Clinton and NAFTA revisited. Again.

After months of questions, Hillary Clinton's White House schedules have been released. So far, the verdict is mixed as to what they show about her claims of experience as First Lady, and the transparency their release represents is marred by thousands of redactions.

Some reporters, of course, have reminded us why we distrust and mock the media, by going straight for the blue dress. But there are substantive issues to be addressed in the documents. In particular, Clinton's views on NAFTA were a centerpiece of the recent Ohio primary, and the documents now released cast some doubt on the claims she made just weeks ago.

Al Giordano:

The spin prior to the Ohio primary was dizzying: Senator Clinton delivered her angry "shame on you, Barack Obama" rant in response to two Obama campaign mailers, one of which had reminded that Clinton had supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the treaty that has destroyed entire industries (and the families that worked them) in the United States and in Mexico.

Former Clinton White House aides then moved out in wedge formation to claim that Senator Clinton had, while First Lady, opposed NAFTA (critics noting that those surrogates were pro-NAFTA and therefore not credible were widely ignored).

Today the narrative turned a reality-based about-face: ABC News reports that, as First Lady, on November 10, 1993 - 51 days before the treaty would take effect - Clinton had actively promoted NAFTA, a fact revealed in the release today of 11,000+ pages of White House schedules for that era:

Two attendees of that closed-door briefing, neither of whom are affiliated with any campaign, describe that event for ABC News. It was a room full of women involved in international trade. David Gergen served as a sort of master of ceremonies as various women members of the Cabinet talked up NAFTA, which had yet to pass Congress.

"It wasn’t a drop-by it was organized around her participation," said one attendee. "Her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy. There was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time.

This is absolutely of no surprise to all of us that have followed the destructive path of NAFTA over the past 14 years. But The Field wonders: shouldn’t those who went out there and mouthed the false talking points and claims that Senator Clinton had opposed NAFTA now feel embarrassed, duped, and angry at how they were fed a deception to repeat? There ought to be some accountability here.

Giordano has started sifting through recent claims that Clinton never really supported NAFTA, and has already tagged Jake Tapper and David Gergen. So what will it be? How will Tapper, Gergen, and others be responding to this new information?