Did Hillary ever support NAFTA ?

Of course, probably no state in the union has been more negatively affected than Ohio by the NAFTA and trade agreements. It was all fine and dandy when these other countries were buying our computers and our computer chips. However, when they moved the computer chip manufacturing overseas, then it was not all fine and dandy. But it not just the computer industry, it was a large part of our manufacturing base.

As I recall, NAFTA was a special project of the Reagan and Bush Sr presidencies. Bill Clinton signed it into law with almost all the Republicans supporting it and a minority of Demcrats supporting it? Now, it has become an issue in the state of Ohio. How do you get the working people of OH to support you if you supported NAFTA?

Therein lies Hillary's problem. She needs Ohio in order to stay in the race. Obama, knowing that is her political Achilles heel, is attacking her as supportive of NAFTA. Hillary says that is not true. Who is telling the truth?

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/obama_keeps_nafta_pressure_on.html#more

Though Clinton argued on Saturday that the agreement was negotiated by the George W. Bush Administration, Obama laid responsibility squarely with the Clintons for the trade agreement squarely with the Clintons for the trade agreement, which is deeply unpopular here.

“Let’s be clear: It was her husband who got NAFTA passed. In her own book, Senator Clinton called NAFTA one of ‘Bill’s successes’ and ‘legislative victories,’” Obama said, referring to her memoir, Living History.

Speaking to a town hall meeting of manufacturing workers at a gypsum wallboard plant near Cleveland, Obama also cited a 2004 statement in which Clinton said, “I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America.”

that is merely a confused report that involved "historical documents" & questions. By calling it a legislative victory, and Bill's success, what she was really saying was that had she been in the senate at that time, she would have been against it. That is not support. TO the contrary, her words from the 1990s prove she was against NAFTA.

In other words, if she knew then what she knows now, and had she been in office, then she would have been against NAFTA. All that happened was that the GOP congress supported NAFTA, ergo, it was a "legislative victory" for the GOP, not her team. And Bill's success was in keeping the really bad stuff out of the bill, that Bill removed as president before he signed it.

So, you see, by calling it a victory and success, she was factually describing the GOP, not her position on the issue.

Sheesh. It is so simple when you try.

:crazy: You did manage to confuse me, but I get your drift. :hi:

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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-pretends-_b_86747.html

:eyes:

How her campaign didn't see that line would bite her is beyond me.

:hi:

Posted by WillYourVoteBCounted in another thread:

Hillary Clinton saying "I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4733387&mesg_id=4733429

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html

I'd be for NAFTA if it operated like the EU. We had a chance to unify North America and help out lots of people with a lot of economic problems--and then expand into Central America and do the same.

The anti-NAFTA people come back with, "But Mexico will drain our economy!" Uh...Mexico has the same GDP as the state of Illinois--it's not like taking on Portugal, Ireland (at the time--it's grown spectacularly), Spain and Italy--all which were going to sink France, Germany and the UK by siphoning their economic strength. And now the Euro is worth, what, close to a buck and a half? If we were to start cutting out states that didn't produce up to standards, how many would be left?

What it comes down to is possible loss of sovereignty. Somehow the European countries managed to handle that and the North American countries (all pretty much younger than the European nations) can't handle that.

So, yeah. NAFTA was a great opportunity. And we just freaking blew it. I'm a stronger purveyor of Hope than most, though. I think we could still reach into the giant toilet of fear for and disgust toward people different than us and salvage something out of it. But it takes a leap of faith and hope that apparently is difficult for some people (and for that particular lack of vision, you can look to damned near all the candidates) because swiping at NAFTA and saying you want to excise it is easier than fixing it. Hooray for a disposable society.

It's not a bad idea. If the implementation is not what we could hope for, then how do you re-implement it so that it actually lives up to the promise?

She may have changed her tune recently to garner Ohio voters, but in the past she has claimed it as a success of Bill's presidency.

I don't doubt that it's true, but I don't have her book(s), so I can't look anything up. Do you (or anyone) have any exact quotes from her book?

You can do as I did and go to Borders (or wherever) and look it up. :hi:

:hi:

...whether that stated support represented her true beliefs or was just an example of triangulation, we can't know.