Obama Camp Blasts Hillary On NAFTA
In a sign that the Obama camp is moving aggressively to switch from playing defense on race to hitting Hillary Clinton on issues, the campaign has put out a new memo/press release attacking Hillary for having reportedly lobbied members of Congress in favor of NAFTA during Bill Clinton's presidency, only to claim now that she was always a critic of it.
Key quote:
It's about trust.
Working Americans are looking for a President who will be consistent in standing up for American workers — and have the integrity to be consistent in his or her views. Senator Clinton has failed that test: though she now rails against NAFTA on the campaign trail, her records as first lady show that she actively lobbied for NAFTA's passage.
The memo also makes ample mention of how Hillary attacked Obama over NAFTA-gate in Ohio, and now appears to be guilty of the exact same offense — double-talk on free trade — going all the way back to 1993.
Full memo after the jump.
Late Update: The Hillary camp is online with their fact check and response.
TO: Interested Parties
FR: Obama Campaign
RE: Clinton's distortion on NAFTA, part of a disturbing pattern
DA: 3/20/2008
Senator Clinton made her "opposition" to NAFTA a cornerstone of her Ohio campaign. There was only one problem: she wasn't telling the truth to Ohio voters. Misrepresenting your position and carefully parsing your words when you don't think you'll get caught are the hallmarks of the kind of politics that Barack Obama is running to change. That's the kind of politics that led us into war in Iraq and gave us a tax code that lets those with offshore investments pay a lower tax rate than the average working family in Pennsylvania.
It's about trust.
Working Americans are looking for a President who will be consistent in standing up for American workers — and have the integrity to be consistent in his or her views. Senator Clinton has failed that test: though she now rails against NAFTA on the campaign trail, her records as first lady show that she actively lobbied for NAFTA's passage.
Thousands of pages of Hillary Clinton's White House schedules released yesterday show that she was one of the administration's top proponents of NAFTA, attending at least four meetings to advocate for its passage.
That was then. Now that she's running for President, Clinton has changed her tune. Less than a month ago, Clinton said at a debate that "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it, because I was part of the administration, but when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic."
Really? Attendees at the 1993 NAFTA briefing where Clinton served as the closing act say that she was "totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy."
American workers are already facing the uncertainly of a changing economy. The last thing they need is another President who changes views when there's an election coming up."A CRITIC OF NAFTA FROM THE VERY BEGINNING"?
Clinton Said "I Have Been A Critic Of NAFTA From The Very Beginning." Clinton: "You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it, because I was part of the administration, but when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic." [Democratic Debate, 2/26/08]
Clinton Said That NAFTA Was "Negotiated Under President George H.W. Bush And It Was Passed During My Husband's Presidency. But I Was Always Uncomfortable About Certain Aspects Of It, And I Have Always Made That Clear." Clinton on her position: NAFTA was "negotiated under President George H.W. Bush and it was passed during my husband's presidency. But I was always uncomfortable about certain aspects of it, and I have always made that clear." [AP, 2/26/08]
Clinton: "I Had Said That For Many Years" That We Should Fix NAFTA. Asked how she would "fix" NAFTA, Clinton responded, "Well, I had said that for many years, that, you know, NAFTA and the way it's been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers. In fact, I did a study in New York looking at the impact of NAFTA on business people, workers and farmers who couldn't get their products into Canada despite NAFTA. So, clearly we have to have a broad reform in how we approach trade. NAFTA's a piece of it, but it's not the only piece of it. I believe in smart trade. I've said that for years." [Clinton, AFL-CIO Debate, 8/7/07]
Clinton Campaign: "Clinton Has Been Voicing Serious Concerns About Trade Agreements For Years." In response to criticism of Clinton's trade stance, Clinton's spokesperson said "Senator Obama must have been talking about himself because as recently as 2004, he was saying the United States should pursue trade deals like Nafta. The fact is that Senator Clinton has been voicing serious concerns about trade agreements for years." [NYT, 11/18/07]THE RECORD: NAFTA MEETINGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE
NOVEMBER 10, 1993: Clinton Served "As The Closing Act During A Briefing On NAFTA, The Trade Agreement She Now Assails." Clinton served "as the closing act during a briefing on NAFTA, the trade agreement she now assails." According to her schedule, at 11:30 am - 11:45 am Clinton did a "NAFTA briefing drop-by" with approximately 120 expected to attend and Clinton concluding the program. [ABC News, 3/19/08; Clinton Schedule 1993, p. 1375-1376]* ABC: Two Attendees Said "It Wasn't A Drop-By It Was Organized Around Her Participation" And "Her Remarks Were Totally Pro-NAFTA And What A Good Thing It Would Be For The Economy." "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. Folks were pleased that she came by. If this is a still a question about what Hillary's position when she was First Lady, she was totally supportive if NAFTA.' That first attendee recalls that the First Lady's office in the East Wing put together 'the invitation list, who was invited authorizations and all that stuff.' And what is this attendee's response to Clinton today distancing herself from NAFTA? 'For people who worked hard to pass NAFTA and who support the importance of markets opening for the economy in the long term, they're very upset. A number of the women who were there are very upset. You need to have some integrity in your position. The Clintons when Bill Clinton was president took a moderate position on trade for Democrats. For her to repudiate that now seems pretty phony.' Recalls a second attendee, 'they were looking for women in international trade who supported NAFTA. Senator Clinton came by at the end. And of course she asked for our support and help in passing NAFTA.' Women who attended that event, the second attendee says, have been incredulous to see Clinton distance herself from the trade agreement as she campaigns today. 'They're all saying, 'What's this all about?' We all heard it firsthand.' She says Clinton isn't being honest with voters today." [ABC News, 3/19/08]
AUGUST 9, 1993: Clinton Attended Back-To-Back Meetings On NAFTA. According to Hillary Clinton's schedule, she attended a NAFTA meeting that was tentative with the President at 5:10 pm and a NAFTA/Health meeting with the President at 6 pm. [Hillary Clinton Schedule 1993, p. 885]
OCTOBER 5, 1993: Clinton Attended Meeting On NAFTA. According to Hillary Clinton's schedule, she attended a NAFTA meeting that from 10:30am-12am. [Hillary Clinton Schedule 1993, p. 1159]MEET ME IN OHIO!
Clinton Criticized Obama For Sending Out A NAFTA Mailer And Said "I Have To Express My Deep Disappointment That He Is Continuing To Send False And Discrediting Mailings With Information That Is Not True To Voters Of Ohio. … It Has Been Discredited. It Is Blatantly False And Yet He Continues To Spend Millions Of Dollars Perpetuating Falsehoods" And Added That Newsday Had Corrected The Record About Her Views On The Agreement. Clinton: "We've been drawing contrasts in this campaign, and I think that's important for voters so that they know where we stand, what our records are, what it is we will do as president. Today, in the crowd, I was given two mailings that Senator Obama's campaign is sending out, and I have to express my deep disappointment that he is continuing to send false and discredited mailings with information that is not true to the voters of Ohio. He says one thing in speeches and then he turns around and does this, and we have consistently called him on it. It has been discredited. It is blatantly false and yet he continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods. That is not the new politics that the speeches are about. It is not hopeful; it is destructive. … This mailing about NAFTA, saying that I believe NAFTA was a, quote, boon, quotes a newspaper that had corrected the record. We have pointed it out. The newspaper has pointed it out. Time and time again, you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics reminiscent of the same sort of Republican attacks on Democrats. Well, I am here to say that it is not only wrong, but it is undermining core Democratic principles. … Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove's playbook. This is wrong, and every Democrat should be outraged because this is the kind of attack that not only undermines poor Democratic values, but gives aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican Party who are against doing what we want to do for America. So, shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That's what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign." [Clinton Press Conference, 2/23/08]NEW EVIDENCE CONTRADICTS PREVIOUS MEDIA REPORTS
Obama's Attack On Clinton's NAFTA Position Is, "Most Observers Say, Misleading." "As the 2008 campaign shifts to economically hard-hit states like Ohio, so too do the topics of political debate. This week, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton on trade, arguing that she was once a supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement that contributed to the loss hundreds of thousands of American jobs. 'A little more than a year ago,' an Obama mailer reads, "Hillary Clinton thought NAFTA was a 'boon' to the economy.' The piece goes on to argue that the New York Senator is 'changing her tune' now that she's campaigning in the Buckeye State. The attack is, most observers say, misleading. The "boon" line, a paraphrase lifted from a September 2006 Newsday article, has yet to be confirmed as an authentic quote. But, more importantly, the mailer misrepresents what former Clinton administration officials and biographers say was Hillary Clinton's long-held opposition to the legislation." [Huffington Post, 2/14/08]
Mickey Kantor Said "Hillary Clinton Was One Of The Great Skeptics" Of NAFTA. "'In August in 92, we had to make a decision,' Mickey Kantor the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Clinton adviser, and free trade advocate recalled for the Huffington Post. 'President Clinton had to make a decision as governor, whether or not he would support [George H.W. Bush's] NAFTA, and of course he did... Hillary Clinton was one of the great skeptics in the discussion as to whether he should do. So she was always skeptical beginning in 1992 and onward.'" [Huffington Post, 2/14/08]
David Gergen Said Clinton "Was Extremely Unenthusiastic About NAFTA. "I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that's putting it mildly. I'm not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn't see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there's some justification for her camp saying, you know, she's never been a great backer for NAFTA." [CNN, 2/25/08]















Hmm...so who's the bigger hypocrite in this situation?
March 20, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Misrepresenting your position and carefully parsing your words when you don't think you'll get caught are the hallmarks of the kind of politics that Barack Obama is running to change."
Like saying there was no meeting with Canada, then saying, wait, no there was a meeting but it wasn't substantial, then saying OK, there was a meeting but the content was misrepresented in the memo?
March 20, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's shameful that Clinton didn't own up to her doubletalk on NAFTA. It's refreshing of a Clinton supporter to come out and say it, owning up to the whole "accuse your opponent of what you're doing".
March 20, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. I forgot to use the Obama supporters talking points. "He's so Rovian!" "He's accusing Clinton of doing the same things he does!" "Obama and his best friend Karl drafted this memo!"
March 20, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must have forgotten that as the story unfolded there were no assurances made. Or are you that blinded to follow-up stories?
March 20, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not blind to this misrepresentation of position and carefully parsed words. Are you?
"For four days after a news report alleged that Sen. Barack Obama’s economic adviser had told Canadian officials to ignore the Democrat’s tough talk on trade deals, the campaign gave incomplete – and sometimes misleading – explanations of whether a meeting had even taken place.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Monday night that the campaign had known of the meeting between adviser Austan Goolsbee and Canada’s consul general in Chicago since a Canadian television network, CTV, first reported the interaction last Wednesday.
“When they reported it, we were aware of it at that point,” Burton said.
Burton and other campaign aides – even Obama himself – vociferously denied the substance of the report, which alleged Goolsbee had given back-channel assurances to Canada that the Illinois senator’s call for reopening labor and environmental rules in the North American Free Trade Agreement was merely political posturing.
But for days, the campaign was less-than-forthcoming on a specific detail: Had a meeting actually occurred?
“Well, the Canadian ambassador issued a statement saying that that story was absolutely false. There had been no such contact,” said Susan Rice, an Obama foreign policy adviser, on MSNBC’s “Tucker” show Thursday. “There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word . . . Period.”
Also Thursday, Goolsbee told ABC News that he “would not confirm or deny meetings with anyone.” Yet he hinted at an interaction, saying Canada’s consul general contacted him “at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner.”
David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, was asked Friday by reporters to comment on the conversation reported on Canadian television.
“The story is just not true. Obama's position on this is very clear. Our campaign and the ambassador have been very clear on this; it did not happen,” Plouffe said, appearing to tailor his statement to only address elements of the initial Canadian TV story that had been discounted.
The Canadian network tweaked its initial story last week to reflect that Goolsbee had spoken with the consul general in Chicago, not the ambassador in Washington, as it was first reported. It is also appears now that the Canadian officials, not Goolsbee, initiated the contact.
Despite Obama's promises to run as a transparent and straight-talking candidate, the campaign offered muddled responses that allowed the story to metastasize in the days leading up to a primary election in Ohio, where trade issues could prove decisive."
March 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the best part is, in her campaign's response, they repeat the debunked NAFTA-gate claims, even though they have been debunked, and even though she was implicated in the controversy as well.
Its like she doesn't even realize she is being painfully hypocritical.
March 20, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debunked?? which world are you living there dude? if anything it was proved more substantially!
March 20, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So she was for Nafta before she was against it?
(Sorry. Couldn't resist).
This could be a problem in one sense. How does Clinton explain that she was publicly working for something she didn't agree with? If I were a Karl Rove operator, I'd say that Hillary Clinton didn't have enough backbone to stand up for her principles. And if she couldn't do that in her own husband's Presidency, how can we expect her to stand up and do the right thing when the battle gets heated?
March 20, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
REZKO!!!!!!
March 20, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the Full Court Press idea here, but please move on, Obama camp. This crap makes you look petty.
Of course, I'm already decided, so this message is not crafted for me.
March 20, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, uh, HEY look over there - it's Jeremiah Wright!!!
March 20, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait! No! It's Samantha Powers!
March 20, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. As soon as I saw the stories about her WH schedule I said to myself that the Obama campaign needs to hit this hard in PA. I continue to be impressed at how quick on their feet they are.
Slouch- she's still dragging up Samantha Power. Now THAT is really pathetic.
March 20, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally think we should leave the pathetic contest to them, but as I said, I'm not the one who needs convincing here.
March 20, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trust?
Obama lied about Rezko, hearing his kook's sermon, Clinton's experience, hell I can't keep up:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Obama+lied
The list grows daily.
I trust him as much as I trust w.
March 20, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has never lied, so Clinton attacks him on his "lies", by lying of course. And now YOU are lying too.
Yes, you. You are LYING that Obama said he never heard Reverend Wright say anything controversial. Not only has it been PROVEN that he wasn't there at that particular sermon, but he also stated, in his most publicized speech, that he had heard many controversial statements but chose to remain in the church that benefited the community so much.
You are also LYING that Obama ever was untruthful about Rezko, and has laid bare his entire life to the media to prove it.
Why should we listen to you, a proven liar? A man of deceit and twisted words?
March 20, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't waste the time or calories responding to this poster. It's always the same trash. If you respond, you reward it.
March 20, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rezko, Rezko, Rezko. Funny how Clinton supporters constantly try to kick this tired horse when Hillary Clinton has much worse and far more numerous fundraising scandals-- Marc and Denise Rich, Charlie Trie, Norman Hsu and quite a few others.
The full list:
http://www.macminute.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=politics&Number=360230&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&part=
Note also, that Hillary has a damaging and very public trial coming up in October, with Peter Paul, a former fundraiser, as plaintiff. This will obviously be disastrous for Hillary's political career, but damaging for the Party in general as well. The longer that Hillary stays in this race, the more damaging the Paul trial will become.
March 20, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice link. It leads directly to a bunch of blog posts. Awesome!
March 20, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please explain how Obama lied about Clinton's experience. Links, please.
March 20, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must give the Clinton camp credit here. This was really a masterful political move. She was able to both avoid any responsibility for a Clinton-passed NAFTA and make Obama appear as a liar due to his aid's discussion with Canada.
Kudos.
March 20, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why he's doing it. He's hurting himself.
March 20, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see nothing in the Obama memo that says that Obama is guilty of double-talk on free trade.
I see nothing in the world of established facts that supports your assertion that Barack Obama is a liar. Can you provide quotes of Obama "double-talking" on NAFTA as you contend?
Seems to me the headline here should be "Clinton caught lying". I find it amazing that you editorialize that Obama is a liar in a post about new evidence that Hillary Clinton has lied about her support for NAFTA in the '90's.
March 20, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation for regular voters: Clinton lied AS MUCH AS DID. Right?
March 20, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Didn't the Goolsbee memo say that Obama campaign wouldn't pull NAFTA, but add labor and environmental standards to it? That's what was in the memo, as I remember. That shows that Obama's position on NAFTA has been consistent.
March 20, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought he was not politics as usual.
Another lie.
He is just another radical, lying politician.
March 20, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOT. THIS. TIME.
"One of Clinton's laws of politics is, if one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes,'' he said. "You better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.''
March 20, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
guilty of the exact same offense
Wrong!
A member of his campaign met with the Canadians not as a member of the Obama campaign, but in personal business. Obama did come up, but then the Canadians distorted what was said.
Geez. Get it wrong much?
March 20, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's the bigger hypocrit? Obama.
A 15 minute drop by is not 'lobbying members of Congress'. David Gergen, the master of ceremnies at this 'drop by' says Hillary was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. Is that lobbying members of Congress?
I guess Obama doesn't care what lies he tells.
March 20, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
She had FIVE meetings about NAFTA in 1993 before its passage.
March 20, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's about trust, and Obama can't be trusted to tell the truth even when the truth is staring him in the face.
March 20, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Osama is so desperate to get white voters forgetting about Wright that he brings up NAFTA again? He thinks we'll believe his lies this time?
OK, here goes:
The Osama camp went out of its way to assure the Canadians that Osama's antiNafta bs was just that, bs for the rubes in the rust belt.
After first lying by saying the meeting never took place Hussein Osama was forced to admit that the meeting did take place when evidence was produced. Gee, just like his Wright lies!
Next lie? That his camp was misquoted. Wait, no it wasn't.
Next lie? That it had nothing to do with his campaign. Wait, yes it did.
Next lie? Well OK it was our campaign position but HRC's camp did it too. Wait, no she didn't!
That was an ObaLie too.
Osama never produced one shred of evidence for his charges against HRC.
More pathetic Osama lies piled on lies piled on lies.
What do we know about Hussein Osama?
That when faced with any criticism he cries "Racist!" and then lies. And lies again to cover the initial lies.
The new politics? What a fucking joke the Blackster is.
Osama stands publicly revealed as a racist lying hate monger. This of course explains his suckcess with the irresponsible and useless latte sipping ObaIdiots.
And also explains why and how the ObaLiar is now burnt toast.
March 20, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snarkrific!
March 20, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously guy... get some help. Thats not healthy...
March 20, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're convincing a lot of people with that clever Osama bit, dude.
There are a lot of decent intelligent Hillary supporters on these boards. I wish some of them would stand up and tell these bozos like JTHB and RaeK to STFU.
March 20, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's not leave out MarginalPlayer...
I don't think they're Hillary supporters. I think they're Republican trolls.
March 20, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Issues such as NAFTA, the war in Iraq, and Hillary's dishonesty on these subject should all be abandoned in this election so that everyone should focus relentlessly for the next eight months on Rev. Wright.
March 20, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to meet for a latte. Or a beer. Whatever. I'll even buy.
Then I'd like to beat your diseased head in.
You foul, filthy, rotten pig.
I have many staunchly Republican friends and acquaintances. Not ONE of them has ever said anything as obscene and nauseating as this. NEVER.
If I met you in person, I would make absolutely sure that you regret what you've said. There's no excuse, in this country I love, for this degenerate garbage.
Let's have lunch. Please.
March 20, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And also explains why and how the ObaLiar is now burnt toast."
Psst. You're a proven douchebag so no one believes you.
March 20, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
FINAL REPORT of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SENATE Rept. 105-167 - 105th Congress 2d Session - March 10, 1998
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_rpt/sgo-sir/2-20.htm
cross refernce date to testimony April 4, 1996
http://www.judicialwatch.org/cl-hrc-calendars
Hmmm no reference to meeting between Ickes, White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Cardozo & Mrs Clinton.
on April 4 with Harold Ickes, White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the White House supervisor of the President's re-election effort, and Mrs. Clinton to discuss the Trie-related contributions to the Trust. Cardozo began the meeting by telling the First Lady that someone from Arkansas had delivered a large number of checks to the Trust and asked her to guess who it was. When she failed to do so, Cardozo mentioned the name Charlie Trie. Mrs. Clinton hesitated, then recalled him as the owner of a restaurant in Little Rock frequented by then Governor Clinton.
March 20, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has nothing to do with the substance of the post, but could you people who write headlines about politics please stop using words like "blasts"? Or "slams"? Not only is it a cliche, but it lowers the level of discourse.
This is Talking Points Memo, not some random local paper that uses stories from the newswire.
March 20, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
To those who are still saying that Obama lied about NAFTA-gate, please see the following article:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_facts_about_nafta-gate.html
The CTV story about Obama was false. Nobody in Obama's campaign phoned the Canadian ambassador to discuss NAFTA.
The CTV story was false. Obama said "Our office has said the story was not true. And so I think it's important for viewers to understand that it was not true."
Obama is correct. The story was false.
The CTV story was NOT about Austin Goolsbee's conversation with the Canadian consulate. The CTV story was about a Clinton staffer calling the Canadian embassy in DC. CTV screwed up and misreported this as an Obama staffer. Again, the CTV story was false. Obama's denial was correct.
Obama did NOT claim that his campaign had never met with anyone in the Canadian government. Obama said that the CTV story was false, and it was.
The Goolsbee meeting came up later to try and discredit Obama's denial, however Obama is still perfectly accurate because he was denying the CTV story and not making any sort of statement about general communications between his staff and the Canadian government. The Goolsbee conversation wasn't even about NAFTA - it was a general conversation about numerous things and there was a few minutes where they talked about NAFTA.
The Obama campaign also said:
"There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade."
You could try and make an argument that this is false by using Joseph DeMora's memo, however the memo was his own personal notes and was his opinion of what Goolsbee was saying. There are no direct quotes from Goolsbee, so we don't know what he said. Goolsbee has claimed numerous times that DeMora's memo misstates his position.
Here's what we have:
1) A false CTV report.
2) 100% accurate statements from the Obama campaign regarding the CTV report.
3) One statement from the Obama campaign that might be questionable, but there is no direct evidence that it is false and no direct quotes from anyone showing it to be false. The only way to put this statement into question is to use one man's summary of someone else's words during a long meeting that only talked about NAFTA for a few minutes.
You can hardly call someone a liar because one campaign offical's statement slightly contradicts a 3rd party characterization of another campaign official's statement, without even a direct quote.
March 20, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Additional fact--the Canadian memo re Goolsbee's visit specifically says that Obama wants to make labor and environmental protection a focus--entirely consistent with Obama's public position on the issue.
After you read that specific comment, you can't really read the other comment in the memo about playing politics as meaning anything like "Obama's going to say things on the campaign trail that he doesn't mean."
The original story (which may have been planted by a conservative Canadian government) had traction because it said the Obama camp initiated a call directly to the ambassador to give these assurances. Does anyone think that this story would have gotten nearly the attention that it did if it was initially about what is in the Goolsbee meeting memo?
March 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmmmm....do some research, the ACTUAL people who contacted Canada, were HRC people. Why the media has not explored this - Ill never know.
March 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media didn't explore it because they were too busy 'vetting' Obama at the behest of Hillary standing up pointing her finger at Obama as she hid all manner of stuff in her pantsuits and said 'but he, but he, but he'...stop picking on me as a woman...
that's why the press bought into all of her obfuscating and vituperation.
All of which surprised Obama because he knew she was making false statements, he relied on the press to ferret out the truth and publish it, much to his chagrin.
Obama learned the press only looks where they are pointed..you have to hand them a smoking gun because they will not unearth anything on their own.
The press should be all over the Clintons about donors to Bill's library yet we have nothing.
The press even acts like Hillary's campaign releashed these pages when we only hve them because another organization sued under FOIA for the release of the papers.
Despite all this doubletalk on NaFTA...Chuck Tood and Scarborough, CNN and others have said all day that their was nothing in the schedules.
Only ABC was talking about the NAFTA conflict.
March 20, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue here is that she lied. She said she opposed NAFTA. But she didn't. She opposed the timing. She KNEW NAFTA was a raw deal/opposed by labor and didn't want to burn up political capital getting NAFTA passed which would hurt healthcare (she was right).
I don't think there would be much argument here if she simply sat the whole NAFTA debate on the sideline. She was First Lady. No one expects her to be actively pushing trade policy. But once she voluntarily stepped into the breach, it's hard to argue that you opposed it.
David Gergen's comments don't help her. She didn't oppose NAFTA until she started running for president. Liar.
March 20, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Exelon, drug companies....
vs.
nafta?? LOL
March 20, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
vs. NAFTA, vs. Whitewater, vs. impeachment, vs. cattle futures, vs. Peter Paul, vs. Marc Rich . . . shall I continue?
March 20, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
NAFTA shipped millions of jobs away... Wright said something stupid.. I think, think, think NAFTA!!!!!DING DING DING...
March 20, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
When is Hillary going to step down? She is further behind than she was prior to her must wins in Texas and Ohio. Since she didn't win Texas, I thought her husband said she was going to step down. Let me guess, he was parsing his words and since she won the popular vote and not the delegate vote she must stay in in order to cirumvent the will of the voters. Good Job, Hillary.
March 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's NAFTA Lie
The Nation
March 20, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
>How does Clinton explain that she was publicly >working for something she didn't agree with?
Because her husband was President, and she was First Lady. She may have been doing some light non-public lobbying on behalf of her husband, on a policy she didn't agree with, because HES the president.
I mean, I guess if she had vehemently disagreed with him in public you would complain that she should be more loyal. He was after all, the president.
Do you really think that all the president's surrogates agree 100% with every policy they publicly support? I'd hope you weren't that naive.
March 20, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama owes Clinton an immediate apology. Here's what David Gergen told Anderson Cooper about a meeting he held on NAFTA:
"I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that"s putting it mildly. I"m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn"t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there"s some justification for her camp saying, you know, she"s never been a great backer for NAFTA." [David Gergen, Anderson Cooper 360, 2/25/08]"
More twisting and distortion by Axelrod and Obama. The very thing that they alleged the Clinton's were doing. And they are also deceiving the electorate. The Obama campaign is behind an effort to block re-votes in MI and FL. They claim that it could not be done fairly. That is not true. The real reason they don't want a re-do, is because in a fair vote in FL and MI, they're afraid they'll lose. Tossing the FL and MI voters away like garbage, is immoral and dishonorable.
March 20, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would anyone in their right mind believe HRC or BJC;They are liars of the first order,that's David Geffens opinion when the campaign cycle started.Remember he was a very personal friend of theirs & cameout in support of Obama.Do you really think he was not aware of the lies the Clintons are capable of ?He is proven right everyday day.
March 20, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the Obama camp said the First Lady's time in the White House didn't count for anything? Now she gets the blame for the bad but no credit for the good?
Make up your minds, does it count or not?
March 20, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It counts a little. ;-) Seriously, she did some things but clearly exaggerated her role.
David Gergen: His comment that she wasn't interested in NAFTA is only part of the story. Her objection to NAFTA was that she wanted political capital to be used in the interest of health insurance before NAFTA.
March 20, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how Hillary comes off as anything but an idiot here:
Let's suppose that the reports are correct: she did work for NAFTA when she was First Lady. If so, then she is exposed as a hypocrite and a liar. Instead of attacking the Obama campaign for not playing fair (or nice) with her, why isn't she explaining the inconsistency?
Let's suppose that the reports are false: she did not work for NAFTA when she was First Lady, and in fact actively opposed it. This doesn't put her in a better light: First, there are evidently NO records that support this interpretation. Second, she is shown to be disloyal to her husband's policy AND ineffective: her allegedly strenuous efforts against NAFTA were so lame that they did not get any publicity.
Either way....
March 20, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Children, children, civility please.
Tonight on Larry King, Barack is saying that when the phone rings at 3:00am ,'I will be there to answer it with good judgement". What if he can't reach Rev Wright to check his compass calibration?
And speaking of Clinton's records, judidial watch has fought so tenaciously to obtain, to what purpose you might ask. Will they ask for Obama's records as well? McCain's? Why not.
By the way, what/who is judicial watch, and what is their mission statement? And what about their ethics?
March 20, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still Obama on Larry King tonight.
Obama, said at times his grandmother had made racial remarks that made him cringe.
Never used that term concerning anything Rev Wright said. She must be one tough grandma, and I bet she will box his ears at next meeting.
How pathetic, putting his grandmother in a worse light to justify his relationship with The Rev.
Karl Rove said that Obama parsed his answers so that when one of his bro's delivers more videos
he hopefully won't be caught out. Karl knows.
March 20, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
searay185: Spin spin spin. You're making me dizzy. He denouced Wright's comments. His grandma made him cringe. Have you ever been embarrassed by your mom? Would your minister have the same effect? I think the people closest to most people are most likely to illicit stronger emotional feelings of embarassment. I don't think President's call their minister's for this type of advice.
March 21, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah tonnyb, know what you mean.
Pro Hillary, anti Barack is just spin spin spin.
Pro Barack, Anti Hillary is truth, and light, and hope and dreams, and all that is good.
hope you have a nice day and get over your dizzy spell.
March 21, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama stays with, I don't remember/recall, never heard that, don,t think I was ever there when that was said, people may start to think he is just like the ex-bushies who went this route until they could no longer find their way to the WH.
Hillary knows it is just a matter of time until Barack implodes, just hope it happens before the GE, after which time the Dems will have no chance to defeat a 3rd bush term.
Good luck with the slogans, our time has come, yes we can, this is our only chance, it may never come this way again, the urgency of now
March 21, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink