The latest scandal surrounding the Obama campaign and nicking its polished image involves an Obama campaign adviser conveying to a Canadian diplomat that Obama doesn’t really oppose NAFTA and that he spoke out against NAFTA in order to place himself in a better political position.

According to that Canadian diplomat, Obama campaign adviser, Austan Goolsbee, said that Obama’s criticism of NAFTA was “more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”  Goolsbee claims that he was misunderstood.

So does Barack Obama really oppose NAFTA or is he merely pretending to oppose it in order to win votes in Ohio tomorrow?  If he wins, can you be sure that he will go to Washington and “renegotiate” it as he declared in last week’s debate in Ohio?

Hillary Clinton, whom Obama has berated for Bill Clinton’s role in creating NAFTA, said, “I don’t think you should come to Ohio and tell the people of Ohio one thing and then have your campaign tell a foreign government something else behind closed doors.  That’s the kind of difference between talk and action that I’ve been talking about throughout this campaign.”

Obama’s campaign has characterized the meeting between the Canadian diplomat and Goolsbee as informal.  The Canadian Embassy in Washington is also playing down the story.

The latest information about the story concerns Obama’s denial that the meeting ever took place.  Obama, who denied that the meeting took place to reporters is eating his words after having learned that in fact the meeting did take place.  This is bad news for Obama whose campaign has pushed its no-experience-necessary and “good judgment” strategy.

Do we want another president who relies so heavily on advisers and delegating authority that he doesn’t know what his key advisers are saying to foreign diplomats?  Remember Ronald Reagan whose leadership came under fire after the Iran-Contra debacle?