So the Associated Press this morning releases excerpts of a memo taken
by a Canadian diplomat after meeting with Obama advisor Austan
Goolsbee.  The "smoking gun" portion of that document says



<blockquote>On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about
fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of
strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment
and trying to establish these as more 'core' principles of the
agreement.</blockquote>



It's the memo that rocked the Obama campaign, because it's completely
at odds with statements Obama has made in the past.  Like in his
Cleveland, Ohio debate on February 26, when he said



<blockquote>"In her campaign for Senate, [Clinton] said that
NAFTA, on balance, had been good for New York and good for America. I
disagree with that. I think that it did not have the labor standards
and environmental standards that were required in order to not just be
good for Wall Street but also be good for Main
Street."</blockquote>



And when he said, at the same debate,



<blockquote>"as president of the United States, I intend to make
certain that every agreement that we sign has the labor standards, the
environmental standards and the safety standards that are going to
protect not just workers, but also consumers."</blockquote>



Or when Obama said:



<blockquote>"I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same
way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator
Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer
of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor
and environmental standards that are enforced."</blockquote>



Or when Reuters reported his comments at a speech in Lorain, Ohio last Monday:



<blockquote>He has pounded rival Hillary Clinton, a New York
senator, for switching positions on NAFTA and said repeatedly that he
would revisit that pact to instill environmental and labor standards.
... But Obama, who would enter the White House with only four years of
experience as a U.S. senator in addition to several years in the
Illinois legislature, said his misgivings about NAFTA did not mean he
was opposed to such accords in general.  Asked how other countries
should interpret his position, Obama responded that he supported free
trade but wanted it to be fair. "What the world should interpret is my
consistent position, which is I believe in trade," he said after
meeting with workers at a manufacturing plant in Ohio.  "I just want to
make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are
fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just
corporate profits."</blockquote>



Or when he said, in an interview with WCPO in Ohio on February 25,



<blockquote>"And up until as recently as a year ago, [Clinton]
was saying that NAFTA had contributed substantially to the American
economy. So, my difference is that we have to have labor standards and
environmental standards that don't undercut US
workers."</blockquote>



Or when Obama told a rally in Cincinnati, Ohio,



<blockquote>We're going to have a trade system that is free and fair.
See, I believe in trade. I believe all countries can prosper from
globalization. But not if our trade agreements don't have strong labor
standards, strong environmental standards, so that U.S. workers aren't
being undermined.</blockquote>



So clearly we have a case of Obama telling the American people one thing...



...and telling the Canadian government <i><b>the exact same thing.</i></b>



Can someone explain to me why this is a news story?