Obama advisor now claiming Canadian official misinterpreted his statements

[rinsd]

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 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.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080303/democrats_nafta.html?.v=1

[yourguide]

1. Canadian embassy issues APOLOGY & RETRACTION

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Canadians_regret.html#comments


Canadians regret...

There's lots of grist for Canadian political reporters right now, as the Canadian Embassy issues an apology and a sort of recantation -- though not really a denial -- of the Goolsbee story. This happens even as their superiors in Ottawa seem determined to cause trouble in the Democratic primary.

The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, 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. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.

So they're not disputing the text of the memo, just what it's words intended to convey. Perhaps it's the language barrier, but I'm not sure there's a clear alternative reading.

Anyway, the dread specter of Canadian interference has now been raised.

[rinsd]

2. The Obama campaign claimed the meeting never happened.

That was not true.

That Canada is furiously backpedaling and does not want to be seen as interfering with US elections does not change that the meeting did happen.

[yourguide]

6. I think the meat of the issue is the stance on nafta

which has just been debunked. bye bye.

[rinsd]

11. You mean how Hillary & Obama have the same position on NAFTA?

And that Obama has done his best to misrepresent Hillary's position?

How Obama has barely mentioned the word NAFTA except for the last couple of week in OH and the one debate months ago in front of the AFLCIO?

That meat of the NAFTA issue?

[yourguide]

12. No, and do we really need to go and take quotes from

"it takes a village" where she PRAISES Nafta to prove your statement is incorrect?

The truth is HRC changed her position when politically advantageous to her. She is on record supporting it my friend and you cant change that although both you and she apparently think you can.

[rinsd]

15. Obama misrepresentations

The flier says, "Hillary Clinton believed NAFTA was 'a boon' to our economy." But as The Politico's Ben Smith and others have noted, Clinton never used the word "boon" to describe the trade deal. The word comes from a paraphrase of her position in a 2006 Newsday piece laying out policy differences between Clinton and her 2006 Senate challenger, Jonathan Tasini.

Here's all the Newsday piece says:

FREE TRADE

JONATHAN TASINI: Tasini favors scrapping the Bill Clinton-backed North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it drives down domestic wages.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy, but voted against the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, saying it would drive jobs offshore.

So while Clinton may well have expressed support for NAFTA, the word "boon" is not hers, at least not in this context. The Obama campaign is clearly trying to suggest otherwise to Ohio voters. See the Obama campaign's take on the issue here, and the Clinton campaign's take here.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/obamas_misleadi.html


We find that a mailer criticizing her position on trade is indeed misleading. One that attacks her health care plan we have previously described as straining the facts, though not exactly "false."

* Trade: A mailer showing a locked plant gate quotes Clinton as saying she believed NAFTA was "a boon" to the economy. Those are not her words and Obama was wrong to put quote marks around them. In fact, she's been described by a biographer as privately opposing NAFTA in the White House.

* Health Care: A second mailer said Clinton's health care plan "forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." We have previously said that mailer "lacks context" and strains the facts. But both Obama and Clinton have been exaggerating their differences on this issue.

<snip>

We frankly find Clinton's past position on NAFTA to be ambivalent.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_false.html

[yourguide]

19. Take her own words. PERIOD.

Prior to 2006, Russert quoted her own words to her AT the debate.

That's our Hill, whichever way the wind blows....

[yellowcanine]

9. Well maybe THE meeting where this was supposedly said did NOT happen.

I am sure there are meetings all the time between embassy officials and Obama advisors AND Clinton advisors.

[fishwax]

13. Where did the Obama campaign claim that the meeting never happened

So far I have only seen Goolsbee's denial of the initial report that a senior Obama official had made a private phone call to a Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson, warning that NAFTA would become a campaign issue but that Obama's rhetoric was just rhetoric.

Given how skewed the details in that initial report were, Goolsbee's initial response ("I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office") can hardly be construed as a denial that a separate meeting (which only became part of the discussion later) ever took place.

[rinsd]

17. Here's CTV's report

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.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229

[yellowcanine]

20. And, according to the CANADIANS, no message like that was passed to them.

So there goes your argument, straight down the outhouse hole.

[rinsd]

23. Um they do not deny the text of the memo or its existence.

They do not wish to be involved in the campaign especially as some kind of NAFTA loving boogey man.

[fishwax]

30. And that's still their position. That's not the same as denying that the meeting took place

"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."

How is that different from what Obama's campaign is saying today? They still say that in no way did they suggest Obama does not mean what he says about NAFTA. The quote also does nothing to support your claim that the Obama campaign initially denied the meeting ever took place.

The link you provided is to a later CTV report, reflecting how the story changed as the inaccuracy of the initial report became clear. The initial report claimed not that an Obama official had a meeting with the Chicago consulate general where they discussed NAFTA (which, again, I don't think the campaign has ever denied), but rather that a senior Obama official had made private contact with the Canadian Ambassador to reassure him that forthcoming rhetoric about NAFTA would just be hot air. You can watch the original report here: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/report_obama_campaign_official.php

[yellowcanine]

18. Bingo - a lot of spurious claims are being made to build this mountain.

All so much poofery. Nothing there.

[Hepburn]

24. The POINT ~~ since this seems to be going over your head ~~ is...

...that the allegation was that a meeting took place AND the statements viz NAFTA were made. It is irrelevant if a meeting did take place and the statments were NOT made. The allegation is a COMPOUND statement relating to TWO things ~~ a statement and a meeting. The relevant event is the STATEMENT. The meeting means NOTHING unless the statement is proven.

THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN TOTALLY DEBUNKED AND APOLOGIZED FOR BY THE CANANDIAN GOVERNMENT AS BEING UNTRUE.

What is it that you do not understand about something this simple? Are the Hillary Blinders that come with her campaign literature getting in your way?

:shrug:

[Marie26]

26. What statement is debunked?

I read the Canadian statement & it says that there was a meeting w/Obama's advisor & the Candian official did produce a memo that said exactly what the AP reported. But they basically say that they have no wish to be seen as interfering w/a American election.

[rinsd]

29. Then why is the story changing?

Why the denial contact until the meo comes out showing contact? Then the memo is wrong. Now the latest seems to be the guy in question was acting as a professor of Chicago and not in any campaign capacity :rofl:

"THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN TOTALLY DEBUNKED AND APOLOGIZED FOR BY THE CANANDIAN GOVERNMENT AS BEING UNTRUE."

The Canadians do not want to be made out as some NAFTA loving boogey man in the campaign so they have now opted out. It should also be noted they do not deny the text of the memo nor its & the meetings existence which they previously did.

[DJ13]

8. "specter of Canadian interference has now been raised"

The neocon's infiltrated the Canadian government a few years back, it should be no surprise that there would be an overt attempt to help Hillary get back into a race in a state near the border.

[yellowcanine]

3. So this is a third hand quote that is causing so much uproar? Obama - Goolsbee - DeMora....

Yepper, the Hillary Clinton supporters have a scandal all right! Run with it! It is all you have!

:sarcasm:

[rinsd]

4. The meeting happened. The Obama campaign knew it happened. They lied about it.

[yellowcanine]

10. That is pathetic. No other way to put it. Ya got nothin. Molehill, meet Mountain.

[rinsd]

14. Why did the campaign lie about a meeting they knew took place?

Why has the story changed since a memo came out?

Why are there now two separate denial stories, one that the memo was an inaccurate and a 2nd that the guy was not acting as part of the campaign?

[yellowcanine]

16. Well that's your claim. I put little stock in it. As I said - ya got nothin.

The fact that you are trying so hard to make a mountain out of this molehill tells me that Clinton supporters know the race is over. The harder you try, the more it is clear.

[rinsd]

22. Who's trying hard?

This one was easy, copy & paste an article.

Now proving Obama was full of shit when he said he didn't buy endorsements by combing thru FEC records for both his campaign & PAC and researching various articles.

Now that was hard, took a little work and research.

[yellowcanine]

25. You are - you did the OP. You are building the mountain.

[JackORoses]

28. so this is what the great political genius, Rinsd, is reduced to on the eve of his Hillary's demise?

The initial CTV article claimed the meeting was with the Canadian Ambassador.

Both the Ambassador and the Obama campaign denied this. They were being honest.

A meeting did happen with some other lower-level Canadian official. This is what the Canadians refer to in their apology above.

I must say, I am sad to see that you have resorted to the same tactics that I associate with fully rabid Hillarites.

I thought you trusted numbers more than emotions,
but I guess when the numbers started telling you the end was nigh, you stopped listening.

[Hepburn]

5. Rezko, NAFTA, Rezko, NAFTA.....

...sis boom bah....:eyes:

[NightWatcher]

and they used to complain about the BS charges that were leveled against Bill

but when it is there turn, they throw the same weak shit at Obama.

Yet another Clinton Double Standard

[BlackVelvet04]

7. W.O.R.M. rides again. n/t

[Hepburn]

21. The Canadians did and made a written retraction of the statements.

Ummmmmm......your point with posting untrue bullshit like this is....???

[AtomicKitten]

27. this is a monster attempt at distraction because HRC was exposed for lying about NAFTA last debate

Such epic bullshit. I look forward to her triangulating style of politics being summarily rejected by Democrats.

[Marie26]

31. Weren't

you earlier saying that the entire CTV story was false & debunked? But now it's been confirmed. Isn't that news?

[ProSense]

32. Story debunked, again. Canadian embassy apologizes, and Obama's position is still not a secret

Canadians regret...

There's lots of grist for Canadian political reporters right now, as the Canadian Embassy issues an apology and a sort of recantation -- though not really a denial -- of the Goolsbee story. This happens even as their superiors in Ottawa seem determined to cause trouble in the Democratic primary.

The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, 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. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.

So they're not disputing the text of the memo, just what it's words intended to convey. Perhaps it's the language barrier, but I'm not sure there's a clear alternative reading.

Anyway, the dread specter of Canadian interference has now been raised.

A side story, as Noam Scheiber writes: "What's shocking is that a foreign government would leak it to the press. That seems like a pretty egregious breach of protocol--more like a dirty trick by an operative in a conservative government than anything else. I can't imagine it'll bode well for U.S.-Canadian relations if Obama makes it to the White House ...."

What does it say that Hillary's campaign is pushing this bogus RW distortion?

Obama's position on NAFTA isn't a secret. He opposed the Clintons' horrible NAFTA bill, but he isn't opposed to free trade. He also made his position clear during the last debate:

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you did, in 2004, talk to farmers and suggest that NAFTA had been helpful. The Associated Press today ran a story about NAFTA saying that you have been consistently ambivalent towards the issue.

A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this has not worked for us, we are out?

OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.

And that is not what has been happening so far. That is something that I have been consistent about.

I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, you know, when I ran for the United States Senate, the "Chicago Tribune," which was adamantly pro-NAFTA noted that in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA. And that conversation that I had with the Farm Bureau, I was not ambivalent at all.

What I said was that NAFTA and other trade deals can be beneficial to the United States, because I believe every U.S. worker is as productive as any worker around the world. And we can compete with anybody.

And we can't shy away from globalization. We can't draw a moat around us. But what I did say in that same quote, if you look at it, was that the problem is we've been negotiating just looking at corporate profits and what's good for multinationals, and we haven't been looking at what's good for communities here in Ohio, in my home state of Illinois, and across the country. And as president, what I want to be is an advocate on behalf of workers.

Look, you know, when I go to these plants, I meet people who are proud of their jobs. They are proud of the products that they have created. They have built brands and profits for their companies. And when they see jobs shipped overseas and suddenly they're left not just without a job, but without health care, without a pension, and are having to look for seven-buck-an-hour jobs at the local fast-food joint, that is devastating on them, but it's also devastating on the community.

That's not the way that we're going to prosper as we move forward.

link

[fishwax]

33. The initial CTV story was false and debunked

The initial CTV story claimed that a senior Obama official had privately called Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson to warn him that NAFTA would become a campaign issue and that Obama might take shots at NAFTA, but "don't worry, it's just campaign rhetoric."

The initial CTV story was denied, both by the the Canadian government and the Obama campaign. It was false, and has been debunked.

The story changed, though, in the next couple of days, to an Obama official had met with the Chicago Consulate General and said similar things about Obama's rhetoric. The Obama campaign (as best as I can tell, despite numerous claims to the contrary) never denied that this meeting took place, but they still maintain that the representation of Obama's NAFTA policy as insincere or mere rhetoric.

[Marie26]

34. Yeah, they did

Just look at the DU threads when this first broke. Goolsbee & Obama's spokesman both denied any allegations of a meeting w/Canadian officials & vaguely referred to "inaccuracies". Obama said bluntly "it didn't happen." This was reported as a total denial of the story of a meeting w/Canadian officials. They mislead voters. Basically that's the only thing I wish people would concede. The Obama campaign was using weasel words & non-specific denials to mislead voters about the NAFTA meeting. And the same people first angrily said that Obama's denial meant no meeting ever occured, then turned on a dime to say that the Obama campaign never denied it & so what?

[fishwax]

35. those denials were about the initial report

Goolsbee & Obama's spokesman both denied any allegations of a meeting w/Canadian officials & vaguely referred to "inaccuracies". Obama said bluntly "it didn't happen."

Do you have a link to the assertion that they denied a meeting happened? Because the only remotely similar denial that I've seen was from Goolsbee, who said "I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office." This was in response to the initial report, which had nothing to do with the meeting, but rather made the claim that an Obama official had called Michael Wilson, as I said in my previous post.

This was reported as a total denial of the story of a meeting w/Canadian officials.
The meeting that took place wasn't brought into the discussion until later, after Obama et al had denied the now-debunked original story. It was CTV's story that changed, not the Obama camp's story. The fact that the accusations themselves have changed makes the story a bit hard to follow, so it's not surprising that people might be confused about which statement applies to which accusation. But as far as I've been able to find (by going back through the CTV stories and other reports about those stories), there is no support for the claim that the Obama campaign lied about there being a meeting.

[Marie26]

36. Here

"During a debate in Ohio this week, where NAFTA is blamed for job losses, both Obama and Clinton said that as president, they would opt out of the trade deal unless it could be renegotiated.

When asked about the CTV report, Obama said today, "It wasn't true."


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/canadian-embass.html

So now I guess he can issue a blanket denial of a story & claim it isn't true based on some specific detail. If the news reported that it was "Austin Goolsbee" instead of "Austan Goolsbee", or that the meeting took place at 5 pm instead of 6 pm, that gives Obama license to deny the entire story. He can mislead voters & conceal the truth. You wouldn't accept this kind of double-speak from Bush or Clinton, don't accept it from Obama either.

[fishwax]

38. yes. about the initial report. which wasn't true.

:shrug:
I don't see a denial of the meeting in there.

If the news reported that it was "Austin Goolsbee" instead of "Austan Goolsbee", or that the meeting took place at 5 pm instead of 6 pm, that gives Obama license to deny the entire story.
:rofl: Yeah, that's really akin to what happened here. Talk about doublespeak. The initial story was false. Obama denied it. How dare he deny a false report!

But there's still no evidence to support the claim that he lied about the meeting.

[Hoof Hearted]

37. Obama stood there and said it never even happened.

[CaliforniaDemocrat]

39. boy, he sure gets misinterpreted a lot doesn't he