Hillary Clinton Pretends She Never Praised NAFTA

Posted February 14, 2008 | 06:20 PM (EST)




In response to Barack Obama's attack on NAFTA, the Hillary Clinton campaign has gone into meltdown mode. Here's Dow Jones' Marketwatch:

"Clinton's campaign fired back at Obama, charging the Illinois senator with misrepresenting Clinton's position on trade...'Recently [Obama] falsely claimed that Hillary said that NAFTA was a 'boon' to the economy. Now, Obama is resting his argument on a single paraphrase from an article written twelve years ago,' Clinton's campaign said in an emailed statement."

The Huffington Post has followed along with a laugh-out-loud piece in which the chief architects of NAFTA (many who are now wealthy corporate lawyers and lobbyists) are now saying, no, no, Hillary Clinton was really opposed to it. These are the same people, of course, who are looking for jobs in the Hillary Clinton White House.

What a total joke, really. This campaign clearly thinks we are all just a bunch of fools.

Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that "the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

In her memoir, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for president in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

Yes, we are all expected to just forget that, so that Hillary Clinton's campaign can manufacture supposed "outrage" that anyone would say she supported NAFTA - all at a time her chief strategist, Mark Penn, simultaneously heads a firm that is right now pushing to expand NAFTA into South America.

What a total insult to America's intelligence.

Comments for this post are now closed


 

Comments
53
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

Hillary's campaign is just attempting historical revisionism regarding her and Bill's previous NAFTA support, and it is this failure of her campaign to realize that anyone with an Internet connection and a few minutes with Google can quickly prove that she is lying through her teeth on NAFTA. Hillary and her advisers are clearly running her campaign like it was pre-2000, and the Internet changes everything, creating a long tail for easy fact-checking.

If Hillary and Bill are going to salvage any shred of a legacy at this point, they need to ramp down the campaign with dignity, sever their ties with 20th-century "advisors" and send Mark Penn back to do what he does best, being a corporate whore for soulless corporations. Oh well, I am sure books are already in the works about how Hillary lost her "inevitable" Presidency, and old school attempts at historical revisionism will be a factor.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:59 PM on 02/24/2008

YES!
Go Obama 08'

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 02/23/2008

Thanks for speaking the truth. For Hillary to claim that she has a history of opposing NAFTA is ridiculous. I was a Hillary fan before switching camps to Obama, and would probably vote for her anyway if she got the nomination. I don't hate Hillary. But, having lived through it and having followed NAFTA closely these past 15 years, there is no question in my mind but that Hillary was a NAFTA supporter until very recently.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:15 PM on 02/23/2008

David, you missed a couple:

"The economic recovery plan stands first and foremost as a testament to both good ideas and political courage. National service. The Brady Bill. Family Leave. NAFTA." -- HRC, 2002

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=250750

"I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America." -- HRC, 2004

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw

The Newsday article with the "boon" statement was written in September 2006, not 12 years ago.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:44 PM on 02/16/2008

Clinton is not the only one who is claiming -- belatedly and falsely -- to have opposed NAFTA. As someone who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, in major part because he recognized the self-destructiveness of our trade policies, I'm disgusted by my fellow Democrats who have recently hopped on the anti-NAFTA bandwagon. Where were they when they would have made some difference -- at the polls in 1992 and 1996? If they were there, it was only to call people like me "brown-shirts" and "personality cultists," just as they now call those who oppose illegal immigration "xenophobes" and "racists." Guess what: The same class of people that was hurt by outsourcing is being hurt by an immigration-enhanced glut in the labor market. So spare me your hand-wringing, folks; you're 16 years too late. That horse is out of the barn, and is now stabled in a maquiladora.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:09 PM on 02/15/2008

The Clintons went into this election ill prepared for the effects of the internet and the availability of mass video record. It shows. They are doing the same things as they always have, but the game has changed and the truth is spreading. I love it!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 PM on 02/15/2008

THANK YOU

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:11 PM on 02/15/2008

Billary is running for President of the American Division of Multicorp International. She apparently views the presidency as a middle management position. If she's successful, someday she can broker deals and make speeches and get tens of millions donated to her foundation just like Bill. (Reagan paved the way with his multimillion dollar speech to the Japanese shortly after leaving office.) Together with the bushes, these people have done more to damage our long term economic viability than any other public officials that I can think of except maybe Herbert Hoover.
This is a slo mo exonomic train wreck in the making. Let's put the brakes on these trade deals and get the manufacturing sector going again. We can only hope it's not too late to reverse the damage that has us headed to pauperism and third world status.
I am hoping that Obama actually follows through on rebuilding America although I am a bit skeptical given some of his backers. His questioning NAFTA is just in time for the campaign states that have been hit really hard. so, he does offer hope and solutions.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 AM on 02/15/2008

bullseye, mr. sirota. this encapsulates my and many other americans concern with electing another clinton. if obama can beat the clintons at their game, he should have no problem with john mccain. politics doesn't get any uglier. i hope all democrats will read this article before voting in their prospective primary.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 AM on 02/15/2008

The NAFTA agenda pushed Hillary's health care aside, and she allowed it. We suffered twice. Then she trusted Bush and trusted Bill. Who can trust her. Didn't she work for Sam Walton. My little lady was what he called her. Nobody made more from NAFTA than he.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:37 AM on 02/15/2008

But,... but,... but,... Booosshh has gotten to rewrite history left and right,...

Can't Hillary make new crap up as she goes along too?

*snif*,... *followed up by the shedding on one, dramatic, poingant tear*

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:24 AM on 02/15/2008

clinton supporters don't think of it as lying.

she's just being creative with the truth.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:56 AM on 02/15/2008

but because (now bear with me please) of all this, we are going to nominate a first term Senator from Illinois. i only write this because it seems as though we are parsing Hillary Clinton equally as much as we accuse Hillary Clinton of parsing. so, if she spoke of NAFTA as a legislative success, and it was a legislative success, twelve years ago, we are supposed to recoil in horror from her lies. i am not even supporting her and i like the blogger and i find i am uncomfortable with this kind of gotcha research. i worked for an organization not so long ago and disagreed with some things the CEO did but my public face as a member of the organization and a representative of it to the outside world, was to praise our/his accomplishments. i think if you google enough, you will find the evidence. i am damned for eternity, obviously. (i honestly don't think this is a great investigative piece revealing profound truth.)

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 AM on 02/15/2008

It was a legistlative succes for republicans twelve years ago and another bullet point on Bill's DLC resume. Hillary has been running, at least partially, on Bill's time in the White House as being part of her "experience." His administration, including all the ills he visited upon the majority of the most vulnerable US citizens, then become reasonable topics of discussion.

Barack is well-versered and accomplished when it comes to doing his job. He has more education. He has more accomplishments. He has more grassroots support. He has run a substantially better campaign. He has more actual legislative experience than Hillary and has done more in three short years in the senate than she has done in 7. He has a long legislative record that can easily be Googled.

These long years of experience in both DC and Illinois informed his answers in this 52-minute, uncut interview with the editorial board of the SF Chronicle that was very illuminating, even for an Obama supporter: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH8DR.DTL.

Get informed and then go vote for Obama! The only choice if we want to win a governing majority in November!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:31 AM on 02/15/2008

But isn't Hillary Clinton's praise of her spouse's administration part of the problem? Hillary always wants to take credit for every positive aspect of the first 2 Clinton terms, even as she claims she wants to be judged on her on merits. We're to believe that Bill's supposed mastery of the economy (debatable since prosperity has much more to do with the eco cycle than who happens to be President) means that somehow Hillary is better equipped to repeat those successes than Barack, regardless of the fact that Hillary and Barack's proposals are along the same lines. Is she better for the economy because of her experience? The only policy initiative she managed as First Lady was health care reform, which was resoundingly defeated. So if she's going to take credit for everything the administration did in the 90s, NAFTA is part of that "success."
Now ordinarily I'd accept that she can have a policy difference with Bill on NAFTA---but if she wants to count her 8 years as First Lady as experience, then her clear statements in support of NAFTA at the time cannot be written off as unprincipled support of her husband's agenda. What she said publically about NAFTA should be taken as seriously as what Barack said about Iraq in 2002.
As for elective experience, Barack has more time serving as a legislator than Hillary, and neither of them had a serious campaign competitor until they faced each other. Neither has executive experience (nor does McCain, for that matter), outside of managing (or mis-managing) their campaigns. And I've never heard Barack trying to claim any part of Michelle's career experience as his own.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 AM on 02/15/2008

Well Said.

I would like to add one other point: We have some 250 million people in this country why is it that only a Bush or a Clinton should be president?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 AM on 02/15/2008

Thank you.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 AM on 02/15/2008

Hillary will do and say anthing to be president.

This fact is not shocking.

What is shocking is the way so many HILARYFANS ignore this fact.

Apparently they want another four years of Bush.

When a Clinton says a speech is not important you know the end is near.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:18 AM on 02/15/2008

I'm sorry I said some bad things about you & your wife in the comments section at Kos a while back. You insulted me back & I deserved it. You're OK!

Thanks for the post!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 AM on 02/15/2008

Thank you, David.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 AM on 02/15/2008

Just boggles my mind that no one calls Hillary on her dishonesty. I guess she is being packaged by the big corporations to be the next president. I hope she does not get in-but the biggest corporations in the world are supporting her for president. It will be like having another Bush in the WhiteHouse.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 AM on 02/15/2008

The Clinton Manifesto: When caught in a lie, lie and say that you didn't lie, continue to lie until the original lie becomes a facsimile of the the truth, but remember the new "truth" is a lie and can be lied about if the truth, old or new, becomes "uncomfortable." Lies are the new truth. The truth is a lie. When you tell the truth, you lie. And when you lie, you are telling the truth. To tell a lie about the truth is to tell the truth, except for when you tell a lie.

For example: I supported NAFTA when I thought about whether or not I might have voted against it if I had been against it or even asked about it and would have been against it if I hadn't been for it in order to show how much I opposed it because I was actually for it and not against it as I previously stated that I was, even when I was not and I still am.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 PM on 02/14/2008

Muh-muh-muh MY SIROTA! You the man. I bet there are more quotes than those...

Bill Clinton's presidency looks good through the lens of 8 years of Bush, but people forget how many issues on which he was either ineffective or just plain wrong. Hillary's campaign has not been able to effectively distance her from the negatives of those years, perhaps because they gambled on Americans falling for their mis-memories. That strategy works for a little while, but we're seeing it crumble over the course of an extended campaign. In a way, it's lucky this has gone on for so long, since it was bound to happen in the general election and this way we'll see what we avoided.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 PM on 02/14/2008

Let us not forget that one of the main selling points of NAFTA was that it would reduce illegal immigration from Mexico. That sure worked out really well.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 PM on 02/14/2008

Probably would be useful, when evaluating all corporate selling points, to just reverse everything they say. Then you would have the bare naked agenda, and a very accurate idea of what to expect. This would have been particularly helpful during the selling of NAFTA.

The Clintons seem to have no moral center, and they definitely have no shame.

David Sirota is a national treasure. This column is outstanding, even for him - it's a much-needed reality check and I hope it is widely distributed.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 AM on 02/15/2008

I am having trouble remembering how mmany years she claims now to have had experience but somehow it had to include her time as the white house wife when she gained experience while the NAFTA issue was Bills big win. She didn't have any bad things to say about NAFTA until she was in the middle of her run for president. Too bad she wasn't psychic so she would know then what she knows now, just like her war vote and keep her mouth shut all those times she sang the praise for NAFTA and the war in Iraq. Some things we common people remember well. She is getting a bit too obvious about her merely using her senate vote to bolster her status to run for president. Also way too bad that the people in New York have never figured out she has always voted not for reasons she should have with thought of actually what impact the vote would have on those who elected her but merely to show how she would be seen when she ran for president. I am sure the intent she has while voting is never what those who vote and live in New York thought they were getting. And they still support her! Sad.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 PM on 02/14/2008

Friend, this is an insult to American intellegince, two quote, NONE of which are directly from her, VS People who knew her when, and biographers... hmmmm. tough choice, but for ObamaBots the truth means little, but smearing other candidates as lying when doing it yourself is ok...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 PM on 02/14/2008

HRC loyalists struggle with some matters of principle like this. But you are right in saying that these are not direct quotes - and reporter impressions should always be vetted. Still, concluding that ANYTHING that isn't a direct quote is a "lie" isn't right, either.

What you miss here is that HRC has been using "the prosperity of the 90s" as part of her platform, including 8 years of Bill's reign, as proof of her vast 35 years of experience in solving problems. That is something you can't deny.

However, the sword cuts both ways. If you're going to claim that everything was great in the 90s and that you were a part of it, then you also have to take the kicks to the head for the stupid crap from the 90s - like NAFTA.

Doesn't matter what she may have personally felt at the time. The fact is that she's bolted herself to those accomplishments and claims (demands) credit for the good things and sniffs at the suggestion that she also then take the slaps for the bad things. Well, you can't have it both ways. If she just picked accomplishments from youth and during Senate, then I'd back her up on this.

We all saw this same flawed logic when dumbya came on board. Everything that went wrong in the economy was because of Bubba. Remember? And everything that went well previously was because of raygun and pops. It's a dishonest, low-brow stunt when dumbya did it. And it's dishonest and low-brow when HRC does it.

So I don't care how exact these quotes are. They are really immaterial to the issue because she previously made the conscious decision to take credit for Bubba's work. Maybe if she promises to to demand that all "free trade" agreements be re-written to take into account all the problems associated with it (i won't delve into them here), then I could change my perspective. But that won't happen.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 AM on 02/15/2008

It is also supported by all her votes in the senate including the defense contractor friendly funding bills, the port-barrel spending for corporate interests in NY and her support of the bankruptcy legislation, both in 2001 and 2006. Hillary is totally DLC all the way - more than just an insult to our intelligence but an insult to her oath of office. Actions speak much louder than words.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:35 AM on 02/15/2008

I'm in constant amazement at both the long and short term memories of the American public. It's ludicrous for either of the Clinton's to say that they didn't know what the result would be.

NAFTA and CAFTA were both written by and for corporations and they both knew it.

Fair trade is a great thing for everyone, but somehow the "fair" part always seems to get left on the cutting room floor.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 PM on 02/14/2008

Well, keep in mind that Bill and Hillary both claim they opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. You don't even have to go back to 1998 and a (now) relatively obscure trade agreement to find them saying that up is really down. There's a lot to recommend Hillary, no matter what side of an issue that you like, she's supported it somewhere along the line. Sometimes, people think of that kind of thing as political cowardice. Sometimes people think it's just lying. But to Hillary-ites, it's "keeping your options open".

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 PM on 02/14/2008

I've been following politics for over forty years and I've never been a happy camper. My irritation is more at the public apathy than the spinners.
A funny sounding little fellow from Texas named Perot warned that this was going to happen and everyone called him a nut.
He's been relegated to obscurity too. Remember his classic "giant sucking sound" as jobs went south of the border. Well, guess what?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 PM on 02/14/2008

once again showing her true colors. i also hear she has sold her donor mailing list to some big marketing firm. nice, screw the people who trusted and believed in you. america wake up, you're being used

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:32 PM on 02/14/2008

Wow. Actually, according to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton didn't even endorse NAFTA:

TIME: Do you think NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by Bill Clinton] was the right thing to do?

CLINTON: I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example"

TIME: That was your husband's Adminstration, wasn't it? Because I recall a lot of debate about it not having labor standards and environmental standards.

CLINTON: But it was inherited. NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584649,00.html
-------------------------------

If history sucks, rewrite it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 02/14/2008

What a great line -- "If history sucks, rewrite it."

It works for George W. Bush as well as both Clintons.

A bi-partisan whammie.

Not to mention a thousand other uses for it -- from Stalinists to Maoists to Bushites. Those in charge of history will, inevitably, try to re-write it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:50 AM on 02/15/2008