Completely agree.  I just wanted to put it to bed once and for all.  No, not quite: I also wanted to see how many people would choose to believe that the story is part of a conspiracy.  Amusing?  Perhaps.  Frightening?  Definitely.

Right, completely correct, unambiguously not doubting that for a moment, and I'll even go a step farther.  The job of politicians is to sell ambiguities to potential voters.  That is their raison d'etre, and both Obama and Clinton are good politicians.  Further, I am not disputing what Goolsbee did or did not say/think/feel/believe/hope for/dream about.

BUT, regarding the genesis of the story (which is what my diary was about), if you had read the article, you would have read the following:

"Both candidates were talking about re-opening the agreement and renegotiating certain sections in order to toughen its environmental and labour standards.

When a group of reporters from CTV quizzed [Candian embassy official] Brodie about what such declarations meant to Canada, he apparently replied that Ottawa was not worried. Hillary Clinton's people had been in touch, he said, reassuring Canadian officials that they should not take such campaign rhetoric seriously. A CTV reporter privy to the conversation would later publicly confirm what Brodie said.

But an offhand remark by a political staffer is just a starting point so CTV brought Tom Clark, the network's bureau chief in Washington, into the picture. Clark is known to be on friendly terms with ambassador Wilson.

In short order, Clark contacted Wilson, putting to him the tip from Ottawa. We know this because the embassy later confirmed the call. The actual conversation between the two men remains a private discussion, but by the time Clark went to air Wednesday night, his angle was no longer Clinton. It was Obama."

Thus, the initial story, which was reported to be about remarks made by the Obama camp, was not in fact about remarks made by the Obama camp, and nothing that Goolsbee said changes this.  At best, Clinton can say that Obama said the same thing that she did.  Weird, given her CATEGORICAL denial of such comments.

I stand by my words.

See above.

This hypocrisy is what makes me dislike both Obama and Clinton...

"Round and round the circle goes; where it stops nobody knows."

I have said it many times before, and I'll say it again.  My support for Obama does not stem from the belief that he is the second coming of Jesus, a saint, the great Black hope, a radical, a moderate, or the Easter Bunny.  Rather, I support Barack Obama for four pretty concrete reasons.

Reason the first: He is the better communicator.  I place a lot of stock in Richard Neustadt's contention that the president's power lies in persuasion; when the president speaks, the world (and by extension, Congress and the American people) listen.  There are worse things for a candidate to be called than a liberal Reagan.

Reason the second: He doesn't come with the Clinton baggage.  Believe it or not, many polls have clearly shown that Clinton has high unfavorability ratings.  While that may not matter to you or me in November, it could matter very much to the people who make up the small margin that decides the difference between a win and a loss.  For us liberals to say that this knee-jerk, irrational dislike of her doesn't because none of our friends feel it would be like examining Berkeley and concluding that Priuses, Volvos, and Subarus are the most popular cars in the US.  Perspective matters.

Reason the third:  Clinton has essentially shifted the debate into a referendum on experience.  Although none of the candidates strikes me as having much in the way of executive experience, the popular perception seems to be that McCain is far more experienced than either of the Democratic candidates.  Clinton would thus be forced to bring up her (maybe) experience (sort of) working in her husband's administration.  Rwanda, anyone?  With such a narrowed focus, I don't see decaf prevailing over real coffee.

Reason the fourth: I prefer Obama's approach to foreign policy; namely the part about talking with our enemies.  To paraphrase Madeleine Albright, what's the point of having a State Department if you don't use it?  It could be that this is merely fluff, but I prefer it to Clinton's saber-rattling.  I think that failing to acknowledge the failure of the Bush doctrine would be disastrous for whichever Democrat is nominated.

Perhaps it is asking a lot, but I would suggest that those who dislike Obama's perceived hypocrisy read some Machiavelli (or, dare I say, Leo Strauss).