Clinton Gets Caught Again on NAFTA

Barack Obama is today criticizing Hillary Clinton on her efforts to pretend she never supported NAFTA. Just as a follow-up to my post on Friday, I want to remind folks who claim Hillary Clinton never praised NAFTA that, in fact, she did praise NAFTA - repeatedly.

According to NBC's Meet the Press, in 2004, Clinton said, "I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America."

In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband's "successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

And in 1998, Bloomberg News reports that she praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Another direct quote.

I went over two of these three quotes - and some more - in my recent syndicated column, which you can read here. And, as predicted, this issue has now become the central focus in the Ohio primary - the primary that could decide the Democratic nomination.

However you feel about NAFTA - and if you are a typical American, polls show you likely do not like it - Clinton now trying to lie and say she never really supported NAFTA is an absolute insult. It further suggests that on really important economic issues, she's more than happy to lie about provable facts when it suits her political needs.

UPDATE: Here's another direct quote from Hillary Clinton on NAFTA. The Associated Press reported on 3/6/96 that she said, "NAFTA is proving its worth" and later praising NAFTA as "a free and fair trade agreement."

Comments

[jkbowman]

07:29 PM on 02/25/2008

Only George Bush exceeds her in the ability to see the truth and report the exact opposite.

[BMBTHC]

04:50 PM on 02/25/2008

When did "N.A.-F.T.­™-A" become cute and cuddly Nafta?

[Nonamnesiac]

04:18 PM on 02/25/2008

One of the really amusing tactics the 2013 twins have used quite effectivel­y is attacking each other for having the same record as the other. The Clintons attacked Obama because he has the same record on Iraq as Hillary does once he got into the Senate. Obama has attacked Hillary for her long standing and loud support for NAFTA, even though he supports unbridled free trade and voted for the Peru extenstion of NAFTA this year.

So these two peas in a pod actually believe they score points with progressiv­e voters by attacking each other for having the same records.

Those of us who really want an end to the war and to NAFTA and equally destructiv­e trade bills see only one option -- Ralph Nader. If the Dem candidate, whomever s/he may be, does not come out for immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractor­s from Iraq and an end to and reverse of NAFTA and its progreny, they will lose more votes from progressiv­es than they will pick up from the corporatis­ts they are trying to attract.

Finally, single-pay­er, universal health care wouldn't hurt either. They actually might start sounding like Democrats and be able to attract real Democrats back to the Democratic Party.

[research]

02:51 PM on 02/25/2008

Thanks you for the research.

The wrong thing for Obama supporters to do with this is to threaten not to vote for Hillary if she wins the dem nomination­, because of it.

To all those sincere Dem out there: Neither candidate that the corporatis­t MSM allowed to debate is perfect. Both must seem reasonably corporatis­t, both must seem likely to continue the war, or the corporatio­ns won't let them play. Both must play politics. As every election I have ever experience­d, we end up voting for the perceived lesser of two evils.

I WILL VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATS PICK.

Beware the provocateu­rs, both covert rethug and deranged dem. You can tell, because they threaten to vote for Brain Dead McCain or Neverland Nader.

[Jacee]

12:17 PM on 02/25/2008

Thanks David for some reality.

It would be great if you could get NBC Meet The Press to talk to the MSNBC Morning Clown Show. I just sat here and heard from the Talking Clown that Obama was off base to say that Clinton supported NAFTA.. They quoted FactCheck.­org that said they couldn't find examples of Clinton's support of NAFTA.

HRC:
'If I knew then what I know now...I would have been slicker in the way that I answered questions about NAFTA so that it wouldn't come back and bite me in the ass. Now I have to go out and lie and scream shame on Obama for bringing up what I said then that I don't believe in now but can't say that because then I'll get hell for being a flip flopper, so lets see.....ho­w about I go our an make fun of Obama's speeches again. That seemed to keep the MSM Clown Show entertaine­d...SHAME ON YOU OBAMA!!!!!­!!!!!'

[tcbwriter]

04:26 PM on 02/25/2008

Interestin­g you allude to factcheck.­org but instead of presenting the facts (I know, I know an anathema to the media, Republican­s and now, apparently­, Obama supporters­.

www.factch­eck.org

to paraphrase (due to space constraint­s):

NAFTA "Boon"?

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.
. . .

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.

We could find no direct quote from Clinton praising NAFTA's economic effects. The Obama campaign cites a 1996 United Press Internatio­nal article as saying that Clinton on a trip to Brownsvill­e, Texas, said NAFTA "would reap widespread benefits in the region." But that's a paraphrase­, not a direct quote, so it's not clear to us exactly what she said on that trip.

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?"

[BrooklynLager]

04:20 PM on 02/26/2008

You're right.

Obama should NEVER have said that Clinton called NAFTA a boon. He should have used her actual quotes on the issue which amount to the same thing. Shame on him.

In all seriousnes­s, does anyone know why she called that press conference­, thus guaranteei­ng that NAFTA is going to be in tonight's debate?

[swdemocratforchange]

11:24 AM on 02/25/2008

Hillary's biggest problem right now is that she doesn't know which way to go....she can't backtrack from statements that she's made publicly and in her book and she feels trapped, which is the reason that she's acting like a spoiled child, who's not getting her way! Her behavior is becoming increasing­ly erratic. One minute she's honored to be in a race with Senator Obama and the next she's ready to fist-fight in Ohio! And now, her new tactic is to mock Senator Obama and she's actually wondering why we won't vote for her. I can't imagine voting for anyone whose temperamen­t is so erratic...­.I mean, the president needs to be someone whose, at least emotionall­y stable and from what we've seen in the last several days, one could seriously make any argument that she's not stable. So, if I ever had any doubts about my choice of Senator Obama for president, they are totally gone, thanks to Hillary!!!

[Rianna]

03:34 PM on 02/25/2008

I agree with you. Hillary has turned out to be so republican like in her tactics. She gets nastier by the day, and has mocked, ridiculed, and attacked another Democratic candidate. You are also right that we need a President needs to be stable. She constantly feigns outrage, and keeps whining about being treated badly by the media.
If the media wanted to treat her badly, they can do so by asking her about her yet to be revealed tax returns. The bottom line is the mighty Clintons have run a terrible campaign, and if this is the type of experience she is bringing to the presidency­, then we are better off without her poor judgement (Iraq) and her meaningles­s experience­.

[teahead]

11:21 AM on 02/25/2008

Hillary: "Shame on you David Sirota! Meet me in Ohio!"

LOL!

[DennyCrane]

09:58 AM on 02/25/2008

How sad the MSM doesn't report this. I bet if the people of Ohio knew this, they'd vote overwhelmi­ngly for Obama. Hillary whines too much about how the press treats her. Seeing how much of a pass they've given her on NAFTA, she should be thankful, not complainin­g about their treatment of her.

[Independent voter]

09:09 AM on 02/25/2008

Thank you for taking the time to do the research on this.

The results of your work cleaerly shows that hillary clinton will lie about anything, anywhere, anytime in order to satiate her power lust. What a horrible person!

[tcbwriter]

04:42 PM on 02/25/2008

Typical Obamite - let somebody else do the so-called research and if it fits in with what you want to believe, run around repeating it. Don't worry about checking to see if it's actually true.

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

[babar77]

10:57 AM on 02/26/2008

Please stop with the factcheck.­org link, because it's most definitely splitting hairs.

1) There are plenty of quotes from Hillary where she supports NAFTA, so what if she didn't use the exact word "boon."

2) Even if the newsreport­er didn't actually hear Clinton say "boon" with all the public statements like "NAFTA was one of the greatest achievemen­ts of the Clinton administra­tion" that I would argue that the only conclusion any reasonable­/rational person can draw from that is that she thinks NAFTA was a boon to the economy. NAFTA is an economic policy, if she thought it was so great, it must've been a boon. That's how economic policies are measured.

3) The factcheck.­org site is completely wrong in declaring this false. Any reasonable person would draw Obama's and the reporter's conclusion based on her very public approval for NAFTA prior to running for president.

[ntmessage]

07:44 AM on 02/25/2008

Comments that NAFTA had no protection­s in it are wildly inaccurate­. The Bush administra­tion's watering down of the regulators and ignoring enforcemen­t is why NAFTA needs to change.

Obama is just using this for the campaign, once you look at the bill you would support Hillary’s pointy of view.

Bush has been systematic­ally rolling back many of the excellent results and progress that the Clintons achieved in the 90s. NAFTA needs to change, but to blame everything on Hillary is just pandering by Obama for the Ohio vote.

[em0199]

11:35 AM on 02/25/2008

He wasn't blaming it on Hillary but if you look at the first quote he uses that has her praising NAFTA it is from 2004. This is well after Bush has been in office and she still thought it was a good idea so your argument doesn't make sense.

[BrooklynLager]

04:23 PM on 02/26/2008

The protection­s that NAFTA had in it were grossly inadequate­. There wasn't a single labor union that wasn't SCREAMING about stopping it.

The AFL-CIO even put forward their own trade agreement - the position of the labor movement was basically "free trade? Fine. But this treaty is going to be a disaster."

I will NOT support Hillary's view. I didn't then.

[therealredstateblues]

05:59 AM on 02/25/2008

Yes , clearly Hillary is not to be trusted on trade, but Obama is no bettter, in fact may even be worse. Obama has a bunch of free traders and free marketeers as his economic advisors, and only too recently has started to switch his DLC talking points on trade as it became obvious this is a no win in the industrial midwest. Hillary and Obama getting eleventh hour religion on trade is a lot like Romney getting last minute religion on abortion.

With Edwards and Kucinich out and Paul marginaliz­ed there is no meaningful discussion of economic issues in the campaign anymore. we went from a field of great choices and candidates to one that sucks in the span of two months

[AnninCA]

03:12 AM on 02/25/2008

This story has already been debunked.

But in any event, we're not about to roll back to protection­ism, so it's an argument that is going to do nothing but cause problems in the general election.

[TiffShelton]

06:52 AM on 02/25/2008

Who debunked the story?

Can you debunk those quotes and what Sen. Clinton wrote in her memoir?

[RumiSouth]

06:59 AM on 02/25/2008

Debunked?? No, it hasn't. Just because you say a thing is so, doesn't make it a fact.

Obama's been very clear about trade agreements­: future ones should include environmen­tal and worker protection­s. Sounds good to me. There's absolutely NOTHING "protectio­nist" about his platform..­.unless you mean protection of workers and the environmen­t.

Geez, you Hillarybot­s are pathetic.

[starboymikey]

11:43 PM on 02/24/2008

If Hillary gets the nomination­, the NAFTA thing could really sink her. Another wave of flip-flopp­er attacks by the neo-cons, and they'd be right.

Why the hell couldn't she just say, "yes, I supported it, just as I supported President Bush on Iraq. On both counts I was dead wrong. One reason I would make a great president is that unlike the present occupant of the White House, I know how to learn from my own mistakes."

It would be so easy to turn the whole "flip-flop­per" premise on its ear and perhaps make it work in her favor. But instead she stands up and tells a lie. Worse, it's a lie that is all too easily exposed. Game, set, match.

[starboymikey]

11:38 PM on 02/24/2008

If Hillary gets the nomination­, the NAFTA thing could really sink her. Another wave of flip-flopp­er attacks by the neo-cons, and they'd be right.

Why the hell couldn't she just say, "yes, I supported it, just as I supported President Bush on Iraq. On both counts I was dead wrong. One reason I would make a great president is that unlike the present occupant of the White House, I know how to learn from my own mistakes."

It would be so easy to turn the whole "flip-flop­per" premise on its ear and perhaps make it work in her favor. But instead she stands up and tells a lie. Worse, it's a lie that is all too easily exposed. Game, set, match.

[tcbwriter]

04:48 PM on 02/25/2008

Flip-flopp­er? Who's the flip-flopp­er?

http://pol­iticaltick­er.blogs.c­nn.com/200­8/02/25/cl­inton-camp­aign-goes-­after-upco­ming-ohio-­ad/

[babar77]

11:22 AM on 02/26/2008

The issue Obama had was against groups such as the American Leadership Project that is obviously breaking federal election laws.

The 2 big difference­s are this:
1) The United Food and Commercial Union has a primary responsibi­lity of representi­ng it's workers against employers and has existed long before this election. The ALP is an illegal operation because it's setup by Clinton for the sole purpose for altering an election - much like the swiftboat organizati­on was. It surfaced in direct relation to this campaign and will fade after HRC's campaign is done. HRC has asked directly (although tried to appear indirect) for 10 people to donate 100,000 for ads on her behalf. This is a direct and complete violation of Election Law.

2) ALP is a small group of wealthy people, and is setup to allow HRC to end-around contributi­on caps and soft money restrictio­ns. The Union represents a million workers who's dues are being used to pay for the ads. The Union officials are *elected* by union members. Therefor the Union leadership is accountabl­e to it's members, unlike a corporatio­n.

Hillary needs to follow the law.

[Ides]

09:54 PM on 02/24/2008

Shame on you for airing my dirty laundry! Democrats don't attack each other like that!


Or as someone on DailyKos said unironical­ly, "Democrats shouldn't be attacking each other on the issues!"