Is this episode, or non-episode, depending on which day of the week it is and which media organization talks to Goolsbee, getting play time in Ohio?

The campaign statement is categorical and unambiguous, but the lack of candidness by the parties at the center of the conversation is fishy. Their silence puts the story in a tenuous state of hibernation, but it doesn't quite kill it.

On a different note - Obama is supporting a bill that will help McCain and his "natural born citizen" problem. This shows great leadership from Obama.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/29/obama_backs_law_to_ensure_mcca.html

As I previously noted: Goolsbee is so busted it's not even funny.

This is proving to be an interesting stick stuck into the gears of the well-oiled Obama machine.

Do you want them to both reject & denounce the story?

The Clinton campaign's certainly pushing it. I expect it to grow legs by Sunday at the latest. The whole thing makes no sense. Why would a campaign adviser tell someone outside the campaign that the candidate was basically lying? I just don't get it. I pray these people can straighten this thing out quick.

One thing to note is that the story from the Observer was posted today and is unambiguous.

Goolsbee Denies Canadian NAFTA Story
by Jason Horowitz | February 29, 2008

I just spoke very briefly to Austan Goolsbee, the Obama campaign economic advisor who CTV has identified as the aide who purportedly suggested to the Canadian government officials that Obama’s harsh rhetoric against NAFTA was less than heartfelt. I asked Goolsbee if any such meeting or call had taken place.

“It is a totally inaccurate story,” he said. “I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office.”

The Obama campaign, and Obama himself, have also said the story isn't accurate, but have mostly avoided specifics about the call itself.

The Clinton campaign, correctly sensing an opportunity to make hay of this in labor-centric Ohio, is apparently unsatisfied with those denials, and will have a conference call on the CTV report at noon.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

What's funny is that Hillary supporters are trying to drag this story out, but Obama has denied it. The Canadian Gov't has denied it. CTV stands by their story, after "talking" to an advisor that didn't use the proper channels nor had the authority to say anything (and may not have said anything at all).

The Nat'l media is going to demand proof before making a big deal about this. It's a story, that even if it is partially true, is going nowhere.

On the other hand, Hillary's little Texas ad she ran this morning looked an awful lot like an ad we may have seen somewhere else and is starting to pick up speed in the blogosphere (and just might have been emailed to the MSM) ;)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/29/155558/168/352/466445

Okay, now I call bullshit, Greg. You are just trying to give this story legs to keep it from dying this cycle, when it was killed repeatedly yesterday and then killed again today BEFORE the event you just reposted at 2:38 PM.

Around 1 PM, you linked to Goolsbee's flat denial to the Observer, which was issued this morning, Feb. 29. Then, and hour and a half LATER today, you linked to Goolsbee's refusal to comment LAST NIGHT, Feb. 28, to an ABC reporter which had been available for over five hours when you first mentioned the Observer piece.

So, by posting the today's denial first, and yesterday's refusal to comment second, without disclosing the true chronology, you created the bogus impression that somehow the ABC news report contradicted this morning's denial to the Observer. A "no comment" yesterday somehow contradicted the categorical denial today? That is just BS.

And none of this manipulation of quotes, refusals to comment, denials and refutations has produced ANY corroboration that any allegation by CTV has any merit concerning comments by Democrats about NAFTA. The only story here is that CTV was corrupted, either knowingly or unwittingly, by Tory assholes in Canada attempting to sabotage the Democratic front runner. Nobody laid a glove on Obama, so just quit wasting our time.

Jaysin1414 you are totally right, there's no proof, there's no story there and it's not showing up on the web front pages of either the NYT or WaPo, that I have seen.

OTOH, that Daily Kos diary sure gave convincing proof that Hillary plagiarized a John McCain fan for her "3 AM telephone call" ad. Plagiarist idiot.

frankly0, you keep talking about a "conversation" that supposedly occurred. You made up the "conversation." There's no "conversation" involving Goolsbee. Show me anywhere or anyone who has proof that Goolsbee had a "conversation."

He admitted he knows a guy who works for the Canadian consulate, who might even be the Consul General. What "conversation" was admitted or proved? Show me the "conversation."

Then, step two, show me any proof that any such conversation involved NAFTA.

Then, step three, show me any proof that any such conversation about NAFTA involved discouting anything Obama said. This is all lies and bullshit.

The only reason I clicked on this non-story was to confirm my suspicion that Greg posted it.

Yep.

sorry about two timing that.

Why couldn't Goolsbee give a denial to ABC last night, but he could give one to the Observer today? Isn't it be logical to conclude that someone told him he had better start denying before this thing gets out of control?

Obama is such a phony. "He's an inspiring speaker!" Then it turns out his words are poll tested and recycled. "He doesn't take lobbyist money!" But he takes it from their wives and law partners, and hires them for his campaign, and accepts their public endorsements. "He opposed the war from the start!" But then didn't do anything about it.

Did anyone out there really believe that Obama would try to get rid of NAFTA? If they believed it before, do they believe it now? Can anyone even define now what is the "consistent position on trade" that Obama is not backing away from?

Option 1: A professor and the consul who already know one another, and both of whom will neither confirm or deny that they spoke to one another, had this conversation as has been reported.

Option 2: This is a grand conspiracy by Canadian conservatives to scuttle Obama's presidency. Cleverly, they know it is better to throw this massively devastating charge out now to the benefit of Hillary Clinton (darling of Molson drinking anti-taxers) instead of when he is in the general election against McCain.

Option 3: Look over there! Hillary has a new ad with a kid in it! Shameful!

Occam's Razor points to #1. #2 and #3 seem more prevalent among Obama supporters.

I encourage everyone to read this piece from MSNBC - I can't believe they're the only ones to have run this - it's regarding Senator Clinton and a 170,000.00 campaign contribution she has accepted and will not give back from a company where all it's principals are being sued in a massive sexual harrassment suit.

Other politicians who have received contributions have returned the money.

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

Barb-