Hillary Clinton’s NAFTA Sincerity Problem

I made a desastrous typo in my post below. It should read:
“I am NOT making this up to hit Hillary.”
And that is true. I’ve been concerned about such secretive religious/political networks under the surface of ‘democratic’ policy making all my life, and “The Family” is a creepy and powerful network I don’t want a President of our country to be connected to.

Many millions of jobs that have been harbored safely within the borders of the U.S. as an active part of the U.S. economy have been moved to distant locations outside the U.S. where labor costs are significantly reduced. The outsourcing of U.S. jobs, often referred to as “offshoring”, while not new, has become quite prolific since the advent of NAFTA by the Clinton Admini- stration. The immediate reaction was that hundreds of manufacturing plants were closed and relocated outside the States. Champions of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization rationalized that low-skilled and low-paying manufacturing jobs would be replaced with higher paying jobs in high-tech and service sectors. Corporate momentum is such that outsourcing has gained wholesale acceptance by companies across-the-board seeking lower costs and higher profits. Job outsourcing has moved up the corporate ladder of hierarchy from telemarketing jobs to highly-skilled and managerial positions. Multinational Corporate America has been relocating the very jobs that NAFTA and the WTO announced would replace low-paying manufacturing jobs. The newest wave of job outsourcing is being exercised in accounting and financial services, computer and IT services along with telecommunications.
Mexico was a huge testing field for NAFTA and corporate internal structuring. For a time, Multinational Corporate America sustained many manufacturing plants in Mexico within reach of the U.S. border. When the labor costs and the professional level of the Mexican worker began to increase, most of the plants were quickly abandoned for other less expensive provisions overseas. The corporate taste for labor manipulation was fully birthed.
Multiple times, Congressional measures have been considered to restrain the federal government from granting contracts to companies to send work overseas. The Bush Administration has consistently opposed the legislation. The administration has continually supported tax incentives to outsource jobs overseas. Unprecedented levels of sensitive personal information are being shipped overseas where privacy protections are not in place. The federal government has made efforts to undermine state laws by convincing state governors to accept new rules for trade agreements, working to promote the use of funding that employs outsourced workers overseas.
While it is safe to say that these multinationals have heavily funded the Bush campaigns, the same support was obviously in place when the trade agreements were pressed into service by the Clinton Administration. The role of money in politics often appears to be very subtle. General Electric, Deloitte Touche, IBM, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Texas Instruments, SBC and Verizon are among the top exporters of U.S. jobs since 2000. There is speculation and analysis, but almost no solid information of the number of U.S. jobs that have been outsourced. Ernst & Young sends tax preparation work to India. Aetna has medical records reviewed in India. Deloitte sends government work to India and commonly brings Indian workers from overseas to perform government work. The large organizations that support a multinational workforce have resisted disclosure of any information that might work against their corporate benefit. The government has worked as a partner to stem public scrutiny of job outsourcing with no federal reporting requirements for outsourced jobs. Multinational corporate America is fearful over a public backlash of opinion that would prevent them from exercising complete autonomy over their corporate workforces.
Increasing numbers in the United States labor force compete with developing third-world countries. The U.S. government continues to subcontract work to private contractors that often outsource with an overseas affiliate or subcontractor. Corporations like Deloitte Touche, have increasingly been sending IT and managerial jobs overseas. It is not uncommon for Deloitte, a major governmental finance and accounting firm, to bring foreign workers into the country to educate them while maintaining control of all aspects of worker’s lives, a form of indentured servitude. Work visas are commonly employed to bring foreign workers to work in the States for reduced wages. The action is considered as harmless and justifiable because of the number of multinational offices held by many players of Corporate America.
The effect of job globalization is the suppression of wages in the United States. 57% of reemployed displaced workers earned less in new jobs than in the jobs that were lost from outsourcing. 34% of those displaced workers saw earnings reductions of more than 20%. Brookings Institute recommends that outsourced reemployed workers recover 47 cents of every dollar that they used to earn.
Perhaps the ultimate expression of capitalism results in the export of jobs to lowest-cost countries to enable what used to be “American companies”, now multinational corporations that have the sole goal of maximizing their corporate profits. The ultimate political expression has evolved to a sector of the world that is, in effect, ruled by multinational corporations

This is important information and great investigative
reporting. I hope it gains traction and gets reported on the evening news reports.

Also, “NAFTA Sincerity Problem” is an extremely gracious headline.
She flat-out lied. Either then, or now.

HILLARY CLINTON SHE’S NOT HONEST LIAR DESTROYING THE PARTY SHAME ON HER

Sarah,
Have you ever heard of the word integrity? I do not think Senator Obama was the person to coin that idea. Changing ones position for political expediency is not the type of person I want representing me or my country. Being able to stand up for the principles I support are important to me no matter what the political climate. Are you justifying Senator Clintons mendacity?

Atleast Hillary made her schedules available for all of us to see. She has never claimed that she did the job of the president of United States. She never claimed that she did the work of the Health secretary or the Education secretary. What she claims is that she was involved, she participated and sometimes influenced. That would be my understanding. Atleast she saved her paper trail. Obama on the other hand had destroyed his paper trail. He hides behind smoke screens — even in the purchase of his home. We need to pick one or the other and I prefer Hillary.

Hillary’s schedule confirms that she has plenty of experience as chief meeter and greeter.. Tell her I got a blue Walmart vest for her.
She is a phony.. Her schedule proves it. The people that supported her got duped. You guys deserve the government you get.. These same low info voters gave us eight years of Bush.

If you want to talk about a candidate changing their mind (or doing one thing and saying another) why don’t we examine Obama? He changed his mind (or at least his public position vs. his private one)on NAFTA within days of speaking out against it not, as in Clinton’s case, after 15 years. Obama said one thing on Friday, 3/14 about hearing Rev. Wright’s inflammatory sermons and then said another on Tuesday, 3/18. Obama says he doesn’t take corporate money, but the record shows he has received more money from Big Pharma than any other candidate, not to mention huge donations from Coal and Nuclear Energy Industries and financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs. If we’re going to bring it out….. let’s bring out, let’s bring it out for all candidates.

Tapper, come on. The reason she was puching for NAFTA in 1993 was because the Administration, of which her husband was the President, was moving forward with the NAFTA deal GHWB negotiated in his last months of office. It was an attempt by the Clinton Administration to “reach across the aisle”. You know, the same aisle that Obama says only he can reach across. Point is, as first lady, your public comments are to reflect the stance of your husband, the president. She was representing him then, she is representing herself now. She wants to re-do NAFTA,which is a good idea. I don’t remeber NAFTA being such a big problem when 22Million jobs were being created and the American middle class was expanding at unprecedented levels. Those awful, awful Clintons. How dare they govern this nation competently.

Can anyone ever forget how Obama threw his own grandmother under the bus just so he could protect Wright. How justifiable is that? Next he will sell our nation so Africa can have its freedom!! I will rather have Hillary for President than Obama!

“She was for it before she was against it” seems to be the Clinton line on just about everything — NAFTA, the war, and the MI/FL primary penalties. Only now she’s trying to tell us that on NAFTA, she was against it before she was for it before she was against it again? Please stop, Sen Clinton, you’re making me dizzy. And a little nauseated.

Hillary is a two-face, double-talking…do whatever it takes, say whatever it takes to win. How can anyone trust this woman? Then you get her fanning the lie that Obama reached out to the Canadians to disregard his comments about NAFTA…knowing full well it was her campaign that actually did the reaching out. THIS WOMAN IS A LIAR!!! I cannot stand her style of politics at all. If she wins the nominations, I’m going for McCain and hopefully Condi Rice…now there’s a woman who deserves to be POTUS one day.

Clinton was first lady, she did not have to actively promote NAFTA if she did not want to and no one would have cared. No, Clinton believed NAFTA was a good thing in 1993 (which is fine, I support NAFTA, still do), but she totally hoodwinked millions of people and is now tryig to work her way out of her lies. This woman has absolutely no integrity – no wonder a majority of the population believe she is dishonest and untrustworthy!

Voter-
Don’t be so naive to think Hillary really cares about Michigan and Florida. If she did, she would have objected to the DNC stripping their delegates before the primaries began. But she didn’t think she’d need them, so she agreed to the rules. NOW that she’s losing and is desperate, she’s acting like the voters are being disenfrancised. She’s so full of it. How is it that you can’t see that?

Keith-
You’re not doing your homework. As early as 2004 and in 2006 Hillary made speeches praising outsourcing and said it would continue, despite cries that outsourcing was hurting the American people. Also, this woman and her husband have stocks in companies like Tata Consultations…which means everytime jobs get sent overseas, Hillary and Bill are making money. What kind of a president would justify getting rich from americans losing their jobs? DO YOU HOMEWORK…the Clintons are all about money and power and will do anything and say anything to get it.

Listen to the OH debates. She’s not the liar. Obama lied to the Ohioans and continues to lie to the American people (I didn’t hear any controversial sermons). Get rid of this guy already. ENOUGH LIES!!! And, while you’re at it, disclose YOUR Senate documents of 8 years, like you insisted Hillary do. Hypocrit and Liar!

The question I have is “Was NAFTA a net plus or net negative” for the U.S?
Ever since Obama secretly met with the Canadian government to declare his true stance on NAFTA while condemning it in public, the media has been hard at work trying to find fault with HRC position on NAFTA.
Let’s focus on the verasity of Obama on Rev. Wright. He categoically stated that he was unaware of Wright’s hateful sermons a few days earlier, then he acknowledged having heard the sermons all along in the pew with his wife and children. That’s a BIG LIE.
The sermons explain why Michelle Obama said all those things about America. Just curious about their children opinion of America. I bet it won’t be good.
He stated that he only did 5 hours of work with a church that dealt with Rezko, turns out, Rezko created Obama and bankrolled him as a candidate. Take a look at the video the day he declared his candidacy, you see that Rezko was featured prominently right behind Obama.

Somebody tell me,
WAS NAFTA A NET PLUS OR NET MINUS FOR THE U.S?

This means that Hillary pulled a fast one over the people of OHIO. She only began distancing herself from NAFTA when she started running from President. It is amazing to me how people just don’t get it that she is sneaky.

Leon Panetta USED to be an honorable Man…till he LIED for Clinton!

Brenna ….atleast Hillary had papers to release. Obama destroyed them. All he has left is words!

Every trade agreement has been re-evaluated year by year by US government and congress to see if it fits the best interest of America…
NAFTA was good to America in 1993 since it was passed by congress… NAFTA was good to US in 2000 so no one questioned about it.. Now, no one is sure NAFTA is still good to US or not, it is under debate…
If president or government does not re-consider their all ecomonic policies to fit the current world situation, how America can move forward with its best interests…
NAFTA is just one of hundreds of trade agreements, there is no wrong/right doing…
The time and world economy change, new trade agreements may be needed… So just be it…
The most important issue is that what was the best in 1993 and what will be the best in 2008….
Does anyone think all the policies passed 20, 30, 40 years ago are still good in 2008…. Don’t be nonesense…

win,
I’M SORRY I FORGOT TO QUOTE WHAT OBAMA SAID ABOUT HILLARY. QUOTE:
“Hillary is more electable, In some ways this, this controversy has actually shaken me up a little bit and gotten me back into remembering that the odds of me getting elected have always been lower than some of the other conventional candidates.”
Throughout the interview, he refers to Hillary as a conventional candidate.
NOW IS THIS TO HARD FOR YOU TO COMPREHEND?

FINALLY someone is going to question Clinton on her differing accounts of things that are different now that she is running for President! Her stance on the war has changed suddenly, her stand on the voters in FL and MI changed suddenly and now her NAFTA involvment has been shown to have been a lie all along. FINALLY the voters get a chance to see who she really is…that is for those who seem to not remember when the Clintons were in the WH and made a mockery out of it!

sTACY,
i NEVER SAID THAT HILLARY DIDN’T ATTACK OBAMA. I SAID THAT: Once again the Obama campaign is demonstrating that Obama’s words can’t be trusted. Last year, Obama said that he would not engage in personal attacks & of course he is. Hillary never promised not to attack Obama. That is how politics are played…

Thank you for finally reporting on this.
What are Hillary’s real positions on anything?
1) She said she was always against NAFTA. Now she’s caught lying.
2) She said she helped write SCHIP. The senators who wrote this and helped it pass the senate, have said Hillary had nothing to do with it. They said Hillary tried to stop them because she was worried about other priorities.
3) Hillary said she race off the tarmac in Bosnia because bullets were flying. Military personnel who were there said that was a lie.
4) Hillary is very concerned about Michigan and Florida votes. In October, she was interviewed and said she did not care about their votes. They broke the rules, so they can not count.
5) Hillary says Washington must be more transparent. She said she would release her “earmark” requests. She was able to secure over $300 million for NY. This doesn’t include all the requests that were turned down.
We’re still waiting for her to release these records and be more transparent like she says is good for America.
Hillary, can you please pick a position and stick to it?

Mari-
Then shouldn’t you be praising Obama? But as for trusting…Hillary is the two-face, double-talk candidate…she has perfected that style of politics also. She is the one that said we should punish MI and FL for violating the DNC rules, now desperately she is saying we need to count them. She first said she supported NAFTA and it would be good for the economy, now she is saying she never supported it. She first said we ought to go to war in Iraq, now she is saying…”if I new then what I know now…” TALK ABOUT WHO CAN YOU TRUST! Mari, you don’t really have standing in critizing Obama about trust.

This is Hillary Clinton: Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky and impeachment, renting out the Lincoln bedroom, the loss of the Rose Law Firm billing records for nearly 2 years until they were miraculously found in the White House living quarters, removing files from Vince Foster’s office following his suicide and before investigators could get there. Her stalling to release her full tax returns and earmark requests from her time in the Senate, as well as her Clinton library donors. Her apology to the black community (for her friend and supporters racist comments) which came days too late. Her decline to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record (federal campaign records show). Lets not forget her campaign eventually returned some $850,000 to Hong Kong businessman Norman Hsu who was found to be a fugitive in a 15-year old theft case. He was indicted for fraud related to his campaign contributions in 2007. Her flip flop on Florida and Michigan counting. Her flip flop on Iraq. Her flip flop on NAFTA. Her suggestion that superdelegates choose against the will of the people (this kind of leadership found support in the notion of “false consciousness” that originated in the philosophical writings of Marx and Engels).

Mari, also of note. Senator Obama has never been the first lady so his “archives” are a non-issue. Nor did he claim that his “experience” in the White House better prepared him for the office of the President.
Let’s not forget that unlike McCain and Obama, Hillary has yet to release her tax documents.
Given your degree of intelligence I can’t believe you folks are supporting her.

What is wrong,Mr Obama needs to answer questions about how he feels about our country and the statements Rev. Wright made, he also can re-explain the statement his wife made about the first time in here history she is proud of this country. You people need to check out what she wrote about Black Separatist by Michelle Obama, and remember these two people sat in this church for 20 years and never question what was being said, and taught this garbage to their daughters.How can anyone say they don’t think Obama agrees with Rev. Wright but think about all the people involved in his life including his wife and Rezko Wake Up America.

Fox News has been with the whole story of Rev. Wright since last year & the Church sells the DVD’s of there sermons. Don’t blame this on hillary.
Obama is associated with ANTI-AMERICANS
All in all, Americans think your choice in friends says a lot about you: Almost 7 of 10 say they think the people you choose to be your friends reflect on you and your values. And 39 percent say your friends reflect on you “a lot.”
Rev. Wright was Obama’s pastor and spiritual advisor for many years, and performed Obama’s wedding ceremony in 1992.
Hillary has nothing to hide of all forms that where released yesterday. She is running for President so it’s -ok-. to release. But remember that Obama is also running for President and he needs to release what he did as a Senate because he is claiming that he does have experience or so as much as Hillary does. Which we all know that is not true.

Lauren-
I’m willing to bet that your parents have said racist things in the past, given they’re probably in the generation where there was a lot of racial tension and injustice. Now, would you disown them because of it? Now, you’re upset because Obama would do or say anything for political gain. For political gain he would have disowned Pastor Wright. He didn’t do that and that makes you upset? What is your arguement exactly? You’re contradicting yourself.

You can’t really say Gergen lied, but he is engaging in some pretty fine parsing.
Gergen didn’t say he witnessed HIllary ever actually opposing the provisions of NAFTA, but that she “didn’t see why her husband and the White House had to go and do that fight.”
Both Gergen and Panetta are smart cookies.

JJR-
Because those in attandence, who have no political agenda have stated that Hillary was lobbying for support of it. Hillary then went on to write in her book that it was a victory for the Clinton Administration…taking credit for it. So, don’t be so quick to dismiss her proud comments about NAFTA. In 2004 and 2006 she again takes credit for job outsourcing…assuring the Indian Caucus that “outsourcing will continue because you cannot legislate against reality. I can run for the Senate of Punjab and win!” Her proud statements on Nafta and Outsourcing. So don’t be so quick to say this is just RNC spin or OBAMA supporters spin. These are her words, and only when she had to go into Ohio and Pennsylvania, did she start distancing herself from NAFTA. Luaren, if you’re reading, this is what you call saying anything for political gain. You’re angry and accuse Obama of doing it…but, why is it okay when Hillary does it?

Sandy, because we know the difference between media propoganda and truth. It starts with a reality check. Rev. Wright is not a racist by any stretch of the imagination. Is he pissed with the US government? Absolutely. So are most Americans. Unfortunately, his past has left him scarred by the very real relationship between the Klan and the state governments in the south in the 20th century. Keep in mind the U.S. government set idle for over 60 years watching these atrocities before intervening. Now, fastforward to today.
Senator Obama is in a church that has done more to empower African Americans in that community than anything any politician has ever done. Suddenly, a young man that starts out as a lawyer begins community service away from the church and suddenly becomes recognized by the community and ultimately statewide. He has NEVER done anything in his years in IL that would ever indicate a racial bias and NEITHER has Rev. Wright.
Suddenly, a spirited sermon to a congregation that understood the context gets distributed across the nation in soundbites. Senator Obama isn’t even in the building. However, in the twisted context of 3 minute soundbites, or lack thereof people have chosen to judge a man’s entire life and career when clearly nothing else indicates he is racist or anti-American.
I fought in a war for this country and don’t wear an American flag nor do I cover my heart when I hear the national anthem. I still love this country and have done something most of you haven’t which is volunteer to put my life on the line to protect it’s interests and freedoms. Partiotism is a weak Republican argument that means very little in the grand scheme of things. Does wearing a pin make a coward a patriot? Do declarations of patriotism make one a patriot? I think not. It’s the contributions to this great country that demonstrate patriotism and I challenge you to look at this turn of events and tell me where his patriotism has wavered.
Lastly, Michelle Obama shared the sentiments of many African Americans when she said for the first time in her ADULT life she is proud of her country. Since I grew up in the south I can totally relate to her sentiments. If you can’t you probably should ask her why she feels that way before you assume your experiences appropriately qualify you to pass judgment.
How many men would put up with the death threats and character assassination that he and his family have been subjected to simply because he wants us as a nation to do better? He’s seen both sides of the racial divide and he is sickened by it.

Dear Jake,
Thank God ! foe journalists like you that we might say that the press is still a bit Free and fair.
Pls keep up your good work and let people know the truth.

Ktow, all I remember on this is Hillary saying she was against it but like the war in Iraq I guess yes, means no. Hillary is allergic to the truth.

Remember Hillary was against NAFTA from the very beginning.
During Clinton’s Presidency, Hillary read the provisions to NAFTA and had express strong reservations. She thought jobs would be lost in the United States.
Hillary supported it in behalf of President Clinton.
Congress voiced strong support for NAFTA.
If President Clinton would had vetoed the bill; it would have been over-ridden.
It was the only successful bipartisan bill pass in the Clinton Administration.

Well,
To all of you who claim that the Obamas, and by extention, the overwhelming majority of Black Americans and any other Americans who do not define Patriotism as blind allegiance to whatever foolish policy some poorly selected temporary leader is selling to maintain his position of power as sold to you by the FOX NEWS NETWORK, we have enough courage to define our own patriotism and to bleieve our counrty can be greater not just as great as you all say it is.

Marianne’s post on offshoring is well taken. Hillary has championed jobs outsourcing: NAFTA caused thousands of factory jobs out of the country, and left our rust belt looking like the great depression. But NAFTA was only the beginning. The problem now is outsourcing technical jobs. Nine out of ten new I.T. positions are being filled by Indian Nationals and it is now expanding to engineers. TATA Consultancy Services is a large contracting staffing company in India. They set up some 50 offices in the U.S. Employers send job orders to TATA, and they hire employees on a temp basis (think Kelly girl) to fill those jobs, often with no benefits. The problem is, they hire the employee in India to do the job, or they hire the employee in India and transfer that employee to the U.S. using L-1 visas which have no caps and are unregulated. They can pay them sub-standard wages. Hillary Clinton has promoted TATA here in the U.S. and is proud to be called ‘Senator of Punjab’. There are several articles about her support for TATA and outsourcing. Google Clinton and Outsourcing.

Hillary has not campaigned negatively. The Obama campaign has tried to smear everything she has said as negative.
She started out with very high approval ratings in the Democratic party. They have tried to smear the Clintons with being racist, when one of her top Aides and Advisors is an African-American woman. They have said “She will say anything” so know when she raises any legitimate questions about his experience or qualifications at this time, they accuse her of being negative.
She is put in a place where she will be accused of being negative if she raises any questions or issues, other than praise. It’s ridiculous.
Even the 3 am ad was just to get people to think. Obama said it was fear mongering, and then within hours, ran the same exact ad, for himself. If people looked at both ads, and decided they thought Hillary was truly more qualified, then that is more than fair.

Doug-
YES! Thank goodness someone else is now talking about Outsourcing!!!! Everyone needs to research Hillary’s support for this! her words… “Outsorcing will continue because we cannot legistlate against reality. I can run for the Senate of Punjab and win!” Obviously taking pride in her position on Outsourcing…and most importantly, TAKING CREDIT!

IrishJim,
I too have fully researched the issues. And, I just referred to Obama as being akin to Karl Rove yesterday because he is so manipulative. I am not misrepresenting any issues. Check out the Texas debate and I challenge you to refute my assessment that he didn’t change his position on negotiations with Cuba. Don’t be a hypocrite – didn’t you say you would campaign against Hillary? Clearly YOU don’t care about the Democratic party.

IRISHJIM,
STOP LIEYING ABOUT HILLARY. SHE WAS THERE 15 MINUTES & NEVER VOTED OR PUSHED FOR NAFTA. REMEMBER SHE WASN’T THE PRESIDENT BUT THE FIRST LADY. ALSO, WE KNOW WHERE SHE STANDS AS OF RIGHT NOW WITH NAFTA. WE ALSO KNOW WHERE OBAMA STANDS WHICH IS HE IS NOT GOING TO DO NOTHING SINCE THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A MEETING WITH CANADA PROMISING OF NO REJECTION. OUR ECONOMY WAS GOOD IN THE CLINTONS YEARS WHICH IS WHAT WE NEED AT THIS TIME. SOMEONE THAT KNOWS HOW THE WHITE HOUSE IS RUN

For the Clinton supporters who are having a difficult time reading: “And as the AP reports today, the recently released 11,000-plus pages of her First Lady “schedules show her holding at least five meetings in 1993 aimed at helping to win congressional approval of the deal.”
Why would one hold five meetings to lobby for NAFTA support if you were in fact always against it? Like the article states – there is a sincerity problem with the Clinton candidacy.
I see AD Hominen attacks and Red Herring attacks and mendacity being displayed by the Clinton supporters. It is pathetic and detrimental to Democrats.

That was then. This is now! What’s so hard to understand?

She changed her mind! Woman’s perogative.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBAMA 08
I HOPE PEOPLE OF REST OF THE STATES GOING TO PRIMARIES, WAKE UP. and stop this wolf in sheep’s clothing.
otherwise i am sure we will have republican president for next 4 years.
NOBAMA ‘ 08

JJR,
In response to your sarcastic mendacity statement, I was being polite in not calling Clinton and her supporters liars. Do you care to expand some more on evidence of the vast AP conspiracy to make up meetings in support of NAFTA being held by Clinton? BWHHAAAAAWAHHHH!!!!!

Lauren,
You are either severely uninformed or intentionally deceitful. To claim that the Clintons have not run a negative campaign is a joke. As for David Gergen, who cares what he says? Jake Tapper is right. Hillary publicly and privately pushed for NAFTA. Her schedules and the witnesses at these meetings make this clear. Hillary’s “shame on you Barack Obama” rant in Ohio is now a complete embarassment.

The sad fact is that she’s always supported NAFTA, period. Hillary is part of the breed of politicians that Americans once derisively referred to as a mugwump.
She mugs to the Democrats, but her wump is firmly planted in Republican territory.
Honestly, I don’t know which would hurt Hillary’s supporters more:
… seeing her lose to Obama, after spending months running for the issues she claims to support…
OR
… seeing her lose to McCain, after spending several more months RUNNING AWAY from the issues she claims to support.

What about Obama’s public support and committment to voting yes on the NAFTA-based model the Peru Free Trade Act in
2007. Most major labor, consumer protection, environment and human rights group opposed it. Obama would tell you that the Act had labor and environmental protections built in. As Edwards pointed out to Obama, in the last debate he was in, that enforcement of the compliance aspect of the Act would be left up to the Bush administration, and was Obama trusting Bush to enforce it? Both Obama and Clinton publicly supported this Act and said they would vote for it and then last Fall neither bothered to show up and vote on it. Obama people, quit the pipedreams. Your candidate is not who you think he is, so take the time to really look past the speeches and look at his record or lack of. Like attacking Clinton on her Kyle-Lieberman
vote but he couldn’t get his sanctimoneous butt into D.C. to even vote on it. If you look at that record it’s just like all his “present” votes,
he puts himself in a position where he can attack his opponents by making sure he doesn’t have a record they can attack. Talk about spineless.

“You should ask David Gergen.
He was actually there for these meetings, and he is on record that Hillary was not sold on NAFTA.”
Then release the meeting record and minutes!
David Gergan was Clinton’s speech writter. Is it a conflict of interest?

Even if we accept that HRC did not agree with NAFTA, which is her campaign’s position, I still don’t understand why she would travel the country promoting it. If she had a philosphical difference with something her husband was trying to do, she shouldn’t have taken an active role in getting it passed. If it was, in fact, something that she thought would harm America, it scares me that she would nevertheless do this. Was she thinking, “this will really screw over a lot of Americans, but it’s good for my husband’s political career, so I’ll pretend like it’s a good thing”? Anyway, because Bill was her husband of well over 20 years at the time, we all know that she must have possessed his views, and if she didn’t possess his views, she should have done something, right? I mean isn’t that the lesson of Rev. Wright?

HOW CAN WE LET OBAMA GET AWAY WITH THIS!
Obama discussed the racial views of his white grandmother Tuesday, a topic he revisited Thursday in an interview with 610 WIP, Philadelphia Sports Radio. In the interview, Obama denied his grandmother held racial prejudices and described her as a “typical white person.”
“The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity — she doesn’t,” he said. “But she is a typical white person who, you know, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know there is a reaction. That has been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way.”
But Obama described his grandmother Tuesday as a woman who was at times fearful of black men.
“I can no more disown (Wright) than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe,” he said.
WHY DOES HE CONTINUE TO LIE? EVERYTHING IS CATCHING UP TO HIM & OF ALL THINGS HE COMPARED HIS WHITE GRANDMOTHER TO A ANTI-AMERICAN REV. WRIGHT.
WAKE UP PEOPLE. LISTEN TO FOX NEWS WHERE THEY GIVE THE TRUTH & ARE FAIR WITH BALANCE. THEY LET US MAKE THE DECISION WHILE THEY REPORT IT.

DAVE,
BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HUSBAND & THE REV. WRIGHT. DO YOU HONESTLY WANT US TO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED HER TO DIVORCE HIM BECAUSE OF WHAT SHE DIDN’T OR DID BELIEVE IN OF NAFTA. I DON’T THINK SO. MR. OBAMA IS MARRIED WITH A WIFE THAT HAS EXPRESSED HER COMMENTS OF HOW SHE FELT ABOUT AMERICA AND WE DON’T EXPECT HIM TO DIVORCE HER. LETS GET ONE THING STRAIGHT, HE IS CHOOSING TO HAVE AS A FAMILY MEMBER REV. WRIGHT WHICH IS CONSIDERED AS ANTI-AMERICAN. PLEASE DON’T TALK ABOUT HILLARY’S JUDGEMENT BECAUSE OBAMA’S IS PRETTY AWFUL & HE IS DISHONEST.

FactCheck 2,
Please point out an example of how Obama’s relationship with Rezko violated the public trust in any way. That’s the big gaping hole in the story which is why no one is covering it. Also, Obama cleared the air on this issue with the Tribune and the Sun-Times (as the Tribune itself stated) a week ago. Keep chasing those rainbows though…

This is the first time I’ve heard a Democrat refer to FoxNews as fair and impartial.
Wow, you really are uninformed.

Hillary secrets ahve finally been uncovered. Let’s see if the media will play this for 7 days like they have the Rev.Wright video! Hillary is a Lair, that simple!

Clinton fans….continue to deny your candidate is a liar. Your spin will not work…all you’ve done is cost the Democratic Party the General Election in November. Senator Clinton should have withdrawn months ago.
fake clinton if clinton is the nomenie me and my whole family from my father to my cousins will vote for mccain.thief

Obama lied to us. His judgement is not the judgement for a President of the United States of America. My goodness people Senator Obama should be a preacher like his friend or a professor!! Or else go back to being a crooked lawyer. On my Grandfathers World War II grave I will not vote for him. We love America. We don’t God Damn America.

to Sarah: Good point, but Hillary didn’t admit that she changes her mind. On the contrary, she claims to be right since “day one” on any issue. (probably since her day of birth) Her weakness is her pride.
Obama quite often commits faults and errors, and thats one of his strengths. Hillary wants to show consistency. Well to me she just acts consistently selfish.

Depends what your definition of ‘sincere’ is.

Let’s put this is context shall we. Ms. Clinton was a political WIFE. The Presidents wife. All last week you were asking how could Mrs. Spitzer and the other wives stand by and be humiliated like that. Well guess what, It’s part of the power wife job.
In addition, at the time people were harping at her all the time, she’s doing to much, she’s pushy, etc. She wanted her heath care. She’s a very good, stand by her man wife, and an excellent cross the isle politician.
So she says her piece in private, like a good little wife, loses the battle, puts on her best smile and sells it like she has to. What did you expect her to do. You are judging her past here like she had real power, and then last week she is being belittled for saying she did anything when all she did was have wife teas. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.
She did her job. Sometimes you don’t get it your way, you have to compromise, you have to be a wife and sell the women. That was her job at the time. It does not take away from what she may or may not have said to policy people behind closed doors.
She wanted Health Care, remember. If helping pass what was going to happen anway, that’s just what a political wifey does. If she hadn’t you all would have attacked her for that.
Today, of all days you will say these things without even looking at the position she was in? What’s the major story running today on those papers at CNN? I’ll tell you…that Bill was downstairs gettin busy while she was there upstairs. How friggin fair is that? This role today is a different role than then. She has feelings though. Jeez you people are heartless!!!!!!!!

Ohhhhh I’m just so mad at these comments and that article. Say what you will about her, she takes it all. She says she helped to bring peace in Ireland and you say, well she was just the little women having teas, These damn teas and other “woman jobs” make a difference in our politics and our history. Just because a wifes efforts and her name doesn’t get listed in the history books doesn’t mean mean there haven’t been a vast number of presidents wives who didn’t affect policy.

AS IS OFTEN TRUE OF OBAMA, HE’S SPOKEN BOTH FOR AND, AT A DIFFERENT TIME, AGAINST NEARLY EVERY BILL OR ISSUE THAT HE ACCUSES CLINTON OF HAVING BEEN MISTAKEN ABOUT. THIS IS TRUE OF NAFTA
BOTH OBAMA & CLINTON HAVE PRAISED NAFTA AT SOME POINT, & IF I’M NOT MISTAKEN, OBAMA VOTED FOR & SUPPORTED AN EXTENSION OF NAFTA FOR PUERTO RICO, SO HIS ACCUSATIONS AGAINST CLINTON ARE HYPOCRITICAL. HILLARY’S STANCE RE NAFTA: BIOGRAPHERS CONFIRM THAT SHE SPOKE AGAINST IT TO BILL REPEATEDLY WHILE IT WAS BEING CONSIDERED. AS FIRST LADY SHE NATURALLY HAD TO SUPPORT BILL’S DECISION PUBLICLY.
AND ACTUALLY FOR SOME U.S. STATES NAFTA HAS ACHIEVED THE INTENDED GOOD RESULTS. FOR OTHER STATES IT BACKFIRED & NEEDS TO BE RENEGOTIATED.

Say what you want about NAFTA and Hillary’s stances on it now, and in the 1990s. She just can’t admit she is ever, or was ever for that matter, wrong about anything. Regardless of your personal stance on the Iraq War, Hillary can’t admit she made a mistake when supporting it even though she now blatantly opposes this War which she initially supported. Her views seem to change like the wind blows, or more precisely when the polls come in. She can’t even say that she was wrong when she changes her opinion. In my opinion she doesn’t have many real convictions, but changes the majority of them when convenient so she can obtain political office.

Oh Yeah……..
Hillary also secretly opposed Bush’s war with Iraq while she dotted her I’s and crossed the T’s ?

well I believe the media play a big role in this campaigns , the media didn’t focus on the main issues , Clinton made it clear she supported NAFTA and she attended many meeting to push the deal a head
so why she change her mind
to gain political achievement even if she have to lie
why she didn’t ell the truth

Personally, I am ignoring what “relevance” any of the U.S networks are spewing out on any of the candidates. I follow the BBC and Foriegn coverage. I am basing my vote on real smart concrete options. 1) Hilary is a Clinton and she didn’t throw bill out when he used the oval office for his own pleasure. Granted I as a christian forgive bill for the act ; but in the oval office ? Next comes Mcclain, while I think he has the right credentials as far as military, his age and some of his physical problems could become a problem, so for me to accept him – he would have to have a GREAT VP and if he chose Huckabee then I could per chance accept him. This leaves Obama – maybe he isnt the best and we do know that none of the three candidates has been Presiident so they all are first timers. But Obama is younger and could get the appropriate people in place so that we could finally have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. so while yes my vote is under my choice and may not be the best advised but isnt that why America was formed ????

Hillary doesn’t seem to realize that we are not all fools and some of us do remember what the Clintons were up to back then. She not only supported and promoted NAFTA, she dropped the health care program she was working on to do so. I am so tired of the media covering statements that Obama made that were innocent and being blown out of proportion. I knew it was coming though. The media witch-hunt of Obama before another state votes. Funny how real problems like Hillary flat out lies about Bosnia, her husbands dealing with Columbia and her lies about Nafta have taken a back seat once again. Happens every time!