hardly sounds like an official Canadian government 'report.'
Close reading would also require one to consider that the named Obama adviser may just have been leery about having too much read into his statements, in the first place, since he may not have been in a position to be making "clear articulation of policy plans."
It was two guys walking across campus having a conversation that both may have remembered differently.
From CNN:
"...The AP obtained a memo from a Canadian diplomat saying an Obama adviser had told Canada's government the candidate's criticism of NAFTA was "more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
But Austan Goolsbee, the Obama adviser, told the AP his statements were mischaracterized.
Clinton said Monday the memo should raise doubts about Obama's criticism of NAFTA, which is highly unpopular in Ohio after a large loss of manufacturing jobs there in recent years..."link:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/03/democrats.primaries/?iref=hpmostpopThe CNN piece goes on to include a response from the campaign manager:
"...Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Goolsbee's comments came during an informal conversation on a walking tour of the University of Chicago, where the adviser is a professor. Plouffe described the AP report as overblown and inaccurate.
"This is being reported as if somehow this is an official meeting of an Obama representative and the Canadian government," Plouffe said. "That was not the case. He was essentially doing a walking tour and was essentially having a casual conversation and the report on that conversation was not accurate."You'd never know that was the case from reading Reuters truncated synopsis, which goes on to change the wording and say the Canadian Consulate wrote a 'report' (not a mere memo):
"...Key Obama economic advisor Austan Goolsbee discussed his candidate's policies with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, which wrote a report suggesting Obama's words on NAFTA were designed for a political audience and shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The report was leaked to the U.S. media, prompting some Democrats to accuse Canada's right-leaning Conservative government of trying to interfere in the election -- a charge dismissed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper..."http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0338038720080303The really ironic aspect of all of this, for me, is that on the day before the most important primary election, Hillary Clinton (let's not forget whose administration brought us NAFTA, in the first place) is cast as NAFTA's "true" opponent, at least in terms of "the latest breaking news" media narrative, and she's magically absolved from any (shared) responsibility she may have had, in originally supporting it. Or for ever having spoken out publicly, in favor of it.
Makes you proud to be a North American.
There's more, at CNN, where Goolsbee names his accuser, and denies making the statements mis-quoted in the Canadian "memo":
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/03/obama.nafta.ap/index.html?iref=werecommendExcept, *darn it all*, I just realized from looking at the text of both those CNN links -- one is from the 'most popular' list, the other's from the 'we recommend' list. Tomorrow both links will probably be gone. I looked around on the page, but couldn't find a permanent link to either story.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
