Be honest. Considering that (a) Canada’s ruling party is staunchly conservative and favors the Republicans, (b) an Obama win today would have knocked Hillary out of the race and avoided a prolonged battle which will hurt the Democrats, and (c) the Canadian government just happened to leak a NAFTA-related memo damaging to Obama one day before the Ohio primaries, a state where NAFTA means more than in any other state… can you really brush off the whole “NAFTA-gate” affair to pure coincidence?

Not that the American media weren’t happy stooges to a smear job. If you read the whole memo, you’ll find that it was not even close to what the press made it out to be. It did not quote Obama, it didn’t even quote the advisor–it was notes taken by a Canadian official detailing his impressions of the meeting–and the whole memo shows much more than just what’s being reported. Some parts express the official’s belief that he’s being assured that it’s all just “political maneuvering” and “political positioning”–those are the only parts really quoted in the media, the ones that give the impression that Obama is lying to voters.

However, other parts of the memo contradict that impression:

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.

Which is exactly what Obama has been telling voters:

Obama said he supports the foreign trade deal, which is especially important to labor and U.S. manufacturers. He said active trading is a key way to keep the United States competitive.

“We’re not going to draw a moat around the United States’ economy. If we do that, then China is still trading, India is still going to be trading,” said Obama, who voted against the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement and opposes the pending trade deal with South Korea.

“I think that NAFTA and CAFTA did not reflect the interests of American workers but reflected the interests of the stock owners on Wall Street, because they did not contain the sorts of labor provisions and environmental provisions that should have been embedded and should have been enforceable in those agreements,” he said.

So, this other part of the memo–not reported widely in the media–contradicts the idea that Obama is lying to voters. But try telling that to the Liberal Media™.

What this proves is that there is no “NAFTA-gate,” Obama is not lying to the voters. Instead, you have a very poor Canadian note-taker, a right-wing Canadian administration interfering in U.S. politics at a key juncture that could swing the election, and a media which is more interested in creating a scandal than reporting the truth. (Which doesn’t take into account why they glossed over the McCain lobbyist scandal by acting like the weak sex angle was the only relevant part–unless you remember that we’re dealing with a Liberal Media™ here, out to eviscerate the Republicans!)

I don’t blame Hillary too much for taking advantage of it–it was a slick political move, if dishonest. Obama should have handled it better, though. Of course, he could not just point out what I just pointed out–it would take too long to do so, and therefore would never play in the media even if the media hadn’t decided it was suddenly Obama Season.

Instead, he should have done what (gulp) Republicans do: call it a “smear,” a “dirty trick,” maybe even some synonym for “gutter politics.” It worked for McCain a week ago. It also worked for Bush when it was revealed that he’d been arrested for drunk driving. Even though Bush had been arrested for drunk driving and his campaign didn’t challenge that, they got through it by calling the release of the information a “dirty trick,” based solely on its timing. Well, that would apply to this situation in spades–and it would have the advantage of being true, while the charges and the impressions created were patently false. Had Obama pressed that angle, it might have actually brought him some sympathy and support. But he didn’t; as far as I can tell, he just denied it was true in a plain-vanilla fashion, and that just wouldn’t fly.

No one is sure that this is what torpedoed his campaign this week, but it certainly seems to be the strongest element to that. There are reports that a lot of people in Ohio turned to Hillary because they suddenly doubted Obama. Had Obama not lost big in Ohio, Hillary’s boost would have been significantly reduced; additionally, the NAFTA faux-scandal may have even tipped the balance in Texas. Had both those states been closer, Hillary might still be celebrating, but she would not have the aura of a comeback like she got tonight.

And to be frank, tonight’s results makes little difference in real terms: Hillary won only a few delegates, and is still about a hundred behind Obama; Obama may even diminish her gains further if the Texas caucus goes his way. Hillary’s only hope is for this win to give her a boost and break Obama’s momentum.

But the real story tonight is how the Democratic race will now continue for at least a few more months, and maybe even right up until August, in a way that could potentially split the party and lose an election that should have been a cake walk.

Tonight may have been a good night for Hillary, but it was a great night for Republicans–with a little help from their friends north of the border.