This diary's title could be Obama vs. Clinton, but I like Clinton vs. Clinton.

It all started last week.  Obama said:

Clinton supported the North American Free Trade Agreement but that she now says "we need a time-out on trade." 

Then:

Clinton's campaign fired back at Obama, charging the Illinois senator with misrepresenting Clinton's position on trade and floating ideas originally proposed by the New York senator.
"Recently he falsely claimed that Hillary said that NAFTA was a 'boon' to the economy. Now, Obama is resting his argument on a single paraphrase from an article written twelve years ago," Clinton's campaign said in an emailed statement.

David Sirota, agreeing with Obama, writes this about Clinton:

Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that 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."

The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that "the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

In her memoir, 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."

Yes, we are all expected to just forget that, so that Hillary Clinton's campaign can manufacture supposed "outrage" that anyone would say she supported NAFTA - all at a time her chief strategist, Mark Penn, simultaneously heads a firm that is right now pushing to expand NAFTA into South America.

If Clinton had a change of heart, she should say so.  It is legitimate to change your mind... indeed many others have changed their mind. 

Indeed, John Maynard Keynes said:

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

Clinton should not merely deny that she thought NAFTA was a good idea.  Just say NAFTA hurt America, though you thought it was a good idea.  Then say let's fix our trade policy.  Simple.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Good title
written by BobOak , February 17, 2008

I think people are completely ignoring the reality of Obama's free trade positions. Sure he's blasting Hillary but in truth, Hillary's policy positions are a little better to get some real trade reform.

I dug into this and wrote up a piece, http://blog.noslaves.com/hilla...-on-trade/Hillary and Obama on Trade.

I think you're hitting the nail on the head saying Clinton vs. Clinton for that's how I read it and there is a huge difference between the 1st wife, where there is no way you can be a politican and go aganist your husband's policies versus the situation now, running for President yourself.

She should come out strongly and just plain deal with it, for it makes her written position papers either look like false promises and even worse, let's Obama's real positions go unchallenged.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Write comment

Name

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment