Hillary Clinton on NAFTA
By SusanUnPC on February 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM in Barack Obama, Economy, Hillary Clinton, NAFTA
UPDATE: Here’s a great new diary that has far more information, “Obama: “I Believe In Free Trade.”
===============
Since Cee tried to slime Hillary Clinton with another one of Barack Obama’s lies in the thread below, I am compelled to respond. Let’s get the FACTS out. FIRST, there’s Obama’s own stated support for NAFTA: “Associated Press: Obama said the United States should ‘pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.” (More below, including links.)
SECOND, there’s history. Hillary Clinton tried valiantly to dissuade her husband, then president, from enacting NAFTA:
Taylor Marsh alerted me to this key item on Clinton’s progressive economics at Crooks & Liars, “Carl Bernstein: Hillary Clinton and NAFTA“:
Bernstein: Hillary Clinton’s economics, the ones she preached to her husband in the White House are much closer to John Edwards than you would think. She argued with Bill Clinton when she was First Lady, her husband, she said ‘Bill, you are doing Republican economics when you are doing NAFTA.’ She was against NAFTA. And if she would somehow come out and tell the real story of what she fought for in the White House and failed in a big argument with her husband she would end up moving much closer to those Edwards followers. (Video at Crooks & Liars)
You’ll never hear this on television, obsessed as the pundits are with snubs, mannerisms and polls, rarely (if ever) talking about issues.
THIRD, Barack Obama has wholly misrepresented Sen. Clinton’s views on NAFTA:
Obama Campaign Continues Dishonest Attacks On Hillary and NAFTA, 2/14/2008 / “In a memo released today from allies, the Obama campaign repeats a charge that’s been ‘widely criticized as bogus’ about Hillary’s position on NAFTA. From the memo”:
As late as September 2006, Senator Clinton touted the President Clinton’s support for NAFTA.
And again:
AS LATE AS SEPTEMBER 2006: Hillary Said NAFTA Was A Victory For President Clinton, Would Lead To An Economic Improvement.
In fact, Hillary didn’t say this in September 2006. The Obama campaign cites a Newsday article that asserts what Hillary “thinks” about NAFTA without any substantiation.
The Obama campaign then cites an article from 12 years ago that also doesn’t quote Hillary and her book, where Hillary mentions NAFTA as something that passed through Congress in 1996. That’s why the Politico called a piece of mail featuring the same claim “bogus” and noted the Obama campaign has failed to produce any evidence that she championed NAFTA.
The Obama campaign fails to mention that he is not calling for the repeal of NAFTA and believes “it’s not realistic to expect to renegotiate NAFTA.” [Crain's Chicago Business, 2/16/04]
Based on his positions in Illinois and the United States Senate, the National Journal concluded that Sen. Obama was “the most likely presidential candidate to support further trade liberalization.” Sen. Obama opposed an amendment that would have prevented the weakening of laws that protect against unfair trade practices. (Hillary supported the amendment.) Sen. Obama also supports fast track authority.
(I can’t place blockquotes within blockquotes in WordPress, but obviously that section just above came from The FACT HUB, an outstanding, factual resource for truthtellers.)
TRUTH TIME! There are Sen. Obama’s OWN misleading campaign statements about NAFTA — as is typical of him, he says ONE thing on the campaign stump to his swooning followers, but quite another on many other occasions again –corrected by the Fact Hub:
Newspapers Reported Obama’s Support of NAFTA, Desire To Pursue Similar Agreements
Associated Press: Obama said the United States should ‘pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.’ “Obama said the United State should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.” [AP, 9/8/04]
Decatur Herald & Review: ‘Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.’ “While some people believe NAFTA has been good for U.S. farmers, the trade results could have been better, Keyes said. NAFTA negotiators said the United States might lose manufacturing jobs but would become a service economy, but now those service jobs also are being exported, he said. Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA. He said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and the United States is no longer the dominant economy. ‘We have competition in world trade,’ Obama said. ‘When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade.” [Decatur Herald & Review, 9/9/04]
I leave you with this fascinating interview of Sen. Clinton on Bloomberg News — she discusses NAFTA partway through:
For more history — including how John Edwards stood up for workers (I miss him so much in this campaign) — please check out “Edwards, Clinton & Obama: On Economics & Workers [UPDATED x2]” on February 2.
Once $299.98, now yours for $149.99.
You always write the most well-researched and informative diaries! Thanks so much for all of this information. Wish there could be some way to get the msm to accurately report on the issues instead of the race between personalities. Clinton would win this hands down.
Thank you! Truer words were never said about the media — it’s so tiresome. Howie Kurtz actually did a good segment on it today.
Part of the problem is that so many cannot seem to see that a Hillary Clinton Administration would be a HILLARY CLINTON Administration not a continuation of the Bill Clinton Administration. Married couples do each actually have their own thoughts and ideas and they do not always mesh. (Always, try seldom in many marriages.)
My point is that she is a strong, smart women more than capable of going in her own direction. This time, hopefully, she will be the president, not the spouse trying to convince a president.
You make a very good point, I was thinking earlier, about Susan’s post in regard to the Clinton resentment, and I swear some of the media, and other guys, wonder why THEIR wives can’t be President, too.
The ultimate trophy, I suppose.
(Oh, the whine of “Why can’t MY wife be President, too?” Maybe that’s progress, who knows, a yellow Lamborghini, and your wife as President, the new Washington power trend…)
I think it was Susan who mentioned Clinton’s position on NAFTA was much closer to Edwards, as opposed to her husband’s, Hillary should make that clear, to voters, a really good idea.
Susan, you should send this to HillaryHub. This is excellent work. Obama is totally lying here. He’s to the right of Hillary on trade. This is well known, or it should be. She didn’t like NAFTA. Said americans would lose jobs. This guy will say anything. Not only is he misrepresenting her position, but he’s misrepresenting his own.
Thank you! From you, that’s quite a compliment. It helps when I am PISSED OFF. I will try to send it to the Hub. They do great work there…. must work incredible hours. They have to with all the baloney from Obama’s camp.
I can’t wait to get my mitts on the transcript of Lannie Davis this morning interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. He was on fire! He cleaned Bill Bradley’s clock — who’d been on waxing on poetically about Obama in the previous segment (and saying NOTHING (!) about Obama’s experience or qualifications). Davis also pointed to the hypocrisy of Obama’s campaign on the superdelegates, as we discussed in the story yesterday below re the terrible pressure on the black superdelegates. Lannie Davis pointed out that Axelrod, Obama’s manager, BACKED superdelegates — is on RECORD doing so. But now, of course, they want to change the rules in midstream. Don’t like the rules? Change them after the nominee is selected. Those rules were so terrible? Why didn’t Democrats eliminate them in all of the conventions held since the early 80s when the rules were instituted? But now that Obama needs those votes, he’s “playing” the system, as Davis said
I get Late Edition via podcast…if you need it. Its up in the podcast directory.
Susan,
Davis the poor schumck that the Clinton’s send out everything they need someone to front for them? That Lanny Davis?
The one who looked like a fool when the truth came out Monica?
I can’t believe that poor guy even shows his face.
So this time around it won’t be two for the price of one? ( I expect that one to come twisted from the rightwing if Hillary forges ahead a bit)
This time around she will work to overturn her husband’s legacy. She will send to congress a bill to repeal the Nafta legislation? ( One can only hope that she does, Nafta is one of the worst pieces of crap ever enacted; not quite as bad as the Military commissions legislation that stripped habeus corpus, but close. )
Ck -
Obama isn’t saying that he will, so let’s give her a chance. I agree with you on both pieces of legislation. Dumb and UnAmerican respectively.
Obama on economics, what I have read from him, does not strike me as the sharpest utensil in the drawer. He has one smart foreign policy advisor, but no names among his economic advisors ring any bells with me.
From what I have read his economic advisors are three Chicago Boys.
I would be a lot more happy happy if someone was using George Mason U boys as their economic advisors. Happier still if the economic powerhouses at the Mises Institute were being used. The chances of either are Slim and None and Slim just left town.
@CK
Slim went to see Shady and help him clean out his closet. :0.
The United States should do a Chavez and nationalize any foriegn held asset. oops.
@ TWK
That nationalization thing works really fine if you have domestic sources of income. The US is a net borrower of investment. Without that foreign investment from the Dubai princes, Merril Lynch would already be in chapter 11. Nationalize the Toyota factories and American access to the carry trade dries up and dies. Those 0% loans from Japan’s bank don’t get to flood the USA. Nationalize Sony’s investment in hollywood?
That nationalization thing works really fine if you have domestic sources of income.
Thats what the “oops” was for.
I heard the Keepler Elfs where seen on the unenjoyment line. What does it say when a country can’t make it’s own shoes?
Well really TWK, if one has high speed internet does one really have to walk anywhere that is uncarpeted?
So where is next “bump” in road ya figure?
I am certianly no economist, but the confluence of economic events are certianly cumlitive and not sustainable…It’s beginning to look a lot like the game “Jena”. I wonder how far the pieces will scatter.
Two next bumps:
1) Monoline insurers. Spitzer’s deadline for them to recapitalize draws to an end. Currently, the thinking is that the monolines will have to split themselves. The profitable part covering and insuring muni debt will be separated from the part that insures the rest of the derivative garbage. ( This was Buffet’s offer from a few days ago that the monolines rebuffed.) The problem is of course that no one wants the part that insures already defaulted crap.
2) CDS’s ( $45.5 TRILLION in nominal value; no one has any idea how much this stuff would really be worth if there were a market for it.) Short explanation, insurance on the insurance on the insurance against someone somewhere defaulting on a debt. ( CDS = Credit Default Swap ) Completely unregulated, off the books, but they are legal contracts.
3) Just a little cloud on the horizon, Standard and Poors and Moodies are making noises about downgrading the ratings of United States debt instruments. Conjure for a moment what it would mean if Savings bonds or treasury notes did not carry an automatic AAA grade rating.
If by “chicago boys” you mean third generation monetary economists trained by the people that were trained by Milton Friedman. That is a less than wonderful idea. Better than having Greenspan and Bernanke as advisors however.
Theoretical supposition with some snark. You can do better than that, can’t you?
@Susan:
The two for the price of one comment is from Hillary — several years ago. It will be used against her and Bill this time around.
I just have my doubts that Hillary will actively work to overturn Nafta. Nafta was the big bipartisan victory for Bill. One of the after-effects of Nafta was on trial this week. The teamster’s union is none to happy about low wage Mexican truckers being allowed to drive american.
Nafta is a labour busting shitpile, it should be repealed.
Thank you for the clarification. I believe she will try hard on NAFTA. I just can’t begin to imagine how she tackles all of the huge problems we have all at once. It’s going to be hell-ish. But if anyone can, she can.
And I’m heartened by those close to her — and I’m so glad to see Wes Clark at so many campaign stops with her. He’ll be an enormous help to her with the Pentagon, foreign military policy, our armed forces, and much more. And she has Richard Holbrooke and Madeleine Albright on foreign policy. And so man more.
Wouldn’t it be a hoot if she could bring Paul Krugman on board fo economic issues?! He’s worked in government in the past. He’d be such a pistol on those gnarly, highly complex issues. I’ll keep dreaming about her White House team .. those are just a very few names.
I hope she gets the chance to try anyway. I volunteered to help the campaign here in Texas yesterday. I was not alone, roughly 1200 people volunteered for the Clinton campaign yesterday here in Austin. Gave me a warm fuzzy since we should be the heart of Obamaland for TX.
RalphB -
You just made my day! Bless you!
TOTALLY awesome! Thank you for your hard work! We need you! And please feel free to let us know how it’s going for you!
I’m voting in Texas for Hillary Clinton. I’ve been making a ton of calls around Houston and Austin to my friends, family and peers. Most of them are going to vote for Clinton. Some were going to vote for Obama until we had lengthy calls, fed a few emails back and forth. They are now seeing the “rhetoric train” fall of its tracks.
One this morning said, “I was going to vote for him because I was feeling great about change, but you’re right, I’ve been promised that before and always run to the candidate who baits me with ‘change’.”
But more important, she was the one who showed me Deval Patrick’s “Just Words” video clip, after she had seen his speech in Wisconson yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhQtoVe-lh8
She’s from Boston. She was there when he said that. Obama just stole it. He just lost her vote.
Interesting what happens during this process, ain’t it.
Texas Democrats used to be really cool, before the right wing shift, right?
Not perfect, but certainly working more for the people, like LBJ…
Yes, if you go back weeks, ( I wouldn’t) I said I would not vote this year Especially because of the arrogant Texas Democrats who dared to keep Dennis Kucinich off the primary ticket. I want them to be shuffled to their f–king knees.
If not for the looney behavior of the Obamatons I wouldn’t not go vote in March 4th, but now I will because I don’t want a damn con artist running for President. I’d rather deal with my differences with Clinton, than the vagueries and smoke plumes.
Democrats in the South….long story…but they are a complicated lot.
We part company on the Holbrookes, albrights and krugmans and delongs. If that is what she is bringing, I would prefer the wet behind the ears unknowns. Repacking DC with the fish wrap of the Bill Clinton administration is not going to buy any votes.
Seeing four years wasted refighting old internicene battles and settling old scores.
Lani Gaunier, Johnetta Cole Ph.D., Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood to name four memories of days gone by.
Ok, I really hope you enjoy “the wet behing the ears” Chicago Boys. If you don’t know anything about that type of economics, I suggest you google it. I’ll take Krugman any day.
I have to agree with Masslib, CK, you sound like Dick Cheney, he’s afraid of Hillary, too.
Not a whole lot of difference between Krugman and the U of C boys in their economic prescriptions.
Krugamn’s basic idea is spend tax money on things he thinks the economy should want.
U of C boys believe that controlling the printing presses so that inflation is kept contstant and positive is enough to allow the maximum tax returns to support whatever someone wants to spend the tax money on. In both models the primary objective is to avoid allowing the citizenry to spend their own money on the things the citizenry wants. One side substitutes an all wise pickpocket the other side substitutes an all wise printer.
Neither side had much wisdom. Both sides agree that military spending is a damn fine thing.
Wasn’t that canned? I know there was a demo project but thought that crap was pulled.
Bill, I thought said that.
The resentment against Hillary would be enormous if she made that remark, wouldn’t it?
She will at least try to enforce the labor and environmental provisions which the Republicans have not.
Unfortunately the Labour provisions of nafta are anti-union which doesn’t do much for american workers. The environmental provisions are a mixed bag, mostly those provisions make it more difficult to start an economic enterprise within the US borders and much more profitable to take US operations to nations with much weaker environmental laws to begin with. Part of the heavy republican push to expand NAFTA into CAFTA and South America is that the environmental laws in most of central america are non existent as are any protections for workers. It is also one of the reasons republicans HATE Chavez in Venezuela. He and the other South American presidents ( except for the bush acolyte in Columbia ) are keeping these socall FreeTrade Acts out of the continent.
About the only benefactors from NAFTA in the USA are the small group of sugar growers in Florida for whom NAFTA keeps out cheap sugar from the caribean and south american nations.
Great job Susan!
What if Congress could just change a part of a law instead of changing the whole part? Like NAFTA. In order to change it, the whole law must be repealed 1st and then Congress has to start from scratch to make a new law. It boggles my mind why they work that way.
And, BTW, I love it when Hillary said this:” It took a Clinton to clean up the 1st Bush mess and I think it will take another Clinton to clean up this 2nd Bush mess.”
Am just wondering why Hillary has not made use of this quote more often. It will help remind the working class boomers of the good times under the 1st Clinton.
Slightly OT but a good tongue in cheek article, dont just dismiss it out of hand as pro-obama..
Understanding The Obama Surge
by Sean Gonsalves
here…
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/15/7095/
That article is crap. Hillary has no experience? Please that is such tired crap. She’s a woman driven by causes. You can look at her long record on health care, children’s advocacy and women’s rights, just for a few examples.
The UHC initiative she put together was also a major work.
I guess never having done any real legislative work, never proposing a brand new way of restructuring the federal government of the United States, those Rove (Bama) boys aren’t sure how to approach this issue, with her, other than the usual backyard TPing…
And it shows…
Also, HE DIDN’T SHOW UP FOR KYL-LIEBERMAN. People have to be high on the hopium to give him credit for a vote he hid from. Also, Hillary did speak out against the war and for continued inspections. Who the heck knows how Obama would have voted had he been in the Senate at the time? My guess. Present.
Hopium! That’s priceless.
I have strong suspicions about how he would have voted too. Did Durbin vote against? In that case, he might have gone along with the senior Durbin. But otherwise, he’s gone along to get along.
He also bailed on the MoveOn vote — even though he was THERE at the Senate at the time — while Hillary Clinton stuck her neck out to vote to support MoveOn against the Republican attack. (’course, MoveOn rewards her with a kick in the rear.)
Then there’s how he bailed on the official Democratic candidate Ned Lamont, and helped Lieberman. And considers Lieberman his MENTOR! (Why don’t people pay attention to these facts. … sigh.)
Durbin voted FOR it.
Thanks for the well researched article, Susan.
I don’t think Obama has any understanding of International Politics or International Economic issues.
Naomi Klein’s book Shock Doctrine is a must read book — she goes into detail WHY the Chicago Boys free trade bs have been a major disaster where ever they’ve been allowed to influence Government leaders.
Hillary is a fighter and she must be aware that Obama really has few concrete plans for his “change” message.
Susan,
Slime? How deep of a hole do you want to dig for your candidate?
She supported NAFTA. Even said (@ 21:34 on recording) NAFTA has proven its worth!
Co-host Juan Gonzalez takes issue with Hillary Clinton’s statement that NAFTA has “proven its worth”, pointing out that, contrary to the administration’s promises, thus far under NAFTA more American jobs have been lost than gained, and Gonzalez feels that labor unions should hold the Clinton administration accountable for this.
http://www.democracynow.org/1996/3/7/labor_policy_under_the_clinton_administration
Hillary even laughs when she was asked about NAFTA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBypp2hqxaQ
I didn’t laugh when Ross Perot (who I was supporting) was showing those charts and warning us about these trade agreements.
We’re supposed to trust Hillary now?
I also don’t recall Hillary or Bill speaking up when some of us were beaten and gassed in Seattle when we opposed those deals that she and Bill supported.
Hillary also supported China joining the WTO.
2000: Hillary Clinton Claimed China’s Entry Into The World Trade Organization Would Be Good For American Workers Despite The Already Massive Trade Deficit With China. “I know many people, here in Western New York in particularly and Erie Country, are concerned about this vote, and I share the concerns that many of my supporters in organized labor have expressed to me, because I do think we have to make sure that we improve labor rights, we improve environmental standards in our bilateral and our multilateral trade agreements. But on balance, I’ve looked at this, I’ve studied it, I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO. Right now, we are trading with China. We have a huge trade deficit with China. The agreement that has been negotiated between our two countries would open their markets to us in a way that they are not yet open, and in fact, for many large manufactured products, like automobiles, we would have the first chance to really get in and compete in that marketplace. I also think it’s not just an issue of trade. I believe it’s a security consideration. I want to do everything we can to persuade China to improve its human rights record, to be sure that it doesn’t in any way interfere with its neighbors or with Taiwan. I don’t think you gain that by isolating China. I think we must work out as best we can a relationship in trade, and a very firm statement and commitment to improving human rights and try to make as much progress as possible.” [CNN, 4/26/2000]
2000: Hillary Clinton Supported Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) For China, Claimed It Would Create Leverage. “Senate candidate Hillary Clinton said Thursday she supported permanent normal trade relations for China, but slammed Beijing’s restrictive birthrate policies. Clinton said she favored ‘engagement’ with China through trade as a way to ‘have whatever influence we can have’ on Beijing to change its dismal record on human rights, labor law and the environment. ‘I understand the challenges they are facing with population, minorities and the move from the countryside into the cities,’ Clinton said Thursday. ‘But I would hope that they would improve their human rights record, and that includes reproductive rights,’ she added.” [Agence France Presse, 5/25/00]
THE PRICE OHIO HAS PAID
Ohio Ranked 5th Among All States In The Number Of Jobs And Jobs Opportunities Lost And In Percent Jobs Lost Due To The Rising Trade Deficit With Canada And Mexico Since The Passage Of NAFTA. Ohio ranked fifth among all states in number of jobs and job opportunities lost due to the rising trade deficit with Canada and Mexico since passage of NAFTA, with 49,886 positions lost. Ohio also ranked fifth in percent of jobs lost, with nearly one percent of the state’s employment (.92 percent) lost. [“NAFTA’s Cautionary Tale,” 7/20/05 > ]
Ohio Ranked 7th Among All States In The Number Of Jobs Lost Due To The Rising Trade Deficit With China, With 66,100 Jobs Lost. Ohio ranked seventh among all states in net job loss due to the growing trade deficit with China, with 66,100 jobs lost. Ohio lost 1.2 percent of the state’s employment due to the rising trade deficit with China. [“Costly Trade With China,” 5/2/07 > ]
Dayton, OH: Deuer Manufacturing Laid Of 158 Workers Because The Company Shifted Work To Mexico. Dayton-based Deuer Manufacturing Inc. laid off 158 workers because the company shifted its tire winch assembly plant to Mexico, according to the report. [Dayton Business Journal, 7/8/05]
Does Hillary vote so that people can donate to Bill’s library?
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html
Ok, so you are sitting out this election, right? Because Obama has an openly free trade position.
Positions on trade are about the same across the political sprectrum.
There are a few isolationists who do not wish to trade with anyone. This position would make importing energy very difficult as well as exporting corn.
There is the non-interventionist position, trade with anybody that wants to trade, don’t trade with those who don’t wish to trade with you, leave the troops at home.
There is the old but waiting in the wings to return Mercantilist position. One way trade basically controlled through tariffs and import restrictions on imports and guns and power enforcing the export industries. Smoot-Hawley is the easiest google for the negatives on mercantilism.
Managed trade, ( the NAFTA model ) if done right it manages to destroy the domestic industries by encouraging and subsidizing the export of jobs and capital and importing loans and consumer goods. This is the NYT Friedman model not the U of C Friedman.
Absolutely free trade. Import what you can and are able to pay for, export what you can and are able to collect on. Not liked by any economist or politician or sugar grower. No really great government employment possibilities under this kind of trade regimin.
Autarchy ( isolationism in trade ) was thought to be proper for the USA in the 1800’s since there was so much land, so many resources and so few people. Now that the USA is wholly dependent on foreign imports to impede the decline in the standard of living here, some form of NAFTA/WTO/DAVOS model of controlled and enforced trade is necessary for the greatness of the empire. The downside of it of course is that the Japans, China, Saudi Arabia’s end up with enought of American’s debt to buy up with that debt the land and people of America.
Mass,
I have been clear on this after I decided to support Obama.
I don’t trust Hillary. She has proven over and over to be dishonest and unprincipled.
Thanks to all of you for helping Hillary and the GOP.
Republicans Gearing Up To Attack Obama
By Eric Kleefeld - February 18, 2008, 8:58AM
After spending at least the past year planning on how they’d run against Hillary Clinton in 2008, Republican operatives are now busy putting together a plan of attack against Barack Obama now that he’s currently out front for the Democrats.
Among their points against him, according to a plan laid out at an RNC retreat:
• He is not ready to be commander in chief.
• Taking a page from the Hillary Clinton campaign, he had a “pattern of voting ‘present’” in the Illinois legislature.
• The Republicans “can be confident in a campaign about issues,” seemingly in contrast to his mere rhetoric.
• He is inexperienced.
“Forgetting who will be the easiest to beat,” said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA), “I’ve got to tell you, a President Hillary doesn’t scare me nearly as much as a President Obama.”
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/repbulicans_gearing_up_to_atta.php
I can’t tell the difference between a Freeper and an Obamabot — both groups have the unique ability to blame EVERYTHING on Clinton and to twist everything that either Clinton has done or said.
I suspect that if random quotes taken from either the Orange Satan or Freeper-ville and impartial judges were asked to pick which was from the Orange Satan or from Freeper-ville — that the postings would be randomly assigned to either group of nutcakes.
MyDD has an exchange on NAFTA — the Orange Satan squad parrots their messiah’s b.s. about Senator Clinton’s position on NAFTA and the — Clinton folks are explaining that Obama is the one who is really free trade and pro-NAFTA.
Then I come here and Susan presents a detailed account of Senator Clinton’s positions and votes on NAFTA and the Obamabot known as CREE — does the usual copy-paste junk — proving what exactly?
The 25% right and 25% left use identical tactics — and have no critical thinking ability. My old Sociology prof was correct — “the political extremes meet in the middle.”
Northwest,
Care to comment on Hillary saying that the worth of NAFTA has been proven to one audience and saying something different to another?
Love her smile and her confidence. She always has a positive attitude and that is what makes her outstanding. Everytime I signed in the site ***BlackCentury.com*** and some men were talking her and said she is attractive.
Daisy, “some men were talking her & she is attractive.” Are you Hillarys age? Do men not talk to you? I hope you find a nice boyfriend. These lonely hearts comments are drivin’ me nutz!!!!!Who cares about her hair, clothes, make up? Oh, excuse me, you ladies do. Damn, dozens of posts back Larry even said “she doesn’t have fat legs” & youall think Obama is running a cult. NoQuarter started off as a security & foreign relations site, now it’s morphed into a luv Hillary/hate Obama blog, perhaps eventually it can morph into a match maker.com blog. In the meantime when may I anticipate an interview with Sen. Clinton’s hair stylist?
[...] the actual policies of the two candidates, and find out who’s the best on the economy and on NAFTA (another issue that Barack Obama has lied about, including that he supports “free [...]
David Gergen Confirms Clinton Didn’t Back NAFTA
David Gergen, former advisor to President Bill Clinton confirms to CNN that Hillary Clinton did not support NAFTA.
Gergen was in the Clinton Administration as well as several Republican Administrations as an adviser.
Go to youtube.com and search for “Gergen NAFTA Clinton”
Re NAFTA, with all respect to the writer and the respondents, what’s the beef? Before NAFTA our companies had maquilladoras south of the border making everything from brooms to circuit boards but with no reciprocal trade privileges. So how did implementing NAFTA make things worse for U.S. workers?