Obama Going Negative? Mailer Hits Clinton On Trade

Sen. Barack Obama's camp is sending out mailers in Pennsylvania directly taking on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her position on trade.

The piece, which was obtained by The Huffington Post, tiptoes the line between position contrast and general attack, as the Obama campaign cites several news items and quotes that are subject to different interpretations.

For example, the mailer cites a Newsday article from September 2006 concerning Clinton's perceived support for NAFTA. Aspects of that article, however, were retracted because it included the since-discredited line that the Senator said the trade agreement was a "boon." The Obama mailer didn't include the "boon" quote, but even Newsday offered that the use of their piece in a political context could be misleading.

In addition, the mailer criticizes Clinton for supporting permanent normal trade relations with China, citing a 2000 quote she made to CNN: "But on balance, I've looked at this, I've studied it. I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO."

Obama, however, has a similar quote from the Illinois Farm Bureau, albeit one with greater caveats and stipulations. "So I think it is important for us to negotiate our trade agreements recognizing that the global economy has shifted," he said in September 2004. "What that means then is that when the Chinese government devalues its currency by 40%, we've got to make sure that we bring China before the WTO. The same way that we get brought before the WTO if other countries think that a disadvantage, that they are being disadvantaged by our existing trade policies."

Beyond these quips, however, is a bigger question. Does this sully the Obama campaign's attempts to paint Clinton - who is running a slate of negative advertisements in Pennsylvania - as the only candidate to go negative?

As David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager said of Clinton on a conference call on Thursday: "It is a relentlessly negative campaign here in Pennsylvania running negative ads around the state... her campaign can really be defined as an attack strategy day after day, trying to destroy Senator Obama."

Here's the complete mailer:

Comments

[Ontariocentric]

no surprise the readers of Sam Stein Obamalovin' piece don't agree these ads are negetive, rather more truth. As Sam Stein points out, Obama's soundbites come with "greater caveats and stipulations". Right...That's how politics work, right?

Sam Stein and others would have you believe that Negetive Ads = Truth. (But only for the other guy, of coarse). Because you know, negetive ads in political campaigns have such an invigorating effect on our democratic system. They bring out the best in us. They bring us together for a common cause.

To defeat and destroy the opponent.
It's all the same no matter who is pointing the finger.
These ads are as stupid as the ones she's putting out.

[ellenolenska]

Hey ontariocentric....Obama had many chances in last night's debate go after Clnton, but he remained gracious.....he only went after her a couple of times......he's earned the right to go negative, or whatever you want to call it. Politics is a nasty game....Obama's going to have to get his hands dirty.

[JoePomp]

Hmm NAFTA. Remember in last night's debate when they grilled Hillary about her flip flop on NAFTA and Bill's support of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. That was a tough moment for her last night. She was really squirming.

Oh that's right. There were no questions at all about free trade agreements. I guess they couldn't fit them in between the really important issues that unemployed factory workers really care about like Flag Pins and the Weather Underground.

Pathetic.

Joe P.

[DoninJoisey]

EXACTLY. It was rigged.

[kid5rivers]

Two negs make a poz.

[personalpolitical]

that isn't going negative, those are the facts, Hillary supported NAFTA, NAFTA was her husband's baby, she was all for it, and then she lied about it, which goes to credibility....so all of these are important, and true.

not negative

[Mattie]

Obama can't even tell the truth about how his father came to America, He distorts his record by trashing big oil, never once mentioning in his grandstanding for the press, that he voted for the Cheney Energy bill. The man is a phony, and a liar!

[ellenolenska]

Mattie, Obama is a politician....they all lie and embellish.....only Hillary does it a thousand times more.

[terragazelle]

Well...oh yes that was a big lie about his dad..he was off a year.
And you are right he did vote for that "Cheney" Energy Bill...

"A few weeks ago, the AP fact-checked the charges and countercharges over this energy bill. "It is a stretch to call it 'Dick Cheney's energy bill,' a hot-button reference for many Democrats. Although the House bill was framed according to the vice president's energy priorities, by the time it passed the Senate many of those measures, such as drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, had been stripped away."

More: "Clinton's claim that the bill 'was loaded with new tax breaks for oil companies' also overstates the case. While it included $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas industries, that was offset by nearly $3 billion in oil taxes, mostly in an extension of the oil spill liability tax."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/11/879666.aspx

[MicahD]

Let's define "going negative"
as many have stated, going negative is really referring to gossip, personal gaffes; not criticism about a candidate's position on a legitimate governmental issue.

[DoninJoisey]

Agree to your definition. Also the Ayres crap - Ayres was in the Weathermen when Obama was 8 years old. That's going negative.
I liked how he pointed out Clinton pardoned some Weathermen...

[loper2008]

I agree with what many others have said. Going negative is not always bad. It's just bad if you go negative on issues of character assassination. If Obama had come out with a Tuzla ad that would have been completely without class ... This is within fair bounds. Plus, Clinton supporters like to say any attack is fair game because it is something the Republicans will bring up. McCain would love this issue if Clinton were the nominee.

[cincigal]

Of course going negative is when Senator Clinton points out Egobama's lies and deceptions.However when egobama tells lies about Senator Clinton,that is not negative.of course he has left most of the negativity to his rabid canabalistic supporters so far.Egobama cant take a few questions from George and Charlie,what does he expect he is going to get from the Republican machine??I really enjoyed the debate last night.It was such a treat to watch the big sissy whine and squirm,and deny that he had signed off on a gun control queationaire.He signed it but he tried to say that it wasnt his handwriting.And they have the gall to call clinton a liar.That is one thing she cant hold a candle to Egobama on.LIES.Egobama never tells the truth until he is caught and then he lies again.

[RhondaT]

Are you even a democrat? Why such hostility? Sheesh, we're all on the same party, right?

[DoninJoisey]

Sure sounds like you are confused.
Bosnia
NAFTA
IRAQ War vote
N Ireland peace
Columbian trade deal and Bill and Penn and Wolfson...

Or are you in complete denial?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exsmFDYyK4U

[terragazelle]

What lies has Obama said...?
Hillary supporters claim those lies, but we never hear what they are...come on, curious minds want to know...

[Mattie]

so lets get this straight, when Clinton does it, it's bad, when Obama does it, it's good. Ok, got it!

[patch61]

obama went to canada to have a secret meeting whats that........................

[LoloZ]

Actually no, he didn't, it was the Clinton campaign who did that and then accused Obama of it.

[whiteboyblues]

Thank you!

[cincigal]

And you call Clinton a liar.Obama already admitted to this himself.Are you contradicting your own master?

[MoreCowBellNowPlease]

No--you got it wrong. See my links aboe that prove it was Obama, not Clinton.

[krsteen1]

Obama did *not* go to Canada, it was Austin Goolsbee, an unpaid advisor. Get your facts straight.

[West Coastian]

Hunny, you really need to keep up on the news. The Toronto Globe and Mail reported today that it was the Clinton campaign that called the Canadian Embassy.

It was the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff:

"“Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark."

[MoreCowBellNowPlease]

Honey, YOU need to keep up on the news. That was completely refuted. I have two citations below for you to see it was Obama, not Clinton.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/8/10442/91697
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/738264.aspx

[Gmoney1]

It was not Obama it was Hillary's people who had the secret meeting with Canada and she lied and said it was Obama - Remember, that's her claim to fame untruthfulness, more like just a LIAR -

I've seen the video of Hillary saying exactly what's been quoted in Obama's flyers - and at least he's sticking to the issue of jobs and NAFTA and not silly, immature, old sterotype nonsense - who cares about some old fool (Ayers) a stupid stick flag pin and those old small town gun lovers and folks who only turn to religion when they need to repeat for a mirade of sins they keep repeating over and over and over - they all need to grow up -

[GuyInNC]

boy are you full of crap. Obama's advisor Goolsbee had a meeting with the Canadian rep in Chicago. That rep wrote a memo of that meeting based on his interpretation of that meeting. It made it to Canadian TV. Obama denied any meeting took place. Then the memo came out proving the meeting took place. But, finally Canada came out and said the Chicago official's interpretatino of what was said at the meeting was wrong. Obama was cleared about the CONTENT of the meeting. But, the meeting Obama denied did take place.

Next there was a story that the Clinton campaign had contacted Canada about NAFTA. But, the Canadian Govt immediately came out and denied that story.

So, Canada has flatly denied that either Candidate has told them something different about NAFTA than they have been saying to voters.

So, Hillary is not the liar, YOU ARE.

[Mattie]

that is simply not true!

[terragazelle]

What happened in Canada...exerpts from CBC...this lost Obama Ohio ...one reason I dislike Hillary...

"So, the embassy apologized directly to Goolsbee and accepted his contention that he had been misrepresented. When the Obama campaign demanded a public denial, the embassy complied."

"At no time, it said in a statement, had any official from either campaign contacted the ambassador or any embassy official. An embassy official acknowledged that diplomats here in the U.S. do reach out to campaign advisers, but stressed that at no time had any adviser suggested Barack Obama was misleading voters about his true intentions."

"And in any event, Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain weren't listening. Both of them latched onto the hypocrisy angle and rode it hard."

" In Parliament, Harper rose to address the subject. But he didn't repeat the embassy's private repudiation of the summary. Instead, he said: "The Canadian embassy in Washington has issued a statement indicating it regretted the fact that information has come out that would imply that Senator Obama has been saying different things in public than in private."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/macdonald/20080310.html

[Keith52]

There is a huge difference between going negative with irrelevant information and going negative with facts about someone's record as long as it isn't tortured and twisted out of context. Stories about cookies and the meaning of words like bitter taken out of context have no place in civilized debate. There is no doubt that HRC and her ex president husband have been the most guilty of personal attacks and truth stretching, flip flopping and outright lying. Sending out fliers pointing out the discrepancies in HRC's speeches and her actions that are on the record is fair game.

[WWWexler]

I read the mailer carefully.

I don't see anything in it that is misleading or untrue. It states the Clinton position on trade agreements in general and a couple of them in particular accurately.

So how is this going negative? Sometimes the truth is negative. It doesn't mean it's to be ignored. The workers in Pennsylvania have a right to know what Hillary's position on exporting their jobs really is.

If the workers in Ohio hadn't been bamboozled by lazy journalists and fast-talking Clinton campaign spokesholes, she could have very well lost that state. Remember... it was HILLARY that told the Canadians to disregard her public statements on trade deals.... Not Obama.

-Wexler

[GuyInNC]

the Canadian Gvt has said that Clinton has notdiscussed NAFTA with them. You have it wrong.

[ellenolenska]

The Clintons create high drama to confuse all of us and the media elite....this has always been their strategy from Day 1. The truth is none of us knows what the truth is re Canada and Nafta comments.

[marc1antony]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/7/171426/0912

[LondonTownNY]

FACT: The TRUTH, Evidence and Facts are always a problem for Clinton's. There is a serious disconnect between who they say they are to the American public and who they really are.

HILLARY=FRAUD

[cincigal]

One has to wonder,do you people have a life,outside your constant worship of your little tin god??Just curious.

[DragonMama]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... irony much? aka... ditto. I sure as heck see a whole lotta posts from YOU defending your Goddess of Peas.

[markkraft]

A fair piece about real issues that is based entirely on facts?!

We should be applauding this, considering how things have been going lately.

[inthecolour]

Yes, if "going negative" means telling the truth.

Hillary worked to get NAFTA passed on her husband's behalf.

[GuyInNC]

yes she did, on behalf of her husband because it was HIS POLICY DECISIOIN. When you are part of the administration, you go along with the team. But, she personally opposed it. And, in 2000, when she no longer a part of BILL CLINTON's admin and was a senator for NY, she began speaking out against NAFTA.

Those are the facts.

Also in the flier Obama attacks Clinton for her China policy and he has the SAME position as she does.

[Shelly1970]

Ah, was wondering why "AnninCA" took most of the day off (so far).

There you are :)

[Mattie]

facts confuse people here!

[anika]

new kind of politics....

obama campaign has gone BITTER !!!!!!

[ampay]

A new kind of politics. Hillary gets called out on her bullshit.

[DontvoteforBillary]

Finally!

[Montanamotor]

No - it's BETTER, actually. Watch your spelling.

[hubbstan]

You are bitter about the truth coming out! Excellent. Hillary's credibility is less than 40% trustworthy by now. The longer she is running the more people know how untruthful she is. Now we know what her life-long experiences look like - dirty politics.

[markkraft]

Well, given that your candidate, who previously prayed with Barack Obama at a party event, said that he wasn't a muslim "as far as she knew...", well... I think she deserves a few attacks on her corporate stance on the issues now and then.

NAFTA may not have been all that good for Americans, but I bet it was great for some of her big lobbyist fundraisers.

[Changeizgood]

The reason why Hillary can't speak on her experience in DC, is because, her experience is in helping Bubba, sell our jobs overseas and lower our wages with cheaper labor in China.

Her appointment book shows at least six meetings for NAFTA. She kept the appointments. If you really want to find out more besides the CAMPAIGN FRAUD CASE IN CALIFORNIA, go to Juciciarywatch.com

Busted, disgusted, and can't be trusted.
That's the rag tag Clinton Campaign Machine. Untrustworthy, and enabling a liar.

Now that's the fact.

[kid5rivers]

Bitter my a!

[mjc]

Mailers like that couldn't stand any scrutiny as to dates, actual statements or any proof and for the most part are mere repetitions of old stuff repeated constantly by the Obama campaign. Clinton has answered the charge on support of NAFTA many times and so have those who know what she said and when she said it. He is running negative stuff because he has no positions he really wants to talk about that he supports. An empty suit.

[PrdAmerican]

yeah, her answer was to lie....she lied about the Canadian connection, she lied about saying she didn't support it....she lied about raising the yellow flag on NAFTA...she's a liar in a pantsuit.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=0BrPZYbCdJ4

Of course the debate didn't delve into the Columbia fiasco with Clinton/Penn....and this was her response when pushed by a reporter...funny how the debate just passed up this one.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tngWyRHIjYU

As for the negative stuff...he has a plethora of garbage from which to pick through....but he has thus far remained above the fray refusing to stoop to her leve.

It's not negative if it's based on policy and truth.

[GuyInNC]

The Canadian Govt has said Clinton did not talk to them about NAFTA.

When she talked about the Obama campaign meeting with Canada, the Canadian Govt hadn't denied the story yet. So, she didn;t lie about that.

Many other people who were in the White House as part of the admin agree with Hillary that she did raise the yellow flag about NAFTA.

You wouldn't believe anything she says even when she provides proof, so your opinion doesn't really mean much

[ampay]

Yeah, we're supposed to just 'trust her.'

[kid5rivers]

repeated repititions? Wow! How wide-ranging your breadth of vocabulary be.

[messstower]

TRUTH HURTS!