You're right that, for now, it hasn't been proven that Obama lied to Ohio voters about his intentions regarding NAFTA--but I certainly don't believe that CTV is making this story up. I hope the voters learn the truth before next Tuesday.

But one thing I do know is that Obama has in the past lied about NAFTA. For instance, on the campaign trail in Iowa, he indicated that he opposed NAFTA while Edwards had supported it. That was a bald-faced lie, as Edwards never supported NAFTA and in fact clearly articulated his opposi9tion to NAFTA when he first ran for Senate. Here's the video proof:

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_i d=8Fb3eulMVoc&rel=1&eurl=&iu rl=http%3A//i.ytimg.com/vi/8Fb3eulMVoc/d efault.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskI7SQDpxcM_x2j 29tGrubTs&amp=

Check out 1:35 to 1:50 for Obama's "misstatement."

How many hit HIllary diaries have demanded she apologize for something someone claimed they'd heard someone they assumed to be connect to her in some way said or did, with nothing at all to back it up and the diarist doesn't even use his real name? This story has legs, and real names, but he's still thinking he's playing poker, and he's decided to sit this own out and hope new cards get dealt out soon?  This one is not going away, he's made a major mistake thinking he can get out without showing his hand - his hand already shows.  

http://www.observer.com/2008/goolsbee-de nies-canadian-nafta-story

It was denied early this morning,

THIS IS A NON STORY, at this point it is nothing but SLIME.

The last thing we need is McCain saying our nominee "lacks integrity".

Clinton deny that it came from her campaign staff either directly or indirectly.  

And to back it up, the campaign gave a blanket immunity to the Canadian government to name that person supposedly contact the Canadian government.  

They are very confident in their innocent that they dare the Canadian government to name the culprit.

I've written a more length analysis of why I think that's unlikely. Perhaps you'd care to share why you think that, since to me, it doesn't make sense for him to have his staff notify Canada he planned to dissemble on TV. Something about the content of the message is screwy.

I doubt he knew at all. If he did, it was likely more along the lines of, "Obama has adopted a NAFTA stance for renegotiating, but don't worry - Canada already has universal health care and labor and environmental standards, so you'll be fine."

Matt- As I wrote in answer to another of your posts, whether or not Obama was in the loop. Obama's blanket denial pulls him in. He has stated:

 It did not happen.

Watch the video:

Video Interview with Obama on Ohio WKYC

If he did not know, then he has to say I don't know, not that it is false.

Concerning you second point. It is very good, however the Clinton denial at this stage is much more catagorical as pointed out below, and CTV has not named a contact from the Clinton camp or inside the Canadian government. If, however, something more specific implicating the Clinton campaign does emerge it would be as much or even more devestating for them now.

The way to tone down anti-Clinton wild rhetoric and partisanship isn't to counter with even more wild and partisan anti-Obama rhetoric. It's for everyone to maintain a civil discourse. Reward comments and diaries that make their points well, calmly, with balance, with good citation, and try to avoid engaging in groupthink.

I am constantly trying to maintain a critical eye toward everything.

Early on in the day, I saw a lot of good commentaries on dKos about Hillary, and legitimate, well-put criticisms of Obama. All that is left now is wild rants where enormous conclusions are drawn on the most specious of evidence.

If groupthink drives out every opposing viewpoint, then all you have left is people parroting and encouraging each other to share the same viewpoint - that's the death of critical thinking. When you constantly get rewarded socially for espousing a viewpoint you're already predisposed to, you're going to start thinking habitually, and then it takes more effort to think objectively about anything that contradicts your view. That's the danger of sliding down the slope of confirmation bias.

Anyhow, I have only seen a view of BJ's posts, and the most recent one I read was him saying, "I eat crow, I apologize susanhu", which is pretty classy.

That having been said, I've seen several anti-Clinton diaries on dkos even recently; and one made the rec list. Those that aren't sensationalist garner reasonable discussion and some recommendations.

Um, if they had some scoop, I could see them being questioned but are you suggesting they made up the denial oout of whole cloth?

Link --- ABC News

entire quote from the article:

"It's not correct that I contacted them," Goolsbee told ABC News Thursday. "They contacted me at one point to say 'hello' because their office is around the corner but it is not correct that I contacted them at all," he said.

"I am not confirming or denying any meetings with anyone," Goolsbee told ABC News, directing queries to Bill Burton, Obama's campaign spokesperson.

First he says they "contacted him" then he says he will not "confirm or deny" meetings with anyone.

In the NY Observer piece he states definatively that "he did not call" them. So will still, logically at least, have the possibility of a meeting, which he refuses to "confirm or deny."

It seems like he is continuing to parse his answer.

The fact that he says he won't "confirm or deny and then directs further questions to the press office does have the feeling of a "non-denial denial" even though I hesitate to use the phase since it has been bandied about so much.

If this is so, I do not see what the Obama campaign thinks it is doing and it seems very poor strategy. Do they think that people will just majically stop asking the questions and move on? As I have said repeatedly this is one of the first significant test of the Obama campaign with an opposition media problem, and they do not seem to handling it very well at all.

I just don't understand if contact was made what the point in continuing to not "confirm or deny" is? Maybe, trying to run out the clock until Tuesday, who knows?

You are missing the main point, that the CTV article does not reflect any actual conversation. It was based on an exaggeration.  

Parsing the campaign's response to an inaccurate news story seems like a waste of time.  

At this point, while I still hold out hope that Clinton can come back, I'm thinking ahead to the general election, where the voters will be much less initially sympathetic to Obama.

I'm imagining a slew of commercials featuring Deval Patrick and Obama talking back to back, and references to how Obama said one thing to Ohio and another to Canada. This stuff, when all added together, may damage Obama's aura of authenticity.

Again, it seems that we have the possibility that they are parsing their answer:

This story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.

This still and everything I've read so far leaves the possibility open that some sort of meeting did take place and they are unwilling to say what did transpire. Here they say that what didn't happen was "backing away from his consistent position on trade." Fine, then why not answer questions about:

1. Whether some sort meeting occured?

and

2. What was the content of the meeting?

What gets people in trouble in these sorts of things is the constant drip drip drip of more corroborating information coming out, after you have carefully parsed an answer to lead people in the opposite direction.

Indeed. That's a good point. Obama's consistent position on trade is a lot less severe than what he's been saying these last few weeks.

...all I'd add is that the denials that the Obama campaign is issuing seem to be able to be similarly technically true but misleading.

There was no call, but there may have been a 'hello' contact. They didn't say anything that would go against his consistent position on trade, but that may leave some sort of discussion about the NAFTA rhetoric still as a possibility. Whatever was said, it seems to have generated an impression in the Canadian government as you describe that found it's way to CTV.  The Obama campaign seems to be refusing to discuss the exact substance of any contact.

Hows that?

That was a long time ago. It has been discussed ad nauseum up the thread.

In short, he parses his words very carefully, and leaves a lot of room. Here is a good symopsis from Orangefur (a little above) that includes all facts from the article you link:

What appears to be true so far... (2.00 / 1)

... is that Goolsbee (who may or may not count as a staffer for deniability purposes, but who is certainly a key part of the Obama campaign) talked to Georges Rioux, in the Chicago consulate.

It sounds like he said something along the lines of what CTV reported, that Obama was not as much against NAFTA as he was sounding.

Whatever was said, it apparently made its way to Ian Brodie, the chief of staff of Stephen Harper, the PM. (That certainly fits CTV's description of the "highest levels of the Canadian government". Brodie apparently was one of the sources of the story.

So what do we conclude?

- The CTV story appears to be true in spirit. What might be up for argument is how strongly phrased Goolsbee's words were. One source said it might have beene exaggerated by the time it reached Brodie.

- The denials issued yesterday by the Canadian government and the Obama campaign may have been technically factual, but were misleading in spirit and very likely intended to deceive.

What else?

The Canadian government must have believed this to be very important, given that the chief of staff to the Prime Minister was involved. Wow.

Fact is that the NY Observer quote and the other media quotes by the Obama campaign leave plenty of room for interpretation.

There was no call, but there may have been a 'hello' contact. They didn't say anything that would go against his consistent position on trade, but that may leave some sort of discussion about the NAFTA rhetoric still as a possibility. Whatever was said, it seems to have generated an impression in the Canadian government as you describe that found it's way to CTV.  The Obama campaign seems to be refusing to discuss the exact substance of any contact.