If I read the initial story correctly, it also stated that Clinton's campaign did the very same thing.
I have two questions:
1. Why is Obama's name the only one associated to this so called story

2. Where is Clinton's denial?

Yes, Greg, please mention the Clinton campaign was reported to have done the same thing. Also, that the source, Michael Wilson, the Canadian Ambassador, is the author of NAFTA, and has had ties to the Clinton administration on this issue.

I am an Obama supporter.

If this denial came from Senator Clinton, I would be all over it.

As I said in an earlier thread, the word "inaccurate" is as weak and slick as it gets, and the rest of the language does little more than try to change the subject.

IMO, this simply isn't good enough. Tell us what happened, or tell us nothing happened. Don't quibble over inaccuracies.

The story itself has many weaknesses, but that depressingly shifty statement only made it stronger.

So why doesn't your headline read something like "Obama and Clinton Deny NAFTA story"?

Geez

Oh I'm sure Hillary will be jumping on the attack no matter how unverifiable it is.

Obama supporters, of which I have been one for years, need to call this one fair.

this denial was completely anemic from Gibbs.

I am amazed by these type of weak ass denials from his campaign generally.

stand the hell up and "flatly deny" something for a change. "flatly reject" the support of someone who is a racist and can do you harm.

Gibbs is a weak communications director. I also wanted to punch something when he characterized Obama's relationship with Ayers as "friendly." WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING?

When Obama talks in debates he is very professorial. but his campaign staff ought to be savvy enough to see how their responses to hit jobs could leave them vulnerable to counter-attack.

they need to wise up, right now. because i'm getting sick of their anemic pushbacks.

that said: i'm still going to continue supporting and donating because i do think he's the best person to lead; but i need more strong objection from his team when he's being smeared. if he's being smeared.

I don't understand what is a non-denial about "[the reports] in no way represent Senator Obama's consistent position."

NEW REPORT FROM THE CANADIAN EMBASSY AT POLITICO.COM!

Canadians deny Obama call

A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta.

"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta," Landry said.

He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.

"We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said.

"There is no story as far as we’re concerned," he said.

Isn't the Canadian Government politically aligned with the Republicans?

Stop and think about who might benefit from the Canadians having tossed this stink bomb at both Hillary and Obama.

A statement released by the Canadian Government says that neither Clinton, Obama or McCain has contacted the Canadian Embassy.

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

Can we put this to bed now?

For those complaining about a lack of focus on Clinton, there's one very important point to remember: OBAMA IS THE FRONTRUNNER. He matters more at this point. Get used to it. He's going to have to field the question and provide answers (which I guarantee won't satisfy everyone--they never do).

As for this non-troversy, all I want to know is if they were given assurances, why come forward? What was the point of disclosing this? Seems to me it was done to benefit, indirectly, Clinton. But that's the conspiracy theorist in me.

So the following statement by the Obama camp turned out to be completely accurate, and they did not drag it out for seven hours. They got it knocked down right away.

Makes all that "Non Denial" blatherers look pretty foolish.

Read it again:

“The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama’s consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy -- that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy."

I don't see what everyone's so skeptical about. He said the story is inaccurate and "in no way" reflects his views. He doesn't hurl any insults, but as far as I can tell, the semantics of this are fairly clear: the CTV report isn't true. Also, ABC is reporting that the Canadian embassy says this never happened.

So, we'll have to look elsewhere for Obama's token duplicitous, evil deed today. :)

Everyone seems to be missing a couple of subtleties here.

Obama, a guy who's got a better than even chance of being president in 2009, reached out to a diplomat of an ally. He essentially admits that and I infer/guess that his message was "I'm going to be talking about NAFTA a lot. Don't read anything into what I say that I don't actually say. Don't freak." Given that Canada is our largest trading power, a critically important ally and generally a country with whom we have, and need to have, a special relation, that was a reasonable thing to do (if that is, in fact, the gist of what he told them).

Here's the thing. When you have confidential communications with diplomats, you kind of expect them to be held in confidence. That's how diplomacy works. Obama's not a head of government yet and technically was reaching out in his private, not a governmental, capacity, so there was technically no diplomatic obligation to respect his expectation of confidentiality. But given the likelihood that he will be president, don't you think its kind of self-destructive for them to leak this? Whether they're leaking it in garbled or in non-garbled form, it really kind of stuns me that they'd leak it at all.

I mean, way to get your relations with the likely next U.S. President off to a great start, there, guys, eh? Piss him off, as much as throw your weight behind his opponent despite the increasing liklihood of her losing, demonstrate that you can't be trusted to keep a secret. All that will do wonders for your standing with the Obama Administration. Oh, and since you guys are a democracy, too, good luck getting us to keep your embarassing little secrets next election.

Are they just so dead set against him that they'll take this risk to hurt his campaign? Are they, like many foreigners, just absolutely certain that the U.S. is too racist and ignorant and hateful to elect him so they're trying to curry favor with his opponents? It's really strange and, to my mind, downright un-Canadian. They're a country with a reputation for being very much on the straight and narrow in its diplomacy (by the sociopathic standards of international relations, I mean).

Idiotic's grave exclamations are ALWAYS THE MOST EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!