NationStates Jolt Archive

If she doesn't support NAFTA, which team does she support?

I just saw a commercial on my television set in which he trots out this factory worker who lost his job. In the commercial, the worker comes flat out and says, "Hillary Clinton supports NAFTA". That is a complete and utter lie, and Obama should be ashamed for lying to the people of Ohio.

No, it's a mis-characterization. I'm not about to make excuses for him, because I find this kind of thing to be a pain in the ass. It's not okay because she does it, too, it's just not okay. I tend to get more upset when candidates I'm leaning towards do this kind of thing because it makes it hard to support them. In this case, Obama is misrepresenting her- (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_false.html)
NAFTA "Boon"?

Both of the mailers Clinton criticized have been around for a while. The most recent deals with Clinton's views on the North American Free Trade Agreement, and images of its four pages were posted Feb. 13 by Ohio blogger Jeff Coryell. We haven't previously commented on this one, but Clinton's statement prompted us to take a closer look.

On the front of the four-page NAFTA mailer appears a headline saying, "Hillary Clinton believed NAFTA was 'a boon' to our economy." But in fact, Clinton never used the word "boon" to describe the effects of the trade agreement on the U.S. economy, and it's not clear she ever said anything like that.

The Obama mailer quotes a New York newspaper article that ran during her 2006 Senate reelection campaign. Two reporters for the Long Island daily Newsday gave brief descriptions of her stands on a number of issues, including this:

Newsday, Sept. 11, 2006: HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy, but voted against the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, saying it would drive jobs offshore.

The day after the mailer surfaced, another Newsday reporter, Dan Janison, conceded that the newspaper didn't get that from Clinton or her campaign.

Newsday's Dan Janison, Feb. 14: The word ["boon"] was our characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements. ... We do not have a direct quote indicating her campaign told us she thought it was good for the economy at that time.

We frankly find Clinton's past position on NAFTA to be ambivalent. Bloomberg News reported last year that Clinton "promoted her husband's trade agenda for years." Bloomberg quoted her at the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, as praising corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta,'' and adding, "It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun."

On the other hand, Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith says Clinton privately argued against NAFTA inside the White House and was "not very much in favor of free trade." In an interview with Tim Russert on MSNBC last year she said:

Sally Bedell Smith, Oct. 27, 2007: And Hillary was really prepared to try and kill NAFTA. [Special Trade Representative] Mickey Kantor had to take her out ... behind the White House, sat her down on a bench, and said, we have to go first with NAFTA. We can come back to health care later, but we have to do NAFTA because we need a success and we need a bipartisan success. And he was absolutely right. And what convinced her at the time was not necessarily the merits of NAFTA, but the fact that it was a good political decision.

So, even then, she was not very much in favor of free trade. And so she is consistent. And Bill Clinton continues to be. So, if they were both in the White House together, I wouldn’t want to be in the middle of that little fight.

Earlier, she was criticized by pro-NAFTA forces for a lack of support. In 1993 pro-NAFTA executive Gary R. Edson of Ameritech Corp. complained publicly of a "deafening" silence from Hillary Clinton during the fight to gain Congressional approval:

Gary R. Edson, Oct. 18, 1993: NAFTA should be made the clear priority, with a concerted campaign involving the entire administration, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose silence on the issue has been deafening.

And about the same time, a National Journal reporter quoted pro-NAFTA lobbyists as complaining that Hillary was undermining efforts to get the trade pact approved out of fear that pushing for it would alienate supporters of the administration's health care proposal. The headline: "If NAFTA's Bogging Down, Is Hillary to Blame?"

Update, Feb. 26: Quotes from Hillary Clinton that are favorable to NAFTA mainly date from her days as the first lady, but as we noted last November, her views shifted before she began her run for the presidency. In fact, she was calling for tougher trade rules soon after she and her husband left the White House.

The Obama campaign has pointed reporters to a quote in early 2004, in which she said, "I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America." But the Obama aides fail to note the full context of that statement. Clinton was giving a long discourse on the need to "revisit" old trade agreements to add tougher standards, consistent with her current position. The occasion was a news teleconference on Jan. 5, 2004:

Q. Senator, do you feel now that maybe some of the past trade deals that have been passed need to be revisited and maybe have provisions for environmental standards and health standards and labor standards added to them?

Clinton: I’ve always thought that. ... [All] too often the rules that have been set up to govern trade are not enforced in a fair and effective manner when it comes to American interests. And we have a really important stake in trying to make sure that labor and environmental standards become global and are not just left in one part of the world to the exclusion of the rest of the world. So I think that we need a re-thinking of our trade policies. ...

Q. Do you feel NAFTA and GATT should be revisited?

Clinton: ... I think we have to enforce the trade rules that are inherent in both NAFTA and GATT.

We also note that Clinton's statement that "on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America" is supported by many economists, however unpopular that view may be among Democratic voters in Ohio. Economist Anil Kumar, with the research department of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, summed it up in a 2006 paper by saying, "On balance, researchers have found NAFTA a slight positive for the U.S. as a whole." And the Congressional Research Service, summarizing four studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, the World Bank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the United States International Trade Commission, found "modest" but "positive" effects:

CRS, Feb. 4 2004: most aggregate measurements, NAFTA has had only a modest, but positive, effect on the U.S. and Mexican economies and tends to reinforce long-term trends already evident by its inception.

[b]Obama himself has said much the same, as the Clinton campaign quickly pointed out in a mailer of its own (which we also found misleading, because it omitted Obama's criticisms of NAFTA while quoting only his praise).
Their positions are almost identical in this and they both should knock it off. No one comes out of this clean. This is a net loss. But to go all 'lying weasel' is tunnel vision.

Thanks for that Cannot think of a name.
Bad show on the parts of both campaigns.

isn't this what politicians trying to win an election... and in office... and in their daily lives....are all about :confused:

Fixed.

isn't this what democrats are all about :confused:

I heard that she supports NAMBLA.

What, you think McCain and Clinton are any better?

If this kind of shit wasn't common place, factcheck.org wouldn't need to exist. Like I said, it's a pain in the ass.

*sigh*

Why are the elections not replaced by a computer screen, where you have to answer 30 to 50 questions, and then it picks the candidate most suited for you automatically ?

Less smear campaigning. Less "favours" and "debts" of the candidates towards those generous companies that donated. Less mudslinging. Less votes directly influenced by things like gender or skincolour.

The money saved this way can be used to give the people that bothered to vote some money. It does after all take time.

Or perhaps it could fincance that mission to mars we had a topic on a whole ago.

What, you think McCain and Clinton are any better?

Sen. Clinton did not begin criticizing NAFTA until she started laying the groundwork for a presidential bid. Up until that time, she was a strong (yes, strong) supporter of NAFTA (the claims in her former colleague's biography notwithstanding.)

Here's the complete record on this question:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm


The best that can be said is that Sen. Clinton is generally in support of free trade. Sen. Obama's only mistake was in attributing the word "boon" to Sen. Clinton.

This is FAR different than, say, claiming someone supported the war in Iraq when they he or she clearly did not.

*sigh*

Why are the elections not replaced by a computer screen, where you have to answer 30 to 50 questions, and then it picks the candidate most suited for you automatically ?

Less smear campaigning. Less "favours" and "debts" of the candidates towards those generous companies that donated. Less mudslinging. Less votes directly influenced by things like gender or skincolour.

The money saved this way can be used to give the people that bothered to vote some money. It does after all take time.

Or perhaps it could fincance that mission to mars we had a topic on a whole ago.

Who decides the way it picks?

Who decides the way it picks?

They would work the same way all those "voting advise" sites work: compare the answers of the questions to the programmes of the candidates.

A politician wasn't 100% honest? And during a campaing?!

Well I, for one, am shocked and appalled. Shocked and appalled.

I just saw a commercial on my television set in which he trots out this factory worker who lost his job. In the commercial, the worker comes flat out and says, "Hillary Clinton supports NAFTA". That is a complete and utter lie, and Obama should be ashamed for lying to the people of Ohio.

She supported it before it became politically expediate to oppose it.

This is discrimination against Weasels, and i for one am appalled you think they will take this while lying down!
It's the damned badgers you've got to worry about i mean, all that black and white, they're clearly robbers then they eat all that trash in our bins worldwide.
I say Weasels should make a stand against this Weasicsm. Any more US political threads and the Weasels will march on Washington with the zombie Jesus leading the dinosaur cavalry.
*sits down*

I just saw a commercial on my television set in which he trots out this factory worker who lost his job. In the commercial, the worker comes flat out and says, "Hillary Clinton supports NAFTA". That is a complete and utter lie, and Obama should be ashamed for lying to the people of Ohio.

LOL Yet another slimy Clinton half-truth.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_false.html

Come back when you have something.

Oh, and find a reason to support Billary. You still have yet to give one...

She supported it before it became politically expediate to oppose it.

That would have been a fairer (albeit still muddled) point to make. There is a case to be made that if you're going to take credit for the Clinton (Bill) administration you have to take all of it, and not pick and choose. However, I don't like 'flip flop' accusations-if you thought it was a good idea and it turned out not to be and you recognize that then you are an adaptable person who can learn.

If, however, and you can argue that this is the case, you thought it was a bad idea but stayed silent in order to expediate your own plan then that is opportunistic and shows a willingness to allow things you know are bad ideas to happen in order to allow for your own agenda. You can argue whether that is politically realistic or not.

However, taking Sal at his/her word at what the ad said, that's not the case that was made in the ad but rather that she supports it in the present tense, which is not accurate. It goes beyond how a 30 second ad cannot be specific, it's the kind of thing that validates the existence of Factcheck.org and, not to sound like a broken record, a pain in the ass.

Why are the elections not replaced by a computer screen, where you have to answer 30 to 50 questions, and then it picks the candidate most suited for you automatically ?

Because...

Less smear campaigning. Less "favours" and "debts" of the candidates towards those generous companies that donated. Less mudslinging. Less votes directly influenced by things like gender or skincolour.

I just saw a commercial on my television set in which he trots out this factory worker who lost his job. In the commercial, the worker comes flat out and says, "Hillary Clinton supports NAFTA". That is a complete and utter lie, and Obama should be ashamed for lying to the people of Ohio.

LOL Yet another slimy Clinton half-truth.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_false.html

Come back when you have something.

Oh, and find a reason to support Billary. You still have yet to give one...

Both of you should lay off the Kool-Aid and tone down the rhetoric. It's not helpful and it's not dignified.

Both of you should lay off the Kool-Aid and tone down the rhetoric. It's not helpful and it's not dignified.

what is kool-aid? a sort of drink?

what is kool-aid? a sort of drink?

Yes. The phrase also has implications beyond a tasty beverage. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid#.22Drinking_the_Kool-Aid.22)

what is kool-aid? a sort of drink?

Since my roommate is up and apparently making a 6 course breakfast thus making sleep that much harder for me (I live in the living room) I'll answer this for you.

Long ago by our reckoning there was a powerful and devious pitcher shaped General/Dictator who, with the help of a new weapon that gave him an edge, turned all that opposed him into a fine yet colorful powder, accompanied by his now famous battle cry, "Oh yeah!". Now, of course, this is horrifying and no amount of powder gunning would be able to quell the horrified reaction the populace would have at finding out what has happened to his enemies.

So, in an effort to hide his hideous war crime from the populace he found a way to pawn the dusty remains of his enemies on some backworld planet as a form of water flavoring, turning his horrifying battle cry into an equally blood-curdling sales pitch. Untranslated, his political party is the Kool party, and the dusty remains turn water flavor have aided their efforts, thus Kool Aide.

So drink it, drink it if you must, but I ask you-is the person who drinks the remains any less a monster than the one who makes them?

I'm sure you knew NOTHING about the gambling going on in Rick's casino as well, eh? :D

Certainly not! Oh, hey, my winnings...

A politician wasn't 100% honest? And during a campaing?!

Well I, for one, am shocked and appalled. Shocked and appalled.

I'm sure you knew NOTHING about the gambling going on in Rick's casino as well, eh? :D

I just saw a commercial on my television set in which he trots out this factory worker who lost his job. In the commercial, the worker comes flat out and says, "Hillary Clinton supports NAFTA". That is a complete and utter lie, and Obama should be ashamed for lying to the people of Ohio.

Well, god damn. If I can't trust a politician, who the hell can I trust?

Well, god damn. If I can't trust a politician, who the hell can I trust?

Lucy.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/WIL/PEA0334~Peanuts-Never-Ever-EVER-Give-Up-Posters.jpg
She'll totally hold the football this time...

Lucy.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/WIL/PEA0334~Peanuts-Never-Ever-EVER-Give-Up-Posters.jpg
She'll totally hold the football this time...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebpod5LqFts

:)

She voted for it before she voted against it.

She voted for it before she voted against it.

Politicians do what they do. Finding a perfectly clean one is impossible, McCain, Obama and Clinton will all have history that can be used against them since politicians don't have principles, just contributers who they owe alleigence to.

Politicians do what they do. Finding a perfectly clean one is impossible, McCain, Obama and Clinton will all have history that can be used against them since politicians don't have principles, just contributers who they owe alleigence to.

It's not even really that, it's part of why senators in general have a hard time getting nominated (the fact that this time it's all senators not withstanding). Legislation neccisarily makes for imperfect decisions. Take the caps on credit card interest rates. Clinton voted for it and Obama voted against it. Their stated reasoning is largely the same, Clinton felt that the cap was high, but at least it was a cap. Obama felt that the cap was too high and voted against it. Both of them paint the vote or and against as the same thing-"You put the cap too high" "You opposed a cap." While the votes are either/or they are hardly black/white.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-and-barack-afta-nafta.html

Was Hillary Clinton really against NAFTA in 1993? I was in the administration then, and I remember her position quite precisely.

. . . HRC didn't want the Administration to move forward with NAFTA, but not because she was opposed to NAFTA as a policy. She opposed NAFTA because of its timing. She wanted her health-care plan to be voted on first. She feared that the fight over NAFTA would use up so much of the White House's political capital that there wouldn't be enough left when it came to pushing for health care. In retrospect, she was probably right.

isn't this what democrats are all about :confused:

And Republicans...and all politicians for that matter.

They would work the same way all those "voting advise" sites work: compare the answers of the questions to the programmes of the candidates.

Who writes the comparison system? And more to the point, who pays the guys who write the comparison system?

The last sentence of this (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27899) reminded me of you.

Quality.

I laughed so hard it creeped out the kids playing next door (and I'm still laughing...)

Since my roommate is up and apparently making a 6 course breakfast thus making sleep that much harder for me (I live in the living room) I'll answer this for you.

Long ago by our reckoning there was a powerful and devious pitcher shaped General/Dictator who, with the help of a new weapon that gave him an edge, turned all that opposed him into a fine yet colorful powder, accompanied by his now famous battle cry, "Oh yeah!". Now, of course, this is horrifying and no amount of powder gunning would be able to quell the horrified reaction the populace would have at finding out what has happened to his enemies.

So, in an effort to hide his hideous war crime from the populace he found a way to pawn the dusty remains of his enemies on some backworld planet as a form of water flavoring, turning his horrifying battle cry into an equally blood-curdling sales pitch. Untranslated, his political party is the Kool party, and the dusty remains turn water flavor have aided their efforts, thus Kool Aide.

So drink it, drink it if you must, but I ask you-is the person who drinks the remains any less a monster than the one who makes them?

The last sentence of this (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27899) reminded me of you.

I just saw a commercial on my television set in which he trots out this factory worker who lost his job. In the commercial, the worker comes flat out and says, "Hillary Clinton supports NAFTA". That is a complete and utter lie, and Obama should be ashamed for lying to the people of Ohio.


:rolleyes:


Because Hillary has never lied in an add right?


Besides, she used to support it until she realized it was politically unpopular. Same with Iraq.

The retitling of this thread is not particularly fair - the allegations made by the OP are not just an opinion and the charge is a little more important than that.

First, the "boon" statement has been deemed untrue, she never said this. Fine, yet now we're seeing an ad stating she supports NAFTA when she's been clear in saying she does not support it as it stands. We can quibble about when and why she went against it but 'She supports NAFTA' does not accord with the facts.

It's a lie designed to win Ohio through falsehood.

This wouldn't matter so much, as people have noted this is what politicians do, except that Senator Obama is running on a platform that he's for changing this type of politics. In campaigns where the difference is in personality, where he claims 'same old, same old', here he is resorting to exactly that.

So why is he doing this?

Well right now Texas and Ohio are extremely important - if Senator Clinton can claim even the smallest victory, she can make the case that she can carry the big states, the decision states, she can win Florida - note: she can claim this despite the fact it's entirely a moot point given what happened but the claim remains important - she can win Ohio, she takes NY, she wins California - essentially, she can say that, in the key states, she has support.

Senator Obama knows this and, for the first time, there's real pressure to win, certainly in Ohio and therefore we see these tactics.

This lays very much into Senator Clinton's claim, that Senator Obama has not been tested and, once he is, all the rhetoric of change and hope is simply that, rhetoric, with no basis behind it.

And here, we see, at the first real point of pressure, Senator Obama resorts to the same cheap tactics he promises to change.

Changing the OP title in such a way smack of bias in this respect - certainly it wasn't a fair title in the first place but we've seen worse, to change this particular one in such a way seems, to me, very wrong.

Ultimately, all this is ridiculous anyway, both of them essentially support NAFTA, they simply think the terms upon which is was signed disfavour the American worker and therefore this needs to be addressed but they're certainly not against free trade and they would never reverse it. It's all a part of the battle to win Ohio and that's why this particular claim seems so very deceitful.

I have to agree the title change is a little unfair. I disagree with its severity, but that's a matter of opinion. I don't think that 'lying weasel' is going to affect classroom users. It seems unnecessary. Especially with "Major shit brewing in Latin America" is still floating around.

The retitling of this thread is not particularly fair - the allegations made by the OP are not just an opinion and the charge is a little more important than that.

First, the "boon" statement has been deemed untrue, she never said this. Fine, yet now we're seeing an ad stating she supports NAFTA when she's been clear in saying she does not support it as it stands. We can quibble about when and why she went against it but 'She supports NAFTA' does not accord with the facts.

It's a lie designed to win Ohio through falsehood.

This wouldn't matter so much, as people have noted this is what politicians do, except that Senator Obama is running on a platform that he's for changing this type of politics. In campaigns where the difference is in personality, where he claims 'same old, same old', here he is resorting to exactly that.

So why is he doing this?

Well right now Texas and Ohio are extremely important - if Senator Clinton can claim even the smallest victory, she can make the case that she can carry the big states, the decision states, she can win Florida - note: she can claim this despite the fact it's entirely a moot point given what happened but the claim remains important - she can win Ohio, she takes NY, she wins California - essentially, she can say that, in the key states, she has support.

Senator Obama knows this and, for the first time, there's real pressure to win, certainly in Ohio and therefore we see these tactics.

This lays very much into Senator Clinton's claim, that Senator Obama has not been tested and, once he is, all the rhetoric of change and hope is simply that, rhetoric, with no basis behind it.

And here, we see, at the first real point of pressure, Senator Obama resorts to the same cheap tactics he promises to change.

Changing the OP title in such a way smack of bias in this respect - certainly it wasn't a fair title in the first place but we've seen worse, to change this particular one in such a way seems, to me, very wrong.

Ultimately, all this is ridiculous anyway, both of them essentially support NAFTA, they simply think the terms upon which is was signed disfavour the American worker and therefore this needs to be addressed but they're certainly not against free trade and they would never reverse it. It's all a part of the battle to win Ohio and that's why this particular claim seems so very deceitful.

I can't say I disagree with you on the thread name change. My only concern is that it was flaimbait and would simple prompt an inferno. I must ask you to look back over the campaign and see who started lobbing cruise missiles first. As an Obama supporter I might be a little biased. I'll admit that right up front. Hillary was the first and fiercest when it comes to attacks. Would you prefer Obama have just taken the blows? Considering that John Kerry was lambasted for not responding to Swift Boar attacks (rightly so) what would you want Obama to do?

I can't say I disagree with you on the thread name change. My only concern is that it was flaimbait and would simple prompt an inferno. I must ask you to look back over the campaign and see who started lobbing cruise missiles first. As an Obama supporter I might be a little biased. I'll admit that right up front. Hillary was the first and fiercest when it comes to attacks. Would you prefer Obama have just taken the blows? Considering that John Kerry was lambasted for not responding to Swift Boar attacks (rightly so) what would you want Obama to do?

My thoughts are this-it's page three and it hasn't gotten that bad. Most Obama supporters have at least admitted that it wasn't the best thing to do even if they couched it (admitidly as I have)in the notion that yes, Clinton has done much the same thing.

But I don't think this can be considered 'responding.' He has done an excellent job of responding to her challenges and this is not it. He is creating a challenge of his own and he should be above it, which, even as a supporter, makes it disappointing. Not enough for me to switch camps by a looooooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggggg shot. I don't have to agree with everything a candidate does-I'd die of suffocation holding my breath for that. I don't agree with what he is doing here and don't want to defend it just because I feel he's the best choice.

I can't say I disagree with you on the thread name change. My only concern is that it was flaimbait and would simple prompt an inferno. I must ask you to look back over the campaign and see who started lobbing cruise missiles first. As an Obama supporter I might be a little biased. I'll admit that right up front. Hillary was the first and fiercest when it comes to attacks. Would you prefer Obama have just taken the blows? Considering that John Kerry was lambasted for not responding to Swift Boar attacks (rightly so) what would you want Obama to do?

I think you make a good point in relation to Senator Kerry and it was something I was mulling over before posting.

It wasn't just the SBA that Senator Kerry was slow to respond to, in debates - and I'm not going to promise that I'll dig these up - there are times when George Bush essentially calls Senator Kerry's heroism into question and instead of responding along the lines of 'Fuck you and your weasel claims, you've done nothing for your country', Senator Kerry attempted the high ground and just came across as bowing down, of not being a man - and America does like it's men.

So Senator Obama does have a dilemma, he's set himself on a platform of being above this kind of thing and, so far, that platform has been successful and, to be blunt, entirely correct.

Yet here we meet Senator Clinton's claims, that politics is a dirty business and she's hardened enough, having weathered every storm brewed up against her, and she knows what it takes to actually get things done.

So this particular ad seems, I don't know, it punctures the idea that he's above this sort of shit and suddenly you start to wonder: how will he react when the pressure's on - although he might have the right to resort to this stuff, his platform is that he won't.

Change you can xerox much? Because we've heard the 'change' angle since the first cell split.

Not only that, but if and when he has to, the Republicans will laugh at this, they'll rightly claim that he's all hot air and more, he's 'same old, same old' like all the rest. It's a dangerous position to take into the actual elections when the shit will start to fly.

Fixed.

Word.
*bows*

:rolleyes:


Because Hillary has never lied in an add right?


Besides, she used to support it until she realized it was politically unpopular. Same with Iraq.

Correct.

Both of you should lay off the Kool-Aid and tone down the rhetoric. It's not helpful and it's not dignified.

My apologies, Cat, you are correct. This topic and this particular poster have gotten my goat where they shouldn't have. :(

I will endevour to see that it doesn't happen again. :)