44 blog reactions to http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Canadians_deny_Obama_call.html

that an Obama staffer contacted Michael Wilson, the US ambassador to Canada, to reassure him about Obama's NAFTA "campaign rhetoric". Now we have two conflicting accounts of what happened from two different embassy officials. Via Politico: 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.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value." Initially, the Obama campaign did not directly deny the conversation. After one official at the Canadian Embassy in Washington denied it, the Obama campaign followed suit. 'Nuff said? Not yet. On Feb 29, CTV re-confirmed its story and named the Obama adviser -- economics professor Austan Goolsbee, and Goolsbee

with Georges Rioux, the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago. Rioux, in meetings this week in Ottawa, would also neither confirm nor deny any conversation took place. Both men did say that they know each other. A spokesman for the Canadian embassy denied the story: 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.

if they were sticking by their story, he quickly called me back with verification. The facts of our story are accurate. Then why are the traditional media and Obama blogs pushing Obama’s side of the story that the CTV story is "innacurate?" That an embassy spokesperson alone proves the reporting is wrong? Back channels exist, which means skepticism should apply, especially with CTV standing by the facts of their story:

But that's not the core. The core is to drill a handful of key adjectives into the public mind about Barack Obama: Muslim, anti-American, BLACK, terrorist, Arab. Maybe a little hustler and shifty thrown in [Shifty? Barack? Even shiftier...], but we'll have to see. The details and specific arguments are sort of beside the point. They're like the libretto in a Wagner opera, nice for some narrative structure. But it's the score that's the real essence of it, the point of the whole exercise.

Recap.  Original stance on NAFTA, I’m good with.  Kicking up the rhetoric in a close race… touchy, but I’ll survive.  Letting a staffer go around saying you’re planning to welch on your promises…  Stupid. UPDATE: Ben Smith says there’s no there there.  Well… wish I had some Canadians around here to tell me how solid CTV is on its reporting…

or government officials, for the hundreds of nations across the world. Wouldn’t you read this article and wonder WHICH OBAMA you’ll be dealing with, and IF he means anything he says? Well, today, the Canadian embassy said the CTV report was not true: 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.

they were sticking by their story, he quickly called me back with verification. The facts of our story are accurate. Then why are the traditional media and Obama blogs pushing Obama’s side of the story that the CTV story is “innacurate?” That an embassy spokesperson alone proves the reporting is wrong? Back channels exist, which means skepticism should apply, especially with CTV standing by the facts of their story: Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama

they were sticking by their story, he quickly called me back with verification. The facts of our story are accurate. Then why are the traditional media and Obama blogs pushing Obama’s side of the story that the CTV story is “innacurate?” That an embassy spokesperson alone proves the reporting is wrong? Back channels exist, which means skepticism should apply, especially with CTV standing by the facts of their story: Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama

they were sticking by their story, he quickly called me back with verification. The facts of our story are accurate. Then why are the traditional media and Obama blogs pushing Obama’s side of the story that the CTV story is “innacurate?” That an embassy spokesperson alone proves the reporting is wrong? Back channels exist, which means skepticism should apply, especially with CTV standing by the facts of their story: Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama