« Obama Mailer Attacks Hillary On NAFTA | Home | George Stephanopoulos Responds To Obama, Defends Handling Of Debate »
Hillary Mailer Hits Obama On Goolsbee-NAFTA Story
Suddenly, NAFTA mailers are everywhere. Here's Hillary's Pennsylvania mail piece -- forwarded to us by a political operative -- going after Obama on NAFTA by recycling the Goolsbee tale.
Click on the image to enlarge...
Advertisement
Obama's mailer looks much more professional than Clintons. Guess those fundraising dollars go somewhere useful when you're not paying Mark Penn's Dunkin Donuts bills.
April 17, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, it could just be that the fellow who sent TPM a copy of the Obama flyer had a better grade of flatbed scanner than the guy who sent them a copy of Clinton's. It is hard to draw conclusions from these low-grade reproductions.
April 17, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you're such a nice guy....but I'm beyond drawing conclusions--now just trying to draw cheap-shot jokes.
Though while I think the scanning job is poor, the flyer doesn't have high quality graphics/photos on every page like Obama's. I'm sure $$$$ can account for this.
April 17, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Starbucks! Starbucks!Starbucks!!!!!!
April 17, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please tell me that's not the quality of the flyer they sent out and just the quality of the 'xeroxing'?
LOL
April 17, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference in quality isn't the graphics, it's the content. Just READ them side by side.
Notice Hillary's mailer doesn't have even one single direct quote from Obama? It's all heresy. It's all "somebody says Obama said..." and "somebody's interpretation of Obama is...".
Why is that? Why not a single damning quote from Obama in his own words? You know Hillary's campaign looked damn hard for one.
Obama's mailer has several direct quotes from Hillary which are extremely damning. Her praising NAFTA in her own words, over many years.
Let's not forget the historical background of NAFTA. Bill Clinton was the architect of NAFTA and rammed it down the throats of more Progressive Dems against their great protest. Even some Mainstreet Republicans were against it.
Bill told his own party: if they wanted National DNC (and DLC) support, they better get on board with Bill's "New Democrat" neo-liberal economics he triangulated in the post Reagan era. Hillary was cheer leading it all along.
Even now we find out Mark Penn, the Clintons' chief adviser for almost two decades, the Clinton equivalent to Karl Rove in terms of political prominence; he's working for the Columbian government on a Columbian trade deal! Totally mind boggling.
April 17, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
typo: "hearsay"
April 17, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Heresy" works, too.
April 17, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't they both just have a mature discussion about NAFTA and quit playing this game of "I'm more against it than you are"?
April 17, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
They actaully were having one until Ohio and Hillary's jumping on the story despite knowing it was at minimum, an exaggeration or worse, a deliberate attempt by the right-wing in Canada to interfere with out election.
She knew she was doing and saying a lot worse which we all now know (always supported NAFTA & Secretly working with the Columbians through Penn all along).
April 17, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try, but here's an old NAFTA mailer attacking Hillary in Feb. The Goolsbee story broke in March.
April 17, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that mailer was untrue how?
April 17, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting negative mailers are part of a mature discourse on NAFTA? Maybe you should re-read the topic of conversation I had proposed.
April 17, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I asked what was untrue in the mailer Obama sent out in Feb.?
April 17, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not clear to me that your point, such as it is, really speaks to Another_reader's. To argue that Obama's mailer was true does not really prove that the debate about NAFTA is anything more than cheap posturing, which is, if I understand it, Another_reader's real complaint.
April 17, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care about the mailer. I had suggested both candidates quit playing games on NAFTA. They both are in the middle on this issue. They're not dumb. They know we need trade. However, they're both playing these games and insinuating the other is pro-NAFTA while they are anti-NAFTA when in fact they are both somewhere between there.
The point of my response is that Hillary did not start the immature discussion by jumping on the Goolsbee story as thejoshuablog suggested. It was a false smear and I wanted to correct it.
April 17, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The part that says Obama has been consistently opposed to NAFTA. Obama isn't opposed to NAFTA now. He's said he isn't opposed to it, just that it needs some fixing and that he'd do it... which is is exactly what Clinton has said she'd do.
April 17, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, opposed to NAFTA as it exists now, which is true. If NAFTA is changed it won't be the same agreement anymore.
April 17, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even I was for nafta before I was against it.
April 17, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just have to say that I am fed up with people like you on here. I post something that isn't even pro-Hillary. What reaction do I get? Someone inevitably thinks it's appropriate to falsely smear Hillary.
Hillary is not to blame for all of your candidates problems.
April 17, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see you not answer the question and instead launch into an unhinged tirade about how horrible I am for asking what was untrue about the mailer Obama sent out in Feb.
April 17, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This wasn't to you this was to thejoshuablog.
April 17, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your frustration, but you have to understand that what joshuablog was insinuating, is how power works.
Joshuablog is full og it to imply she was working "secretly", but the adage it is not what you know, it is who you know is spot on. The relationship Penn brought to the table (and Bill) for the Colombians, is precisely what they were paying for. You do not hire a former president for his autograph. You hire him for the connections. If Hillary makes it to the top, Bill's value skyrockets.
So you got angry for a smear, but the real problem is that the avenues of power work that way.
April 18, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because there is nothing that either of them have to say that is terribly different.
It's all about character assassination now - which one can't you trust? The problem for Hillary at this point is that attack ads like this (which isn't about NAFTA at all, but an attempt sow doubt ... nevermind the story line is a lie...) is that going negative has hurt her and allows Obama to attack back and call it defense (even if he has used the same tactic before it could be called a defense.) Not that Clinton has much choice about it - if she can't crack that veneer of Obama's she has no hope at all.
I will say this though (and I am an Obama supporter, so take it with however many grains of salt you deem necessary), I am impressed by Obama's ability to weather these attacks, his ability to attack back, and his ability to not seem like he's playing dirty. He is playing dirty, just like any politician would, but somehow it's just not being widely perceived (oh sure, Clinton supporters see it, but the more they whine, the more their candidate seems whiny - not fair, but that's what keeps happening.) Turns out Obama is the "Teflon" candidate who can beat the Right Wing Smear Machine and come out smelling like roses in November -- who knew?
April 17, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The flier worked in Ohio (and it looks like it was recycled, but literally), but Ohio was before Tuzla sniper gate, and the continuing slide in Hillary's trustworthiness ratings.
Will it have a similar effect after all of this?
April 17, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent.
April 17, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. She took the bait.
April 17, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like kind of a pattern: Trying to balance out concerns about something Clinton did, by raising concerns about something someone who was associated with Obama did.
April 17, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes perfect sense. In Hillaryland, Obama is responsible for every single comment uttered by each and every person in America, like, say Randi whasterface or some College Republican moron who shows up at one of her gigs and shouts "Iron my Shirts," yet Hillary is not responsible for the comments of her husband, her senior advisors or even for her own comments if she's sleep deprived.
April 17, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
absolutely!
April 17, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What someone who was associated with Obama was apparently incorrectly accused of doing, wasn't this whole flap exposed as false?
April 17, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, but Camp Clinton is counting on PA voters to not be up to date on the fact this false smear was proven... well, false.
Guess a campaign banking on PA voters being to stupid to know that this lie was exposed as one isn't condescending.
April 17, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama attacks, Hillary hits... Greg sinks further.
April 17, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would Barack Obama deal with an unrepentant terrorist? Why would Barack Obama hold a fundraiser in the home terrorist William Ayers?
Obama hits, Hillary hits back. Poor baby Barry needs to grow a pair.
April 17, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
ANT Alert.
Aryan Nation Troll has just shown up.
April 17, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would CLinton pardon convicted terrorists and get all high-dungeon about a casual acquaintance who was never charged with a crime?
April 17, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, if anything has been proven by the Hillary campaign, it's that Obama is tough.
Tough enough to beat the Clintons, tough enough to beat McCain.
April 17, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally Agree.
April 17, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush family's friends with Bin Laden family, also the head of Bush family, poppy Bush is friends with the head of Clinton's, Bill Clinton
why these 2 ex-presidents are so friendly with the family funds Osama Bin Laden's terrorists?
April 17, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean the terrorists that her husband pardoned?
And he never held a fundraiser for him, Obama was just taken to his house to meet him by his predecessor as Ayers is an active member of the community.
For those who want to know more about Ayers now (not when Obama was 8): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/16/231245/285/71/497244
I know you are just spouting off nonsense in a pathetic attempt to convince some uninformed person it is true, but really, for the vast majority of us who know the truth, you look ignorant as hell. You should be embarrassed.
April 17, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone that's interested, Bill Ayers himself has commented on his so-called lack of repentance:
http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/episodic-notoriety-fact-and-fantasy/
Doing a little wiki-research, I also discovered that Ayers is on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which is widely known as an elitist community-building organization.
And something of particular interest to you, MP, the Woods Fund has a new board member who used to be an executive at Sara Lee. If that doesn't justify boycotting the cakes in the frozen food bin, I don't know what does!
April 17, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
whatever she's doing is working! look at 'intrade prediction', she's up few pints now! from 15 to 18%.
Sorry, that's all I could find...
April 17, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Well if those White Working class can not appreciate that we enacted NAFTA for their benefit, then Screw 'em; we don't own them anything Bill"
I am Hillary Blue Collar Clinton, and I spewed that message.
April 17, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you even BE "working class" if you are unemployed?
April 17, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama Decries Debate's "Gotcha" Politics at NC Rally.
Whining on the campaign trail now.
Sad, drop out Obama. You are embarrassing yourself and not ready to take on the gop.
Need a fighter not a whiner.
Poor guy.
April 17, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife, what are you going to do when Obama wins?
April 17, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably the same thing he's doing now....fwap fwap fwap fwap...
April 17, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like the "fighter" who cried because the media are so tough on her back in NH or whines about being asked the first question in the previous debate even though it was decided by coin toss?
Or the never-ending drone by Bill about how the media is so unfair towards Hillary lying about Bosnia sniper fire?
April 17, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying the Goolsby tale isn't true?
April 17, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. It's not true the way Clinton says it.
April 17, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly correct. The Goolsbee story is not true. The CTV comment is from before it was shown to be false by the CBC.
April 17, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so tomorrow, Obama will send out a mailer detailing how a top Clinton advisor has been in talks with the Colombian government....
Don't think this is where the Clintons should be heading with this.
And Election Central? Has there been any news from the Obama campaign about fundraising off last night's debate? That counter on the web page was stuck at the same number for awhile. Today, it just keeps going up.
Wonder what that means?
April 17, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
She does realize that she was implicated as doing the same thing in the same story right? And she does realize it was debunked and the Canadian government said they misrepresented Goolsbee's comments.
Oh well, desperation is desperation...these lies saved her ass in Ohio, she is obviously looking for a repeat.
It would be nice if she could win a contested state without resorting to lying to voters.
April 17, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a slight difference between these two flyers. Both use out-of-context quotes to make their case although, in my eyes, the context of Clinton's words leaves the quote correct. Some may disagree on that. Either way, the full context should always be present.
The difference is that Clinton's flyer also uses a quote from a third party, CTV, that has been proven false nearly a month ago.
April 17, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I noticed on Hillary's mailer was that instead of direct Obama quotes (his mailer used direct Clinton quotes), they're lines from articles like, "Obama said that..." Not direct quotes, but secondhand paraphrasing. Why is that? Doesn't quite compare, does it?
April 17, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink