Well, now that explains alot. I wish the original release was clearer. I understand the desire to immediately respond to a charge, which the obama campaign wants to do. But if the response is as waffly as the release, you are better off waiting a bit and being clearer, as opposed to immediately responding.

Non-issue, next.

Perhaps CTV are fans of Josh, and were inspired to do their own satirical report on Obama after reading Josh's masterpiece about Obama's Libya connection.

I kid folks, or should I say, I Josh.

So, it was the Obama camp that took swift action, and got the Candians to make this correction.

What ever happened to Hands on, Ready From Day One, Hillary!.

After all she was accused too by CTV.

Another clear example of which candidate runs the tightest operation.

Funny how thse "stories" based on rumors, half-truths, etc. seem to appear every day in the run up to crucial primaries. almost as if there's some sort of orchestrated campaign.

Remember the "plagiarism" issue which magically appeared days prior to Wisconsin?

I find it "curious" that the news cycle seems to have been coopted like this.

Do you think someone is feeding these "stories" to the media?

From the desk of:

Mark Poison Penn

Senator Clinton wishes to announce that she is so sick and tired of always being asked the first question, that as President she will hold no Press Conferences.

So the embassy is saying that the whole story was made up?

Good to see a flat rejection from the source.

Original Obama staff response was poorly constructed, though, that will not fly in the future. It was the repeated "inaccuracy" at the end that created the ambiguity.

Plus Obama really should stop saying "inaccurate." He uses it exactly correctly or, shall we say, accurately but the term seems to have picked up a connotation of "almost accurate" for most people. "Incorrect" would be a good candidate going further since he does not seem comfortable with "wrong" or "false."

This looks like the time honored Republican 'ratfucking' - and in this case it looks bad for both candidates, a recent development in Karl Rove's quiver full of spit. I think CTV should be looked at, to see who their sources were.

I was over at ABC.com, and I worry a little about the Hillary supporters and how they will affect the election. Almost none of them accept the denials of Obama and the Canadian Embassy, thinking instead that Obama blackmailed them.

We are in a close race, and the victimology that has taken hold this season on the part of an unnamed candidate and supporters might kill large chunks of the dem base needed to take the White House.

I want to know who planted this story.

It was obviously more beneficial to HRC's Camp than Obama's. She's the one who's pinned to the ropes and taking volleys over NAFTA right now, no question. And it sure didn't take long for them to trot Tom Buffenbarger out.

Who is the bag man?

Look, does it occur to no one who has listened to government spokespeople that they would almost certainly deny that such a conversation ever took place, even if it had?

The fact is, the denial by the government of this claim simply puts the ball back in the court of the news organization reporting it. That news organization seems to be a responsible organization - unlike Drudge - so far as I know.

Let's see what their own pushback is on this story, shall we?

Dollars to donuts they stick by the story, though it's not clear they will have more convincing evidence to produce.

We can let CTV know how we feel:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/28/morning-joe-most-americans-dont-care-lies-leading-up-to-the-war/#comment-517712

newsonline@ctv.ca

CTV is sticking by their story FWIW.

Obama couldn't come down hard on the Canadians 'cuz he's counting on their votes in Ohio next Tuesday. His Canadian sleeper cells. Millions of Canadians hiding in plain sight about to finally knock Clinton out for good. And Buffenbarger had to try to use this disinformation 'cuz he knows about all the Canadians in Ohio since his union represents them. Y'know, that's why it's called the *International* Association of Machinists -- members in U.S. and Canada. (what's the snark symbol, again?)

Greg Sargent reported:

Roy Norton, the minister of public affairs for the Canadian embassy, is flatly denying that any Obama campaign official spoke to the Canadian ambassador IN RECENT DAYS or told him that Obama's anti-NAFTA stump speech is merely "campaign rhetoric."

"No, none," Norton told me when I asked him if Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., had spoken to any Obama advisers RECENTLY. He added: "Neither BEFORE THE OHIO DEBATE nor since has any presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson about NAFTA."

Now, let's look at what CTV reported:

CTV News has learned that WITHIN THE LAST MONTH, a senior member of the Barack Obama campaign telephoned the Canadian ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson. In that call, the Obama offered...warned the ambassador that NAFTA WOULD BECOME part of the debate in the Democratic primaries, and that Obama would take some heavy swings at the trade deal, but told the ambassador: ...Don't worry, it's just campaign rhetoric...It's not serious. Canadian sources say that the message was taken as being completely authentic and representing the views of the Obama campaign.

It appears the reason CTV is able to stick by the veracity of their story is because neither Ray Norton nor Greg Sargent consider a conversation that occurred "within the last month" -- perhaps, in early January, to have taken place "in recent days."

When my comment finally shows up, I was replying to aronscott not to frankly0

comments are colliding in the inter-toobz and appearing here in non-chronological order, I assume because of the "reply" function. So double-check the time stamps.

Not to cherry pick the article, but here is how Wikipedia explains the role of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases (the first sentence) and in civil cases (the second sentence):

"Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly," the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence. The same goes for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages."

Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

What we have here is essentially a printed libel of Barack Obama and the Canadian ambassador to the U.S., because CTV falsely accused Obama of flatly lying to Ohio and it accuses the ambassador of lying about what the Obama campaign said or did. The IAM press release is also being interpreted as a libel -- as accusing Obama of lying to Ohio workers harmed by NAFTA.

Now, even if analyzed as a libel claim, CTV would have defenses including that it did not make a false broadcast intentionally, because of the "public figure" status of Obama and the ambassador.

In any case, libel is a tort, meaning a personal injury. I doubt that anyone in the U.S. has successfully sued for libel in the course of a political campaign (first amendment, etc.), but there may be some civil claim available against the Canadian broadcaster under Canadian law.

Which is why I employ the civil court meaning of circumstantial evidence.

In addition to or instead of a civil claim for the tort of libel against the CTV broadcaster, there may be a claim against the *sources* for the broadcast if their identities can be discovered and if there is evidence (yes, including esp. circumstantial evidence) that the *sources* knew their story was false and intended for a false story to be broadcast. If CTV's reputation or business are harmed by this misinformation, CTV itself may have a claim against its own sources.

I think CTV and the Canadian cabinet just totally overplayed their hand. Nobody in Ohio who is going to vote in the Democratic primary is ever going to take George Bush's word for anything anymore. If this is picked up by blogs and MSM in time, or by the campaigns themselves, it will be obvious to the Ohio voters that the Canadians are basically just puppets for Shrub on the issue of NAFTA. Shrub NAFTA-poodles. NAFTA-poodles, the newest canine hybrid for the upper-crusty jet-setters.

And doesn't this just blow a huge hole in IAM's credibility? The four-part harmony by the greedy corporate wing-nuts defending NAFTA on both sides of the border is all the fault of Obama? Really?

IAM is really dirty on this one if you ask me.

Here's the original YouTube clip again from CTV:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/report_obama_campaign_official.php

And don't forget, the ambassador's denials to BOTH Greg Sargent of TPM Election Central AND to ABC News were categorical. Flat denials. Never happened. Not, "oh, that sloppy Tom Clark over at CTV, he just paraphrased me wrong. And the studio just paraphrased me wrong when it put the exact same quote up on its screen in between head shots of Hillary and Barack." CTV are a$$h%les and they need to be ripped a new one for enabling with this disinformation.

Uh... has anyone asked CTV whether or not they stand by the story? Just because people deny it doesn't make it false.

CTV in Canada is NOT withdrawing their story... They say it is correct!

[snark erupting:] You have spent the entire afternoon and evening defending an indefensible slander against an important U.S. politician committed by a feckless, right-wing, neocon, Canadian teevee bullshit factory, namely CTV.

Seriously, aronscott, you accused me of employing "semantics," but your 4:19 PM and 5:04 PM and 6:17 PM postings are deeply semantic, to the extent that I suspect you are a distinguished professor of linguistics somewhere out there in the midwest, say Indiana?

I always try to warn myself, when commenting on the blogs, that we are operating in "meta" world, that is, we are applying labels to, and inferring characteristics of, behavior and statements of external actors. But I warn myself that the "meta" world is not the "real" world (a lesson Shrub has still not learned, see his press conference this morning). Your comments have drilled into the "meta" aspect of my remarks, without really grappling with the reality that CTV fucked up and everyone knows it.

So, to make me waste my day job time, you accuse me of using semantics, or of parsing incorrectly (I returned the favor on that one) or, in your 7:06 PM posting, of misquoting the CTV reporter's on-air words. Don't be a dick. I'm not going to re-post the original YouTube clip to give the CTV bullshit more bandwidth and air time, you already tricked me into doing that once before. But you were wrong to suggest that what CTV put on the screen in chirons was in any material way different than what its reporter quoted the alleged Obama campaign person as saying.

But even if your latest lame defense is correct, you prove my original thesis: the reporter's own words on the audio track (and let's ALL go get that freaking transcript right NOW) were an actual fraudulent "quote" of the alleged Obama campaign person in a *fabricated* conversation with the Canadian ambassador. It was just the CTV chirons that were the mistaken "paraphrase."

Please try to reconcile yourself to this and don't waste more of our time with your semantic nit-picking: If the CTV chirons were mistaken paraphrases of the reporter's on-air verbal statements, that makes CTV's behavior TWICE as wrong, because the reporter's verbal statements were complete fabrications: "It's not serious," he quoted some unidentified Obama campaign person, according to YOU. "Don't take it seriously," the CTV broadcaster wrote in its chirons, according to YOU.

Yet, according to YOU, you agree with me that the CTV broadcasters were slippery weasels.

So, I guess you are Tom Clark's libel lawyer? Or you are defending some Canadian corporation whose broadcast license is about to be investigated? Just what is it, exactly, that drives you to defend this bullshit?

Ok, this isn't going away. They REALLY ARE sticking to their guns. Hillary is being accused of basically the same thing too. But they are still citing ANONYMOUS sources. They have now officially crossed the line and are meddling in American politics.

CTV needs to overcome this heresay or kindly STFU!
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080228?hub=TopStories

I'm a Canadian and CTV here has said they're sticking by their story. On this one I trust CTV more than I do the NYT and a few others. Denials from our embassy are no surprise--Ambassador Wilson was around negotiating with Bush41 on NAFTA, in his early days as the Conservative Finance Minister. I'd trust CTV over Wilson.

BTW..Free trade, fair trade we'll take either, but Softwood lumber, the backbone of our regions, it's far from fair or free--we keep getting screwed despite wins at WTO etc.

The NAFTA concerns aren't new to us. Hillary raised it last summer. I remember hearing it on CBC (our public broadcaster)http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/19/clinton-healthcare.html

It's interesting though that the latest talk about pulling out of NAFTA has Canada warning about energy (we're the biggest supplier to the US) They refused to do it when working folks here wanted to rattle some chains over lumber.

Renogotiate? sure we want enviro and labour standards too...but the big problem is China et al.

They just updated the articles, and they've begun naming names... :/
Methinks there's going to be a lot more talk about this in the morning.

Updated 12:26 AM EST
---
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any question to the campaign headquarters.

---
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080228?hub=QPeriod

The silver lining is that the article mentions Hillary too, but the allegations seem much more direct with Obama.

Odd (I've added emphasis in ALL CAPS)

From CTV's initial story: 2/27
"Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign TELEPHONED MICHAEL WILSON, CANADA'S AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value."

From CTV's second story: 2/29
"On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Barack Obama's campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.
[Obama campaign then told CTV that no such call had been made.]
"However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and THE CANADIAN CONSULATE GENERAL IN CHICAGO."

So which story is it that CTV is "sticking with"? That a call was made to Michael Wilson, the Canadian ambassador -- or --- to the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago? (According to government web pages Ambassador Michael Wilson is stationed in Washington DC and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago is Mr. Georges Rioux.) ????????????

Also, in the more recent article, apparently CTV was trying to confirm its information (or something) because they add this statement: "On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any question to the campaign headquarters."

Something is weird.

Both stories are authored by the CTV News Staff with a report by/from Tom Clark, CTV's Washington Bureau Chief.

Interesting (and dare I say sensible?) take on this by Mark Kleiman in Reality Based Community

http://www.samefacts.com/
or
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_wayward_press_/2008/02/anatomy_of_a_smear_obama_and_nafta.php

and a bunch by Ben Smith in Politico including a YouTube of the original broadcast.

Does anyone in their right mind expect the Canadian authorities to admit the frontrunner and potential next US President actually made them such a promise? If the guy at the pinnacle of Western Hemisphere power is willing to share such highly sensitive information on how favorably he would treat their country, hey, he gets protected at any cost.

Come on, it's obvious. Doesn't anyone read spy novels any more?