Hegel rolls over in his grave while Hillary triangulates on NAFTA...

[Sir Jeffrey]

The latest attempt at triangulation by Hillary Clinton, in anticipation of the upcoming Ohio primary, appears to be the following:

She never supported NAFTA. (Really!) She opposed NAFTA but remained silent because of her husband.

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

snip

""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.

"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 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."

Indeed, as Kantor went on to note, Hillary Clinton long held reservations over the labor and environmental fallouts of the free trade agreement. In addition, she was, at the time, eager to see her health care reform (not NAFTA) pushed through Congress. As such, Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith writes in her book "For Love of Politics," her disapproval of the trade agreement was both political and philosophical."

end

The first time this line of reasoning was made publicly was by Carl Bernstein here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/31/carl-bernstein-says-hillary-clinton-fought-against-nafta-when-bill-implemented-it/

Bernstein made these statements after Edwards dropped out of the race, so it isn't too hard to draw the line of causation between populist Edwards, loose voters and pandering for votes.

Now of course, Bill supported NAFTA in 1992. So this gets interesting.

Hillary is, essentially, triangulating against her husband's prior triangulation to try to combat the NAFTA argument made by Obama in anticipation of the Ohio primary. This tells me that she recognizes how vulnerable she is on NAFTA, and will throw her husband under the bus to win the primary.

Wow. This is going to get ugly in the next 3 weeks. I hope Obama and Hillary can keep it to a certain minimal level of decency. We don't need a bloodbath.

[jackson_dem]

1. Bernstein is no Hill fan. Why would he lie for her?

[Sir Jeffrey]

4. Never said Bernstein lied...

I am saying that the argument is coming out now in a concerted effort to triangulate Hillary away from her husband's position on NAFTA. She feels vulnerable on this because of Ohio.

[rinsd]

6. Yeah and all of a sudden Obama's all populist.

Kind of like that brief period when he did his poverty tour in Iowa (much to Edwards chagrin)

[jackson_dem]

10. Have you seen this rinsd? Obama's record on trade doesn't match his record. Can we trust him?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4585898

Obama forget about poverty then until Edwards dropped out. The only times he's made it a part of his bid are when it has been strategic for him (during Edwards' summer poverty tour, Iowa where he was battling a surging Edwards who came back from a distant third, and post-Edwards).

[rinsd]

13. Excellent OP.

Thanks for all the citations.

[Sir Jeffrey]

11. Non-sequitur...

The point of my OP was to say that it looks like Hillary is getting ready to triangulate against her husband's position on NAFTA.

[rinsd]

14. I was responding to this "She feels vulnerable on this because of Ohio"

Which is a steaming load since Hillary's position on NAFTA is not something that just happened contrary to Obama's lying mailer.

[Sir Jeffrey]

16. See post 12 before saying it is a "load" nt

[rinsd]

21. Um post #12 referencing same "quote" your OP casts doubt upon

""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."

[Sir Jeffrey]

24. See our discussion downthread for my response to this nt

[bicentennial_baby]

2. I'm writing a research paper on the Enviro. effects of NAFTA

Should be fascinating. :)

[OHdem10]

3. Hilary was never for Nafta. (Andrea Mitchell)

At the Debate sponsored by the Unions HRC said Nafta had
not worked out as the sponsors had hoped.

[Sir Jeffrey]

7. The statement at the debate is different from this new argument IIRC...

she said NAFTA hadn't worked out like it was hoped. That implies support at first. This new argument implies opposition from the start.

Hmmm...implying opposition from the start to an unpopular policy as a means of convincing people to vote for you. That sounds familiar for some reason.

[rinsd]

5. So misleading Obama mailer means Hillary is triangulating.

[Sir Jeffrey]

9. So misinterpreting my post = good response by you?

Come on. The argument is coming out now solely because of Ohio. She had the opportunity to bring this up a million times before.

[rinsd]

19. She has brought it up before, your quest to pin this to OH shows your ignorance.

Here's expanded comments from recent for the other check th links

Feb 1st - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584649,00.html

TIME: The other thing I wanted to talk to you about was trade. You describe yourself as not a free trader or a fair trader but —

CLINTON: smart, pro-American trade.

TIME: But your husband was a free trader..

CLINTON: Uh-huh

TIME: What's this evolution about?

CLINTON: I think it's about the changing world in which we find ourselves. I believe very much in trade. Trade on balance has been very good for America. But I don't see how anyone can look at what's happened in the global economy and not ask yourself, what are we missing here? Why is it that we have such a huge trade deficit with the world, particularly with China? Is it all because we can't compete? I don't think so. Is it because the rules are not being enforced? Is it because most other governments in the world take actions that maximize the positive impact of their trading relationships for their workers? I think so. And it's not just China, which is just the most egregious example.

I issued a report earlier this year about some of the problems we have with Canada, our very good neighbor and ally along our border. We have trouble getting New York agricultural products into Canada. And I believe that it's because the federal and provincial governments of Canada, they protect themselves. They protect their farmers. They are not going to just open their borders regardless of what NAFTA says.

I voted against CAFTA , because I looked at the facts and I thought we have no environmental or labor standards—something that I believe is within the rubric of free trade. Free trade doesn't mean trade without rules. It doesn't mean a race to the bottom. It's supposed to be based on comparative advantage, so the trading partners all improve their standard of living. If you don't have some rules that will create conditions for employees to be treated fairly, the money is all going to go to the pockets of the elite. I heard the other day that in Mexico, they are importing cheap labor from Central and South America. Meanwhile, you have all of these ambitious, motivated Mexicans leaving their country to get a better life in ours. There's something wrong with this picture.

TIME: Do you think NAFTA was the right thing to do?

CLINTON: I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example—

TIME: That was your husband's Adminstration, wasn't it? Because I recall a lot of debate about it not having labor standards and environmental standards.

CLINTON: But it was inherited. NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration. I believe in the general principles it represented, 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. You look at the trade enforcement record between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration brought more trade enforcement actions in one year than the Bush Administration brought in six years.

For me, trade is who we are. We're traders. We want to be involved in the global economy, but not be played for suckers.

As we look at trade today, I don't think we can look at trade separate and apart from how we fix health care. I don't think we can look at it separate and apart from how we incentivize and pay for education, so we keep trying to improve the skills of our workforce. And I think that the budget deficit has mortgaged our future and the holders of the mortgages are governments like the government of China, so then it makes it even more difficult for us to get tough when it comes to trade. So we've kind of walked into this vicious cycle and we need to break it.

Last year (Mar 2007)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=atUKcP4eSEvY&refer=politics

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

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."

So your contention that this is in response to Obama's recent attacks is quite incorrect.

[Sir Jeffrey]

25. Hmmmm...

"TIME: Do you think NAFTA was the right thing to do?

CLINTON: I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example—"

But...

The argument being pushed by the Clinton campaign is that she was opposed to NAFTA from the start. It seems to contradict...no wait, it explicitly contradicts the statement that she thought NAFTA was good *in principle*, or that she supported it but Bush fucked it up. People are now pushing the idea that she opposed it from the start.

And my analysis is correct: Hillary's triangulation on NAFTA is being pushed by the campaign in advance of the Ohio primary. The change in the presentation of the story is very recent...and your posts actually prove my point. If she goes into Ohio and pushes that NAFTA was good in theory, she'll get clobbered. It is a very subtle distinction in the story, but it is one that is highly beneficial to her candidacy in Ohio.

[HeraldSquare212]

8. THE CLINTON RECORD ON TRADE

I saw this in another thread and have dropped it into another thread about trade policies. I guess that is going to be the big issue for the next little while. This is from a UNITEHere international union (which is supporting Obama) memo. It goes on at greater length.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-from-supporting-union-leaders

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.”

JANUARY 2008: Bill Clinton Says “A Lot Of People Think NAFTA’s A Bigger Problem Than it Is. During an event in Las Vegas, Clinton said “She believes that NAFTA, she believes that all our trade agreements should be reviewed in the first 90 to 120 days of taking office. She would have a total moratorium on all new trade deals until we conducted a review. And one of the things that we have to examine is the point I made earlier. That is, is the trade agreement basically fair, but we just don’t enforce it. A lot of people think that NAFTA’s a bigger problem than it is. Our problem with Mexico, our trade deficit with Mexico is mostly because we buy oil from them.”

CHINA

2000: Hillary Clinton Claimed China’s Entry Into The World Trade Organization Would Be Good For American Workers Despite The Already Massive Trade Deficit With China. “I know many people, here in Western New York in particularly and Erie Country, are concerned about this vote, and I share the concerns that many of my supporters in organized labor have expressed to me, because I do think we have to make sure that we improve labor rights, we improve environmental standards in our bilateral and our multilateral trade agreements. But on balance, I’ve looked at this, I’ve studied it, I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO. Right now, we are trading with China. We have a huge trade deficit with China. The agreement that has been negotiated between our two countries would open their markets to us in a way that they are not yet open, and in fact, for many large manufactured products, like automobiles, we would have the first chance to really get in and compete in that marketplace. I also think it’s not just an issue of trade. I believe it’s a security consideration. I want to do everything we can to persuade China to improve its human rights record, to be sure that it doesn’t in any way interfere with its neighbors or with Taiwan. I don’t think you gain that by isolating China. I think we must work out as best we can a relationship in trade, and a very firm statement and commitment to improving human rights and try to make as much progress as possible.”

2000: Hillary Clinton Supported Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) For China, Claimed It Would Create Leverage. “Senate candidate Hillary Clinton said Thursday she supported permanent normal trade relations for China, but slammed Beijing’s restrictive birthrate policies. Clinton said she favored ‘engagement’ with China through trade as a way to ‘have whatever influence we can have’ on Beijing to change its dismal record on human rights, labor law and the environment. ‘I understand the challenges they are facing with population, minorities and the move from the countryside into the cities,’ Clinton said Thursday. ‘But I would hope that they would improve their human rights record, and that includes reproductive rights,’ she added.”

[Levgreee]

12. Clinton supported NAFTA in 2004

"I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw
here she is flip-flopping

[rinsd]

17. BFD that's Russert repeating the same non quote that Obama lying mailer uses.

Next!

[Sir Jeffrey]

18. If it is a lie, then why is it sourced as a quote...

from a news teleconference and dated?

[rinsd]

20. Do you read your own OP's?

""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.

{b]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.

[Sir Jeffrey]

23. Do you read your responses before you post them?

The source mentioned in the OP is from a 2006 Newsday article, as it *explicitly states* in the quoted section I snipped for you. That is the source Obama used, since it uses the word "boon" in quotes to suggest that Hillary used that word.

The source mentioned in the video on post 12 is from MTP. It is a different source, which you would know if you watched the video. It is from a 2004 News Teleconference and uses different language from that used in the Obama mailer.

[rinsd]

26. So you at least agree the Obama mailer is misleading relying on questionable source material

I can't find that quote anywhere other than Russert.


Strange

[Sir Jeffrey]

27. How is it misleading?

There was no retraction issued on the Newsday piece that I am aware of. All I can find is that the Newsday piece was a paraphrase of Clinton's well-known stance on NAFTA prior to this recent change in posture.

[rinsd]

28. Well-known? You had to track down an unsourced quote from MTP making vague ref to a teleconference.

And Obama doesn't even use that one, he uses a paraprhase claimed as quote.

This is not the first or 2nd time he has been caught mis representing quotes

http://www.factcheck.org/obamas_creative_clippings.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_creative_clippings_part_deux.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/harry_louise_again.html

[Sir Jeffrey]

29. Are you serious?

I didn't track down the quote in post 12.

But I don't have to track down any quotes to prove my point. Read your own post at 19. She is changing her story before the Ohio primary. At first she said she supported NAFTA in principle (your post). Now the story is that she opposed it from the start (my post). My post contains the latest version of Clinton's evolving story on NAFTA.

The *most* that Obama is guilty of is using a paraphrase instead of Clinton's own words, which is hardly as big of a crime as you seem to make it out to be. He is not misrepresenting her position as it was up until the Bernstein statement I sourced in my OP.

[K Gardner]

K&R

[K Gardner]

15. dupe

[AtomicKitten]

22. Hillary flip-flopping on NAFTA on the Meet the Press:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw&feature=related