David Gergen Confirms Clinton Didn't Back NAFTA

David Gergen, former advisor to President Bill Clinton confirms to CNN that Hillary Clinton did not support NAFTA:

And for Clinton supporters out there, here's a late nighter: Hillary's new Texas ad, One of a Million

< Latest McCain vs. Dems Poll | A Skeptical Progressive Examines Obama's Record, Concludes " Count Me Out" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am not surprised (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by vigkat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:52:06 PM EST
    But revel in the confirmation.

    What took him so long... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:04:00 PM EST
    to get out there and say it?

    I would assume he was righteously reluctant (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by vigkat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:17:03 PM EST
    The environment "inside the beltway" does not encourage this kind of honest reporting.  

    Actually I read his remarks (none / 0) (#46)
    by tek on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:32:26 AM EST
    and saw transcripts of the events at the time in the WH when Obama first started smearing Hillary over this, but so many people don't really search for news that his smears stick, just like the race card nonsense.  Obama people especially just think whatever he says is gospel truth and I'm sure even if they are confronted with the evidence of his, let's face it, his lies, it will not sway them.

    Thanks Jeralyn (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by tennisplayer on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:13:01 PM EST
    For being the only blog that hasn't succumbed to the feeding frenzy.  I am so sick of reading the gleeful coverage of any bad news on Clinton, and the self-righteous admonitions any time she does what Obama's been doing to her, but accusing her of doing.  The SNL parody was honestly less egregious than last night's debate, and I just really appreciate that you continue to provide coverage of the Clinton campaign that isn't just an excuse to condescendingly dismiss one of the most uniquely impressive candidates this party has seen in decades.

    Also, I don't know if you saw this, but Obama's obviously erroneous claim that he doesn't engage in "Old Washington Politics" will be harder to support of this gets more attention:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story?page=1

    tennisplayer (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by tek on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:37:54 AM EST
    The article is very enlightening.  you can see him doing the same type of things in this election.  It's weird that people accuse Clinton of being ruthless and adulate a truly ruthless man.  One of my worries about him is that he does have this ruthless streak and seems somewhat unethical and power-hungry.  Who knows how that will play out if he is in the WH.  At least with Clinton, she may have flaws, but we know she wants to foster democracy.

    unfortunately (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:27:34 AM EST
    the hatemongers, not content to spew hate and mean-spirited comments around their usual blogs, seem to wander around to find new blogs to spread their vemon even more widely. this is a pattern i see around at many sites. i sincerely hope this doesn't happen here because i came here in the fervent hope to get away from that stuff.

    And in related news... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:06:42 AM EST
    ...Obama does back NAFTA, as it turns out:

    Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

    The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.


    as to the Gergen bit (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:10:19 PM EST
    it only speaks to her feelings back in 93, and her wish to focus on healthcare.

    And oddly, Hillary herself said this evening on the NewsHour that support for NAFTA back then (including apparantly, her own) was understandable given that the negative consequences had not yet played out. She said that she took a stand against it once she got to the Senate.

    No (none / 0) (#49)
    by tek on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:39:39 AM EST
    that's not what she said.  She has said all along that she didn't support NAFTA.  What's the difference anyway?  Obama supports it except when he's campaigning.

    I bet Hillary (none / 0) (#65)
    by americanincanada on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:36:47 AM EST
    What a great ad (none / 0) (#2)
    by Foxx on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:57:30 PM EST
    The best of hers I've seen I think. I love the focus on women.

    For Hillary? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:06:38 PM EST
    doesn't that sound a bit off?
    I mean, shouldn't it be for America, or for the future, or for YOU, or for change :)

    And why is she just appealing to her base?

    ok, then there must be some other explanation (none / 0) (#6)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:10:44 PM EST
    for the speech she gave at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, 1998, thanking corporations for their support of NAFTA, as well as other speeches documented here http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/25/obama-bashes-clinton-nafta/

    including remarks as recent as 2003.

    People can change their mind when confronted with data that say a certain policy may not be working as well as one would like.  Perfectly legit, I've read quotes where she framed it in this way.  

    But the defense offered here via Gergen and other surrogates  -- that she opposed NAFTA only it was in PRIVATE -- is about the worst she could use. It is an obvious sleight-of-hand to anyone who can think.  The word "boon" used by Obama's camp may or may not be  a direct quote, but it captures the essence of Senator Clinton's public remarks.  If she has changed her mind, she should say so.  

    It's called (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kredwyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:15:18 PM EST
    supporting the POTUS position in public (for 1998).

    You do not, as first lady or VP, oppose the POTUS position publicly.


    Bill's term ended in 2000. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:20:03 PM EST
    If she opposed the policy, she could have remained silent.  In any case, it was in no way dirty politics for Obama to campaign on the basis of Senator Clinton's public remarks.  

    Note the parenthetical (none / 0) (#20)
    by kredwyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:32:09 PM EST
    in my statement. I was very specific in my 1998 reference...when Bill was POTUS.

    Campaigning on her statements? What? Statements that she made as First Lady publicly discussing the President's agenda?

    Does the campaign contextualize those statements? No.

    Or do they make them look like they are proof positive that she, herself, supports a position that she, as has been reported, privately opposed? Yes.

    Clinton has also pointed out that she wants to put NAFTA on hold for review when she becomes POTUS...and both candidates have pointed out that it needs to be reviewed.

    And where did I say anything about dirty politics? Oh...I didn't.


    May or may not? The newspaper (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:18:05 PM EST
    that Obama quoted was quite strong in its statement that not only had it made up the words it put in her mouth but also that it ought not have been used by Obama. As for opposing something only in PRIVATE, I hope you are not telling me that First Lady Michelle Obama would speak publicly counter to the policies that her husband's administration would be trying to put in place. I hope she would be, y'know, proud of what the White House would be doing for the first time in her life.

    You know the excuse I've heard (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:18:17 PM EST
    Why Obama said what he said about Iraq during the 2004 convention is because he was trying to support two candidates who had both voted for the IWR.  Meaning, privately, Obama really believed Kerry and Edwards had made a grave most horrible mistake.

    Well.  Isn't it then fair to say Clinton was just as well-intentioned to support Bill on this, as well?  While privately she might have felt something else on the issue?

    Why is Obama admirable when he supported Kerry and Edwards, and Clinton using sleight of hand when she was supporting Bill?


    Because she claims that (none / 0) (#15)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23:21 PM EST
    Obama's pointing out her public positions on the issue is dirty; while at the same time claiming that her time spent in the Clinton White House is part of the "experience" that we should trust.

    No, she said -- correctly -- that using what (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:31:38 PM EST
    a newspaper said she had said, which the newspaper had retracted, was dirty. And it was. It's called unethical to continue to state that someone said something when she clearly did not do so, the newspaper admitted she did not do so, the newspaper got ticked at Obama because repeating the error again, state after state, meant that the newspaper again had to state that it had erred . . . I think he probably is not in good favor with Newsday now.

    Obama complained about people (none / 0) (#18)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:30:18 PM EST
    misconstruing his 2004 Iraq remarks.  Is this different?  Or is Obama as big a hupocrite as I believe?

    How are they even similar? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:19:51 AM EST
    The Obama campaign quoted something Hillary didn't say on NAFTA, and the Clinton's have quoted something Obama did say on Iraq.

    I fail to understand why the Obama campaign finds facts inconvenient to them to be "dirty" attacks; while their lies are just fine.


    Insufficient (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:35:33 PM EST
    So, in the mind of the Obama supporter, there's a perfectly logical reason why Obama putting his anti-war agenda on the back burner and supporting Kerry and Edwards is admirable and Clinton supporting Bill's Trade Agenda is a sign that she lacks judgement, and is a flip flopper.

    Well, Ok then.  Somehow I knew you were right all along.


    Or (none / 0) (#55)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:53:36 AM EST
    We see them in a different light and don't agree.

    Pretzel Logic (none / 0) (#68)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45:56 AM EST
    Did it ever occur to you that what Obama said in 2004 about Kerry and Edwards (and inferredly about Hillary) was/is a reasonable position to take?

    That maybe our elected officials had information that he didn't in 2002 when he made his famous anti war statement?

    A statement, btw, he made as he was running for election in an anti-war district in Chicago?

    And, please, tell me how these two things are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, in the first place?

    They actually appear ENTIRELY THE SAME - both having private positions that they sublimated in the interest of party unity ...

    So, again, tell me how these are so ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ....


    Why (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by tek on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:45:31 AM EST
    is that bad language?  Obama keeps saying she was not a public servant when Bill was in the WH and it doesn't matter what she did.  He just wants to have it both ways (as always) to say that her time as First Lady is irrelevant and then turn around and ridicule her for being part of a co-presidency and try to hold her feet to the fire for stuff her husband did.  She thought that in private because she was a private citizen.  

    And BTW having a Clinton co-presidency would be a wonderful thing with this country in the state it's currently in.  After Robert Kennedy's speech last night a person in the audience asked him about the current campaign and he said he likes Barack Obama but he is supporting Hillary Clinton because she is the person best able to lead the country at this difficult time.  Worth something, at least as much as Ted Kennedy's endorsement.  


    HRC had little choice but to support BC on NAFTA (none / 0) (#14)
    by Prabhata on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:21:34 PM EST
    To come out against NAFTA, when BC wanted the agreement through, would have been devastating to his presidency.  No wife can speak against a policy that is important to a president.  It would like L.Bush speaking out in public against the war in Iraq when the president is trying to get Congress to authorize it.  I think she looks for the pony in the pile (and there are some benefits to the US), but that doesn't mean she is blind to the shortcomings of the agreement.

    Having been involved (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by spit on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:30:18 AM EST
    in the white house as First Lady does not mean that she and Bill are the same singular person with the same views.

    This "all or nothing" thing that people try has been really driving me crazy. That she gained experience from being in the White House and playing a role in the administration does not mean that she needs to claim every single piece of her husband's legacy as her own. I'm certainly not saying she should get a total pass on things that happened during that time, either, but it's just silly to think that she was in anything akin to the same position as the president when it comes to making decisions. "Experience" does not mean "ran the show and was responsible for every decision".

    And yes, members of every administration toe the line on those decisions when they have to, whether they completely agree or no. That's political reality.


    Correcting my post (none / 0) (#17)
    by Prabhata on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:26:56 PM EST
    It should read:
    It would be like L.Bush speaking out in public against the war in Iraq when the president is trying to get Congress to authorize it.  Afterwards, I think HRC looked for the pony in the pile (and there are some benefits to the US), but that doesn't mean she is blind to the shortcomings of the agreement.

    HRC didn't have to say anything about NAFTA (none / 0) (#32)
    by Rigelian on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:08:39 AM EST
    the fact that she chose to praise it suggests that she supported it in the past for strategic reasons or in the alternative really changed her mind over time.  Since NAFTA isn't really a concern of mine, being ambivalent about it, that's not an important point for me.  However, Senator Clinton's complaint about Obama's mailer seemed a bit disingenuous to me.  

    Amazing ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    Obama does the same thing and its ENTIRELY DIFFERENT (so you say) ...

    Hillary does it and she's "slimy and slippery" and "not at all the stuff that leadership is made of" ...

    Let me make this clear for you ...

    In 2004, Obama publically distanced himself from his 2002 anti-war position and now he claims that at the time (in 2004) he privately felt the same way he did in 2002 but couldn't say so because it would not be politically correct.

    Hillary publically supports her husband's, the admnistraton's, position on NAFTA as it was happening, yet now claims she prvately opposed it but couldn't say so because it would not have been politically correct.

    Again, please tell me how these two things are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, warranting your praise for Obama and your disdain for Hillary?


    urls must be in html format (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:13:39 AM EST
    use the link button. I have to delete comments with long urls, they skew the site. Thanks.

    there's nothing inherently wrong (none / 0) (#25)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:48:02 AM EST
    with the basic premise of NAFTA: there should be a relatively free flow of goods, services and people between mexico, canada and the united states, since all three countries share common ground. protectionist trade policies are failed economics; this is what primarily fueled the great depression of the 30's, the "smoot-hawley" tarrif act.

    as well, NAFTA was a partial response to the similarly premised European Union, which everyone conveniently (including H. Ross Perot) forgets, when discussing it. again, the basic idea behind NAFTA was sound, from both an economic and social perspective. it just was.

    where it floundered (and the main reason why so many who should have supported it didn't, including myself) was in requiring that all parties to the agreement be mandated to have a "level playing field". this would have required that canada, but especially mexico, legislate similar labor, workplace safety, product safety and environmental laws as the businesses in the united states were working under.

    that failure has (and rightfully so) been the source of much of the antagonism towards NAFTA; mexico especially has taken advantage of this, in the primary industries.

    clearly, this puts businesses in both the US and Canada at a competative disadvantage; they have litte choice but to move those operations south of the border, or outsource them to asia. they'd be remiss in their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders otherwise.

    this weakness was the reason sen. clinton was less than enthusiastic about NAFTA, as so many in actual elected and policy positions were. however, as the pres's. spouse, she was expected to say only nice things about it in public, or refrain from comment altogether.

    what else would you have had her do?

    nuts! (none / 0) (#26)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:50:12 AM EST
    that should have read:

    where it floundered (and the main reason why so many who should have supported it didn't, including myself) was in not requiring that all parties to the agreement be mandated to have a "level playing field". this would have required that

    here's another video clip, with an opposite view (none / 0) (#27)
    by along on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:10:38 AM EST
    Lawrence O'Donnell was on Abrams tonight. He was Chief of Staff for the Senate Committee on Finance during the Clinton health care push in 1993. He says he "was working with" her at the time. He says that Clinton's "only problem with NAFTA was that she wanted it to go after the health care plan, because it had to come through the same committee that I was running. And so her problem
    was just sequential, she's never been against NAFTA until this campaign." Quote starts at 7:50 into clip.

    And... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Fredster on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:07:13 AM EST
    so who is the liar?  Gergen or O'Donnell?

    When human beings are involved...perhaps (none / 0) (#33)
    by Rigelian on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:11:36 AM EST
    neither is a lying.  Maybe their both telling their own truth.  The first lady may have given different reasons for her opposition to different people, or in the alternative each individual simply remembers the reason differently.  I suspect that both men are probably telling what they believe is the truth.  

    After watching the videos the two men aren't (none / 0) (#34)
    by Rigelian on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:17:32 AM EST
    necessarily contradicting each other.  Gergen said she wasn't a big fan and that she wanted to move on to health care and O'Donnell said that her objection was that she wanted to move on health care first.

    I suspect Gergen is a little more (none / 0) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:20:32 AM EST
    neutral than O'Donnell.  O'Donnell has been pretty vocally anti-Clinton.

    I wouldn't presume to know (none / 0) (#38)
    by along on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:37:38 AM EST
    which one is more accurate. I'm just bringing it to light.

    I know that Gergen had more complete and more nuanced information, actually being in the White House. But his answer seems weak to me. He says she was "extremely unenthusiastic" about it, but doesn't say why. Then he says he's not sure what she objected to, but simply that she was "very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care." So he does weakly support his main point, that there is "some justification for her camp saying that she's never been a great backer of NAFTA." But he doesn't give evidence for, or even assert, that she was actually unhappy with the policy. O'Donnell, on the other hand, does assert--albeit with no evidence--that she had no problem with NAFTA policy, it was just the politics she was pissed about.


    Perhaps It Was Because (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    Gergen was trying very hard to derail the Health Care Initiative until '94. He thought it was a losing battle and a waste of energy to tackle right off. He may have urged pushing NAFTA instead and HRC said no Health Care first.

    Gergen was right. The timing for Clinton's Health Care Plan was off.


    Lawrence O'Donnell (none / 0) (#42)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:50:20 AM EST
    is the sleazebag that said John Edwards should get out of the presidential race because he was a "loser". His little rant was on the ethically challenged Huffington Post and was slammed by most progressives, including Jane Smiley who titled her reply "Shut Up Larry".

    O'Donnell is a full-blown Obama supporter who's premise was that John Edwards should get out so that he "wasn't a white man standing in the way of the first black man's chance to be president."

    In other words, O'Donnell lacks a certain amount of credibility. You have no idea how hard it was to be this civil about his drivel.


    Neither has Obama (none / 0) (#52)
    by tek on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:47:49 AM EST
    and he doesn't have a program to fix NAFTA.  He tries to slam Hillary with NAFTA to get the blue collar votes, but what he doesn't tell those people is that he thinks trade unions are "special interest groups."  Great labor policy for Americans, right?

    The guy is a reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, so if you like Republicans--go vote for him.


    When you speak in public in support of NAFTA (none / 0) (#28)
    by Rigelian on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:32:44 AM EST
    you're speaking in support of NAFTA whether you believe it or not.  It's clear she supported NAFTA, even though in her heart of hearts she may have thought it was wrong.  This is something admirable?

    When you make a statement (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:41:00 AM EST
    in public that you don't know how you would have voted on the Iraq AUMF if you had to vote on it, then it's clear you weren't sure how you would have voted, even though in your heart of hearts you may have thought it was wrong.

    Actually he said he wasn't convinced, (none / 0) (#30)
    by Rigelian on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:03:11 AM EST
    he also gave good reasons why he wasn't convinced.  Stated them pretty clearly and cogently and was correct.  Now if you want to come up with some evidence that he would have voted some other way please tell me what would have convinced him to do so?  The impressive part were the reasons he gave for opposing said policy.

    However, more to the point, when Hilary publicly stated that NAFTA was beneficial, was she supporting NAFTA when she said it? or was she doing something else?


    When Obama (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:22:28 AM EST
    Said he wasn't sure how he would have voted, was he saying there could have been a possibility he would have voted "yes."?  Or was he doing something else?

    A possibility? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Rigelian on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:32:57 AM EST
    Edgar, sure it's a possibility, perhaps Senator Clinton was briefed about some killer information that would have made a AUMF vote compelling.  However, in all the years since the vote, since the unraveling of the story I have yet to hear of any information about Iraq that was "compelling".  Given that a good number of democratic senators also didn't find it compelling and given the strength of Obama's position, I would say it was an exceedingly low possibility.

    A large (none / 0) (#53)
    by tek on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:51:09 AM EST
    number of Democratic senators did vote for it and Hillary represents the state of NEW YORK where the bombing took place.  Those people are her consitutents.  Feelings could have been running a little bit high at the time, don't you think?  

    Anyway, the litmus test so far has been that John Edwards apologized for his vote and said it was a mistake.  In the debate Hillary said that vote was a mistake, but here you are still hitting her over the head with it.  


    Actually I haven't hit her over the head about it. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Rigelian on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:03:48 AM EST
    someone else brought up the AUMF vote in an effort to undermine Obama.  However, if you're suggesting that the AUMF re Iraq was a rational response to 9/11 I'd say that was a bad judgment.  

    right wing talking points (none / 0) (#60)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:07:41 AM EST
    Hillary represents the state of NEW YORK where the bombing took place.
    Seriously... we really, really need to stop using republican talking points.

    First of all, what bombing are you talking about?

    Second of all, the WTC attacks had nothing to do with Iraq.  And to continue to justify Hillary's vote for the Iraq War because of the WTC attacks is disingenuous, at best.  


    Playing Dumb? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:08:01 AM EST
    Are you not aware that it's been suggested 1,000s of times that Obama said what he said about the AUMF because he was trying to support Kerry and Edwards, Dems running for president who did vote for the AUMF during the the convention?

    Now.  If you accept that premise.  And I suppose you can reject it if you want and contend that Obama's statement saying he didn't know how he would have voted had he been a Senator at the time was exactly how Obama felt about it, then fine.

    But if you accept that argument, that Obama's statement was a statement made to support Kerry and Edwards, and not as much an absolute reflection of his real feelings, then I really don't see how you can't also accept the possibility that Hillary would, at times, express a view of NAFTA that did't absolutely reflect her own but quite simply was expressed to support Bill's administration.

    I mean, really.  I hope I made the point more clear.  


    Come on ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:13:17 PM EST
    In 2004, Obama publicly distanced himself from his own 2002 ant-war position to be politically correct (he said).

    Hillary publicly supported her own husband's NAFTA position to be politically correct (she said).

    They both have said they had contrary private positions of the respective issues ...

    Why is it so easy for you Obama folks to believe him about Iraq and not Hillary about NAFTA?

    At least Hillary has third-party verification of her initial position (Gergen) ... Obama has no such verifiable support that he truly hadn't changed his position on the war by 2004.


    Then you'll take the following (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:19:03 AM EST
    statement in the same light (this is in regards to the Peruvian extension to NAFTA):

    Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter's protests to the contrary


    (The AFL-CIO and other trade orgs did not support it either in part or in full, per a Google of "afl-cio peruvian trade")

    Link to Google search

    And BTW, if you go to my Google link note that the DailyKOS article on the subject has been deleted! (listed at the bottom of the Google search results)


    What Obama said was accurate (none / 0) (#50)
    by Rigelian on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:41:08 AM EST
    Obama said that he voted for the trade bill because it contained environmental and labor standards that sought by groups like the AFL-CIO.  in particular:

    "Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives worked hard to change the direction of American trade policy by insisting on improvements to provisions of the Peru FTA relating to workers' rights, environmental protections, access to medicine and some procurement issues.

    We applaud these changes as welcome and much-needed improvements, particularly with respect to workers' rights.  


    Gergen - Alum of Russert / Broder School of (none / 0) (#41)
    by seabos84 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:43:45 AM EST

    he is just a complete DC insider scumball.

    I would NOT care a bit about him being a duplicitous liar out to line his pockets on the sweat of us peeeee-ons stupid enough to allow it, EXCEPT that

    like Nagourney or Schrum or Penn ...

    the guy acts like he has some more noble goal in life !

    yeah, whatever.

    there are a LOT of reasons this country is going to end up like brazil or mexico or nigeria ... with 90% of us fighting each other to drink outta the local puddle,

    and 1 of the most significant reasons will be that,

    instead of rewarding people who come up with the ideas to provide effective and efficient health care and education and security and google and the model T ...

    we reward the Gergen-esque parasites, we reward the exxons and the boeings and the gms for rigging the market so there isn't competition for their crap products...

    gergen should stay in his ivory towner next to Allston.


    Gergen a DC (none / 0) (#54)
    by tek on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:53:01 AM EST
    insider?  It appears to me that all of Obama's endorseres are DC insiders.

    Disgisting ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:21:44 PM EST
    What a disgusting rant ...

    Why don't you try to use facts to make your arguments?


    hey rip van winkle !! you just wake up? (none / 0) (#76)
    by seabos84 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:33:52 PM EST

    like RayGun stomping us peee-ons for 8 years AND then Dukakis blowing a 17 point lead cuz he was too noble to fight willie horton AND clinton selling us out on NAFTA and blowing it on health care cuz the insurance companies played dirty AND gore's crap campaign AND kerry's crap campaign AND our sell out chicken do nothing congress ...??

    where did you have your head for the last 3 decades?



    thanks for posting the Clinton video (none / 0) (#45)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:19:03 AM EST
    That women for Hillary stuff just makes my heart warm up all nice-like.  It's such a joy to feel united with other women to do something good!

    Okay answer me this. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Rigelian on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:05:12 AM EST
    How would you response to a video entitled African Americans for Obama?

    as I am not an aa (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:58:11 PM EST
    it probably wouldn't touch me very much.

    Unless your point is: would I find it separatist?

    Then my answer would be no.

    But, answer me this: considering the large numbers of aa's voting for Obama, why hasn't he released an aa's for Obama video?


    Clinton and NAFTA (none / 0) (#56)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    Let me first say that I don't find Clinton and Obama to be at all different on NAFTA.

    But lets be honest.  

    Clinton has been all over the place on NAFTA.  There are numerous examples of her talking about how good NAFTA is, including in one of her books.  

    Was she possibly opposed to in the beginning?  It is definitely possible.  But she has come out pretty strongly at different points in support of NAFTA.

    Here are some examples.

    Which means (none / 0) (#57)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:01:56 AM EST
    that she remained quiet about a treaty she knew was going to eliminate jobs for much of the blue-collar working class? That she lied to the people who read her book when she claimed NAFTA as a success story? And why should anyone believe David Gergen?

    In 1992 I knew what NAFTA and the other such trade agreements would do. And it damaged much of the Democratic Party's base. When blue-collar workers, or former blue-collar workers, don't have money, they lost political power. When they have to migrate to non-union jobs they lose the organizational structure of unions. The divide between the ultra-rich and the rest of America got that much bigger, and so did the power divide.

    But it's nice that David Gergen reassures us that H. Clinton really didn't back NAFTA. She just pretended to back NAFTA for fifteen years. I revel in it.

    Obama double deal with Canada on NAFTA (none / 0) (#63)
    by joeysky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:23:00 AM EST

    Canadian media reveals Obama's posture on NAFTA is solely "campaign  rhetoric."

    Via CTA.ca News article, "Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric":" ... Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

    The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value. But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."

    Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

    redoing the link for you (none / 0) (#67)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    Am I blind or... (none / 0) (#73)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:05:00 PM EST

    ...did I completely miss the TL post about Obama's NAFTAgate (the whole thing about his campaign calling Canada/telling them not to worry about the "campaign rhetoric") that's in the news today?  ?__?

    Thank you for your blog. (none / 0) (#74)
    by PlainWords on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:13:37 PM EST
    One wonders why MSNBC couldn't find this before Russert tried to smear HRC in the debate.

    Obviously, they didn't try.

    Taking everyone for a ride (none / 0) (#75)
    by joeysky on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:56:20 PM EST
    I'm waiting to see how long people will allow Obama making a fool out of them.  The US media and his defenders are so blind not to see what he's doing.  When they wake up, they will find him to be a huge disappointment.  

    Gergen on Hillary supposed opposition to NAFTA (none / 0) (#77)
    by Veracity111 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:51:51 AM EST

    Now that the records from the White House have been released, it can be seen clearly that Hillary is not telling the truth when she says that she opposed NAFTA.  She is on record as supporting it many times at many places, including Davos, Switzerland!  Some posters here claim that Obama has been smearing her...I haven't paid any attention to what Obama says about this, I know that she supported it, because she said so!  And her husband was working with Bob Dole to pass it over the objections of congressional Democrats! Check the facts!  While I will still hold my nose and vote for her if the "choice" is between her and the doddering McCain, it's obvious Obama is the only desirable choice left.  Hillary laughed at Mike Gravel in a debate not long ago and dodged the issue of NAFTA, saying "all I remember is a bunch of charts."  This is not the behavior I wish to see in the White House.