Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Who's Shooting Straight on NAFTA?
So we've all seen Hillary Clinton's, shall we say, stern reacting to Obama's mailers. I haven't been able to find the health care mailer, but I did find the trade related mailer.
First off, I really don't like these things. The tone turns me off and I usually throw them away without reading them.
Hillary says these things aren't true, but they're clearly all sourced in the mailer. If you've been paying attention, then you already knew that Clinton has never been an opponent of NAFTA so none of this is really a surprise. She's tried to float a story about how she privately opposed it, which I don't buy. It's irrelevant. She's supported it in public on numerous occasions for over ten years, as well as in her own book. She gave up an opportunity to denounce it during this debate. And in December she even voted to expand the NAFTA strategy into Peru.
Wait. So did Barack Obama. There are a couple of things in the mailer I'd like to draw your attention to. In more than one place the mailer refers to Barack Obama's unique stand against NAFTA and "other bad trade deals." So, didn't he just vote for one?
This doesn't get Clinton off the hook, but doesn't it undermine Obama's attack?
Comments (10)
Yes.
Hush you mouth.
Nobody is supposed to know that middle class Democrats don't give a damn about the fix working class people are in anymore than Republicans who are competing to take care of those same middle class folk at the expense of workers.
Don't tell anybody.
Best, Terry
February 24, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
She did oppose it during her husband's administration. So says Kantor, Stephanopolis, Gergen and others who were there.
February 24, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's also been speculated that she opposed it because she wanted health care first. She was indifferent to it or slightly opposed on it's merits.
But we'll never know, because there are no transcripts of any discussions and her public face was pro-nafta since that was the administration line.
I'm not proud of Obama using these mailers, but the underlying theme is that she's now saying it's bad and needs to be revisited, which is contrary to her past. Which is ultimately the point, she takes a political position in the senate and then speaks contrary to that point.
February 24, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, as I pointed out above, she has repeatedly and continually supported it in public.. until she had must-win primaries in the rust belt. Oh and Texas, where people now fear losing their property to eminent domain for the construction of the so-called "NAFTA Highway."
What's the value to me or any other voting American of Hillary supposedly opposing NAFTA behind closed doors some 15 years ago? Do you think that Americans that feel they've been adversely affected by NAFTA really think this means she's on their side?
Honestly, I see a lot of this *wink *wink* kind of stuff going on with Hillary. I get the feeling that a lot of her policies would be more liberal, but she feels like she needs to have certain positions in order to win. This may be true, but it totally robs her of the ability to make position arguments with any clarity. Every position is moved to the middle and so she's always embattled by both sides, trying to explain how she got there.
People are expecting more this time than and a wink and a nod that says, "No, really, I'm your side."
February 24, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NAFTA flyer is harsh but well within the bounds of a poltical contest.
Jane Hamsher has this take on the mailer:
February 24, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems you're absolutely right, as evidenced here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00413
In fact, neither of them voted on it. So does this pose a problem for either of them on this position? It seems like this makes it tougher for either of them to be appear to be clearly opposed to NAFTA and similar policies, which they both appear desperate to do given where the next primaries are being held.
February 24, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it pretty much concluded that NAFTA is a bad thing? Or is it still regarded by many interested, unbiased observers as either a good thing, or at worst an uncertain thing, with its long-term effects still to be demonstrated? If it actually has any real day-to-day effect on Americans, is that effect uniformly bad or uniformly good? Do the more positive effects around the world (if there are any) rebound to America's ultimate advantage anyway?
I won't go any further into the weeds on this, because I'm not an economist and don't have any special expertise to contribute. However it seems to me that to suggest that supporting NAFTA in 2008 is something akin to supporting Joe McCarthy in the 1950's is a trifle overblown.
I'd be interested in hearing from some real experts on this. As a sort of DLC-type Dem, I do think Economic considerations are among the most important arguments in ANY campaign, and I'd like to know people's thinking.
February 24, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what you mean here. Has some objective verdict on NAFTA been handed down from on high? Not that I know of. It's received pretty much unanimous approval in the halls of government, but many argue that it's hurt the American worker.
I didn't mean to imply "NAFTA bad" necessarily, but both candidates quite clearly want to send that message to voters in upcoming primary states like Texas and Ohio.
February 24, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD,
Hillary's own words in her speeches and writing praising NAFTA says they are lying.
Was she lying then or lying now?
What about China? Indonesia?
Not to mention Walmart.
A lady can change her mind but not her past.
The record is winning. Rats.
Best, Terry
February 24, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can see the GOp ads against Hillary in the Fall if she is the nominee:
"Hillary says she was opposed to NAFTA before she was for it."
February 24, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment