a major economist who speaks on economic issues with LOTS of people, and did so long before Obama was on the radar.  He writes columns, does stuff, and for all we know, he may have talked with these guys before.  

        On February 8th, NAFTA was not a hot campaign issue, so the "high presumption" that NAFTA was the big thing to talk about is one I find skeptical.  My skepticism is enhanced when the "memo" describing the meeting describes events that haven't yet happened.  

        As far as David Wilhelm, if you're referring to his Wolf Blitzer interview here:

        http://www.cnn.com/...

        He says other things, but the direct statements pertaining to this issue are:

        - Barack Obama has been absolutely consistent on NAFTA.

        - The characterization of the statement in the memo has been denied by the Canadian embassy.

        Sounds like straight answers to me.  

        by other72384 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:28:27 AM PDT

        •  I Disagree

          By early February NAFTA was clearly becoming a campaign issue with the Ohio primary starting to come into focus. In fact his web site already had statements saying that he would amend the treaty: http://www.barackobama.com/...

          And Wilhelm, by any objective standard, was far from forthright. That can be seen by his constant deflections.

          by Frank Cocozzelli on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:52:37 AM PDT

          •  The Ohio primary was 11 primaries away!

            It wasn't a big talking point by either side. I looked for Feb 1st-8th news in Google, and the big one that stood out was Feingold digging at them for NOT talking about this stuff, as I noted in the diary.  

            news.google.com counted 34 distinct articles with "Hillary Obama NAFTA" as the search terms for Feb 1st-8th (including some that were just about politics in general), as opposed to 845 for the past week and 282 the week before that.  The news corroborates my recollection of events.  

            Wilhelm, having answered the questions, was trying to spin things toward what he perceived to be the important issues.  Wolf was trying to spin things toward the scandal issues, because that's what gets him ratings.  That's typical of many Wolf Blitzer interviews.

            by other72384 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:22:31 AM PDT

            •  One Possible Way to Settle This

              I cite a link to Obama's web site discussing amending NAFTA. If that was up there during early February, that settles the question.

              by Frank Cocozzelli on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:21:49 AM PDT

              •  It's been up there for months

                But the point is that it wasn't a big talking point of the campaigns at the time the meeting was held.  So, the notion that it'd be a big talking point for the meeting is contrary to the public dialogue "in the Midwest" that the memo fretted about.  As the memo claimed that Goolsbee talked about campaign activities in the Midwest that HADN'T HAPPENED YET when the meeting was held, it doesn't pass the truthiness test.  This is what a comic book geek would call a retcon.

                by other72384 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:55:35 AM PDT

      •  Frank

        Sorry I can't reply in full now. I'm at work.

        In the meantime you might have a look at Steve Clemon's take at The Washington Note

        by paul2port on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:41:46 AM PDT

        •  How Dare You Paul!

          Putting work above discussing politics! ;)

          by Frank Cocozzelli on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:26:09 AM PDT

          •  Ok Frank

            Obama may or may not have handled this well but the Canadian side of the story stunk. I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt until we heard the whole story up here.

            Michael Wilson, our ambassador, is and was an old-school Conservative gentleman who strikes me as principled and honest, quite different from the bunch of hyper partisan neo-con yahoos that make up the present Conservative party. I don't think Wilson would stoop so low. Harper, on the other hand, loves the Karl Rove playbook.

            by paul2port on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:16:36 AM PDT

  •  When his statement is twisted...

    ...does the twisted statement reflect the candidate's views?  Can I safely assume that Hillary is a lesbian because of these pictures of her I found on Google?  Was it a mistake for her to pose for those photos knowing she might be Photoshopped?  :)

    Again, read the diary.  The date of the meeting is inconsistent with the Canadian memo describing the meeting.  Both Goolsbee and the Canadian embassy deny that the meeting took place as the memo described, and given the timing of the meeting and inconsistencies, I have little reason to doubt their veracity.

    by other72384 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:53:51 AM PDT

    •  Come On Now

      And read my reply to Paul2Port.

      by Frank Cocozzelli on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:57:04 AM PDT

  •  as opposed to someone who denies reality

    for political purposes, such as her saying last night on The Daily Show that after the events of today the next contest is Pennsylvania . .   thereby ignoring totally the two intervening contests she expects to lose?

    Look, the story was bogus, but it was mishandled by the Obama campaign.  when the first, erroneous (not the Embassy) story broke, people in Chicago should have gotten the truth out

    1. that the conversation was initiated by the Canadian consulate, not the Obama campaign

    2. what Goolsbee reported himself saying

    by getting ahead of the story it would have been defused somewhat, and not put the candidate in the position of relying upon press reports and the like, not having been told the details.  For that I blame Axelrod.  

    There are two other things that should have been noted

    3. it is somewhat ironic that an internal diplomatic communication is being leaked just before a key AMERICAN political contest, one has to wonder about motivations

    4. what was the contact between the Clinton camp and the Canadians, and why isn't th press exploring that.

    As the story is coming out in its and pieces from Canada, it now appears that the Clinton campaign was being far more political in its discussions with the Canadians than was Goolsbee.

    by teacherken on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:15:20 AM PDT

    •  Timing is important here too

      As noted in the diary, Goolsbee says he wasn't speaking of NAFTA specifically, and the fact that the meeting happened on February 8th, before NAFTA became a big campaign issue, tends to corroborate his words.  

      So, when the CTV story first came out, saying that some Obama staff member (and Goolsbee's NOT a staff member) phoned Wilson to talk about NAFTA, it was sufficiently different enough at the face of it that the Obama campaign wouldn't have had a lot to go on to corroborate or deny the truth.  The Obama campaign's initial response was that it seemed "implausible", which seems like code for "we don't know".  They had probably chalked it up to "silly season" when Wilson truthfully denied having a conversation.

      by other72384 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:43:19 AM PDT

    •  remember

      the original story was about high level officials in Obama's campaign and in "Washington." How could anyone know they meant "Chicago."

      And is Goolsbee high level? First time I've heard about him.

      When the story broke it sounded goofy to me (I live in Canada). But it did seem to have legs.

      Obama needed to respond very forcefully as this narrative works against his honesty. My impression is that he was trying to change the subject rather than deal with it. When the Chicago connection broke he had to decide to actively and visibly support Goolsbee - have Goolsbee to Ohio - or find a new economic advisor.

      He didn't and the virus is spreading. I think this story is causing him real trouble in Ohio.

      by zozie on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:17:26 AM PDT

  •  Missteps by Obama....????? He has run the most

    phenominal campaign thus far....I won't vote if Hillary is the nominee....she is no differnt than any of the neocons who supported this horrendous war...there is a special place in Hell for people like Hillary, a very special place indeed..

    by RubyGal on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:16:02 AM PDT

•  Too damn bizarre

  I don't what to make of this story.  But, it's more of a campaign that has gone totally negative.  Do any of us really believe that either Clinton or Obama are going to do anythin substantial about NAFTA?  Does it really matter that much anymore as China seems to be more of the problem?

  by noofsh on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:44:26 AM PDT

  •  Their objections to NAFTA

    regarding environment, working conditions etc. don't seem to apply to Canada. Mexico and China are more problematic.

    Don't assume Canadians are happy with NAFTA and that we wouldn't want our own changes if the treaties were opened for renegotiation. As it stands Canadians don't have sovreignty over our own gas and oil reserves. Water rights need to be renegotiated to be less favourable to the USA too.

    by paul2port on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:51:25 AM PDT

    •  There are some environmental issues with Canada

      Air pollution from oil refineries in the tar pits of Alberta is a big deal that has cross-border concern, and it gets really amusing when you consider that most of that oil is bound for the U.S.

      Remember, while Canada is a big country, most of Canada's population and industry is 100 miles or less away from the U.S.

      by other72384 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:02:04 AM PDT

  •  NAFTA has been a huge problem for Mexican farmers

    Factories along the Mexican border are there to exploit cheap uneducated labor..not to enhance the Mexican economy..the money trickles into the Mexican economy in a nominal way..we don't have the same kinds of factories dotting the Canadian border exploiting the Canadians...so NAFTA was about exploitation..

    Obama thinks that it has been in place for so long now that it would be difficult to eliminate NAFTA..what we should do is prevent the new move by Bush which is the unification of Canada, the United States and Mexico into an union of sorts..that would not be good .. there is that new agreement with the Canadians to swap military enforcement in the event of civil unrest...not good..

    So how do we correct things..certainly not with Hillary, she would go along with the program..the North American Union and the replacement of the dollar with the Amero..

    by RubyGal on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:26:34 AM PDT

•  CLINTON CAMPAIGN CONTACTED CANADA ON NAFTA

  Obama, in yesterday's press conference, said his campaign was contacted by the Canadians, which he said is routine.

  THE CANADIANS SAID, in news stories dated Feb. 28-29, that THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN CONTACTED THEM.

  "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. The Clinton camp denied the claim"

  Campaign raises NAFTA flap; Accusations fly over threats by ...
  Owen Sound Sun Times, Canada - Feb 29, 2008
  The network also quoted low-level sources saying the Hillary Clinton campaign made indirect contact with the Canadian government in Ottawa to reassure ...

  First thoughts: The GOP’s disadvantages
  MSNBC - Feb 29, 2008
  Today’s CTV story also repeats the charge — largely ignored yesterday — that the "Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, ...

  NAFTA threats simply rehtoric: CTV
  Sault Star, Canada - Feb 28, 2008
  CTV also quoted low-level sources stating the Clinton campaign made indirect contact with the Canadian government to reassure Ottawa about her support of ... "

  TPM reports this morning that the leaker of the politically charged "memo" was Ian Brodie, chief of staff of the Tory PM.

  It's a painfully familar Rove tactic to accuse your opponent of everything you are doing, and the more underhanded and sleazy it is, the louder you squall that your opponent is doing it.

  Since Hillary's chief strategist Mark Penn and McCain's adviser, Charlie Black, both work for Burson-Marsteller, since Hillary just endorsed McCain and Rushie just endorsed Hillary, maybe we can be forgiven for whiffing the usual corporate rat.

  Was Obama set up by the Clinton campaign and the Tory PM? Stay tuned ...

  by obiterdictum on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:55:12 AM PDT

  •  Has the Canadian government asked about Hillary?

    I don't necessarily buy the CTV story about Hillary, simply because at that point, they were wrong about SO many of the specifics.  She's not my candidate of choice, but I'll defend her on this point until some credible evidence shows up.

    by other72384 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:00:09 AM PDT

  •  Very interesting and curious...

    She is wicked...I so don't like her....I hope she is not nominated because if she is.. I won't vote...

    by RubyGal on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:05:50 AM PDT

•  You need to update this diary this video

  Harper distanced himself from the memo released by the Canada's Chicago consulate

  Based on the timing Obama should shoot back that Hillary is collaborating with the conservatives of Canada.

  by liberalconservative on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:41:30 AM PDT

  •  Oops sorry liberalconservative

    my comment below was meant to be a reply to your video.

    I've quoted Stever and I thank you very much for posting this. It is better to see Harper squirm than to simply read his words.

    by paul2port on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:12:05 AM PDT

  •  This diary was mostly about the meeting timing

    Regardless of what Goolsbee or Obama or the Canadian government says, the media is going to fixate on that memo and the meeting with Goolsbee to conclude that something infamous happened.

    My point here is that the memo can be shown to be bogus simply on the basis of when the meeting happened relative to the words said in the memo.  People don't need to take anyone's word for it.  All they need to know is:

    1) the meeting happened on February 8th
    2) the memo put words in Goolsbee's mouth referring to events that happened AFTER February 8th

    No one else is talking up about this, and that's why I wrote this diary.

    by other72384 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:34:46 AM PDT

•  Harper's response

  (First of all why can't MSNBC get this right? Jack Layton is not the "Labour leader" he's the leader of an opposition party, the NDP (New Democratic Party))

  Layton says Harper was interfering with the US Democratic primary by trying to silence Barack Obama...

  Harper says "...the Canadian Embassy in Washington has issued a statement regretting the fact that information has come out implying that this Senator Obama has been saying different things in public than in private.

  "Mr Speaker the government of Canada does not condone this and certainly regrets any implication..."

  p2p has a clear view from the snowbank today.

  Did you know Harper has consulted with the Republicans, including Rove, in the past?

  We now return to our regular programming.

  by paul2port on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:10:17 AM PDT