Here is proof that Hillary is completely disingenuous and the "shame on you" moment was more whining

[ProSense]

Here is Obama's NAFTA mailer (PDF)

The word "boon" is in quotes because it was picked up directly from a Newsday quote, which appears in full and is attributed on one side in the mailer.

Here is Factcheck.org on Hillary's NAFTA position

We frankly find Clinton's past position on NAFTA to be ambivalent. Bloomberg News reported last year that Clinton "promoted her husband's trade agenda for years." Bloomberg quoted her at the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, as praising corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta,'' and adding, "It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun."

On the other hand, Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith says Clinton privately argued against NAFTA inside the White House and was "not very much in favor of free trade." In an interview with Tim Russert on MSNBC last year she said:

link

Here is Factcheck.org on Hillary's claim about the health care mailer

The second mailing that Clinton criticized is one we dealt with Feb. 4. It attacks a feature of Clinton's health plan that would require individuals to obtain coverage. We said the mailer "lacks context" and stretches the facts, but we can't agree that it is "false" as Clinton says.

The mailer says "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." But it fails to note that Clinton's plan, like Obama's, would subsidize the cost of insurance for many, making it more affordable.

We criticized the mailer for exaggerating the differences between Obama's plan and Clinton's. Since then both candidates have continued to strain the facts on this issue. Clinton keeps insisting that her plan will cover "everybody," which isn't quite true. It's true that her plan would include some sort of "mandate" to require individuals to obtain coverage. But as we reported Feb. 14, that would still leave perhaps a million persons without insurance, or more depending on how strong or weak her "mandate" turns out to be. She hasn't specified how she would enforce it or whether she would grant exemptions for hardship cases. Obama also has run ads claiming his plan would "cover everyone," but we quoted experts who estimated that 15 million or 26 million might be left without insurance unless required to obtain it; he too would have some kind of unspecified enforcement mechanism to ensure children have coverage. And we noted that experts are skeptical of both Clinton's and Obama's claims of huge cost savings from their plans.

For details, see our Feb. 14 article and our discussion of Massachusetts' Mandate from our Feb. 22 article on the Obama-Clinton debate in Texas.

In closing, we'd just note that Clinton is no innocent on sending out misleading mailers. We reported on Feb. 6 that a mailing by her campaign contained a "big distortion" of Obama's position on Social Security taxes and falsely implied that he had "no plan" to address mortgage foreclosures. It also attacked him for voting for a "Dick Cheney" energy bill that gave "huge tax breaks to oil companies," when in fact the bill gave a net tax increase to oil companies.

link

Hillary's desperate moment, with video

[cbayer]

1. Why, why, why do you feel the need to do this? Why?. nt.

[ProSense]

10. Why not? n/t

[cbayer]

17. Because it's just plain destructive. nt.

[ProSense]

24. You're losing it! Don't be afraid of the facts. Here:

The Slow-Motion Implosion of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign: It Took a Village

[Political Heretic]

60. Yes, facts are destructive! Indeed.

:wtf:

[ORDem]

11. Do what? Could you be more specific?

This is an important issue, because Hillary (not Obama) called a big news conference about this and managed to dominate the news cycle for a full 24 hours on this spurious issue. So, she needs to be called on the carpet for it. This is truly disingenuous, a "silly season" distraction, and she is the one who should be ashamed of herself, especially given that her own campaign has sent out fliers attacking Obama unfairly.

This tantrum of hers plus the RI sarcasm spectacle really makes her look so un-presidential that it's not even funny. How her supporters can defend this kind of behavior is beyond me.


:dem:

[UALRBSofL]

53. I think people need to understand the posturing the candidates are taking and why they are rejecting

NAFTA is being down played by both candidates even though they both agree on free trade. Focusing on NAFTA because of the primary in Ohio is just absurd. Much of the work lost in Ohio was the auto industry due to people purchasing imports and the three big auto industry have been struggling. I think the only reason the candidates are making an issue is because of the organized labor in Ohio.

[eridani]

2. Both Clinton and Obama are very recently "born again" advocates of fair trade

That's because of Kucinich and Edwards, and probably a lot of their own supporters reading them the riot act on this issue.

[Emit]

4. I agree, eridani

I find it often difficult to adamantly support either one on occasions because I feel they both became more populist in their message only after they couldn't deny that what the voters wanted. Kucinich and Edwards drove the debates and set the tone from the beginning.

[eridani]

15. What that means is that pressure from the Dem base can drive their agendas

That can only be a good thing. We could maybe even get universal health care from either if we push hard enough.

[tekisui]

40. I agree.

And, this is why their differences on trade and Healthcare are fundamentally unimportant. They will be promoting an agenda, but the Dems in the House and Senate will be writing the laws, ans working out the nitty-grittys. It is not so much about the candidate--except we need to ask who can work best with Congress. And, who will bring in a stronger Majority, and with more Dems come more strong Progressives.

[eridani]

57. And we need to ask who is running a full 50 state campaign

--and who uses money for organizers instead of consultants. My tilt toward Obama comes strictly from taking off my policy wonk hat and putting on my local party organizer hat.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Did you se the piece on Sherrod Brown's advice to the campaigns about Ohio?

It's a good read.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=283830

[eridani]

18. A great quote from the article--

Q: So it sounds like you think the candidates are doing a decent job but there's definitely room for improvement?

Yeah, I wish they'd go a little further but they're getting there. And I wish they would emphasize it more. You know, again, they emphasize it, the media will attack them on it, I understand that. Most of the mainstream media, that's what they do. You know, they attacked me, and so what? I won by well into double-digits, in a slightly Republican state, against an incumbent with this message. Granted, it was a good year, and the Republican Party's in trouble, but that was big part of the reason. My numbers compared to Kerry were not a whole lot better in the big Metropolitan counties… but in the small counties I ran ahead of him by 10-15 points. Just looking at that, there has to be a reason, and the reason was a populist economic message.

[JeffR]

16. Sincere thanks for pointing this out

God knows this forum could use a little reality now and then.

[Emit]

33. No kidding

Instead we pound at each other on the surface when we should be discussing the deeper issues at hand, IMHO.

[rinsd]

36. Yup

[cbayer]

3. Oh look mom!! 6 rec's and only two replies.

I think I could post anything right now that slammed one of our candidates and it would shoot right up to the greatest page.

And no one would actually read my post.

Betcha.

[donheld]

5. Seems to me that people who recommend should at least

Leave a note as to why they recommend.

[cbayer]

7. I agree. This is just blind.

And I would love for people to take some responsibility for their rec's and be willing to defend the.

[ProSense]

9. I will defend it. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with the OP? n/t

[cbayer]

14. Yeah, I find a lot wrong with it.

You want to talk about destroying the party?

Calling one of our candidates completely disingenuous, whining and desperate is just wrong.

Doing this is just setting us up.

You want change? Stop attacking one of our own.

You may not like her, but she is not our enemy.

[ProSense]

22. You want to talk about destroying the party? WTF are you talking about?

"You may not like her, but she is not our enemy."

Get a grip!

[rodeodance]

43. I agree, The OP is very divisive---

[Rocky2007]

45. but she is not our enemy.

You think?

Time for a reality check or maybe it's time for your pills.

My impression of this thread is -- It has been a good read! Some very good info has been shared.

[donheld]

30. I see nothing wrong with the OP, but

I do think it's kind of cowardly to recommend threads and not tell anybody why.

[ORDem]

8. K&R (since you insisted) n/t

:kick:

[cbayer]

12. You are the prime example of blind.

You will jump in and be extremely negative anytime you see a negative post.

Or for that matter, a positive post.

Wasn't that you who called out Clinton supporters as not having guts?

And then didn't even have the guts to stay around and defend such post when you were called out by people on your own team.

You, I pray, are a dying breed.

[Scurrilous]

13. K & R

:thumbsup:

[cbayer]

19. Oh look!! Ten rec's! Gosh what a shock.

You know what. I doubt that anyone actually read your post. They saw the title and rec'ed.

That's kinda scary, don't you think?

[DeSwiss]

20. K&R!!! n/t

[dailykoff]

23. K. &. R. (n/t)

[speedoo]

21. K&R. Question for cbayer,

What do you think of Clinon's attacks on Obama over the last few days?

[cbayer]

25. Despicable. Absolutely despicable.

But I don't think it is her. And I don't think it is him.

I think it is zealots on both sides who feel they are helping their candidate.

And all we are doing is playing into the hands of those who will laugh when they destroy us.

How naive are we?

[ProSense]

26. But I don't think it is her...I think it is zealots..." That wasn't Hillary crying "shame on you"?

Hillary's desperate moment, with video

[dailykoff]

29. See, that was all a big misunderstanding.

:crazy:

[ProSense]

34. Maybe when she attacks, she

becomes invisible, making it hard for people to see where the attack is coming from. Not sure how to explain denial that she was booed for bringing up plagiarism (now known as the Xerox moment) during the debate.

[Muzza]

27. Whatever, didn't even bother to read your slur...

[Quixote1818]

28. K & R. Very well done! nt

[EFerrari]

31. Hillary Clinton Pretends She Never Praised NAFTA

In response to Barack Obama's attack on NAFTA, the Hillary Clinton campaign has gone into meltdown mode. Here's Dow Jones' Marketwatch:

"Clinton's campaign fired back at Obama, charging the Illinois senator with misrepresenting Clinton's position on trade...'Recently falsely claimed that Hillary said that NAFTA was a 'boon' to the economy. Now, Obama is resting his argument on a single paraphrase from an article written twelve years ago,' Clinton's campaign said in an emailed statement."

The Huffington Post has followed along with a laugh-out-loud piece in which the chief architects of NAFTA (many who are now wealthy corporate lawyers and lobbyists) are now saying, no, no, Hillary Clinton was really opposed to it. These are the same people, of course, who are looking for jobs in the Hillary Clinton White House.

What a total joke, really. This campaign clearly thinks we are all just a bunch of fools.

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.

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

[ProSense]

32. It's an act! n/t

[rinsd]

35. Wow look at Sirota outright lie

"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.

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."

So 2 articles on the same event with a grand total of 4 examples. Yeah what an advocate for NAFTA :eyes:

Yeah I know Sirota love his hyperbole but that's why he rarely can be taken seriously.

[EFerrari]

38. Not a lie. I had a link to an article where she said she was looking forward

to working on NAFTA. I'll see if I can dig it up.

I'm no fan of Sirota but he's not exaggerating in this case.

On edit: Still searching and the search is clogged up with the bs spats of this campaign cycle. But as Jane at FDL says, in repudiating NAFTA at this late date, Hillary is no longer running against Obama but running against Bill.

[EFerrari]

39. This isn't what I was looking for but there's some good sourcing here:

(It's a pain to sift through but it's there.)

Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. "Creating a free trade zone in North America-the largest free trade zone in the world-would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once . I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances."

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4125

[mtnsnake]

37. Spin isn't proof. n/t

[ProSense]

41. Factcheck: " her campaign contained a 'big distortion' of Obama's position" n/t

[rodeodance]

42. Factcheck.org on CNN just said the BO campaign lied in both Ohio mailers

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Factcheck.org on CNN just said the BO campaign lied in both Ohio mailers
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4769303#4769303
4769303, Factcheck.org on CNN just said the BO campaign lied in both Ohio mailers
Posted by Freida5 on Mon Feb-25-08 07:33 PM

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

what kind of campaign idiot would put a student newspapers quote evaluating a health plan. my observation not factcheck

[ProSense]

44. The same link to fact check is in the OP. Hillary's claims are bogus. n/t

[rodeodance]

46. We find that a mailer criticizing her position on trade is indeed misleading."

[ProSense]

47. "We frankly find Clinton's past position on NAFTA to be ambivalent." She is whining! n/t

[rodeodance]

49. HA HA---POT MEET KETTLE in relation to the WHIN game. HA HA

[ProSense]

52. No, Hillary is the queen of whine

New Camp Hillary Claim: The Media Want Her To Lose

Clinton Campaign Response To New York Times Rejected

[rodeodance]

48. David Gergen confirms Hillary's opposition to NAFTA on CNN: Link here:

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Former Clinton adviser David Gergen confirms Hillary's opposition to NAFTA on CNN.
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4778993#4778993
4778993, Former Clinton adviser David Gergen confirms Hillary's opposition to NAFTA on CNN.
Posted by ElsewheresDaughter on Tue Feb-26-08 12:22 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQJxtzLQ51Q

"I was there in the White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was externally unenthusiastic about NAFTA and I think that's putting it mildly.....she was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to Universal Health Care....She's NEVER been a backer of NAFTA"


saw this on CNN last night!! I clapped when I heard this! It is so true. The media has been making her look bad while covering up everything Obama does that may seem sneaky. Then he acts all calm when all he does at his speeches is talk bad about Hillary and being tied to NAFTA or how she gets mad over something HE STARTED. It's sad to see how sexist this country is. It's nice to know we are not racist but so sad to see how females still don't get the respect we deserve.

[mtnsnake]

50. Good catch, rd. Once again, it looks like the Obamaites have been had. lol

[Obamanaut]

55. This almost looks like she did not oppose NAFTA

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004198705_sirota25.html

<snip>"During Clinton's 1996 visit to Texas, United Press International reported that she "touted the president's support for NAFTA." In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband's "successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA." The Buffalo News reports that in 1998 she "praised corporations for mounting 'a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.' " And last year, her lead Wall Street fundraiser told reporters that Clinton remains "committed" to NAFTA's "free" trade structure."<snip>

[intaglio]

51. There is nothing divisive in this OP

Just an assertion that Hillary was disingenuous and with (good) evidence to back it up

What evidence have Clinton supporters offered to the contrary?

[MethuenProgressive]

54. Another fact-free hissy fit gossip fest.

:eyes:

[ProSense]

56. .

In closing, we'd just note that Clinton is no innocent on sending out misleading mailers. We reported on Feb. 6 that a mailing by her campaign contained a "big distortion" of Obama's position on Social Security taxes and falsely implied that he had "no plan" to address mortgage foreclosures. It also attacked him for voting for a "Dick Cheney" energy bill that gave "huge tax breaks to oil companies," when in fact the bill gave a net tax increase to oil companies.

factcheck.org

[ProSense]

58. "it was a good idea that took political courage"

MR. WILLIAMS: I -- well, here's another important topic, and that's NAFTA, especially where we're sitting here tonight. And this is a tough one depending on who you ask. The Houston Chronicle has called it a big win for Texas, but Ohio Democratic Senator Brown, your colleague in the Senate, has called it a job-killing trade agreement. Senator Clinton, you've campaigned in south Texas. You've campaigned here in Ohio. Who's right?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious, and if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow. (Laughter, boos.) I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues. But I'm happy to answer it.

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. I've said it was flawed. I said that it worked in some parts of our country, and I've seen the results in Texas. I was in Laredo in the last couple of days. It's the largest inland port in America now. So clearly, some parts of our country have been benefited.

But what I have seen, where I represent up-state New York, I've seen the factories closed and moved. I've talked to so many people whose children have left because they don't have a good shot. I've had to negotiate to try to keep factories open, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, because the companies got tax benefits to actually move to another country.

So what I have said is that we need to have a plan to fix NAFTA. I would immediately have a trade timeout, and I would take that time to try to fix NAFTA by making it clear that we'll have core labor and environmental standards in the agreement.

We will do everything we can to make it enforceable, which it is not now. We will stop the kind of constant sniping at our protections for our workers that can come from foreign companies because they have the authority to try to sue to overturn what we do to keep our workers safe.

This is rightly a big issue in Ohio. And I have laid out my criticism, but in addition my plan, for actually fixing NAFTA. Again, I have received a lot of incoming criticism from Senator Obama. And the Cleveland Plain Dealer examined Senator Obama's attacks on me regarding NAFTA and said they were erroneous. So I would hope that, again, we can get to a debate about what the real issues are and where we stand because we do need to fix NAFTA. It is not working. It was, unfortunately, heavily disadvantaging many of our industries, particularly manufacturing. I have a record of standing up for that, of chairing the Manufacturing Caucus in the Senate, and I will take a tough position on these trade agreements.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you.

Before we turn the questioning over to Tim Russert, Senator Obama.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that it is inaccurate for Senator Clinton to say that she's always opposed NAFTA. In her campaign for Senate, she said that NAFTA, on balance, had been good for New York and good for America. I disagree with that. I think that it did not have the labor standards and environmental standards that were required in order to not just be good for Wall Street but also be good for Main Street. And if you travel through Youngstown and you travel through communities in my home state of Illinois, you will see entire cities that have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements that were not adequately structured to make sure that U.S. workers had a fair deal.

Now, I think that Senator Clinton has shifted positions on this and believes that we should have strong environmental standards and labor standards, and I think that's a good thing. But you know, when I first moved to Chicago in the early '80s and I saw steelworkers who had been laid off of their plants -- black, white, and Hispanic -- and I worked on the streets of Chicago to try to help them find jobs, I saw then that the net costs of many of these trade agreements, if they're not properly structured, can be devastating.

And as president of the United States, I intend to make certain that every agreement that we sign has the labor standards, the environmental standards and the safety standards that are going to protect not just workers, but also consumers. We can't have toys with lead paint in them that our children are playing with. We can't have medicines that are actually making people more sick instead of better because they're produced overseas. We have to stop providing tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States of America.

And if we do those things, then I believe that we can actually get Ohio back on the path of growth and jobs and prosperity. If we don't, then we're going to continue to see the kind of deterioration that we've seen economically here in this state.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you both about NAFTA because the record, I think, is clear. And I want to -- Senator Clinton. Senator Obama said that you did say in 2004 that on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America. You did say that. When President Clinton signed this bill -- and this was after he negotiated two new side agreements, for labor and environment -- President Clinton said it would be a force for economic growth and social progress. You said in '96 it was proving its worth as free and fair trade. You said that -- in 2000 -- it was a good idea that took political courage. So your record is pretty clear.

Based on that, and which you're now expressing your discomfort with it, in the debate that Al Gore had with Ross Perot, Al Gore said the following: "If you don't like NAFTA and what it's done, we can get out of it in six months.

The president can say to Canada and Mexico, we are out. This has not been a good agreement." Will U.S. president say we are out of NAFTA in six months?

link

[ProSense]

59. More misleading mailers from Hillary

New Hillary Mailer: "American Families Can't Afford Barack Obama"

By Greg Sargent - February 29, 2008, 3:46PM
Hillary drops a mailer in Ohio -- forwarded to us by a reader -- that attacks Obama on energy.

In a state where Hillary is working hard to stave off Obama's inroads among her working class base, and arguing that she's the true enemy of the special interests, the mailer references the contributions he's taken from "energy company employees" and warns: "American families can't afford Barack Obama."

Click on the images to enlarge...





The Obama campaign points to this chart over at OpenSecrets.org comparing energy industry donations to the candidates and emails over this response:

more

From factcheck.org:

In closing, we'd just note that Clinton is no innocent on sending out misleading mailers. We reported on Feb. 6 that a mailing by her campaign contained a "big distortion" of Obama's position on Social Security taxes and falsely implied that he had "no plan" to address mortgage foreclosures. It also attacked him for voting for a "Dick Cheney" energy bill that gave "huge tax breaks to oil companies," when in fact the bill gave a net tax increase to oil companies.

link