Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama now has a PERFECT opportunity to expose the Clintons for their support of NAFTA

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 08:28 PM
Original message
Obama now has a PERFECT opportunity to expose the Clintons for their support of NAFTA
Edited on Fri Apr-11-08 08:31 PM by zulchzulu
The so-called "Bittergate" episode, where Hillary Clinton and John McCain kneejerked foolish, phony responses to what Obama said about small towns left for dead because of policies like NAFTA, has now offered Barack Obama the PERFECT opportunity to expose the Clintons for being for NAFTA...both of them.

The piece de resistance is that this will expose Bill Clinton, already reeling from his profiting from the Colombia trade agreement, Mark Penn for still being actually in the Clinton campaign and profiting from the Colombia trade agreement AND expose Hillary Clinton for LYING about having always been against NAFTA.

As John Nichols pointed out recently in The Nation:

Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?

As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."

But the White House records confirm that this is not true.

Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860


You see, it turns out that Hillary Clinton would be The Closer in events in the White House where the Clintons were trying to jam NAFTA through:

One interesting event in Sen. Hillary Clinton's just-released schedules from the 1990s comes on Nov. 10 1993, when the former first lady was to serve as the closing act during a briefing on NAFTA, the trade agreement she now assails.

11:30 am -
11:45 am

NAFTA BRIEFING DROP-BY
Room 450, OEOB
CLOSED PRESS

PARTICIPANTS: Approx 120 expected to attend
(See briefing book for further info)

FORMAT:
- Alexis Herman intros HRC for brief remarks
-HRC concludes program

(pp. 1375 and 1376)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clintons-1993-n.html


Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign were trying to push the Heroine of Tuzla Sequel with her lies about the Bosnia event in Tuzla of the headlines. The Clinton supporter, who recorded the fundraiser and sat on the story since last Sunday, seemed to offer the perfect story to send Bill's lies about Hillary's lies off the screen.

Guess what... they took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

Now Pennsylvanians and other voters will see just what Barack Obama meant and hopefully the big speech on trade, NAFTA and its repercussions will be front and center. Perhaps exposing them on their money made with outsourcing can be the icing on the cake.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. People are bitter because they are being hit hard by the Bush administration
for Bush's failures with the economy, running us into debt, doing very little to offset the current housing problem. People are losing everything and were promised the earth by Bush. Hillary has been supporting Bush and is now apologizing for Bush - roll up your sleeves!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. NAFTA is certainly a reason for Americans to wonder who is on our side
I hope Obama presents exactly what's at stake in Pennsylvania.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. McCain and Hillary are really for NAFTA
though Sen Clinton pretends that she is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigleaf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. Excellent. Let's hope he somehow does just that.
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. He won't. Clinton would go fucking insane if he challenged her on this.
Expect "Shame on you" x10. Her last refuge is claiming that she knows the plight of the worker and that she can help them. They are her last remaining bloc. She won't give them up without a fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Which is exactly the reaction we would want her to have.....
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Obama needs to remind voters repeatedly that Clinton and McCain are proposers of NAFTA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
6. Sure would be nice...
but would anybody report it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
10. The timing is perfect for Obama. I agree. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UALRBSofL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
11. I don't think Obama wants to "EXPOSE" Hillary on NAFTA
The word expose sounds too calculating and I doubt Obama would approve of it because he isn't calculating like some of his supporters. That said, the "wink and nod" to a Canadian official would also come out in the NAFTA issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Maybe you missed the memo on the Canadian NAFTA situation
It turns out that the Hillary Clinton campaign made up the memo story that was used for the Ohio primary:

...the CBC report and others makes clear, the core of the story turned out to be false. The Canadian government contacted Goolsbee to clarify Obama's position on trade, not the reverse. Although Goolsbee did meet with Canada's Chicago consul general George Rioux (not, as was reported in the original leak, Ambassador Michael Wilson), there's no evidence that he ever described Obama's position as mere political posturing. Instead, they met February 8, before NAFTA began to dominate the campaign, and discussion of the trade agreement took up just two to three minutes of the hour-long meeting. Goolsbee responded to Canadian questions by clarifying that Obama wasn't pushing to scrap NAFTA entirely, but that the agreement needed labor and environmental safeguards--basically what Obama had been saying in public. The memo was simply inaccurate, as even the Harper government now acknowledges after a firestorm of criticism by opposition parliament members, who've accused Harper's staffers of trying to help their Republican allies across the border by attacking the more likely Democratic candidate. In response, Harper called the leak "blatantly unfair," pledged to get to the bottom of it, and said "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UALRBSofL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. The general public saw it this way
A representative from the Obama camp met with a Canadian official and spoke to him about NAFTA before the Ohio primary which gave the american public the idea/impression Obama's camp was playing both sides of the fence. Now you can disagree with me but it was reported as such if you look at the headlines in some of the papers, etc. Besides that, the point to my post was that Obama is not a person to go out of his way to "EXPOSE" another person and I doubt he would agree with the OP's thread. Just my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-12-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. When you have asshats like Tim The Jabbahut Russert repeating the lie...
...what else should the Great Uninformed think?

The truth is there. However... the lies continue...after this commercial by some fucking multinational corporation telling you they are "green" now...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC