It's February 8th, just after Super Tuesday, before Obama's remarkable winning streak of 11 primaries. NAFTA was mentioned, but was decidedly NOT a big word on the campaign. In fact, Russ Feingold was the biggest person mentioning NAFTA in a campaign context at that time, calling both candidates out for NOT mentioning it, pointing out that it'll be a good thing to talk about once they get to Wisconsin:
http://www.madison.com/...
"They could both be stronger on trade, a lot stronger," says the senator, who grew up in the auto-making city of Janesville and who has made himself an expert of the trade concerns of factory workers and family farmers. "It could be a very good issue for one of the candidates if they were to really step up on trade."
February 8th was when the Canadian consulate met with Goolsbee...
The date isn't mentioned in the AP reports, but I found it here:
http://www.ctv.ca/...
DeMora wrote the memo after a Feb. 8 meeting with Goolsbee and Canada's consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.
So, having established that the meeting occured on February 8th, and that there just wasn't a lot of discourse about NAFTA on February 8th, why would a memo emerge with this wording?
http://customwire.ap.org/...
Goolsbee disputed a section that read: "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
I can't blame Goolsbee for disputing that section, because it just wasn't true at the time of the meeting. Apart from Illinois and Minnesota, the campaign hadn't really been in the Midwest states where NAFTA plays as a big issue. It wouldn't have gotten a lot of words spoken about it, since there weren't a lot of words to say and anxieties wouldn't have been high.
"This thing about `it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me.
"I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," Goolsbee said.
Chronologically, he couldn't have used that phrase, unless he had a crystal ball! While it wasn't hard to predict NAFTA would be a big issue, there were 3 groups of 8 primaries prior to Wisconsin, and two more weeks before Ohio. One more bit that makes chronological sense:
He said he responded that Obama is not a protectionist, but that the Illinois senator tries to strike a balance between the economic struggles of working Americans and recognizing that free trade is good for the economy.
"That's a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered," Goolsbee said of memo's account. "A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA.
Again, NAFTA wouldn't have been at the forefront at the time. This sounds like a rarity in political discourse... a consistent statement.
Based off this, my conclusion is that the characterization of Goolsbee's remarks by the Canadians was made weeks afterwards. Perhaps it was the consulate guy trying to be pro-Obama, perhaps it was some sort of smear formation on the part of conservatives in Canadian government -- I dunno. The timing of the meeting alone makes a compelling case for the veracity of Goolsbee's statements, and for questioning the spew that's emerged from the Canadian government over this matter.