Since the candidates made NAFTA an Ohio issue prior to Naftaquiddick, you may speculate it was smelly, but it seems to me to be rather relevant timing. Why should they be afraid of the issue? Why should they deny/hedge/manipulate on their positions. Why couldn't Obama have taken 5 minutes, asked Goolsbee what he said, and then respond factually to the press along with a clear reiteration of his NAFTA position.

If there is doubt as to what his position is, why can't he just say it again himself.

This constant drip, drip, drip is going to take its toll.

I re-read the article that Joe's post cites. It says this about mis-characterization of Goolsbee's conversation:

“Mr. Goolsbee insists the Canadian memo mischaracterized his position.”

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

That's NOT the same as the Canadian government saying that the conversation was mis-characterized. I might have missed a more recent article. If you have one in mind, please share the link so that I'll be better informed.

the Canadian gov loves NAFTA, and it's scared senseless over the prospect of having greatly upset a possible U.S. president who might later try to re-negotiate NAFTA.

What that government did was careless (even stupid). It should never have let the Goolsbee memo float around, knowing that it could be damaging to a U.S. candidate.

In which article are Canadian officials quoted as stating that the consulate staffer had “completely mischaracterized” Goolsbee's end of the conversation? And which article cites the Canadian government's saying that neither candidate offered reassurance over NAFTA?

Is it really as clear cut as the PM's aide v. the PM's spokesperson? Brodie didn't make a definitive statement that HE (first hand) had talked with a Clinton Campaign person. Below are a two paragraphs from the article you're referencing:

“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.”

In other words, Brodie was stating second, third (or maybe tenth) hand that someone from Clinton's campaign had called the EMBASSY.

Still, we have a problem. The Canadian gov hasn't yet provided a memo (and there should be one if Clinton's surrogate talked with diplomatic staff, which routinely memorializes such conversations). Clinton publicly gave her permission for the Canadian government to publicly share any such memo, if it exists.

There IS a memo summarizing the conversation with Goolsbee — though the accuracy is questionable. Inaccurate or not, before the memo came out, some people in Obama's campaign (NOT Obama) DENIED that the Goolsbee conversation had even taken place or (if it had taken place) that NAFTA had not come up.

The memo (and Gooslbee's response to it) indicates that even if the Canadian staffer got some of the meat wrong, a conversation DID take place and NAFTA did come up.

If the Canadians find a memo showing that Hillary had nudged and winked and deceived American voters about her NAFTA stance, I'll be front and center with the criticism — not making excuses for the candidate's misleading double talk.