More is coming out on the report last week that an adviser to Barack Obama had met with a Canadian diplomat to reassure him about the candidates anti-Nafta campaign strategy.
Today, the Associated Press reports that a Canadian memo largely corroborates the original report:
SAN ANTONIO, Texas – Barack Obama’s senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as “political positioning,” according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press that was rejected by the adviser and held up Monday as evidence of doublespeak by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.
“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,” the memo said. “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.”
Goolsbee is, quite understandably, trying to change the subject:
Goolsbee disputed the characterization from the conservative government official.
“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,” he said.
In other words, as McQ notes at QandO, he’s denying the precise language of the memo, but he’s not denying that he communicated something similar to this to the Canadian diplomat in question. More importantly, Goolsbee isn’t denying other parts of the memo:
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,” the memo’s introduction said. “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.”
Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Obama’s position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.
Well, we know this much. Goolsbee actually did meet with Canadian consular officials on the subject of Obama’s NAFTA rhetoric. He obviously said something to them to cause them to be reassured and the author of the memo to write what he did. Goolsbee denies using the precise language in the memo, but I think it’s more likely that the Canadians are telling the truth on this one than Goolsbee. They have no incentive to make stuff like this up — and a consular official reporting back to Ontario surely would want to make sure he could his report accurate — and they certainly don’t want to be seen as intervening in an American election.
Clearly, there’s a story here and the Obama campaign isn’t coming clean about it.
Related Posts:
Obama Staffer To Canada: Just Ignore Our Anti-NAFTA Rhetoric
More On The Obama/Canada NAFTA Story
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Typical Obama, he will always tell you what he thinks you want to hear and then will back peddle later and cry fowl.
The problems is Obama got caught manipulating once again. This reminds me of the whole Rezko thing where he lied during a national debate and tried to imply he only knew the guy because of 5 hours worth of work. Then come to find out later they’ve known each other for 16 years, bought property next to each other on the same day and have done favors for each other.
Golsbee is Obama’s SENIOR ECONOMIC ADVISOR, so if anyone knows where Obama stands on these issues he does. That is why the Canadians took his comments seriously and that is why the memo was sent out. It’s not like they would send out a memo based on them talking to just anyone.
Barack is trying to have it both ways and he just got caught!
March 4th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
[...] be blunt. Barack Obama, the politician who dares to be “different,” who says he is about “change,” [...]
March 4th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
[...] fact, it was probably Obama’s campaign, with their stunningly bad handling of the Canada/NAFTA story, combined with the criticism that was starting to bubble up about what seemed like uneven scrutiny [...]
March 4th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
This is much ado about nothing; saying one thing to appease the voting masses when the intention is to do something else is a hallmark of both internal American politics and U.S. foreign affairs. In this Obama is no better and no worse than virtually every American politician that has gone before him.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I have only one thing to say “Pinocchio-bama”
March 5th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Give me a break people! This is just the media taking the chance to put “jerry springer” news reporting back into play with this campaign. People are getting tired of staying with the political battle because it’s TOO BORING.
Don’t forget, the news media is a for-profit business, which depends on gullible viewers like you to support the crap reporting.
Hey Ann, remember monica-gate? Think the Clintons haven’t lied? One of you was right, you SHOULD think before you vote. The bush-clinton dynasty has been in power for the past 20 YEARS! You really want something different? Then prove it by putting Barack Obama down on your card! Is it possible that Barack Obama has made mistakes in his life? Sure haven’t you? The point is, he’s not a dirty politician. Every minute detail will be blown out of proportion. Be careful not to be sucked into the media circus, we are all a lot smarter than that.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Simple enough: NO CEO would tolerate insubordination such as this. Either Obama fires this aide (Goolsbee?) or he’s not a strong enough executive to run a company much less a country.