Posted on 04/10/2008 9:21:20 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is pressing her claim that she opposed her husband's free trade push when he was president, despite her favorable words about it at the time.
Both Clinton and her Democratic presidential rival Sen. Barack Obama are criticizing liberalized trade agreements as they campaign for blue-collar votes in Pennsylvania, where shuttered factories speak of a decline in manufacturing. The state holds its Democratic primary April 22. Both candidates oppose the free trade agreement with Colombia that President Bush has submitted for congressional approval.
They've had more trouble dissociating themselves from the much more consequential North American Free Trade Agreement; Clinton especially, because she spoke up for its passage and early results when her husband Bill was president, years before Obama came to Washington.
THE SPIN:
"I have a long record of being on a different attitude toward trade than my husband does," the New York senator said after a campaign event near Pittsburgh this week. "We disagree on this."
In the campaign for the February primary in Ohio, where NAFTA is also unpopular, she contended: "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it because I was part of the (Clinton) administration. But when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic."
She further argued, "I was always uncomfortable about certain aspects of it, and I have always made that clear."
Her recently released schedules as first lady show she attended at least five meetings about NAFTA in 1993 before the pact was approved by Congress. Her campaign aides, without offering details, say she opposed going ahead with NAFTA at four of those meetings, and that she attended the fifth after her husband decided, over her objections, to proceed with NAFTA.
THE FACTS:
There is little question that Clinton was concerned that NAFTA would push her health care reform effort aside in the early months of her husband's administration. Her claim that she expressed misgivings about NAFTA's economic and social effects privately and at the start is neither supported nor refuted by the record.
David Gergen, who was a senior adviser to Bill Clinton during the president's successful struggle to win congressional approval for NAFTA, has said of Hillary Clinton and the trade deal: "She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care.'" He was not aware whether she had objected to its provisions or just its timing.
Hillary Clinton spoke at a November 1993 NAFTA meeting at which 120 were scheduled to attend; participants described it as a NAFTA cheering session capped by remarks from the first lady when the push was at its peak to get the deal approved. Two at the meeting, representing textile and apparel importers, told ABC News that Hillary Clinton was the highlight of the "100 percent pro-NAFTA event" and expressed not a "hint of waffling" on the deal.
In 1996, she said the trade deal with Mexico and Canada was giving U.S. workers a chance to compete. "That's what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about," she said. "I think NAFTA is proving its worth."
In a speech to the centrist Democratic Leadership Council in 2002, the New York senator said this of her husband's record:
"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....
"All of these came out of some very fundamental ideas about what would work. The results speak for themselves." It was one of several occasions when she highlighted the trade deal among Bill Clinton's achievements.
Her campaign says listing her husband's accomplishments isn't the same as favoring them and her 1996 speech was noting NAFTA's undeniable benefits to Texas, where she delivered that address.
In his 2004 Illinois Senate campaign, Obama said the U.S. should pursue more deals such as NAFTA. The Associated Press reported then that Obama had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for U.S. workers.
That nuance was lost when he declared in February that "I don't think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have."
Of course she lied; she moved her lips, didn’t she?
Hillary wants to piggy-back on her husband (ugh! horrible mental image!) to make believe she has so much experience. First, she tried to cherry-pick anything good that Bill did (there wasn’t much) and claim it for her own, while saying that she had nothing to do with anything bad.
She has now taken that one step further, depending on her target audience. If that audience was helped by a particular Bill Clinton initiative, then Hillary was all for it. Conversely, when speaking to blue-collar workers in Ohio or Pennsylvania who believe they were hurt by a Clinton policy (like NAFTA,) Hillary will disavow it, even if she had touted it and supported it in the past. Two-faced liar doesn’t begin to describe her.
US Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) gestures as she addresses the audience at the Allegheny County Democratic Committee's Jefferson/Jackson Dinner at Heinz Field, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania April 10 2008. REUTERS/David DeNoma
That is the way to tell if Hitlery is telling another lie, isn't it?
US Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) greets the audience at the Allegheny County Democratic Committee's Jefferson/Jackson Dinner at Heinz Field, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania April 10 2008. REUTERS/David DeNoma
Those rascally Clintons are at it again... This is out of the same Clinton playbook that was used in the memorable incident when some minor Clinton appointee/stooge claimed at a Congressional hearing that he was now telling the truth, but that previously he had lied when writing things in his diary... And he got away with it... And Hillary! will get away with this, too...
I'm tempted to ask, "where's the outrage", but it didn't work back then, so I doubt that it would work now, either...
The woman’s lips move, a lie comes out. No sense in trying to call a turd anything other than a turd.
She’s a pathological liar. She totally supported NAFTA. Here’s a video that shows she’s lying again....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BrPZYbCdJ4
Ewwwwwww! She looks like she’s going to barf.
Both Clinton and her Democratic presidential rival Sen. Barack Obama are criticizing liberalized trade agreements as they campaign for blue-collar votes in Pennsylvania, where shuttered factories speak of a decline in manufacturing... Both candidates oppose the free trade agreement with Colombia that President Bush has submitted for congressional approval. They've had more trouble dissociating themselves from the much more consequential North American Free Trade Agreement; Clinton especially, because she spoke up for its passage and early results when her husband Bill was president, years before Obama came to Washington... "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it because I was part of the (Clinton) administration. But when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic." ...Hillary Clinton spoke at a November 1993 NAFTA meeting at which 120 were scheduled to attend; participants described it as a NAFTA cheering session capped by remarks from the first lady when the push was at its peak to get the deal approved. Two at the meeting, representing textile and apparel importers, told ABC News that Hillary Clinton was the highlight of the "100 percent pro-NAFTA event" and expressed not a "hint of waffling" on the deal. In 1996, she said the trade deal with Mexico and Canada was giving U.S. workers a chance to compete. "That's what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about," she said. "I think NAFTA is proving its worth." ...In his 2004 Illinois Senate campaign, Obama said the U.S. should pursue more deals such as NAFTA. The Associated Press reported then that Obama had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA... That nuance was lost when he declared in February that "I don't think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have."They were both for it before they were against it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.