Clinton Gets Caught Again On NAFTA

by: David Sirota

Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 17:19


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."

UPDATE II: Here's another direct quote from Hillary Clinton on NAFTA from a speech she gave to the DLC in 2002:

"We all know the record of the DLC, the Progressive Policy Institute and, of course, the Clinton-Gore Administration. 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. Investment in science and technology. New markets. Charter schools. The Earned Income Tax Credit. The welfare to work partnership. The COPS program. The SAFER program. All of these came out of some very fundamental ideas about what would work. The results speak for themselves. Those ideas were converted into policies programs that literally changed millions of lives and, I argue, changed America."

Yes, that's right. NAFTA is cited by Clinton as a shining example of successful "ideas [that] were converted into policies programs that literally changed millions of lives and, I argue, changed America."
David Sirota :: Clinton Gets Caught Again On NAFTA

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clinton Gets Caught Again On NAFTA | 65 comments
great article (4.00 / 5)
I was watching Matt Taibbi make the same points on Bill Maher's show Friday; basically he was saying here's Clinton, who supported NAFTA and has been voting for similiar trade agreements since she's been in the Senate, now campaigning in Ohio and telling people she'll stop the evil trade deals from going through once she's in the White House! Doh!
Taibbi couldn't help marvel at the Irony, and neither can I....
Matt Taibbi - isn't he great. eom (0.00 / 0)


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
I think it's time for Clinton to retire (4.00 / 2)
We don't need liars and petty immature people in our party.  Her recent behavior is despicable.
She should have seen this coming weeks ago... (4.00 / 2)
Ohio is a very blue collar rust belt state just like Michigan in a lot of ways.  And NAFTA is very, very unpopular here so I can imagine that it's pretty similar in Ohio.

To make Ohio your 'firewall' state that you must win big in you should be prepared for questions to be raised regarding your previous stances on NAFTA.

Of course, getting up and screaming about how it's not 'fair' that Obama is pointing out your record on NAFTA doesn't strike me as being prepared.  Instead it struck me that she sees the end of her campaign is coming and she's lashing out.

Thanks David (4.00 / 1)
This is why she is going nuclear today, screaming and acting like Crawford in Mommy Dearest.
There are too many quotes and proof, that she is lying!
I tend to agree... (0.00 / 0)
...Her whole campaign has been based on her "experience" much of which (supposedly) working along side her husband.

If so, then it's up to her to prove that "experience" -- For example, by opening up her records to reveal the depth of her involvement, and policy input etc -- providing a referenced resume that would not only includes her health care records, but also (presumably) reveal her anti-Nafta allies, and policy research -- as proof of her opposition -- Hearsay from dubious pro-NAFTA sources, that we all know would luv a Clinton II presidency really aren't that credible (are they).

P.S. To Robert I've come down with this cold and flu thingy -- nasty nasty...

To be honest, I'm still trying to get my head around why you still believe Obama is worse than Clinton on trade? I'm having trouble with seeing the actual proof...

Also, I noticed with the Economist article (my other half gets that one -- I'm more the The Nation myself) always with the most opinioned pieces they always seem to omit who the freakin' writer is!

Anyways, here's where I ended up (yes, yes I know it's a pro-Obama site), however I liked the fact that it provides most of the actual policy links, and recent speeches from each candidate -- and again coming to the conclusion (as many bloggers and opinion pieces), that they are a) both short on hard details -- (committees, trade czars not cutting it) and b) having no indication/concrete plans on what they "will actually do" once either one is office.

Also, from your blog you mention Dick Gephardt -- presumably because of his pro-labor credentials, however, I think it's also fair to bring up what he's been doing  since his retirement, and it's not been all about protecting the American worker.  There could be other reasons why Hillary and Gephardt hooked up -- War, Turkey and Telecommunications immediately comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

I think it's going to really hard to pin either one down when it comes trade issues.

[ Parent ]
Here's the link... (0.00 / 0)
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Obama on Trade, Reloaded
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com...

older analysis:

Thursday, January 17, 2008
Obama Economic Policy: Clinton vs. Obama on Trade
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com...

The facts are laid out... so if you see any glaring problems -- hopefully it's easier to discuss point by point?  Anyways, the Dubai Ports grandstanding (esp. when we both know who supported the deal --- (i.e. Bill and members currently running her campaign), I wouldn't tag it as one of her defining moments.

Remember 'unbelievably' it was Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist that started the hissing fit... saying if was a National Security issue... not a trade issue -- so it was a no-brainer tht NY Senator Hillary had to latch onto that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

[ Parent ]
hmmm (0.00 / 0)
that is a "free trade" group  you link to that don't see any problems in global labor arbitrage or what is going on with the US middle class.

It's the ultimate anti-endorsement of Obama if you have any desire to obtain a real trade policy that strengthens the US and the US middle class.

Also, I provide very specific quotes and statements, they are not vague, it's direct, including legislation.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Hey... (0.00 / 0)
I've never never said in the first place that Obama was what 'I'm' looking for in a candidate...  Neither are progressives.

I'm really concerned what these candidates will do once in power .... also their possible hook up with the ideas of,  say, "The Third Way"... creeps me out.   I'm not happy, believe me, but my focus has always been foreign policy -  the policy that can blew up the planet.  Also, I can't stand hypocrites -- and Hillary has changed her position and is so full of it, I can never support her.  I was never that sure of Edwards either.

Between the two == Obama overall has been more 'consistent'... with Hillary she's literally been 'chucking' it out there -- hoping that something sticks.

Bottom line: I'm with the the Change to Win Federation stragegy:

"...Change to Win, said repeatedly that the federation's unions felt that Obama was building a significant movement that would persist beyond the elections and help bring important policy changes. "He is building an election coalition that will turn into an action coalition that will restore the American dream," she said...
http://matthewyglesias.theatla...

Let the movement grow to hold those in power accountable.  

[ Parent ]
I don't think so (4.00 / 1)
I agree, I'm looking at the same thing and on one of my main issues, insourcing they are both basically going to enable the ultimate wipe of professional workers.

Firstly his voting record is consistently more corporate than Hillary's on economic related issues and the biggest one is the fact of her votes on amendments in bills plus the introduction of legislation.  That's where some proof in the pudding is showing up.  

you can go to thomas.gov and research all of them out and I've pointed to major pieces of legislation that Hillary, petty much on her own, introduced that are very good bills.

You don't see anything like these bills being introduced coming from Obama and that's not because he's a new Senator.  He could easily co-sponsor some others and at least vote correctly on amendments and he has not.  This is a huge mistake thinking he is Progressive and you can also tell from some of his overall statements.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
There is just no evidence for that... (0.00 / 0)
... a big part of the problem -- when looking at her record is the fact that she tends to fling her support to any legislation that hasn't got a chance of passing, and not even bothering to advocate for it's support -- your Dorgon legislation as an example...  She's was the 'leader' of the DLC for goodness sakes...

She's comes across as a sham...  

She was in the Senate for seven years -- provide some notable trade legislation that she passed...?  Can't be that long?

Also, here's a question == what was her effort as part of the DLC leadership to convince some of those blue dog/DLC Hoyer 'House' supporters to stick with Pelosi rather than Bush regarding CAFTA?

A Daily Kos blogger did some grunt work and went to thomas.gov to look at both their records, did the digging .. Comparing Clinton's to Obama's successes -- and Obama came out top -- he was the one that got results:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

[ Parent ]
Change to Win (0.00 / 0)
wants open borders, you have no idea how they want this massive immigration agenda it's first and foremost.

That is just ridiculous are you aware the SEIU endorsed bills that had massive guest worker Visas in them, no reforms and they would have decimated, absolutely decimated Professional workers in the  United States.  

The AFL-CIO is much more Pro US worker versus just out to get more members.    The AFL-CIO opposes those bills because of this but the SEIU, damn the torpedoes, we could care less about those US workers and endorsed things that would have absolutely destroyed middle class careers.

I'm sorry but they are anti-worker at this point, pushing that agenda beyond all others and refusing to recognize the realities of the US national economic interests or US workers interests.  

The fact they split from the AFL-CIO is fine by me for the AFL-CIO are the ones in economic reality.  

I don't read papers that spin the fundamentals of economics on their head just for some goal with no acknowldgement of the consequences of them.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Excuse me.... (0.00 / 0)
Where do they say they want open borders?

You need to backup that comment.

[ Parent ]
they endorsed (0.00 / 0)
the two comprehensive immigration reform bills.  AFL-CIO opposed and the reason they opposed is not about "pathway to citizenship" it was the bill was a sham, including "pathway to citizenship" if that is what you want.

It was written by the US Chamber of Commerce, Bill Gates, NASSCOM (India business group of offshore outsourcing companies, now ~7% of their GDP!), ITAA, Compete America (another high tech cheap labor lobbying group) and La Raza INC (note the inc.)....and the SEIU.

The bill was 600 pages, much of it was devoted to labor arbitrage of professional workers through unlimited in effect, H-1B guest worker Visas, a new F-4, which is related to the globalization of our taxpayer funded universities and even the merit system was completely biased towards flooding the labor market against once again...professionals.  These are all of the jobs that are most vulnerable to offshore outsourcing as well, which even Alan Blinder is now warning about.  

They didn't give a rats ass about what would happen to US workers, wages, or further influxes for their goal is to gain new members and they have said so.  

You know there is outright slavery going on in the US right now via guest worker Visas.  That's right, murder, beatings, no pay, cannot leave.  You never hear about that as a major issue from these organizations when is should be the #1 priority to sue over and start criminal proceedings on.

Even worse the Z visa was a permatemp sham.  If one looked at the merit system to obtain a green card they would have been in no man's land on some permatemp Z visa for decades.

Regardless on where one stands on "pathway to citizenship" that was one bad bill, written by and for global labor arbitrage, focus on professional workers.

I cannot site every damn thing I've looked into, analyzed and worked on.  You can go to our blog or look at the AFL-CIO itself and do a good google.

Open borders means no immigration controls in effect.  It means unlimited immigration in effect and it also means no enforcement of immigration law internal in effect and no border security.  By the way the bill was written there is no doubt futher illegal immigration would occur and no interior enforcement would occur.

Immigration is a great topic because the only way to understand it is to understand the details and because policy is multifaceted, it affects so many different aspects of a nation-state, the only way to analyze it is to read the law and bills, which is no small task.  

There are groups that believe no immigration policy at all is "good".  There are corporations who spend millions promoting this because this is their goal, to have control over the flow of people across national borders so they will control the labor supply and thus wages and rights.

This is not good.  It's bad, it's real bad for workers and I say that based on a hell of a lot of study on the history of labor markets and the effects of supply and believe it or not, the history of slave economics.  It models very closely the history of slave economics.

I think the SEIU is out of their minds and will achieve the opposite of what they believe their goals are...which I suspect is a global union.  I don't believe that with a world of 6.7 Billion people one is going to be able to create a global union to counter global labor arbitrage...

it's the ultimate race to the bottom for workers.  globally.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
You'll have to provide links to be taken seriously... (0.00 / 0)
because you're right it is multi-multifaceted... my understanding immigration and increasing union ranks was not the only reason for a very public split within the labor community.

Also, ...I remember DLC'er/Hillary Supporter Feinstein was a huge supporter of the immigration bill - however for Corporate Agri business in CA, not really for the worker -- and of course they wanted to pander to the voter...  Again == I suspect both Feinstein and Clinton motives when it comes to the immigrant worker.

Also, you mention India Business Group -- any connections to the Clintons?  Or could that be why their tax records are closed?

Also Microsoft, the biggest pusher for more H1B visas seems to be one of Hillary's top contributors so I wouldn't bet on Hillary helping US IT workers out anytime soon.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...

Anyho, lobbyists writing leglislation is nothing new --- we all know that here, but you'll have to provide a little more evidence than just presenting your version of events.  I bet there were various interests that got involved in that 600 page bill -- not just labor, so I think you need to clarify.

[ Parent ]
that's true (0.00 / 0)
Hillary is corporate cheap labor and it looks like Obama is going to try to out do her.

Obama pledges to India.

The rhetoric implies the above and his voting record to date backs up the rhetoric.

As I said, I have tons of detailed articles.  I have sat here now for 2 days quoting information.

It's up to you to go to the blog and read more. I'm not going to sit here day after day and dig out references for you.  That's what the various websites are for.

It's not "my version". I spend a lot of time writing up posts and putting up studies among other things.

I have on this site answered your questions to comments over and over and over again, gotta be over 25 at this point and i don't have time to retort to one person who will not go to the damn blog or even the AFL-CIO website and so on and read for themselves.

The references are right there, including Hillary's promises to India.  

That said, Obama is worse if that could be possible.  His letters to constituents, his promises, the Silicon valley CEO promises and agenda items, the money ...he's actually worse.  Among activists we had a huge debate on which one worser, no one believed me when I said I believed he would be worse on insourcing and sure enough it's looking like I am right.  At minimum they are both the same.

I think I've written this on here too, at least 5 times.

Comprehensive Immigration bill

Archives, per category, each post with references in every link.

The AFL-CIO is NOT my version of events and if you bother to go to the site you will see I have the letters they wrote to congress referenced.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Reply - you are going all over the place. (0.00 / 0)
Firstly, I noticed that the first article you linked to is a) summarizing an article of Obama's (from India Aboard) that has NOT even been published yet, and b) if you do other searches on this newly found piece == he appears to be less talking about immigration and outsourcing of jobs aboard, but more about the trade of nuclear energy -- (which to be honest isn't great either).

http://www.telegraphindia.com/...

Secondly, you link to article regarding the "Comprehensive Immigration bill" whereby you neglect to answer the question of how labor groups such as "Change to Win" heavily influenced the outcome of the bill -- in fact you bolster my argument that the bill was actually heavily influenced and backed pro-employer corporate groups.

You need to be more specific.

[ Parent ]
On Change to Win (0.00 / 0)
Is there any evidence for that? I'd honestly like to see some, as most stuff I have seen on their website has shown the Change to Win coalition opposed to unfair Free Trade Agreements, and I thought their main reason from breaking away from the AFL-CIO was because it had become too conservative and was spending more time pushing politics then doing what labor unions are supposed to do: organize workers and get them better contracts.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Yes I'm a little confused... (0.00 / 0)
with what Robert is trying to say "Change to Win" stands for...

[ Parent ]
Great positions on trade (0.00 / 0)
Although once again I feel the AFL-CIO, through EPI has better overall agenda on modifications of trade agreements, especially the China PNTR.  We moved onto a different topic area, which is one of my huge activist areas, labor arbitrage of professional workers.

Reference:
myDD.com
in a comment and there is the same info on here in my comments but these positions can be easily found via their websites and press releases.  Change to Win is 6 unions with the SEIU being the largest.  I have no idea why the Teamsters is with them since they are at odds with much of this agenda.

I'm just not reposting this stuff over and over.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
I agree there is an underlying agenda (0.00 / 0)
...to ultimately increase membership, legimitize workers without being specific so they can bring these cheap workers into organized labor, but really for you say they advocate 'open borders' is pushing it...
[ Parent ]
adsf (0.00 / 0)
Yeah you can debate that but I watch this issue pretty intensely and that's my assessment, in practice.  For me to say that most assuredly is my opinion though, I'll agree.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
Sirota's right (0.00 / 0)
It's hard to understand this discussion when terms like "open borders" and "slavery" are thrown around with terms far from their meanings in normal speech.

On the trade issue, after looking at this very closely (and reading all the links from the blog mentioned above), I decided that Obama and Clinton are essentially identical in their positions, especially in light of Obama's more recent clear statements objecting to the Panama, South Korea, and Colombia trade agreements. And their voting records on trade issues are absolutely identical.

The only thing that stands out when you look at their past positions is that Clinton was clearly much less of a trade skeptic and pro-NAFTA in the past, as Sirota notes. If you like Clinton's rhetoric, her striking shift in positions should give you pause. I think Obama--like her--is trying to take a nuanced position, but he has been much more consistent.

See our blog for several posts on their positions on trade:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com

[ Parent ]
k, u get a rec for invoking Joan and Mommie Dearest. Lovin it!!! lol (0.00 / 0)


For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
The Clintons always rewrite History (4.00 / 1)
Brad DeLong on the failure of Hillarycare

[A]fter his election, President Clinton set up a policy-planning process to prepare a health-care reform plan for congress to pass. He chose his wife, the First Lady, Hillary Clinton to head up the planning process. He chose his long-time friend Ira Magaziner to be her deputy. He told them to think big.

Magaziner had two major flaws. His first was that his instinct was always to make things more complicated. ... His second flaw was that he thought like a management consultant. A management consultant's principal goal is to win a debate in front of his employer, the senior decision maker, the "Principal." ... But that's not how you develop a policy. ...

Later on President Clinton would claim that the failure of the White House to get the pro-reform message out was his own fault. "I had cut back the staff of the White House as I said I would," the President told Johnson and Broder. "We didn't have the resources to do it, and we should have..." This claim on the part of President Clinton is doubly mendacious. First, the core White House staff was not cut back: the cutbacks in the "White House staff" had come in the Office of National Drug Control Policy (and these cutbacks may have been a good idea: as far as I know, all the ONDCP does is to try to make sure the President takes credit for whatever good happens with respect to drug abuse and make sure the President avoids blame for whatever bad happens; it doesn't teach people about dangers, treat addicts, conduct research into pharmacology and neurophysiology, or intercept smugglers). But the core White House staff was untouched.

Second, the main resources of the Administration had been and remained outside the White House: the principal policy planners and policy advocates who could fix flaws in proposals, marshall arguments that policies were good for America, and communicate with the public remained where they had always been in the agencies and in the Democratic policy community. They had, after all, worked very hard for President Clinton and won him other significant victories. But on health care they were unused.


Who advises Obama on healthcare..... (4.00 / 2)
Go here if you don't know.....

http://takeaction.wordpress.co...

And no I don't want to hear any pushback. This is just a fact folks should be aware of.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Interview (0.00 / 0)
And an interesting interview with Cutler here.
[ Parent ]
Obama's Health Care Plan is teh suck (4.00 / 1)
Hillary's Health Care Plan is better than Obama's, but I don't support either one.

Obama said that in a perfect world, he would support Single Payer -- I support Obama because he has the potential to deliver a landslide that might have Senate coattails reaching into Alaska, Texas, Idaho, and Wyoming.

If he can do that, Single Payer Universal Health Care might be possible.  

[ Parent ]
Wow! (4.00 / 1)
I hope the Obama campaign has read your article.  If so, they should be printing up a nice new mailer NOW.  Cite all of these sources.  After her whole "shame on you" attack, just shove it right back in her face.

vodamusic.com
sigh, sigh, sigh (4.00 / 1)
this is obviously a hit piece by you, you are echoing the Obama mailers and frankly my respect for you is going into the toilet over it.

Hillary has BETTER positions than Obama on trade.  Period.  Defending her husband's administration is NOT the same thing as her positions.

This is pathetic, you are just posting hit pieces in the blogosphere at this point.  I'm sorry, this is just plain sad and no excuse for someone claiming to no longer be a blogger but a journalist.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

Hm. (0.00 / 0)
   Would you care to describe these better positions?  I'd really like to hear them.  The truth is that Hillary has praised and supported NAFTA.  I am impressed really, Hillary is a master of changing her positions without actually having to admit anything.  She did it with Iraq, and now she is doing it with NAFTA.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
sigh (0.00 / 0)
I have posted the overviews until my fingers are falling off.

Hillary and Obama on trade

and I note I have the web stats and few are bothering to read these links I post over and over and over.

There is more on EP, use the search and terms Obama and then Hillary.  (This is not an election site, it's all economics, labor, trade).  
and I suggest going to the middle column on EP, to the many famous economists.  those are their articles, blogs.  Variety of flavors of economists,  but all very credible in capability, and read what they have to say on this as well.

Then, go to the congressional record and look up Clinton's bills she has introduced.

Again, she introduced legislation to block the Dubai Ports World deal.  If you recall that was a major outrage to have Dubai control US ports and buy them, major security issue as well as a trade issue.

I'm not claiming she is Byron Dorgan or Bernie Sanders (in my dreams) but this smear that by non-disclosure tries to paint Obama as a Progressive or a trade policy reformer is a bold faced falsehood.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Um. (0.00 / 0)
    Your link leads nowhere.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
Delete the extra http colon slash slash at the start n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
corrected (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
So... (4.00 / 2)
We give Hillary credit for all the good things her husband did and dismiss all the bad?

What is Hillary's current position on NAFTA?  I've heard talk third hand that she didn't support it, but I haven't heard anything from her that directly says it was bad.  Then again, I could have easily missed it, so I ask this in honesty.

What is Hillary's current position on NAFTA?

[ Parent ]
Checking her site (0.00 / 0)
Checker her issues page I don't see anything on trade.  I dropped down into "Middle Class". "Innovation" and "Standing in World" and don't see it there; those where the only three that seemed to fit.

Ah, I did find a speech she just gave in Ohio that included NAFTA, so I can answer my own question:

We're going to deliver 21st century solutions to rebuild the middle class. Let's get real about our future starting right now. Let's get real about the future of trade in this country. Let's get real about NAFTA - it simply isn't working for all Americans. I'm not just going to talk about what's wrong with NAFTA, I'm going to fix it and I have a four-point plan to do exactly that.

First we'll have the strongest possible labor and environmental standards in the core NAFTA agreement. Second, we wont let foreign countries undermine worker protection as they do right now. These companies can challenge American regulation intended to protect American workers and the environment. That is not acceptable and I will change that. I will strengthen NAFTA's enforcement mechanisms to remove trade barriers and better protect American jobs. And finally, we'll review this agreement and every other trade agreement regularly. If it's not raising living standards right here in America and protecting American workers, then we're not going to have it be a race to the bottom. We will never again let fourteen years go by without updating and modernizing our trade agreements. My opponent has taken to attacking me on NAFTA. The fact is neither of us were in the Senate at the time and I've long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA.

So, pretty much in line with the whole argument, from both sides.

Obama's site actually has a section on trade.    This is more than any anything I could find on Clinton's issue page, though slightly less than what Clinton said in her speech in Ohio.

[ Parent ]
worst navigation ever (0.00 / 0)
It's the worse website layout I've ever seen.  Whoever designed that site must be working for her opponent.   Use google advanced search, just on hillaryclinton.com,  to find more.  

Trade plan

oppose pending trade agreements

4 point NAFTA fix plan

In 2005, when we were both in the Senate, Senator Dorgan proposed amendment that I thought was just common sense. It said that our trade negotiators shouldn't enter into any agreement that undermines basic protections for American workers. It said we shouldn't allow foreign countries to unfairly dump their products into the American marketplace in a way that damages U.S competitiveness. So I stood with American workers and I voted for it. Senator Obama stood with the Bush administration and voted against it. That is a big difference between us

and the 4 pt NAFTA fix plan is:

1.  environmental/labor standards, strongest possible enforceable (not defined)
2.  Strength NAFTA enforcement mechanisms
3.  remove ability of corporations to challenge US American regulations and abilities to protect workers by US law.
4.  review individual clauses and strike those hurting US workers and US economy through statistics, reviews ongoing.

If it's not raising living standards right here in America and protecting American workers, then we're not going to have it be a race to the bottom.


NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
As Lambert has pointed out..... (4.00 / 1)
...........'It's on my website....' don't cut it. First, it might not be; second, the voters, old pathetic pre-digital folk that most are are really interested in the words coming out of the candidates mouth.

They still cling to the old-fashioned idea that what the candidate says is what the candidate will do.....

Hah....hah...ha......

But there you go.

Obama's 'empty vessel' campaign is just this sort of thing writ large. I bet you can find a statement, online or off, by either candidate that is on every side of every question.

That's modern 'sound-bite' electioneering.

And it sucks.

But it will continue until the voters reject it. Which might be happening right in front of us.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Official positions (0.00 / 0)
I bet you can find a statement, online or off, by either candidate that is on every side of every question.

That's modern 'sound-bite' electioneering.

And it sucks.

I understand and largely agree with the criticism that says they need to include more policy in their stump speeches.  (Though Obama has already done this, so I wouldn't agree to much more.)  Even more important is weaving actual policy into the narrative of the campaign.

But I disagree completely with the 'sound-bite' electioneering when it comes to official issue pages at web sites.  I think the fact that each campaign, even the Republicans, have official issue pages is hugely important and a major improvement from 20th century elections.  Here they lay out exactly what they want to do in a formal way all can see.

One of the great advantages of the modern age is the ability for candidates to layer the detail and provide everyone with the most detail they could want or need.  I know many get annoyed at the links to the issue pages, but I've become a bit appalled to the degree that activists don't think this matters.  Twenty years ago most of us would be overjoyed at the thought candidates where required by popular will to put out this kind of detail for all to see they can be held accountable to.  Overjoyed!  But instead, we get lots of poo pooing.

[ Parent ]
links for the new quotes?? (4.00 / 2)
I'm interested in seeing proof of the new quotes.  These are ciculating in the echo-chamber of the internet but not linked to original articles anywhere.  I'll take your word if you say you've seen an original copy of the MTP transcript or the AP report, but it seems odd that there are absolutely no links to the actual primary sources.

You are still using the old quotes that take her statements out of context.

If you read the entire paragraph in her memoir she is clearly talking about how Bob Dole perceived NAFTA as a win for Clinton and was not going to give him any more victories to run on in 1996.  Any other interpretation of that quote is completely unfair.  You should stop using it.

The Bloomberg "quote" is again, unlinked, not only in your article but everywhere else.  The context of it is ambiguous at best.  She is praising the "very effective efforts" not NAFTA itself.

You have also not addressed all the books that have been written over the years documenting her opposition in the White House to NAFTA.  Nor Carl Bernstein's recent direct statement.  Those accounts are, as my lawyer friends would say, more dispositive of the issue.  

I've provided cites in a previous comment.  http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

If the new quotes you cite prove to be accurate, it would be stronger evidence for your view than all these old sentence fragments.

It's a smear (4.00 / 1)
You know who you can trust watching this is Public Citizen, probably the best watchdog group out there on trade.

They are blogging on this smearing and correcting the smears when inaccurate.

Recap of Candidates on NAFTA

Dems talk Trade

but this isn't the issue, it's what they are going to do NOW.

One of the most telling pieces of legislation is S.355.  That bill is recommended by the Horizon Project and they are going for a complete revamp on multiple policy areas to strengthen the US and the middle class.   This bill is a major piece of their recommendations and Hillary Clinton co-sponsored it with Byron Dorgan, 2005.    Now if anyone knows about Senator Dorgan he has been a tireless truth teller on the Senate floor, often by his lonely, and is chair of the Democratic Policy Committee, even though Dem leadership ignores him.

There are few, maybe Sen. Bernie Sanders, working harder to change trade policy than Dorgan.  

Obama on the other hand, has strong ties to the University of Chicago economists and if anyone is aware of them they love a crisis.  Yup, they love a crisis so one can swoop in and privatization the entire area.  They have done it on Chile, Iraq, Sri Lanka, New Orleans....

and more importantly Obama is only talking about environmental and worker standards.  That's bogus.  The trade agreements themselves are plain unfair to the US, to US workers by the main clauses and that is what needs to be changed, along with extensive changes in the US corporate tax code (in addition to enforceable worker/environmental standards).  Hillary is the one with those policy promises that are matching the recommendations of some very good economists that are labor focused, not Obama.

I find this infuriating because they are trying to imply Obama is actually going to do what is needed on US trade policy and there is nothing, anywhere, nowhere that he is talking to the various policy advisers who are recommending dramatic changes.  There is nothing...

so for people claiming that trade has been their issue for 20 years to see this well, bullshit, I don't know how else to say it, simply to try to get the nomination to someone who is probably going to be worse on policy is beyond the pale.

What the hell are these people fighting for doing this crap, it's policy that makes the difference.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Tell 'em Bro' (4.00 / 1)
Folks can be rather dense at times....

At my regular D/L meetup today we had one of those guys, a self-appointed expert see...., and his companion asked my co-leader what he thought progressives should be doing given that there is no progressive running for President.

My pal started to explain the Bush Dog, More and Better Democrat campaigns and how he, personally, felt the House was the place to focus our attention for reasons of finance, term of office etc. All pretty standard Founding Fathers and OpenLeft perspective.

Mr. Expert sat up and fired out: 'No, that's wrong. It's the Senate where the problem is!''

Well....Okay, why is that I ask? 'Because progressive bills make it out of the House but never get by the Senate!' Uh....Okay, do you understand that many in the House are giving themselves a 'free' progressive vote because they know the legislation they are voting on will never get through the Senate?'

'No, no, no...I've sat in the Senate and I know how it works!' Something struck me as odd about his manner in this response so I asked him when he's spent time in the Senate chambers studying that august body......

'Oh...ten years ago...' was his reply.

So we see that folks really don't grasp that politics is nothing if not a DYNAMIC PROCESS! Comparing today's Congress to the one we had ten years ago tells you nothing about what's going on right now. Nothing. Situation and people involved are all very, very different.

Frankly trusting Obama to do the 'right thing' on healthcare is a bet. It's a gamble. Same on NAFTA.

HIllary is not handling the NAFTA issue correctly at all but look what happened to John Edwards when he said, 'I voted the wrong way on the AUMF.' game over pals.

She's wiggling....I don't like it but telling the truth is waaaaaaaaaay out of fashion with the voters.

Obama gets that. McCain gets that.

Clinton is stuck with the stupidity of her hubby and that's too bad.

But I didn't marry the prick.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Also found statement this from one of 'your' links... (0.00 / 0)
It's an old link -- but happens to be on the Peru trade agreement (both NV).  Has the owner of this blog changed his opinion on Clinton?

"...In contrast to most of the Democratic presidential candidates who oppose the Peru NAFTA expansion, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois support it. Clinton and Obama's support for the Peru FTA - after both opposed the 2005 Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which contained identical provisions and now campaign against NAFTA in Iowa, should make voters wonder just what sort of trade policy Clinton and Obama really support. None of the senators running for president voted today, although all four have issued public statements taking positions on the Peru pact.

Clinton's support for the Peru FTA suggests that her recent call for "a time-out" on trade agreements apparently begins only after she votes for one more NAFTA-style agreement. The fact that Obama was the first Democratic presidential candidate to announce his support for the Peru NAFTA expansion two months ago makes his recent attacks on Clinton regarding NAFTA bizarre.

Neither Clinton nor Obama has made clear which of the objectionable NAFTA foreign investor privileges - imported food safety limits, service sector privatization and deregulation, "Buy America" bans and other provisions - would be eliminated in potential Clinton or Obama-negotiated agreements. Voters across the country who have suffered the real-life damage from NAFTA deserve to know how all this anti-NAFTA talk from Clinton and Obama would translate if either were elected president..."

http://citizen.typepad.com/eye...

[ Parent ]
Least objectionable candidate (0.00 / 0)
My attitude is to find the least objectionable candidate for no one was running who really was basing policy on actual statistics, theory, not a one.  

Yes that stands, Peru has a lot of privatization of their social security as a goal behind the scenes of that agreement.

I'm doing a comparison contrast on policy to determine least objectionable candidate versus being a campaign blogger surrogate.  (I'm not working for anyone on this).  

At least you know I'm not working for the Clinton campaign or a cheerleader for either one of them.  I'm just sick of the lack of facts.  Trade is one issue I know is critical to the future of America.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Direct Citations (0.00 / 0)
Here are the direct citations from Lexis-Nexis:

"I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America":

FDCH Political Transcripts

January 5, 2004 Monday

U.S. SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY) HOLDS A NEWS TELECONFERENCE ON JOB TRAINING FUND CUTS

LENGTH: 1845 words

SPEAKER:
U.S. SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY)

SENATOR CLINTON HOLDS A NEWS TELECONFERENCE ON FUNDING
CUTS FOR JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS

JANUARY 5, 2004

"NAFTA is proving its worth":

March 6, 1996, Wednesday, AM cycle

Look for the Union Label: Hillary Put It There

BYLINE: By RICHARD PYLE, Associated Press Writer

SECTION: Business News

LENGTH: 361 words

DATELINE: NEW YORK

AND

[ Parent ]
ya know (0.00 / 0)
this is not Tasini vs. Clinton here.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
Wal-Mart Heart NAFTA (4.00 / 1)
Like Sen. Clinton said in the debate, her "past experience" shapes her policy.  
Hillary's trade positions were formed while she was a member of the Wal-Mart Crew.  She learned that its good to let jobs go overseas because it makes the board's stock price go up.  She learned that is good to watch 500 living wage jobs leave the country to be replaced with 1,000 minimum wage jobs.  

Reason # 5064 to vote Obama
 

Clinton fans can't see reality (4.00 / 1)
It is so sad to read posts like the one above claiming Clinton has BETTER proposals without citing anything.

Shameful that adults cannot accept reality, and that supporters are resorting to the same illogical rants as Hillary herself, "It is better because I say so.  No facts needed."

Hillary Clinton's pro-NAFTA votes are a matter of record.  Her pro-NAFTA statements are both recorded and taken directly from her own book.  She is on-record with NAFTA flip-flops even more than her healthcare flip-flops.

The only way to claim she didn't praise NAFTA is to claim that she didn't write her own book and blame it all on her ghostwriter.  But that would border upon plagiarism, and good Democrats never accuse other Democrats of that.

As to the public record, it is everywhere.  Yes, she just plain lies.  And hopes that screaming about her opponent will work the way it is working for John McCain.  

Sadly, the MSM is for the most part giving Clinton a pass the same way it is giving one to McCain.  Perhaps that's why their talking points are so similar this week.

Clinton's sick behavior would be funny if it wasn't so sad.  Her behavior certainly is not Presidential.

tons of citings (0.00 / 0)
including legislation.  Where's Obama's bill, where is his legislation?    

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
Thank you sir. May I have another? (0.00 / 0)
You point to her web site with its four point NAFTA plan and her co-sponsorship of a bill.

But, as we are told, Clinton has been fighting for 35 years for civil rights, human right, women's rights, workers, and on and on. So what has she actually PRODUCED?

She was on the board of Wal-Mart for six years and sat there like a bobble head while they drove mom-and-pops out of business and bashed unions.

During the Clinton admin we got NAFTA, most favored trade status for China, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for which Rupert Murdoch is eternally grateful, and repeal of Glass-Steagle for which Citibank thanks you very much and by the way they might need a bailout; Hillary can co-sponser.

Your naive to think position papers on web sites or Senate co-sponsorships or stump speeches mean squat.


[ Parent ]
jesus (0.00 / 0)
uh, I don't think I'm naive in any way and I think if you bought the Obama hysteria you are hypnotized by mass psychology and not looking at his policies, money, economic advisers.  Don't you find it interesting that he magically produced his technology plan after walking right out of Google corporation in a meeting?  Who is naive here.  

and no Google is not God and thus their policies in the US national interest or working America's interests.  They happen to have a few age discrimination lawsuits pending just as one minor example.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
You are changing the subject and not responding to anything they said n/t (0.00 / 1)


Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Health care flip flops? (4.00 / 1)
I am not aware of any. I do know that Hllary Clinton supports universal health care and that Barack Obama does not.  I also know that Obama has great difficulty explaining his own health care proposal, as evidenced by the gibberish he emitted in the last debate.  I just hope the voters in Texas were paying attention.
[ Parent ]
I know I should get into this (0.00 / 0)
Mandates to not make health care universal.  They just don't.  Some people will still not have health insurance even after they are required to purchase it.

You simply cannot call one plan universal and the other not.  We honestly don't know what percentage would sign up in each case, but we do know it will be less than 100%.

The only way to have real universal health care is to have the government (or someone) have everyone automatically covered.  Nothing else will ever be universal.

[ Parent ]
Make that "shouldn't", sheesh (0.00 / 0)
whats a 'not' between friends?
[ Parent ]
Ixnay ethay AFTANAY alktay (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure it was a good idea for Hillary to wave that flier all around it just invites these kinds of articles.  And it does seem she is getting frustrated with this and with today's mockery of Obama's style.  Can Hillary supporters please explain how she intends to get people behind her healthcare plan and convince Congress to actually pass it?  She seems to be having difficulty convincing enough Democrats.
Holy Cow, still? (4.00 / 1)
Isn't it about time to stop kicking our junior senator from New York?  She's not perfect but she does a fine job.

I know we have to keep putting up a false front in Ohio while the Next President Of These Great United States, Barack Obama, is honing his November turnout machine in next week.  After that though, can we lay off?

Hillary will probably keep running as long as the money is there.  That is how presidential candidates have always functioned.  But unless some miracle has her winning substantially above 60% of the vote in both Ohio and Texas in March she doesn't have any chance of being our presidential nominee.  Even then it would be unlikely.

Surely we don't need Democrats attacking Hillary or Obama while she runs a purely symbolic campaign no longer really trying to win the nomination.

Yes, Hillary likes NAFTA more than most of us.  Obama supports a slightly more gradualist approach to universal health care.   But it is McCain we should be targeting now that we know who the nominees will be.

Demonstrates The Failure of Historical Revisionism in the Internet Age (4.00 / 1)
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.

This will be easy (0.00 / 0)
Senator Clinton can request that President Clinton expedite release of all records related to then-First-Lady Clinton's involvement on NAFTA.
It would be different if she said... (0.00 / 0)
...that she had supported it, and now realizes that it was a mistake.  Just like it would be different if she admitted that her 2002 vote on Iraq was a mistake.  I have much more respect for a politician who can admit that he or she has made a mistake, or that his or her position has evolved, etc.  But she seems unwilling to do that, and while frankly I'm fairly neutral about either her or Obama as the Democratic nominee, having suffered through 7+ years of a president who never makes a mistake, I think it's dangerous to have another one.
Thank you for putting it like that (0.00 / 0)
Connecting the two...you are right....ALL she had to do, in order to take Iraq away from Obama, was apologize for her vote...and she refused. She won't admit when she's wrong, and yes, we've had 7 years of that mess.  
[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure if this was a plan or a simple fuck up that they just kept repeating after the first time to try and make it true.  Given the myriad of material, I have to go with B...  Just a major mistake to keep pushing this... she gave Obama AD after AD for PA, OH and TX on a golden platter.
I don't understand (0.00 / 0)
why it is so hard for Hillary to simply say "Yeah I was wrong about NAFTA" or "Yeah I was wrong about trusting George Bush about Iraq".

I don't need 4 more years of never admitting a mistake and fighting to the death before accepting error.

Stephanopolis... (0.00 / 0)
He talks about that in his book....  How when some of the scandals came out, Bill wanted to come out early and say he was wrong... she advocated deny deny deny.    
[ Parent ]
Clinton Gets Caught Again On NAFTA | 65 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox