Well will the MSM cover this or just move on to the new story.

Ohio is in the rearview mirror and the damage has already been done to Obama's campaign. Can't put that genie back in the bottle, sad to say.

Knowing how our press hates to dwell on a story that has no sex in it, my guess is that they won't bite. But thank you TPM for bringing it to light. Hopefully I will be surprised.

We better see some serious questioning of the Clinton camp about this.

Serious.

Imagine that. Faced with a potentially juicy story, the freaking press can't be bothered to do their God damn jobs and as a result, get the story 100% exactly wrong.

Iraq, anyone?

(And by the way - go to hell, Hillary.)

This is not new news. The fact that the Clinton campaign made these assurances was part of the original report. The very first article on "NAFTA-gate" explicitly stated: "Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim."

Well, now there is compelling evidence that denial was false. Neither the MSM or TPM chose to pursue those allegations though. Rather, TPM simply passed long the same details as were bouncing around the mainstream media. We look to TPM as an alternative news source, one that will pick up the strands missed by the larger news organizations. By simply hyping the same story line you certainly fell down on this one. Moreover, this likely had a direct impact on the presidential election. This was a critical point at which we needed an alternttive investigative news source. You know, someone to "muckrake."

I'm happy to see you are now picking up the thread, but I'm afraid it is too little, too late. Very disappointing.

Is it just coincidence that the right-wing Canadian government folks vouchsafed this info only after the votes were in?

This whole thing is beginning to look like a sham indeed. How can we fool the people next. What trick do you have up your arm grand one.

This information may be too late to change Ohio and Texas, but it's certainly juicy going forward.

Hillary needed only one or two things to keep harping on to own the media narrative. Obama can do the same, properly played.

I'd love to see him run a perfectly clean campaign but that isn't going to happen. It requires an electorate that is much more suspicious of wild claims than the electorate has shown itself of being.

To that end, I say Obama expose every piece of dirt he can find. No need to throw it around... let the MSM do that. They'll take anything they can get.. they don't care how this race turns out, only that the candidates are fighting and they get to make ridiculous headlines to sell stories.

Harper's Rove. Bush disease seems to be contagious.

Remember she was attacking Obama on this, she said "just replace Obama's name with mine and imagine how you would report this." How prescient. Now they'll get the chance to write it for real.

I wanted to type "Polk Award, my ass," but that's not fair to Josh and the folks who work their asses off for this site.

Please don't swallow the bullshit so easily next time, though, fellas.

Well let's see: the picture on Vince Foster's suicide is becoming more clear now, huh folks?

so, did Clinton call the Canadians at 3am to sell out Ohio?

i hope TPM keeps this on the front page until the lazy 'main stream' press grasp the importance of this development.

Maybe TPM could report the entire story when all the FACTS are in.

Obama cant come across as being a sore loser, but he absolutely should take Clinton AND McCain to task for this.

Understand this: Clinton told the world Obama was a liar about Nafta, knowing full well it was her campaign that told the Canadians not to sweat the rhetoric.

OBAMA NEEDS TO CALL HER OUT FOR THIS.

Axelrod and Plouffe need to get on a call tomorrow and demand that Clinton retract her statement and APOLOGIZE TO THE VOTERS OF OHIO FOR DELIBERATELY LYING TO THEM.

Clinton will say anything to win

....if it isn't lying about Obama in OH regarding NAFTA it's lying in NH about Obama's stance on women's reproductive rights. Honestly should I be surprised at the behaviour? When your singular purpose is to regain the WH for your own vanity all is fair I guess. At least she thanks the voters in states where they lift her to victory. It isn't like I actually need a reason NOT to vote for her (ever) but if I did? This may be one.

our guy tripped badly in the past three days. Obama was not forceful in denouncing any of the false attacks. We need to be aggressive in calling hillary on all her votes that she now simply regret or she was blame others for her poor judgements. Voted for the war, voted for patriot act twice, voted for no child left behind, voted for the bankruptcy bill, voted to declare iranian gaurds as the terrorist organization, defended a child rapist...and I can go on and on...imagine if obama has a charge sheet such as this.....and we don't even know whats in the tax records....

if i recall OBAMA got in trouble because he lied and said no one from his campaign had discussions with canada. i think i was more upset to see he would lie as any other politician. we all read that clinton had done the same. OBAMA is portraying himself to be the change candidate when in fact he is just a politician like the rest of the washington click.

I keep hitting refresh on every msm site I can think of...nothing.

CNN only reports the issue as something Obama got tagged with, no noise about how it touches Hillary too.

To be honest, I think people need to take a deep breath here. I would frankly be shocked if high-octane campaigns like Barack's and Hill's did NOT reach out to foreign nations, allies, when their rhetoric departs significantly from current policy. Hedging that rhetoric with said foreign government -- and a conservative-run one at that -- seems only a natural offshoot of American political tendencies. In fact, taking it one step further, I think it is a good thing that either or both campaign would reach out to Canada to clarify the rhetoric. It speaks to a diplomacy that is currently non-existent in this era of arrogant Cowboy Diplomacy. That is to say, LYING is bad, and I do not think that is the case from either camp, but political hedging in the name of diplomacy is an under-appreciated political art form. Especially when the end result is the re-negotiation of a damaging trade bill, something that both candidates CLEARLY agree needs to happen one way or another.

I don't know how Harper's aide got into this all of a sudden because it wasn't him who met with an Obama advisor in Chicago. However the point still remains the same that Golsbee met with Canadian staff n Chicago, then when leaked wouldn't deny it and then turned all inquiries over to the Obama campaign who first denied it and then let it hang out there for days without clarifying. Seems to me this is more damage control from Harper covering his own rear than anything else. My friend from highschool lives up there and she says Harper is more paranoid of the press than Bush.
And is his aide now trying to say Hillary phoned the Canadian Govt. in Ottawa because that's where this aide would work from, definitely not in Chicago. This sounds like this guy is out to protect Harper from the embarrassment of this.

Right Wing Canadian Government Official puts out story to damage BOTH Clinton and Obama. Now who would benefit from that?

The Obama camp needs to make a big stink about this. Unfortunately as cswartout says, damage done and by the time PA comes around this will all have been forgotten. 7 weeks is a long friggin time in this campaign and unless they can do something quickly, it won't matter much for WY & MS.

I hate to say it be Obama really needs to be more aggressive on all of this.

Let me see if I have this straight. There's a name associated with Obama's campaign, a denial from Obama, and then a memo detailing a meeting and conversations between said individual and the Canadians. On the other hand, there's a vague "somebody" from Clinton's camp said "something" designed to "reassure" the Canadians. No names, no dates, no memos, no meetings, no proof. Just some reporter remembering over-hearing some comments. Until some news agency somewhere comes up with the same amount of specifics regarding the Clinton campaign, this is still a story about Obama.

Harper, unfortunately our PM, is well connected to Bush and the neocons. He is their Canadian branch office and he's bought and paid for. Like them he wants to damage Obama and have Clinton as the easier-to-beat Dem nominee.

From my reading of this tale, the original verbal statement by Brodie mentioning Clinton contacting them was probably the truth, mentioned in an offhand way in the presence of reporters.

From the CBC report it looks as if some of these calculating smart-asses from the PM's Office thought they'd help out their US neocon overlords, by leaking the Obama story at a critical time.

Harper is in the middle of fending off a far bigger scandal that just broke last week, where his boys including his version of Karl Rove, have been accused of trying to bribe a Member of Parliament who was dying of cancer with some form of a million-dollar life insurance policy, in an attempt to get him to vote with their party when they were in opposition a couple of years ago. This thing looks like it might potentially really hurt his weak minority government, hence the complete apologies and disavowals coming from them about this leak. They can't afford to have this going on for them right now.

With any luck the bribery scandal will sink the conniving
bastards.

This is getting juicy as Canadian political machinations typically go. I don't have much respect to Mr. Tom Clark (CTV reporter) at all. But given the conservative drift of his network, if he is out there with a story about Clinton operatives in contact, there must be something to this after all.

To me, the fact that both campaigns did the waive off - 'don't become alarmed its all campaign bull' - is a good sign about both their campaigns. It shows me that they both know that the US is in no position to demand or require any changes in NAFTA. The US is in fact in a position of unparalleled weakness in this respect. Reopening would cause the loss of a lot more protection than it would ever gain. The days of the US dictating terms to the world are done in case you hadn't noticed.

Anything which brings Harper and his operatives under the microscope is welcome. A few further thoughts on this matter. Is Harper capable of trying to influence the course of an American election with selective leaks? Yes Indeed. Is he a neo-con wannabee? Yes Indeed. Has he already been caught trying to buy off political adversaries? Yes Indeed. Is he to be trusted? Not on your life. This guy is poisonous. You have been warned.

Finally, your excellent campaign is providing much continuing delight north of the border. Please do keep it up. What with the recently settled writers' strike an all, the campaign fills a real entertainment void this year. Our esteemed fellow citizen Kiefer is in some yankee jail on a drinking beef and 24 is not on the air. We have to get our black presidential fairy stories from reality for a change.

Carry on please.

As one of the many millions who have invested themselves in turning America around after 911 and seven horrendous years under bush, I am excited at the prospect of resetting the course of our Federal Government. During such low times, I realized that I have tremendous hope and aspirations for American in the world today. Not being a seasoned politico those aspirations go beyond the party politics of the republicans and democrats.

The Democratic Party ought not take lightly the number of new voters that participated in the primary this season. As quickly as they came, they could disappear. If I am any measure, the Democratic Party is in serious crisis.

Until recently, I would have easily accepted either Obama or Hillary as the nominee, but that has now changed. My newbie sensitivities cringe at the brutal political tactics employed by the Clinton Campaign these past weeks. I realize the final analysis of Tuesdays results by seasoned politicos is that Obama did not respond well enough and that he needs to learn to fight better. All of which I agree, but as a voter I have a serious problem supporting a party which does not denounce or reject, but accepts the activities of the Clinton campaign these past weeks. She has

1) come out in praise of McCain over Obama on National Security

2) employed Foreign Power in negative campaign strategy against Democratic opponent

3) and then broadcasted fake Breaking News on its fall out

4) fanned the flames of religious intolerance with the release of the turban photos and response to question of opponents religious faith

5) Fear-mongering with 3 am ad

6) not to mention the racist overtones of the previous weeks and much much more.

This is not the America I want to participate in.

AT THIS MOMENT, I can not see supporting the Democratic Ticket if HIllary becomes the nominee. I do not care if Obama is second on the ticket.

No worries about that, T_Frank. Obama has enough sense not to get saddled with that camp.

THIS ISN'T NEW! The Obama campaign and the blogs dropped the ball. The February 28 CTV report said:

"The CTV exclusive also reported that sources said the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton's words. The Clinton camp denied the claim. The story caught the attention of Republican front-runner John McCain on Thursday."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229?hub=QPeriod

The media will go nowhere with this unless Obama continuously hammers it home over and over. Hopefully, the Obama campaign figures out a good way to do that.

This was part of the original story, but it got buried somewhere along the way. But when the story first broke, the implication was that BOTH campaigns had approached the Canadians.

The media, for whatever reason, decided it might be nice to help hand Ohio and Texas to Hillary.

Perhaps it's time to open a Mediagate investigation.

I agree that this should be addressed by Obama and pushed by Plouffe in the MSM. But I feel great frustration that right here at TPM, Josh himself ends his comments with this line:

I think the overarching story here is that friendly governments should not interfere in our elections.

Considering the fact that Senator Clinton aggressively and successfully used this story in ads, fake "news releases" and in talking points to damage Senator Obama in the days leading up to Ohio's primary, I think there might be a little more to the story than "other governments should not interfere in our elections."

The MSN won't cover this because they are racist. MSM has been anti-obama from the start. They don't want a black man in power.

"Well will the MSM cover this or just move on to the new story."

The MSM won't cover this because they are in the Clinton's pocket, and yeah, possibly racist.

You have a lot of older white female reporters who want to harp on "gender" and a lot of older white male reporters who seem to always gush over McCain, another old white guy.

How many black or minority pundits do you see? There's onyl a handful and they trot them out only on "racial" topics.

How many minority execs do you see at CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NYT, WaPo? How many editors and producers?

I do think the media is clearly biased. This NAFTA business, with Hillary being caught playing politics, and how the MSM will bury it, is great proof of that.

"Late Update: It should be pointed out that the Hillary people adamantly denied this from the start. In contrast, the Obama campaign was much slower to respond — possibly explaining why he got the worst of it in terms of publicity."

No it does not.

This is one persons word against the other. The only problem is that ONLY the name of the Obama guy was leaked and no Clinton name.

So you were wrong.

Media bias, the daily Penn-Ickes-Koolaid drinking from cowardly "journalists" is the true reason.

Now get back to your conference call with Penn and Ickes. You got a story to write! ;-)

Clinton campaign strategy.

1. Take stock of every potential negative of your campaign.

2. Before these negatives are revealed about you, accuse your opponent of being guilty of a similar offense (truth be damned).

Doing this effectively will turn your outrageous dirty dealings into a tit for tat game that people will either ignore or reduce to petty squabbling.

So much for restoring honor and dignity to the White House.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU -- Please keep looking into this. There is something very, very stinky here and MSM has blown it **big time**.

On Feb 27, CTV came out with this story:
"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."
(The story also said "Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.")

That story was very, very specific -- and very damning - about Obama. WHO gave it out? Everyone involved now acknowledges there is nothing to it -nothing happened in Washington, no one connected to Obama reached out to contact the Ambassador or **any** Canadian official, and no warning like that was ever given. So who made up that story and all its details and gave it to CTV?? (On Feb 29 in an article entitled "Clinton Camp Demands Obama Answers on NAFTA" ABC identified the person who leaked the story as Ian Brodie, but no one seemed to pick up on that or inquire any further.)

Anyway, Obama and the Canadian embassy checked to see if there was anyone who knew about it and then flatly denied that initial story. (Hmmm ... just thought of this. Sort of odd that Clinton could flatly deny right away when it took her folks a day to figure out if they had sent the Somali picture to Drudge???)

AT THE TIME THOSE DENIALS WERE MADE, no one in the Obama campaign other than Goolsbee himself knew that there had been another, very different meeting with Canadians in Chicago. Obama, Axelrod and Goolsbee himself have all stated unequivocally that that information was never conveyed to the campaign. As the memo itself says, it was an 'introductory' sort of meeting sought by the Canadians and just wasn't that big of a deal -- especially since nothing new or particularly noteworthy had been said!

On Feb 29, *after* the denials had been made, CTV then put out a second story, mentioning for the first time Goolsbee, Chicago and the Consulate General. They (Obama campaign) obviously checked with Goolsbee and quickly acknowledged that there had been a meeting in Chicago. They also explained that they hadn't known of it when they made the earlier denials, but apparently no one was listening. No one paused to question the timing of things or the *great* discrepancy between the initial allegation and the meeting that actually occurred.

The media (DAMN THEM!) began reporting on Obama's 'double-dealing' as an established fact. Example: "Obama initially denied contact between his campaign and the Canadians, but that was only technically true. Although there was no meeting with the Ambassador, they knew that a meeting of that nature had occurred in Chicago between someone connected to the campaign and a Canadian Consulate General" (As best I can recall, that's the gist of report given by David Shuster of MSNBC the morning of the primaries or the day before. He even noted - accurately - that the real importance of the story wasn't about NAFTA but about questions it raises regarding Obama's honesty and credibility. (Comments like that are punches in the stomach to Obama supporters, becuase honesty is the very essence of the 'change' we want.) I've always admired Shuster but that was *beyond* sloppy

The other thing that has been continually overlooked is that the Chicago meeting was nothing like the first story's description of a warning about campaign rhetoric, etc. -- Goolsbee says the memo twists his words, that he never said 'political positioning' or the like but even if you accept it as 100% accurate, he merely 1) confirmed Obama's position on NAFTA (that he wants changes in labor and environment provisions), and 2) warned that statements should not be interpreted as suggesting that Obama is a protectionist (and Obama has stated repeatedly that he is not). Read it for yourself:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Canwest%20News_1.pdf

It's hard to escape the suspicion that someone saw (or wrote) the words "political posturing" in that memo and then set about creating a very damning 'context' in which the memo could be used. Once I put all the pieces together, that's the only picture I could see. (Why did I look so hard? Because, damnit, I wanted to know if Obama was lying!)

Maybe that someone was Clinton (Bill *was* in Canada the week before the primaries) -- Maybe it was the Republicans (apparently lots of connection between them and Harper's govt, and this is worthy of Karl Rove). Perhaps Clinton's campaign made the overtures but they couldn't prove it against her, but suddenly realized they could use the memo against Obama. I'm not going to condemn Clinton (of making overtures or of arranging a set-up) without proof, anymore than I think people should have condemned Obama.

HOWEVER, I do condemn her - bitterly - for making use of it with such gusto. I think there was even a TV ad about Obama 'lying' re his position on NAFTA. And all the time she either knew first-hand it was a crock (because she'd set it into motion) or certainly could have figured it out as easily as I did that it was highly, highly suspicious. Don't candidates have some minimal responsibility for what they say?

Actually ....... I saw one early mention of McCain using this against Obama in a speech, but then nothing else. Did he *stop* using it? And if so, why? (I do think McCain himself has standards, as does Obama.)

Bottom line: if it's possible to find out who gave that original, blatantly false story to CTV, I think the whole thing would start to unravel. That's even more important than who leaked the memo.

So - After covering this breathlessly in the run-up to Ohio and Texas, now nothing from TPM on the refutation of the charges against Obama and unanswered questions about Clinton.

I expected better.

So - After covering this breathlessly in the run-up to Ohio and Texas, now nothing from TPM on the refutation of the charges against Obama and unanswered questions about Clinton.

I expected better.