So Obama was telling the truth on NAFTA-Gate after all...
I don't know if this has been posted (I don't think I remember seeing anything about it here).
According to the CBC (Canada's public broadcasting network) the Obama campaign was telling the truth about the NAFTA dustup. They did NOT contact the Canadian government (it was the other way around), and they are now admitting that the infamous "memo" did not reflect accurately what they were told. You can read all about it here:
Link
This DKos diary also has the video of the CBC report linked so you can watch it for yourself.
While it it too late for Ohio, Obama can (and should) use this to push back against Clinton's meme that he is untrustworthy and dishonest. We'll also see how the media pick up on this
(I'm not hopeful it will get nearly as much air time as the ridiculous coverage the original story got).
I suspect it won't get any time at all. Period.
When this information first broke, it immediately appeared almost at the bottom of the front page on HuffPo. HuffPo for god's sake.
Have you seen any of the MSM even discussing the Democratic primaries today? I didn't think so. They've fallen completely silent because Obama's verbal smackdown probably forced them to see they've been had, as does this story.
Not one major news outlet is reporting anything of substance. Certainly a divergence from the way the last 2 months have played out.
March 6, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keith Olberman covered the story on Countdown on Thursday evening. According to him, the Canadian report actually referred to the Hillary camp -- i.e. it was Hillary's supporters that claimed that her position on NAFTA was for political purposes and should be taken with a grain of salt.
March 7, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, you know what they say, in a campaign against the Clintons, truth is often the first casualty.
March 6, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to point out that Clinton winning Ohio was no surprise - the Clintons have a strong base in Ohio and although Obama made inroads on some of Clinton's base supporters, the numbers broke exactly as predicted and comparable to the numbers we're seeing in other states and the same before the NAFTA story as after the NAFTA story.
Ohio has one of the worst unemployment rates in the nation, they view the Clinton administration years as one of prosperity for Ohio voters, proving once again, "it's the economy, stupid."
March 6, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to have to keep bringing this up, but I think it's important to frame this story properly:
The real issue for Sen. Obama is NOT this so-called "NAFTA-gate" story (other people's construction, not mine. Watergate took that nomenclature for all time, as far as I'm concerned). I suspect something along the lines reported MIGHT have occurred at some level of the campaign to some level of the Canadians, but perhaps not. Denials (such as they were) from the Obama camp were certainly neither quick enough nor firm enough to stop whatever speculation one wanted to make.
But let's leave all that aside. There is one over-riding FACT that actually caught BOTH candidates: Neither of them is truly opposed to NAFTA in any deep, heart-felt sense. And BOTH were sort of pretending they were, to get votes in the Ohio primary.
The story hurts both candidates in a way, but it hurts Sen. Obama more, since he has positioned himself as somewhat ABOVE "politics as usual". Yet, here he is playing it, just like all the rest of us more down-to-earth types. It simply brings him down to Sen. Clinton's (and my) level, if you want to look at it that way. Actually not a bad place to be, in my opinion.
March 6, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
apparently you missed the point of the whole post.
Obama was not playing "politics as usual". Thats pretty clear if you read the link provided.
March 6, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"now the embassy admits they "may have misrepresented the Obama advisor". Even after the memo misrepresented Obama, the Harper government took it a step further and then leaked a completely fantastic version of the story to the press, in order to maximize the bloodletting."
March 6, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone not think this might be an attempt by the conservative Canadian Government to discredit both candidates? Who stands to lose if Democrats get in and "retool" NAFTA? Harper and Bush have been allies ever since Harper became P.M.
All the wording has been shady, at best, for both candidates and no one seems to want to state anything definitive.
March 6, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still no mention of this very important news on any major network...
March 6, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Olberman just talked about it for about 5 minutes on MSNBC. Lets see if there is any echo in the chamber.
March 6, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
what is this i am hearing now about the clinton's being the ones who called canadian officials. I am suspicious of the story, frankly, but a canadian news organization, from what i have heard, is now saying that it was clinton aides who contacted canda. what is going on here? i think the realist up there who said that he thinks the conservative canadian government is trying to muddy both dems may be true.
March 6, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? American media admit it was wrong? They'll bury this story in their coverage so they can say they covered it without, y'know, COVERING their own tremendous failure of journalistic integrity.
March 6, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I started to write a long timeline of this story but forget it; it’s all there for anyone who wants to accept the facts instead of trying to twist them into a new story line. This new info is not new and does nothing to acquit Obama. It was leaked by a staffer initially that Clinton had called with the NAFTA reassurances, which they flatly denied and was never backed up. But the point the conservative government was trying to get out was only that the Americans are not going to void NAFTA. They weren’t trying to smear either camp.
The various stories and leaks were all confused initially but CTV was correcting the details of its story within a day and a half that Goolsbee had met with the consulate in Chicago at their behest (not a quick friendly tour just to say hello). The memo was written by a competent staffer at the time of the meeting, vetted and passed up through the chain (many saw it before it leaked, so it can’t now be claimed to be a fake or distortion). It is accurate. Obama and staff flatly but creatively denied that the meeting had taken place or that they had signaled the Canadians on the QT that their opposition to NAFTA was mere rhetoric, at every step brilliantly parsing their words (just words?).
It doesn’t matter how the Obama launderers try to spin this or throw it onto Clinton or McCain or Harper, it is what it is. And for a story like this, it really hasn't had the coverage that usually follows. Obama is pretty Teflon. I understand Obama supporters would want to deny reality to themselves but they accuse everyone else of conspiracies, smear and slurs. If the only way that Obama can win is by playing victim to some “racist, divisive old politics” strawman that he creates, how will he govern? Besides, decent blogs that formerly hosted honest conversations and debates have been over run by pod people who insist that everyone believe this same crap.
March 7, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another pod person, Keith Olbermann, in the Countdown video dealing with Clinton's role in this mounting brouhaha:
http://digg.com/lbv.php?id=5568362&ord=1
Boomerang.
March 7, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and it's still up at YouTube:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OOLEK2lr3CM
March 7, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goolsby met with the Canadian consulate in Chicago. The Canadian embassy in Washington is where the "correction" came from. It's not as though the people in the meeting, or the guy who wrote the memo, have retracted anything. The meeting did take place, the memeo was written by a credible source, and everyone involved has been identified. The Obama campaign may have been able to get out in front of this, but they chose to stonewall, then lie about the meeting. Obama supporters trying to somehow blame this on Hillary just look stupid.
And the allegation that Clinton's people had a similar meeting may be pleasing to Obama supporters, but at this point it is strictly a rumor. There are absolutely no details being reported, and the Clinton campaign has flatly denied the story. Of course, that won't stop Obama supporters from treating it as incontrovertible fact. If it's a fact, perhaps someone could identify the Clinton staffer, and the person he or she met with.
March 7, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carol -
Sadly - the opening shot 'tis the only one heard. Our American attn spans can't handle evolving news.
But thanks for ammo that I can pass on.
Like your posts always.
March 7, 2008 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
ChrisO -- This is one Obama supporter who is not prepared to treat this rumor about Clinton as incontrovertable fact ANY MORE THAN CLINTON WAS JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO against Obama.
The thing stunk from the beginning. The meeting in Chicago was nothing and Obama's campaign didn't even know it had occurred(Obama, Axelrod and Goolsbee have all stated that - unequivocally). And the memo itself was/is nothing -- read it! And obviously no one knew it existed. What made it all "something" was that deliberate lie told to CTV about a call to the Ambassador and then the (equally deliberate and timed) release of information about the Chicago meeting and then, after another pause, the memo -- all making it appear as if Obama had been holding back and hiding something. Someone was behind that and I don't necessarily think it was Clinton; there's certainly no reason to accuse her.
BUT, despite knowing that it stunk to high heaven (if I could figure it out, so could she!), Clinton picked it up and ran with it, without a qualm. She used it in the lowest way to influence Ohio voters (and others who believe Obama is honest) - TV ads and the whole works. That is not a rumor and *that* is unforgiveable. If you are honest, you know that had the tables been turned (as they so easily could have been - the most telling blow was that first report), Obama would NOT have done the same to her. This isn't "fighting" as she keeps claiming with pride that she does .. it's back-stabbing. It doesn't take any skill or smarts or finesse to do that: just a lack of principles.
March 7, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well then Elizabeth as Obama's chief economic advisor has taken it upon himself to chat up foreign governments as to Obama's policy, why hasn't he been fired? If Goolsbee feels he can make these decisions on his own, why is Obama allowing this budding 'shadow government'?
As for the Clinton phone call, a few people say they heard the Prime Minister make a reference to a call the Clinton people made 'along the same lines'. There is no clarification as to exactly what the PM meant. Were they calling to make an appointment to talk about NAFTA? Were they calling to try and find out the truth about the Goolsbee meeting? Problem is, no one save the PM knows exactly what he was talking about, and I serious doubt at this point he will be forthcoming.
March 7, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm inclined to go with Elizabeth2 on this point. Clearly, the Obama campaign didn't know that the Canadians had taken Goolsbee's casual statements in the way they did. Certainly they didn't know that the memo existed. I've met Goolsbee, and he's a voluble and friendly guy, so it's no surprise he'd be having warm and casual conversations with anyone (Canadians included).
Obama's position on NAFTA has been both critical and consistent, but has never involved "scrapping" the trade deal.
The more interesting political point here is that Obama's campaign didn't really know how to react when a wrench got thrown into the works. But, sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. The first story, one about "Obama calling the ambassador" was clearly a lie. Naturally, it was denied. The memo then surfaced, making the denial look bad. Not sure how they could have done better, given that they didn't know what was to come.
Really, Clinton couldn't have orchestrated it better. Did she? Probably not. I think that's giving her too much credit! Right now, her campaign org look like the Keystone Kops. She's fundamentally reactive, which is part of why I think she'll be a bad commander in chief.
March 7, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've met Goolsbee, and he's a voluble and friendly guy, so it's no surprise he'd be having warm and casual conversations with anyone (Canadians included).
The main reason one is advised to say nothing to the police when in custody is to prevent them from having a factual framework within which to lie about what you said.
Application:to have a loose cannon rolling around like Goolsbee is poor message management. There should have been no conversation to mischaracterize.
March 7, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
MORE TPM DISAPPOINTMENT:
1. 8 hours ago I notified TPM that at politico they were sourcing the puerto rico primary story to a journalist site called demconwatch.....it's not a journalist site...it's the clinton capaign's delegate counter site....i am not a journalist yet about a month ago the same clinton cheerleader, ben smith, introduced the demconwatch site a s a clinton campaign site and now he cites it as his source.....
2. Instead of tpm covering this they its the number one link in their political wire....why do clinton operatives work at tpm?
3. is the entire tpm staff biased against real journalism and pro tabloid journalism?
4. what sites can someone go to that is willing to cover the news in a fair and ethical fashion?
5. this is the 2nd time in 5 days that tpm has chosen to link to faux news that is heavily pro clinton...why?
so much for "In Tpm we trust" when it came to political coverage....must all be about the web traffic...bummer. maybe this is how murdoch got started.
March 7, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
>>Really, Clinton couldn't have orchestrated it better. Did she? Probably not. I think that's giving her too much credit! Right now, her campaign org look like the Keystone Kops.
Chortle! I have to agree, Tungsten. That's my main reason for thinking Clinton didn't have anything to do with setting it up: it was done too smoothly. If I had to guess, I would look at the Republicans (not McCain - they wouldn't let him in on this), maybe with orchestration by Karl Rove. Clinton simply saw an opportunity and went along with the Rovian tactic .... which may be worse than doing it oneself.
And she did that DESPITE the fact that if she had been the frontrunner at that point, the guns would have been trained on her. In fact, now that she has had a bit of a resurrgence, the guns ARE trained on her. Maybe with as little reason.(Think about it. If the Chief of Staff made those comments in a room full of reporters on Feb. 26, then why the heck is it only coming to light right now, *after* the primary? That also does not pass the smell test.) So, in truth, I'm no more, or less, willing to believe that Clinton made such a call to the Candians than I was to believe that Obama had done so. It would have been nice, however, if Clinton were as fair-minded and willing to wait for confirmation before pouncing.
March 7, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/the_daily_muck_521.php#more
So I guess we're not going to get any info from the Clintons about what happened in the White House any time soon.
March 7, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the indomitable Keith Olbermann last night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYoN0AIaheY
This story won't get the air it deserves, but it couldn't hurt to swarm the other networks with suggestions.
Probably should enclose the link to Olbermann as an example of the unfamiliar concept of journalism.
March 7, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
People, people... Politics and elections are not about 'reality', or even 'the truth'. They're about what voters perceive to be the reality, or the truth.
It's all about perception. Many of you folks here are smart & wise enough to see through the smoke screens and misleading outings thrown at us daily by all (ALL!) the campaigns.
But alas, at least 85% of the voting population isn't as connected to it all as you are.
March 7, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink