True or not, it's fairly convenient to have former aides and biographers "confirming" something that you never said publicly. That's pretty hard to refute.

Sounds kinda like when she was sitting on the walmart board. She was always pro-union, but just couldn't say anything to rock the boat. However, the behind the scenes people will vouch for the claim that she was pro-union. Same thing with the iraq war vote. Even though it was to go to war in iraq, behind the scenes she only wanted it used for diplomacy. Do I sense a pattern here? Nah.

I don't buy that at all. I remember distinctly her supporting NAFTA during that time.

True or not, it's awful convenient to have people who are, by and large, on your side "confirming" something that you never said on the record. That's awful tough to refute.

Hillary and Bill were also secretly always against the Iraq War.

You believe them, don't you!

You are making yourself look silly. You must know this stuff is not true. He reviewed docs for 5 hours for a church.

I don't get it. If she was silent about it, what does Obama have to attack her with? Is he saying she supported it because she was silent about it? I think the burden here is on Obama to show her support, since he's the one doing the attacking.

"Did Hillary Clinton Really Support NAFTA? Aides, Biographers Say No"

Ok, that automatically clears everything up..

OK. So Hillary was against NAFA but had to keep her mouth shut.

Time to update her resume in the 35 years experience section:

1993-2000 Stepford Wife.

Look, she still supported the "general principles" of NAFTA LAST YEAR.

From the HuffPo article:

On the 2008 campaign trail, Clinton has been free of those shackles. And, on many occasions, she has expressed misgivings about NAFTA, though usually qualifying her statements by saying she supports the underlying idea.

"I believe in the general principles it represented," she said last February, noting that she voted against CAFTA [the Central American Free Trade Agreement] because of a lack of environmental and labor standards. "But what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have."

More recently, at the Las Vegas Democratic Debate on November 15, 2007, she offered the following, more concise declaration: "NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would."

Great stuff ohiomeister and liam..

Her husband, who's record she is using to run for the White House was a big supporter of NAFTA. I think if she wants to use his record, and tell voters we are going back to the good ol' days of the 90s, she should take responsibility for these mistakes, especially if she never came out against them. Welfare "reform" is another one I'm not so happy about. Same with corporate deregulation. In 1992 and 1996 the Clintons ran as a "two-for-one special", and they are doing the same again, and so I think since we have apparently given her a free pass on her fluffed resume, we might as well look into what shitty policies she had a hand in.

And at this point, I don't care one way or another, there are a thousand reasons Obama is better than Hillary, not the least of which is electability. So while we are trying to figure out what Hillary did or didn't privately support in the 90s, we are missing what should be the #1 issue right now, namely, Obama can beat McCain, Hillary will destroy our chances at the presidency as well as down the ballot across the country:

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/26284440

If Hillary wants to continue to claim 35 yrs. of experience, then she has to accept responsibility for anything Bill did....Unless she's claiming experience at being irrelevant that is. Come to think of it, it looks like such experience may come in useful to her soon.

Thanks Liam,

very informative post.

I think Team Obama is so used to the free pass he's gotten from the press, and bloggers that they're feeling a little over-confident that they can say and do anything and it won't be questioned.

If he wins the nomination, of course the press will start asking the harder questions, and looking more closely at what he says, (and I'm sure even throwing in the occasional "misinformation"). Unfortunately, it will be too little, too late.

From the Washington Post Fact Checker January 7. 2008

It turns out that Bill Clinton now claims that he too was always against NAFTA, so why would Hillary have to have kept quite about it. O what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Hillary and I did not have sex with that NAFTA.

Read all about it.

Candidate Watch
Off-base on NAFTA and "Hillary Care"

UPDATED Monday 11:30 a.m.

I am at Manchester airport, on my way back to Baltimore, after a fascinating four days in the Granite State. I will file a wrapup report tomorrow. There have been lots of statements to fact check, several of which will take a little more time. Here are a couple of quick ones that caught my attention from Clinton's Town Hall meeting in Peterborough and a Mitt Romney "Ask Mitt anything" meeting in Salem.

The former president was asked about his support for the NAFTA trade agreement, which is not too popular around here. (Hillary Clinton now says she opposes it.) He did his best to distance himself from it, even though he supported it vigorously back in 1993, declaring that Congressional approval would mark "a decisive moment" in American history.

Today, his tune was very different. "NAFTA was largely a trade agreement with Canada and largely done when I got there," he told the Town Hall meeting. The first part of that statement is nonsense, as NAFTA applied to Mexico as much as Canada. It is true that NAFTA had been negotiated under Bush 41, but Clinton was a passionate supporter, and was key to persuading Congress to ratify the agreement in November 1993.

UPDATE: White House reporter Peter Baker (who also covered the Clinton White House) points out that Bill Clinton not only pushed NAFTA's passage through Congress but also negotiated labor and environmental agreements before doing so which, he said, satisfied his concerns -- concerns that he and his wife now raise.

Mitt Romney once again denounced "Hillary Care" and "socialized medicine" at a meeting with his supporters in Salem. He then proceeded to praise his own health plan for Massachusetts when he was governor, saying he wanted to introduce something similar throughout the nation. Romney's plan for Massachusetts is strikingly similar to the Clinton health care plan, complete with individual mandates and a ban on insurance companies excluding people for a "pre-existing condition."

Posted on January 7, 2008 at 6:37 PM

I assume it is only Hillary that is expected to come out and speak against her husband's policies??
I wonder how many times we can count Laura Bush coming out against George's, or Barbara coming out against Bush Sr., or any other first lady coming out against the President?
But then only the Hillary haters will blame her for not doing it while they accept a different set of standards for everyone else.

This is from a UNITEHere memo about Hillary and Trade (it goes on at some length):

THE CLINTON RECORD ON TRADE

AS LATE AS SEPTEMBER 2006: Hillary Said NAFTA Was A Victory For President Clinton, Would Lead To An Economic Improvement. In 1996, 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.” 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.” And according to a Newsday issues rundown in 2006, “Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy.”

This is so funny, both Obama and Hillary are dems, and when one gets the nomination, the other will support the nominee and stand next to each other. Look and McCain and Romney. Today you are fighting and then tomorrow all the Clinton supporter will vote for Obama, or Obama supporter will vote for Clinton.

Who do you think Hillary will vote? Obama or McCain?
Who do you think Obama will vote? Hillary or McCain?

This politics of drawing contract is just a drama to get the vote and nomination. They are all fruits of the same tree, but it is sad that you all do not see that similarity among them.

The conservatives who used to hate McCain are now backing him too. So at the end of the day all of you will sell/compromise your soul and morals in some sort of way, because if you don't you will not be counted and the same goes for the politicians too.

From On The Issues:

Back in 1998, in a keynote speech given at the Davos Economic Summit, Clinton praised business leaders for mounting "a very effective business effort in the US on behalf of NAFTA," adding later that "it is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun."

It's fine to *report* that her handlers and personal biographers have re-written history, but you might want to check the facts first.

For wise cracks who are questioning Obama's Iraq war position- no matter who loudly it scream it's a lost cause.

Remember how Bill Clinton tried to parse Obama's Iraq position, it took a thumping before their shut the case.

Every time she tries to criticize him on Iraq, it reminds people how weak her judgement was on Iraq. That argument and done and dusted.

NAFTA- well in 2004 she said: "NAFTA is good for New York and America." Here in Hillary FLIP FLOPPING on NAFTA.

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

I don't know what Greg is trying to pull here. Huffington post and former clinton advisors are not exactly "objective" sources.

NAFTA- well in 2004 as a senator she said: "NAFTA is good for New York and America."

Here is Mrs. Clinton slowly receding her views on NAFTA.

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

Sorry to repost- wanted to make sure the link stays within the discussion.

Why in the world is TPM buying into the Clinton talking points.. I guess that's why it's called Talking Points Memo:
(apologies for any reposting in some of this text)

From David Sirota:

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

I would love to moderate a debate now. I would simply come with a list of topics (e.g. NAFTA, Bosnia, etc.) and ask HRC if she (a) approved of her husband's plan, (b) disapproved of it and let people know, (c) disapproved of it and kept silent, or (d) disapproved of it, but promoted it anyway because she was loyal to Bill.

With the business of "disapproving behind closed doors", she has given anyone running against her make her look disingenuous on almost any issue. She's on a real slippery slope now... and I suspect that if I thought of this, the Obama and McCain camps have as well.

Another reason why HRC wanted a short campaign -- the longer this runs, the more she is getting caught in her own statements as she drifts in position.

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

The last line of that HuffPo piece speaks for itself. It's Hillary herself, November 2007, saying:

"NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would."

Say again?

False hope? Bummer.

Hope is not a plan? Apparently.

Starting to wonder what other stuff she's thrown her support behind, only to find herself quietly regretting that it hasn't gone as she'd hoped? Oh, right, well there is that one thing, and come to think of it, that other thing, too. Crap.

Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. --U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is considered a rising star in the party, was the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner.
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
Some at Thursday's dinner said that while they were pleased with Lieberman's success in bringing Obama to Connecticut, they still consider Lieberman uncomfortably tolerant of the Bush administration.
Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the "elephant in the room" but praising Lieberman's intellect, character and qualifications.
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.

........
This demonstrates Sen. Obama's lack of judgment. He promoted this warmongerer voluntarily.

When she ran for the Senate, she thought NAFTA was great.

She is the one running for President and claiming soooooo much experience, a lot of which was gained in the White House. None of the others you mention are running for President.

See, the real problem, for me, with Hillary Clinton is that she is, in the end, a Republican at heart.

She started out campaigning for Barry Goldwater, great grand-daddy of the conservative movement and originator of the American paranoid style of politics. He also utterly hated unions, for personal reasons. Neither Wal-Mart, nor NAFTA, nor her authoritarian mandates (cig tax in NYC), nor her vicious style of campaigning, for that matter, are anomalies--they're who she is.

She could have made a graceful exit with the Texas debate, but she is so incapable of caring about what is right when her career as a status-quo politician is involved that she stood in front of a camera and did a little bit of acting for all of us, hoping, like an infant hopes, to suddenly turn the tide in a "brilliant" move.

Except everybody saw through it, and now she looks like a clown.