I think that accounts for the curiously similar denials issued on Friday by Goolsbee - "The story is totally inaccurate" - by Obama spokesman Bill Burton - "This story is not true" - and by Obama himself - "The story is not true."  That way, the three could talk about CTV's original and apparently inaccurate Embassy story, call it "not true," and forget to mention that the second story was right on the money.  You also see hints of this in the other part of Obama's Friday formulation - "The Embassy denied it."  Or as he told WKYC-TV in Cleveland:

"The Canadian Embassy clarified it by saying it's not true and our office said it's not true," Obama continued, "and it's important for viewers to know it's not true."

You would have to be pretty naive to think that the Obama camp didn't already know there were two stories when they issued their "the story is not true" denials on Friday.  But it's beyond naive to think that, today, they are still thinking that this is a story about an Obama staffer talking to the Canadian Embassy. Not after AP reports that Goolsbee met with the Canadian Consulate General, and had this to say about a named Canadian official's memo about the meeting:

"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," the memo said. "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."

However, since most folks aren't far enough down in the weeds to grok the Canadian Embassy-Canadian Consulate distinction, as it pertains to this story, there's still mileage in that there Canadian Embassy dodge!  As Obama demonstrated in responding to press questions this morning:

Let me just be absolutely clear what happened, when I gave you that information, that was the information I had at the time. The Canadian Consulate in Chicago contacted one of my advisers, Austan Goolsbee, on their own initiative, invited them down to meet with them. He met with them as a courtesy. At some point they started talking about trade and Nafta and the Canadian Embassy confirmed that he said exactly what I have been saying on the campaign trail.

Yes, the Canadian Embassy did, in fact, "confirm" something like that, for whatever reason they may have had to do such a thing.  What you forget to mention, however, Senator, is that the Canadian Embassy wasn't there and has no idea what Goolsbee said, and that a Canadian Consulate staffer who was there taking notes has said that Goolsbee called your NAFTA stump position "political positioning."

Finally, let's make a point of comparison.  You're excusing yourself from the, um, misstatements you have been making on this subject because "that was the information I had at the time."  Now, even assuming extremely generously that you did not in fact know about the second story when you issued your denials on Friday, what exactly was it that allowed you to be so very positive in your denials?  After all, Senator, you didn't say "The story is not true so far as I know," or "I have no knowledge of anyone in my staff saying any such thing to the Canadian Embassy."  Instead, we heard this:

Sen. Obama: "It's important for viewers to understand that it was not true." Anchor: "So, completely inaccurate, did not happen, end of discussion." Sen. Obama: "It did not happen.

And in fact your campaign spokesperson Burton went even farther when he said:

This story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.

Now let's compare the regard for truth apparently held by you and Mr. Burton, who seems to have felt that he could speak reliably for "[every]one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere," to what Clinton spokesperson Harold Wolfson had to say when asked whether the Clinton campaign had been behind the "native garb" photo of Senator Obama that was posted on Drudge last week:

We have over 700 people on this campaign and I'm not in a position to know what each one of them may or may not have done. ... I'm not in the position to ask 700 people to come in and answer questions about it. To put this as clearly and simply as I can: I was not aware of it, the campaign didn't sanction it and did not know anything about it.

I suspect Mr. Woodson was in absolutely the same position at that time to speak for "[every]one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere" as was Mr. Burton when he did, in fact, universally speak for all.  While Mr. Woodson properly restricted himself to knowable facts, Mr. Burton obviously voted for shooting the story down first and finding the facts whenever, if ever.  That looks to me like two campaigns operating on different ethical standards. . . .

NOTE:  My apologies for failing to include links to some of my source material, but I am trying to jam this thing out during my lunch break.  Everything is true, and in the news recently.  Google away.