I don't get what you're saying. The memo wasn't from Goolsbee, it was about Goolsbee's conversation with a Canadian consulate staffer's boss. The staffer memorialized it and the boss likely read it over and agreed that it was accurate before signing off on it (though I wasn't there).

I don't understand the scenario that you describe. Brodie DIDN'T say that HE got a call from Clinton. Here are a few paragraphs from the Globe and Mail article that you are talking about:

“At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.

“Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

“Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

“Quite a few people heard it,' said one source in the room.

“He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry.”

“Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RT...

Think about what happened here. Ian Brodie gets a call from a Clinton campaign official saying “Don't listen to the anti-NAFTA stuff. It's all just politics.” Brodie mentions the call to a bunch of people. CTV picks up on it and seeks confirmation. Clinton denies it. So CTV seeks Obama's position, which also challenges NAFTA. A Canadian consul seeks Obama's economic adviser in Chicago for comment. Goulsbee answers the Canadian consulate's request and reiterates Obama's stated position. The consul tells somebody in Harper's government that Obama was just winking on NAFTA and didn't really want to change it – or somebody took the consul's remarks and remade them into the “wink.” The Harper government released the fraudulent “transcription” of Goulsbee's remarks, and CTV runs with the story. After Goulsbee calls CTV and says, “Wait a minute, I never said that,” CTV, CBC and the Canadian opposition investigate. Within a day Harper himself admits the “memo” was a fraud, and was illegal for meddling in a US election. But for that first day, when CTV ran the story, Obama had no idea that CTV was going to run a fraudulent Goulsbee memo as fact. So he was caught off-guard, and that's when Hillary (and McCain) pounced.

This was a disgusting display of media fraud, foreign meddling in our elections, shameless hypocrisy, and dishonesty on the part of the Harper government, CTV and most likely the Clinton campaign.

I hope Brodie goes public with the Clinton campaign official. I'd love to hear the denials then.

The ALLEGATION might have been aimed at Clinton, but the MEMO (i.e., the evidence) spotlighted Obama. When the Canadian government shows us a memo re: a conversation with Clinton (which it might still do), then we'll have something to chew on. Right now, there's nothing substantiated.

Guess not. Doesn't bode well for Obama. If no one cares about this version of the story, then Obama is left with last week's narrative as the complete one.

If you like Clinton, 1) suddenly, this is no big deal and does not reveal anything significant about honesty and pandering, and 2) it's more important to talk about Obama in this matter, because he says he's a new kind of politician, while we know that Clinton panders and lies as a traditional politician (though it won't be put exactly that way). This will recall the arguments that it's okay for Clinton to borrow phrases in a speech, while it's not for Obama, because people think Obama's a good speaker and we know Clinton's a lousy one (unfair to Clinton). Finally, 3) while there was no need to wait for proof for the charges against Obama, there will suddenly be a need to wait for more information now.

On the Obama side, suddenly supporters will declare that 1) this shows there's a clear Clinton bias in the Press (see Sullivan's quote), 2) for some, suddenly these assurances will reveal something about the candidate's personality, and 3) while further evidence was needed before concluding what happened with Obama, this single article will now be plenty of evidence against Clinton.

With all that out of the way, the Clinton campaign will need to take a huge hypocrisy pill for accusing the Obama camp (recall the “breaking news” ad from the Clinton campaign that Joe linked to a couple days ago) of something they themselves did (possibly).