Daily Kos

Now He's Lying About NAFTA

Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:24:51 PM PDT

It’s one thing when someone’s repeating things that he may or may not know is inaccurate when it comes to Hillary’s record on NAFTA.  I refrained from posting on all this before because I gave Senator Obama the benefit of the doubt - maybe he just didn’t know he’d gotten it wrong.

But folks have been pointing out the error if his ways for a week or more now and he’s still making false claims about Hillary’s record – in fact he did it again today.  It’s no longer a mis-read or a mistake – now he’s just flat out lying and I’m calling bullshit on his lies.

This isn’t change we can rely on – it’s more of the same bullshit and Chicago smack-down politics.

Make the jump – there’s more...

As I’ve pointed out on many occasions, states in the rust belt are hurting. Plants are shutting down and folks are out of work in Michigan and Ohio, so BO knows NAFTA’a a hot button issue back in the Midwest.  He’s using fear and lies to turn voters against Hillary in his stump speeches, and in flyers that he’s sending to their homes.   From today’s Washington Post...

CINCINNATI -- Hillary Rodham Clinton angrily accused her Democratic rival Saturday of deliberately misrepresenting her positions on NAFTA and health care in mass mailings to voters, adding, "Shame on you, Barack Obama."

Clutching two of Obama campaign mailings in her hand for emphasis, the former first lady said, "enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove's playbook."

She said by his actions, Obama was giving "aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican Party who are against doing what we want to do for America."

"Meet me in Ohio," she said. "Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign." The two are scheduled to debate Tuesday in Cleveland.

In her criticism of Obama, she asked, "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?"

(For those who may have missed it, loads of people have called BO out on stopping short of truly universal health carehere here, here, and here.  Ok back to the Washington Post article...)

The second mailing, on the North American Free Trade Agreement, quotes a 2006 Newsday article suggesting Clinton believed the agreement had been a "boon" to the economy. NAFTA and other trade agreements are extremely unpopular in Ohio, which has suffered an exodus of blue-collar jobs to other countries in part due to such agreements.

"I am fighting to change NAFTA," she insisted. "Neither of us were in the Senate when NAFTA passed. Neither voted one way or the other."

Clinton said Newsday had corrected the record about her views on the agreement. Indeed, the paper published a blog item earlier this month saying Obama's use of the word "boon" was unfair.

"Obama's use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading," the paper said. "The quote marks make it look as if Hillary said "boon," not us. It's an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office."

From ABC’s Jake Tapper...

In the fierce fight for votes here in Ohio, where NAFTA is not popular among many blue collar Democrats, Obama has repeatedly attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for the trade deal pushed by President Bill Clinton and passed in Congress in November 1993.

"Yesterday [Saturday], [Clinton] said NAFTA was 'negotiated' by the first President Bush, not by her husband," Obama said today. "But let's be clear: It was her husband who got NAFTA passed. In her own book, Sen. Clinton called NAFTA one of Bill's successes."

Obama also relayed to the small crowd at the National Gypsum plant a number of quotes from Clinton he said indicated she had praised the trade agreement -- including one from 2004, when she allegedly said, "I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America."

Said Obama, "One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have."

Hillary’s team hit back with the following in an effort to set the record straight.  Take a look...

Obama Continues To Mislead on Hillary and NAFTA
2/24/2008 1:54:42 PM

"Senator Obama’s insistence on repeating attacks that have been demonstrated to be false by independent entities proves once and for all that his speeches about the new politics are just words. That’s not change you can believe in."
—Clinton spokesman Phil Singer

Today, Sen. Obama said the following:

And yesterday, Senator Clinton also said I’m wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA. But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for President.

This is false. Hillary criticized Sen. Obama for sending out a mailer that claimed she said NAFTA was a "boon to the economy" when she never did. Today, the University of Pennsylvania's FactCheck.org concluded "We do judge that the Obama campaign is wrong to quote Clinton as using words she never uttered, and it has produced little evidence that she ever had strong praise of any sort for NAFTA's economic benefits."

Also, Hillary has been critical of NAFTA long before she started running for President. For example, here's Hillary in March 2000:

What happened to NAFTA I think was we inherited an agreement that we didn’t get everything we should have got out of it in my opinion. I think the NAFTA agreement was flawed. The problem is we have to go back and figure out how we are going to fix that. [Working Families Party, 3/26/00]

Sen. Obama touts his consistent opposition to NAFTA. But speaking in Illinois in 2004 Obama said the United States "benefited enormously" from exports under NAFTA and talked about the need to continue to pursue trade agreement like NAFTA that support "a system of free trade in this nation that allows us to move our products overseas."

(Please see above link for hyper links to sources)

Hillary’s setting the record straight with two new ads in Ohio – people need to know the truth about Hillary and NAFTA and these ads will go a long way in getting that information out...

Proud – with Senator John Glenn

And Level

Help her get these ads up on the air in Ohio.  Dig deep – send what you can.  Don’t let these lies stand unchallenged.

DONATE NOW!

U P D A T E

Ok I wasn't going to include this but some of the comments below have prompted me to include the following.  Read it and weep guys...

Newspapers Reported Obama's Support of NAFTA, Desire To Pursue Similar Agreements
2/16/2008 3:36:37 PM

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]

Source

UPDATE 2

I love this this video!  Take a look guys - CNN video of Hillary tellin' it like it is.

LINK

Tags: President, Hillary Clinton, 2008 elections, NAFTA, health care, Barack Obama (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 505 comments

  •  Don't Tip Me - Tip Hillary (47+ / 0-)

    Don't let these lies stand - help her set the record straight in Ohio.

    DONATE NOW!

    I just made calls to Ohio this afternoon as part of a phone bank and she's got some solid support there.  Don't let these lies erode that support.

    •  I'll tip you both! n/t (19+ / 0-)

      Together, we will turn promises into action, words into solutions and hope into reality. Hillary Clinton for President

      by psychodrew on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:27:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Love the new sig line (11+ / 0-)

        I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person

        by NewHampster on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:31:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I got it from reading you! (5+ / 0-)

          Together, we will turn promises into action, words into solutions and hope into reality. Hillary Clinton for President

          by psychodrew on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:32:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hillary Clinton's Support of NAFTA (122+ / 0-)

            Hillary Clinton's Support of NAFTA Has Been Well Documented
            February 23, 2008
            HILLARY CLINTON PRAISED NAFTA FOR YEARS

            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]

            1. 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]
            1. 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]
            1. 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]
            1. 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]
            1. 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]
            1. 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]

            DURING THIS CAMPAIGN, WHEN ASKED ABOUT NAFTA, CLINTON HAS NOT CLAIMED SHE DID NOT SUPPORT IT

            Asked Whether NAFTA Was a Mistake, Clinton Said It Was a Mistake To the Extent That It Did Not Deliver. Clinton, asked whether NAFTA was a mistake, said "Look, NAFTA did not do what many had hoped. And so we do need to take a look at it and we do need to figure out how we're going to have trade relations that are smart, that give the American worker and the American consumer rights around the world. ... NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that's why I call for trade timeout. When I am president, I'm going to evaluate every trade agreement. We do need to get back to enforcing the ones we have, which the Bush administration has not done. They have totally abdicated that. But I think we have to get broader than that. We've got to have enforceable labor and environmental standards. We've got the WTO that enforces financial and corporate rights. We need the International Labor Organization and other mechanisms that will be there to enforce labor rights and environmental rights. And that's what I intend to do as president." [Democratic Debate, 11/15/07] VIDEO HERE

            Clinton Didn't Say Whether NAFTA Should Be Repealed; Just Said It Didn't Realize The Benefits It Promised. Clinton, on whether she'd be willing to repeal four things (DOMA, Telecom Act of 1996, NAFTA and Welfare Reform) that happened during the Clinton years said, "NAFTA, you know, I have said that NAFTA did not realize the benefits that it was promised for a number of reasons. This is not just about Mexico but about the tri partied relationship. So I thing generally we've have to generally have smarter trade agreement that not only have labor and environmental standards which I fully support but really have an ongoing evaluation of the impact of trade agreements." [YearlyKos, 8/4/07]

            BILL CLINTON CONTINUES TO ARGUE FOR NAFTA

            JANUARY 2008: Bill Clinton Said "A Lot Of People Think NAFTA's A Bigger Problem Than it Is. During an event in Las Vegas, Clinton said "She [Hillary Clinton] believes that NAFTA, she believes that all our trade agreements should be reviewed in the first 90 to 120 days of taking office. She would have a total moratorium on all new trade deals until we conducted a review. And one of the things that we have to examine is the point I made earlier. That is, is the trade agreement basically fair, but we just don't enforce it. A lot of people think that NAFTA's a bigger problem than it is. Our problem with Mexico, our trade deficit with Mexico is mostly because we buy oil from them." [Bill Clinton, 1/18/08]

            Bill Clinton Defended His Decision To Enact NAFTA And Disagreed With His Wife That It Has Hurt Workers. "President Clinton is closing one policy disagreement with Senator Clinton while keeping another alive, saying his wife is right to forbid the use of torture but wrong that his signature trade deal has ‘hurt' American workers. ... He staunchly defended his decision in 1993 to support the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Mrs. Clinton said over the summer had ‘hurt a lot of American workers.' Asked directly by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if he agreed that the pact had hurt workers, Mr. Clinton replied, ‘No.' He said NAFTA had become a ‘symbol' but America had worse trade deficits with countries such as China and Japan than it did with Mexico." [NY Sun, 10/1/07]

            COMMENTERS HAVE CRITICIZED CLINTON FOR HER FLIP ON TRADE

            Bloomberg: Clinton "Praised" NAFTA, Friends Said She Was "A Free-Trader at Heart." Bloomberg News reported, "Clinton promoted her husband's trade agenda for years, and friends say that she's a free-trader at heart. 'The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,'' she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. 'Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.' Praise for Nafta At the 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.'' She added: 'It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.' Clinton 'is committed to free trade and to the growing role of the international economy,' said Steven Rattner, a Clinton fundraiser and co-founder of Quadrangle Group LLC, a New York buyout firm. 'She would absolutely do the right thing as president.' There was little evidence of a protectionist tilt to Clinton's trade views during either her 2000 campaign or first years in the Senate. She stressed issues such as homeland security and children's health care, and wasn't a major voice in trade-policy debates. As she began to gear up for a White House run, Clinton became less of a free-trade booster and more skeptical about the payoff of globalization." [ Bloomberg News, 3/30/07]

            SF Chronicle: Clinton's Position On Trade "Clearly A Flip-Flip To Unions And Industry Sectors" And A "Bid To Outflank Her Rival, Senator Barack Obama." "Add to this Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton's coolness to the idea. Her husband moved earth and sky to win passage of the NAFTA trade pact with Mexico and Canada in 1993. Now she favors periodic reviews to continue such deals, a "timeout" on new ones, and more federal officials to oversee complaints. It's clearly a flip-flop favor to unions and industry sectors hit by layoffs and cheap imports and bid to outflank her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, who is more favorable to free trade." [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/12/07]

            •  You beat me to it, Bulgaria. (60+ / 0-)

              What a load of horseshit! Clinton was anti-NAFTA? Tell that to the folks at Davos, to whom she waxed rhapsodic about NAFTA in 1998.

              This kind of continuing bullshit baffles me. Do candidates these days really believe that there are no video, Internet, newspaper or digital archives?

              "Oh, TV. Is there anything you can't do?" -- Homer Simpson

              by Melody Townsel on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:37:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  the senator thinks the electorate is too simple (23+ / 0-)

                to check out her assertions, but they arent, and have, ergo her losses

                please pardon the poor keyboarding, i can never decide which two of my ten thumbs to use, so hopefully some of you are fluent in Typo

                by TAPayne on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:42:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The Horseshit comes out of Obama's mouth too. (16+ / 0-)

                He's a complete free trader and even in his recent Wisconsin speech, after belitting Hillary for saying there should be a time out on any new trade agreement, said that we must not get rid of free trade, that it in fact needs to stay.

                For effing sake, he voted for Peru and Oman just as she did.

                And did you fail to read this little ditty that Alegre posted?  

                Sen. Obama touts his consistent opposition to NAFTA. But speaking in Illinois in 2004 Obama said the United States "benefited enormously" from exports under NAFTA and talked about the need to continue to pursue trade agreement like NAFTA that support "a system of free trade in this nation that allows us to move our products overseas."

                God you Obamaphiles are beyond self righteous and hypocritical.  At least Hillary is actively talking about taking a break to reassess the situation and not move any other agreements forward.  Obama, instead, says we need 'free trade' and enforcement of environmental and labor standards.  Maybe he should consider a moratorium on the whole free trade agreements until we get things properly sorted out.

                And I used to call McCain "Mr. Talks Out of Both Sides Of His Mouth"...I think Obama is handily earning that nickname.

                •  He said a reform of free trade. (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Wit Whither Wilt

                  Obviously, NAFTA hasn't been working. He's not opposed to free trade, he's opposed to NAFTA. Surely, you can understand that there is more than one way to set up a system of trade between countries...

                  Sen. Obama touts his consistent opposition to NAFTA. But speaking in Illinois in 2004 Obama said the United States "benefited enormously" from exports under NAFTA and talked about the need to continue to pursue trade agreement like NAFTA that support "a system of free trade in this nation that allows us to move our products overseas."

                  See? Obama is suggesting a system of trade that has a similar quality to NAFTA, specifically its ability to move our products overseas.

                  It's like saying I personally admired Reagan's ability to inspire people, but hated what he inspired people to do. So I'd love to have a candidate that would be like Reagan, specifically his ability to inspire. Obviously with very different other qualities though.

                  Or is the whole Reagan thing not cleared up yet?

                  •  Also, I forgot to add.. (0+ / 0-)

                    this diary is about Hillary not liking NAFTA. Saying that Obama somehow supports NAFTA is a straw man argument. You're actually neglecting the fact that insinuating Obama likes NAFTA is not the same as Hillary not liking NAFTA.

                    But we know Hillary's campaign tactic. It's just about making Obama look bad, because she inherently looks bad. She's the anti-Obama. Obama has framed the entire presidential campaign. For instance, today she spent all day lowering expectations on hope and change... which are, of course, Obama's themes.

                    What's Hillary's theme, and why can't she focus on it??

                    It's all about tearing her opponent down, that's why.

              •  She never said she was anti-NAFTA (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                renogal, anna shane

                She's always discussed the pros and cons and while the quotes in this comment are all true they're also consistent with what Hillary said and not consistent with the mailer. NAFTA is not black & white.

                HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

                by kck on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:30:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You've been out copied and pasted! n/t (0+ / 0-)

                Together, we will turn promises into action, words into solutions and hope into reality. Hillary Clinton for President

                by psychodrew on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:13:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Oi! Here's a Thought - Post Your OWN Diary! (12+ / 0-)

              Meanwhile - chew on this...

              http://facts.hillaryhub.com/...

              Newspapers Reported Obama's Support of NAFTA, Desire To Pursue Similar Agreements
              2/16/2008 3:36:37 PM

              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]

              •  "Work with" and "pursue deals like" (19+ / 0-)

                Such damning language there. Or wait...what's this at the end?

                If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade.

                Hmmm...perhaps he's a sensible moderate who doesn't want total isolationism but realizes that pure free trade has disadvantages?

                During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

                by kyril on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:43:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  here's a thought: if you don't want rebuttals (19+ / 0-)

                take your stuff to Hillary is 44.

                When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

                by onanyes on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:43:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Your Lies About Clinton's Lies (22+ / 0-)

                But you spent this diary calling Obama a liar for saying Clinton backed NAFTA. Clinton called him a liar for saying she backed NAFTA. It doesn't matter what Obama said about NAFTA. What matters is what Clinton said about NAFTA.

                And she lied about that, and now you're lying about her lies. By calling Obama a liar about Clinton's NAFTA support.

                Your way of ignoring sensibility by attacking Obama when it's Clinton's integrity at issue is perfectly consistent with Clinton's way of getting and keeping power. Which matters to me even more than her support for NAFTA.

                "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                by DocGonzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:50:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  But I thought your diary was about Hillary (9+ / 0-)

                not supporting Nafta.  You seem to be getting off topic.

                When you post a diary that isn't factually accurate you have to expect this type of response.

              •  Posting from Hillary Hub to challenge Obama (4+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                mayan, blueyedace2, spotDawa, gxy2008

                is a pretty weak defense.  Surprise, the site paid for by Hillary is nitpicking to defend her.

                •  Funny, I'll I'm ever told here if I have (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  otis704, dewley notid

                  questions about Obama is~"Its on his website ~ check it out. Hmmm?

                  •  Well, there's one thing that is on his website -- (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    tbetz

                    His Plan.

                    No one is asking you to take his website at its word for responding to Hillary's mailers (though that's not a bad place to start your research -- nor is Hillary Hub), but when HRC supporters just blindly echo the talking point about him not having positions and plans, pointing to his website is perfectly valid.

                    I really should bother though, because if the best defense of Hillary Hub is to create a straw man and say Obama supporters do it to, as though that would make it better even if it were true, then I've already made my point.

                    •  Well, if there is one thing I've learned, it is (4+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      miriam, annac1aire, splashy, renogal

                      never waste my time in discourse with an Obama supporter, because the minute I provide links proving that Obama has said or done something contrary to "his sainted image"  it is either completely ignored or I am called names, or they just go away quietly because they have no response.
                      Now, you run along ~ keep practicing your mantra.

                      •  Well, one thing I've learned from debating you (2+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        jalonzo, gxy2008

                        Is that engaging the empty criticism of (at least one) Hillary supporter is an utter waste of time.  They are consumed with their cynicism and when they can't win an argument, they simply create a straw man and shoot it down.

                        I know I've gotten nothing out of "discourse" with you, but I am happy to address your "links" (none provided) with reasoned and researched retorts, as many commenters have done with this diary.  You have provided none of this, just meaningless ad hominem attacks.

                        And you were hidden for your last sentence.

                        •  Gosh, I must have touched a nerve! (0+ / 0-)

                          Are you going to "ding" me for this comment as well?
                          Fire away.  You proved my point before you even responded ~ my point that there is no point in trying to have HONEST discourse with SOME Obama supporters ~ because the double standards that are applied and the hypocrisy that prevails just gets to be too much.  

                          Posting from Hillary Hub to challenge Obama (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by: mayan, blueyedace2, spotDawa, gxy2008
                          is a pretty weak defense.  Surprise, the site paid for by Hillary is nitpicking to defend her.

                          by Pragmatic Left on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:55:09 PM PST

                          Funny, I'll I'm ever told here if I have (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by: otis704, dewley notid
                          questions about Obama is~"Its on his website ~ check it out. Hmmm?

                          by PamelaD on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:32:20 PM PST

                          but when HRC supporters just blindly echo the talking point about him not having positions and plans, pointing to his website is perfectly valid.I really should bother though, because if the best defense of Hillary Hub is to create a straw man and say Obama supporters do it to, as though that would make it better even if it were true, then I've already made my point.

                          Now, maybe you are not "one of those", but your response to my initial comment makes me think otherwise ~ All I did was point out what I perceived as a  double standard ~ there are so many out there ~ and you lump me into some "group" that "blindly echos talking points".  Please.  I have never "blindly echoed" anything" ~ Now if it's okay for you to say what you did, how do you have the "cojones" to HR my comment?  and on what grounds?  I think you blew your cover ~ you should change your "name".

                          •  Ugh... (0+ / 0-)

                            Here we go with the "name" thing.  I am very pragmatic.  You were HR'ed for the obnoxious dismissal that I am just practicing some "matra" by challenging poorly sourced attacks by Clinton supporters.

                            If I must draw this out and revisit this dialouge, I will:

                            This diarist absolutely blindly parrots HRC talking points, often refers only to the HRC campaign site as a source of information (yes, they source their info, but they also remove all context -- the diarists could easily find whole quotes and whole stories at the same time if she so chose).  My first comment was in response to HER, not you.

                            At this point, you chimed in with a completely baseless retort -- I never citied Obama's website as definitive evidence of anything, except perhaps those things where items on the site are de facto evidence in retort (ie: Obama has no real plans -- his site has the actual plans on it).

                            If you care to provide a specific example of someone defending against a charge against Obama simply by asking you to refer to his campaign propaganda, as Alegre has done, I will happily address the charge substantively, and challenge the commenter for not doing their homework.  Otherwise, all you are doing is building up a straw man to knock it down.  I engaged her directly on her source, and your only defense is that "Obama supporters [somewhere, sometime, but not here] do it too."?

                            On top of that, you pepper your irrelevant comment with a general obnoxious this that really makes me feel bad for even engaging you.

                            Straw man - note this is not in reference to any actual proximal comment:

                            Funny, I'll I'm ever told here if I have questions about Obama is~"Its on his website ~ check it out. Hmmm?

                            Obnoxiousness:

                            Well, if there is one thing I've learned, it is never waste my time in discourse with an Obama supporter

                            Now, you run along ~ keep practicing your mantra.

                             What the hell does that even mean?!?

                            •  That means that it is terribly frustrating to (0+ / 0-)

                              be a Hillary supporter on this site, which if you are true to your name, you should be well aware of that fact.  Did I possibly "kneejerk" to your dismissive attitude to my response re Obama supporters directing any and all questions (and not just about his plans, policies and positions but about his answers to specific criticisms) to his website? ~ possibly, as I really at that point in time was not interested in substance, I was interested in pointing out what I perceived to be a double standard ~ which I still believe to be the truth.  Sometimes, it does happen where I have misplaced animosity towards one person based on a recent interaction with another.  I don't know you and I am not familiar with your overall approach to all of this ~ so if I projected attitude into your response that was not there or at the very least was not intended, then I apologize for that.  

                              •  Accepted, and in deference to Obama supporter (0+ / 0-)

                                RenaRF, HR removed.

                                The double standards cut both ways though, and I've been indignant about my share of perceived ones towards Obama - by HRC supporters (an admitted minority on this site), the media and even in some cases, her campaign.  And yes, I think while the media may defer to Obama on some issues, they also freely raise things about Obama that would lead to head rolling were they directed at Hillary.

                                I guess that's just the nature of having two unique (to eachother, and towards the homogeneous nature of past-presidents) candidates running for for office.

              •  It's a shame (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                miriam, splashy, sander60tx

                That the Obama supporters will be physically unable to read this, or to at least process what they read.  Contradictory information must be discredit or disbelieved no matter what.

                Maybe Hillary should send out a mailing saying that Obama said NAFTA would be a boon to the economy.  It wouldn't be very very, but at least it would level the playing field.

              •  Here's Another Thought, Alegre (14+ / 0-)

                Respond to the substantive evidence that directly contradicts the outraged claims you make in this diary.

                I have admired your positive diaries about Clinton, but I have also noted your refusal to acknowledge or respond to substantive rebuttals of your arguments.

                At the top of your diary, you proclaim:

                It’s no longer a mis-read or a mistake – now he’s just flat out lying and I’m calling bullshit on his lies.

                Great Uncle Bulgaria in turn offers exhaustive, documented proof that Clinton has indeed spoken repeatedly in favor of NAFTA.  Is your gripe limited to the fact that Obama claims she used the word "boon" to describe NAFTA, when in fact that's how a newspaper paraphrased her?  If so, that's a pretty limp complaint, especially given that she is also paraphrased as saying that "it would reap widespread benefits in the region."  Sounds like a boon to me.

                So if you're going to issue an indignant denunciation of Obama's "lies" on this subject, show the gumption to respond to a serious rebuttal!

                •  In fairness (6+ / 0-)

                  The serious rebuttal is in the diary -- it's that according to FactCheck there is no evidence whatsoever that Hillary ever claimed it would be a boon to the economy, as Obama claims in the mailing that she said.

                  •  on "boon" (4+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    mayan, tbetz, spotDawa, gxy2008

                    As Obama admitted, the word boom was the newspaper's wording, not Clinton's.  But Clinton did praise NAFTA on multiple occasions, just not with the word boon.

                    •  Sort of (2+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      miriam, splashy

                      Factcheck said Obama has produced little evidence that she praised the economic benefits.

                      •  but... (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        gxy2008

                        plenty of evidence has since been provided. It's all over the net now.

                        the highway up to heaven got a crook on the toll -- Andre3000

                        by mama hearts obama on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:58:32 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  She can't cherry pick her husband's legacy (3+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          deminva, kdee, gxy2008

                          The critical part of her "35 years of experience" is the 8 years she spent at 1600 PA Ave.  The rest of her career really doesn't distinguish her from Obama that much.  Furthermore, Clinton brand loyalty has been an essential part of her campaign's appeal.

                          If she wants to buy the popular parts of her husband's legacy, she must buy the unpopular parts, too.  Plus, I've never actually heard her say in public that she thought NAFTA wasn't a mistake.

                          Won't say that her IWR vote was a mistake, won't say that NAFTA was a mistake, yet we're not supposed to hold either against her.  It doesn't work that way.

                          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

                          by RFK Lives on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:04:01 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  There is also plenty of "proof" all over the net (0+ / 0-)

                          that she killed Vince Foster.

                          John McCain: He's not just crazy ...
                          He's BATSHIT CRAZY!

                          by kbman on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:42:15 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No There Isn't (2+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            tbetz, gxy2008

                            There are, however, quotations from Senator Clinton with citations showing her praising NAFTA.  Many are provided in posts to this diary.  Why not read them?

                            •  I have no need (2+ / 0-)

                              Recommended by:
                              splashy, renogal

                              Statements she made in her capacity as First Lady were, by necessity, supportive of her husband.  They do not necessarily reflect her personal opinions or beliefs.  It's called politics and diplomacy.  But I guess that is too nuanced an argument.  Ignore all context and official roles involved and just hang her because she said words supporting her husband's policies.  

                              OK.  Sure like this new kind of politics.  Its so friendly and unifying.

                              John McCain: He's not just crazy ...
                              He's BATSHIT CRAZY!

                              by kbman on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:22:54 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  I Have (3+ / 0-)

                                Recommended by:
                                fladem, oldjohnbrown, jalonzo

                                a PhD in English and am pretty good at spotting nuance.  I understand that Senator Clinton's public statements in favor of NAFTA may have reflected support for her husband but not her personal opinions.  Nevertheless, they remain public statements--in favor of NAFTA.  So far, no need for nuance.  And no one is trying to "hang her" because she supported her husband.  I think it's admirable and smart politics.  Rather, we are decrying her dishonesty in calling Obama "Rovian" for telling people that she publicly praised NAFTA.  She did--quite often during her husband's administration.  There's a public record.  She also referred to NAFTA as "one of [her] husband's successes" in Living History, which was published ten years after Congress passed NAFTA into law.  But now she's "outraged" by Senator Obama's claim that she was still praising NAFTA a decade after it was passed.  That's disingenuous.  Still no need for nuance: the facts of the matter are clear.

                                I have no trouble believing that Senator Clinton was privately opposed to NAFTA.  But it is dishonest of her to claim that she has not spoken publicly in favor of it when on multiple occasions she has.  Nor would it be particularly smart for her to say that she was actually opposed to NAFTA but was only supporting her husband.  It would render suspect much that she has stated publicly on a myriad of issues.

                                Meanwhile, she goes from saying how "honored, truly honored" she is to share the stage with Obama to disingenuously decrying his Rovian tactics.  Surely hers is not an example of "friendly and unifying" political discourse.

                                •  So she's not allowed to clarify her current (5+ / 0-)

                                  Recommended by:
                                  miriam, annac1aire, otis704, splashy, renogal

                                  position and her past statements.  Just a few days ago our prospective First Lady had to clarify some remarks too.  Taken at her word, Michelle Obama was never proud of America until just recently.  

                                  I don't believe that Michelle Obama is lacking in Americanism, and I don't think Hillary is a supporter of NAFTA in its current form.  The Obama mailer is playing dirty by attributing quotes to her that she never said, and by misrepresenting her position.

                                  John McCain: He's not just crazy ...
                                  He's BATSHIT CRAZY!

                                  by kbman on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:12:35 PM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

                                  •  Of Course (3+ / 0-)

                                    Recommended by:
                                    oldjohnbrown, jalonzo, gxy2008

                                    Clinton is allowed to clarify her current position.  But that's entirely beside the point of her supposed outrage, which is that Obama is misrepresenting her record on NAFTA.  Have you seen the flyer?  It says:

                                    "The truth is Hillary Clinton was a champion for Bill Clinton's NAFTA trade deal.  She even touted NAFTA in her own book.  But now that she's campaigning in places like Ohio, she's changing her tune."

                                    and:

                                    "According to a Newsday issues rundown, 'Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy.'"

                                    The first statement can easily be verified with a quick Google search--or by reading other comments in this diary.  Throughout the Clinton administration, whenever Hillary spoke about NAFTA, she offered positive characterizations.  In Living History, she called it one of her husband's "successes."

                                    The second quote properly attributes the word "boon" to Newsday, not to Clinton, and Newsday's characterization is a fair paraphrase of statements Clinton has made on the record about NAFTA.  For example, UPI quoted her as saying the deal "would reap widespread benefits in the region."  

                                    The flyer never directly quotes Clinton and therefore cannot be said to falsely attribute quotes to her.  And it rightly points both to her documented record in support of NAFTA and her recent about-face, in which she says she does not support NAFTA.  It is also correct in the timeline: Clinton's about-face does correspond with her campaigning in heavily unionized states like Ohio.

                                    If Clinton wants to explain her about-face, that's fine, but it's dishonest to claim that the Obama campaign is somehow distorting a record that is verifiable to anyone with access to Google or a copy of her autobiography.

                                    I expect that Clinton rightly recognizes the folly of explaining that she never meant what she said quite often as First Lady and what she wrote while a sitting Senator.  So instead she's trying to blame Obama.  Perhaps that's smart politics if the smear sticks.

                                    •  Clinton and Obama have identical voting records (1+ / 0-)

                                      Recommended by:
                                      otis704

                                      on free trade issues.  If anything, his positions on international trade make Obama more of a "free trader" than Hillary.  He is using logical fallacies to try to fool the voters.

                                      His argument is, essentially, that these are things she said about NAFTA in the past and that they represent her true beliefs.  Anything she is saying now is a lie she's telling in order to get elected.  The idea being that her position in the 1990's is her real position.

                                      As far as,

                                      Clinton's about-face does correspond with her campaigning in heavily unionized states like Ohio.
                                       

                                      This is not really accurate.  Her "about face" as you call it is the position she's taken with trade agreements in general over the past few years.  Being vocal about it and including that message as part of her campaign may have some correspondence to the states in which she is speaking, that is true.  

                                      But doesn't Senator Obama also tailor his message to the particular audiences he is addressing?  Of course he does.  All politicians so this, it makes no sense to campaign in a state on issues that are not the priority concerns of the citizens of that state.

                                      The overall message of the flyer is that Hillary Clinton is 100% in favor of NAFTA - that nasty thing that stole all of your jobs - and Barack Obama is committed to fixing it.  You and everyone else knows that that is untrue.  Oh, and she's apparently also an opportunistic liar too for telling you anything different.

                                      And now that she has angrily denounced this misleading propaganda y'all call her unhinged.  I don't blame her for being pissed off.  Its time for David Axelrod to stop trying to be slick and start with some forthright honesty.  It will end up hurting his client in the long run.

                                      John McCain: He's not just crazy ...
                                      He's BATSHIT CRAZY!

                                      by kbman on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:57:17 AM PDT

                                      [ Parent ]

            •  Barack uses Hillary's own words against her (7+ / 0-)

              Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa! No fair!

              "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

              by Lefty Coaster on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:56:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  So? You didn't refute Alegre's diary. (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              splashy, renogal

              Everything you quoted is consistent with what ALegre wrote and with Clinton's criticism of Obama'a mailer. So what's your point?

              HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.

              by kck on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:28:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  how do you like them apples? n/t (0+ / 0-)

    •  It's over. She's done. (21+ / 0-)

      I promised my family they won't see me dragged from my home by men in black, dangling off ropes from helicopters. www.thejoshuablog.com

      by Junglered1 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:34:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]