Gergen: Hillary a ‘Good Soldier’ on NAFTA

YES YOU CAN, LIE and DECEIVE your way to the White House. You don’t fool me OBAMA!

FACTCHECK! Read the facts….
2006/2008: Newsday Reviewed Clinton’s Statements, Concluded She Supported NAFTA. According to a Newsday issues rundown, “Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy.” Newsday wrote in 2008, the word “boon” was their “characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements.” [New York Newsday, 9/11/06; Newsday blog, 2/15/08]
2003: Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. “Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once [NAFTA and health care]. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances.” [Living History, 182]
2003: Clinton Called NAFTA a “Victory” For President Clinton. In her memoir, published in 2003, Clinton wrote, “Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn’t hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill’s successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA.” [Living History, p.231]
1998: Clinton Praised Corporations for Their Efforts On Behalf of NAFTA. The Buffalo News reported, “As first lady, Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with either trade move. Nor has she repudiated them. In a 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.” [Buffalo News (New York), 7/16/07]
1996: Clinton Said “I Think Everybody Is In Favor Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth.” A questioner pointed out that UNITE opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed by the Clinton administration, on grounds it sends American jobs to Mexico. In March 1996, three years after President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, Hillary Clinton said, “I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth,” she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. “That’s what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about,” she said. [AP, 3/6/96]
1996: Clinton “Vowed That Her Husband Would Continue To Support Economic Growth In South Texas Through Initiatives Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement.” AP wrote, “Mrs. Clinton vowed that her husband would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Rio Grande Valley empowerment zone, which allows tax breaks to businesses that relocate to the border.” [AP, 11/2/96]
1996: Hillary Clinton “Touted” President Clinton’s Support for NAFTA, Saying it Would Reap Widespread Benefit. On a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton “touted the president’s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region.” [United Press International, 11/1/96]

Gergen just “felt” she had reservations about NAFTA, even though she never expressed them? Oh, well then, that should certainly be good enough for anyone.

I would have to agree, at least Clinton has the experience of promoting international agreements.
Obama has no experience, one cosponsored bill in 3 years in the senate.
How many missed days? How many missed votes? NO, Zero, Nada meetings convened of the committee that oversees NAFTA.
The man has NO RECORD.
He decided to not vote so he couldn’t be criticized. Why would anyone vote for that kind of person to be President???

I have been for Hillary from the start and I will stay till the finish. I don’t care what she was for or against back then. We ALL learn as we go along, and fix what needs fixed. I respect her experience, I am in awe of her intelligence and I know who much she cares about people. I’m afraid Obama is going to deny us the chance of having a really wonderful president in Hillary who is BADLY needed after the Bush years. I get so angry when I think about that. And, I’m from Ohio and there is no one I know who is sorry they voted for her! We would do it all again in a heartbeat !

The moment Hillary gets the nomination, I become a Republican.

euphemisms for Clinton is a liar.

I get a kick out of the HRC campaign- they were for NAFTA before they were against, they were for military intervention in Rwanda, before they were against them, they were for gay rights, before they were against them, etc etc etc. They are really amateurs-they can’t win against a so called inexperienced guy what will they get done in the WH- HILLARIOUS- the term fits.

Some of people here need to read the whole story .
Hillary tried so hard to against NAFTA as Gergen said.

On the Senate side, the big name Democratic who voted for NAFTA include Bill Bradley, Tom Daschle, Christopher Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and Joe Biden.

If Obama believe in CHANGE why Hillary can not change her plan?
She has been against NAFTA since she starts her campaign this time.
SB, is right. That’s the past.

Wait, I’m confused, so she voted for it before she voted against it?

Are you all really serious? The (public) line dividing the two is marginal, and you’re really considering McCain, if your Dem. isn’t nominated? … Seriously?!? After 2 Bush terms? …McCain?
I mean, sure. Hold your ground in the primaries. but afterwards, if your pick didn’t make it, just look at how close their platform really is to whoever DOES hold the nomination. … then look at McCain.
It’s not a popularity contest or a sporting event, it’s the Executive Branch of the US Government. Think bigger than just the face on the ballot.

AMERICAN, who are voted to OBAMA to this point. All of you just did not have a head. You have voted to a person WITHOUT any records. Now you backed out, do we all revote it.
I still support Hillary to the end.

yea i really want a lier and closet racist as my president ,so being a good democrat i am supposed to fall in line and possibly put someone in the white house who is possibly antiamerican at heart,NOT LIKELY IN MY LIFETIME,do you obama supporters get it now its more about antiamerican wright/ayers than race.no obama in 08.

BKMC-Where is NAFTA failure? If so then what country is NAFTA the problem? Do you even know what you’re talking about?

Ask Obama why he publicly supported and said he would vote for the NAFTA based trade model the Peru Free Trade Act in 2007? He’ll say it had environmental and labor protections. Why then did major labor, environmental, consumer rights and human rights groups oppose it? He’ll say they weren’t happy with the compliance aspect of it, they didn’t feel it was strong enough. Ask him who had some responsibility for the Compliance piece? Try the Bush administration. Both Obama and Clinton publicly supported this and publicly said they would vote for it. They both conveniently didn’t show up to cast a vote. All you Obama supporters contend Clinton is pro-NAFTA but how do you explain Obama’s support for it? Maybe like you’d explain how after his big anti-war speech his voting right down the line with Clinton on issues pertaining to Iraq, with one exception and his was the pro-Republican vote. How about his vote on the 2005 energy bill, Cheney’s pet project? How about his being OK with credit card interest rates surpassing 30%?

Jackt51-Perhaps you aught to check Obama’s damage control of his damage control of his damage control. Poor grandma. Bad bus.

Not sure what all the fuss is about here. Both Obama and Clinton have proven themselves somewhat disingenuous on NAFTA. McCain got the edge on both of them when he said that he has always supported NAFTA, in Ohio, Texas, and every other state. Fact is, NAFTA has had bad consequences regionally but good consequences overall, as free trade policy usually does. Just ask Al Gore, who made the case for NAFTA in that memorable debate with Ross Perot — remember the “giant sucking sound”?

Herta, you’re totally right. Let it become a slogan in all the incendiary blogs:
DEMOCRATS, WAKE UP!!
STOP THE WAR OF WORDS!!
HILLARY CLINTON AND BARACK OBAMA ARE BOTH DEMOCRATS!!
WITH A SIMILAR AGENDA FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE!!
FOLKS, WE HAVE A COMMON CAUSE!!
LET’S BEAT THE REPUBLICANS THIS YEAR!!

Herta and We Are Dems, your points are valid, but we can have only one Democratic nominee, and its normal for the partisans of one to show their loyalty by attacking the other. Despite the anger you see now, I really don’t believe that come November Obama’s fans will desert the party if Hillary is the nominee, or vice versa. I was concerned, though, about the news that a surprising number of people are considering voting for Nader. Now, that’s stupid.

Shellray:
While the candidate platforms are very closely aligned, the animous I hear over and over is unparalled. It is very personal. The attacks on Hillary are things like, “I hate her,” “Hillary is a liar” etc. The attacks on Obama go more to his loyalty to Rev. Wright, his lack of experience. There is far more evidence to support criticism of Barrack Obama, as memorialized in the video clips of Rev. Wright and a very light political resume, indeed.
I do not see most people putting aside their feelings.

So, Hillary Clinton publicly supported NAFTA, but personally opposed it.
But wait…didn’t she also publicly vote for other legislation as NY Senator that she now says she was happy to see not pass because she did not personally support it?
So, which Hillary Clinton should we go with when deciding who she is: her private words or her public actions?
I’m confused…Would the REAL Hillary Clinton please stand up?

College students do not remember how good life was when the Clintons were in the White House we had a balanced budget,good jobs,gas prices were low. People could afford to go to college. These are the things we all want.Right! The Republican attack machine went after their personal life. He knew how to run this country and so does she. They are for all the people.

Both candidates have expressed both support for and reservations about NAFTA,,(there are more than a few “free trade’ comments and support for NAFTA around),,Actually it worked well for years and was supported by most of the Senate at the time. The problem is that it needs work to minimize the problems of the current trade imbalance and tainted goods problems.
Renegotiation is in order. As a Senator Hillary has been attempting with people like the GOV of Ohio to get Nafta amended.
On the other hand Hillary DID NOT go to Canada to reassure them that NAFTA would stay as is….that was Obama. Or maybe the Canadians are lying. Not.

jackt51, before you go all flip flop on us, you might remember that obama oh so famously claims he was always against the war, but said he didn’t know how he would’ve voted because he didn’t have all the info, etc., so that he could get to give the keynote speech at kerry’s convention (and but for that speech we wouldn’t be burdened with him). he later said he was just saying that to be supportive, etc.
bottom line – he said he was against the war in front of an anti-war group in illinois to get the senate election, then changed his mind to get the keynote speech, then changed it back when running against hillary because now the war’s unpopular nationally. flip, flop, pander, pander, just lies, just lies.

Well I’m glad Gergen cleared this up. Hell it wouldn’t have mattered to me if she was for it back then. She’s not now. Obama is telling Canada that he is just talking it down on the campaign trail and not going to do anything about it. Then he tries to turn it around and say that it was Hillary doing that. Kinda like the Jeremiah Wright thing. If you get caught at a racist church, pass a photo af Bill Clinton shaking his hand so that you don’t look so bad. Like that compares with 20 years of sitting in the pews with your family listening to his bullshit. Hell Oprah left cause she saw the writing on the wall. I think I’d rather have Oprah than Obama. She’s the one who showed actual “judgment”

NAFTA helped Texas and hurt Ohio..So being a politician she attacked NAFTA strongly in Ohio and Avoided it in Texas…But she has run a dirty campaign since South Carolina. I think that the race card which has been used continually by her surrogates is dispicable and disqualifies her from being President. Regardless of NAFTA, if she is the nominee I will vote for RALPH NADER.

Patrick “I will vote for Nader” –
Thanks to that kind of thinking, we had eight years of Bush. Lets try something out. I support Hillary. You, and this is a guess I admit, support Obama. Lets say, in unison, the following: “I will support the Democratic nominee, whomever it is, because I know the country will be better off with any Democrat in the White House than a Republican.”
There. I feel better. You?

When are voters going to understand that EVERY politician, even Obama, is seldom, if ever, 100% for everything 100% of the time in 100% of the places they campaign! They all flip flop, they all accuse the other of flip flopping, and they all tell lies! Obama accuses Clinton of this on Nafta and the war, but he is equally guilty on his public and private stances on Nafta, the war, and his minister. The bottom line still has to be who we believe has the actual experience, judgment, and ability to get things done if they actually get elected. Everyone is entitled to their opinion based on those criteria. The only thing that has changed in my mind is my original opinion of Sen. Obama, I used to at least like him, but now I can’t stand his arrogance, underhandness, and attempts to downplay genuine concerns and evade answering hard questions. We are supposed to just accept what he says as truth, and I know better than to do that with any politician. I’m tired of his campaign getting by with everything, yet his opponents are held to impossible standards. Even when they try to complement him, those comments are twisted. I give up. I think things are pretty set as far as supportfor either candidate goes now, except for those who are not aware of the divisive campaign Sen. Obama has run. Because I don’t like the Republican platform, I would love to vote Democratic. But if Obama is the nominee, I can not in good conscience vote for him because he does not practice what he preaches so to speak. Obama CHANGE seems to be just a slogan created to capture the voters who are so fed up with Bush they will vote for a person with a razor thin national record and questionable background issues. These issues have never been properly brought to light until this past week because most of the media could or would not do their jobs properly. I’m sure this has just scratched the surface of other concerns. Much easier to use the Clinton’s for the bullseye right now, and save Obama’s record for later. Sen. Obama is also not unifying, he is dividing. Even today I read his aide is attacking President Clinton on another supposed remark. Enough of this, if you are not pro Obama, you can’t say anything and people are really getting sick of it!

The problem with NAFTA is the same as anything that has American business support. Thinking short term not long term. Long term, this country will not manufacture a single thing because you can always find cheaper labor in a third world country. What people haven’t considered (including business and politicians) is this – How vulnerable does this make America if something catastrophic happens? What if there is a civil war in China – or another world war – and we have no facilities or people to manufacture here in the US after we’ve farmed out everything? Puts the US in a vulnerable and bad situation. Why do you think EVERY country in the world (besides the US) has trade restrictions and other barriers to trade? Think about that for a minute … why should America open itself up to free trade? One word answer – CEO paychecks! Business is the only benefit long term.

So how does Gergen really feel after lying for her? Senator Clinton’s released schedules have exposed that she was at the November 10, 1993 pro-NAFTA meeting for businesswomen. Surely, she couldn’t just be having tea with those ladies.

I’m an Obama supporter and I really don’t care that much about Hillary’s support of NAFTA 15 years ago. Big deal. Everyone here needs to tone it down a little. YOu’re not helping your candidate, only making him/her look bad by your ravings.

Hillary Clinton lies so much that now she doesn’t even know the meaning of the truth. I don’t think she would know it if it smacked her in the face. Now, a big fat lie means “I mispoke.” This is in reference to the lie she told about ducking bullets in Bosnia. Thank God for Sinbad and video tape, which told the truth. Bill Clinton has taught Hillary well; remember “I did not have sex with that woman.” I’m sure they have their daughter taking notes for her turn at the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty. And for those of you who just don’t seem to get the fact that Hillary does not have any experience being president just because she was married to Bill while he was president, think about this quote from Mike Huckabee in an interview. “Hillary saying that she has experience being president just because she lived in the white house with Bill while he was president is like me saying that I have experience in childbirth just because I was in the room with my wife when she gave birth to our children.”