digg

Join DiggAbout

MSNBC: Hillary Clinton Helped Pass NAFTA in 1993 watch!

youtube.com — David Shuster provides a balanced news story suggesting that Hillary Clinton may have been acting as a dutiful First Lady, but her actions in favor of NAFTA speak louder than her current words claiming that she privately opposed the trade agreement signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bluezinc, on 03/26/2008, -3/+44You mean to say Hillary is misleading people? IMPOSSIBLE!! Slander! Lies, I say!
    • RoroCo, on 03/26/2008, -2/+8She only does it once every 12 years... So it is alright.
  • PatchAdam, on 03/26/2008, -0/+12Short term:
    This means all claims of Senator Clinton's that relate to her "experience" and foreign policy background will be scrutinized by the media. It will also backlash on her that she did the "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" and "Why do I always get the first question?" comments as they both make her appear both hypocritical and weak.

    Long term:
    Senator Obama will have to be most cautious about how he relates foreign policy experience in the General Election as this same scrutiny of experience will be leveled upon him by Senator McCain.
    • wild, on 03/26/2008, -1/+9Obama is not going to beat McCain on foreign policy experience. Thats a given. He is going to have to spend his time making the debate about the War, the Economy, and Healthcare.
      • cranium, on 03/26/2008, -0/+8He can make a strong case on judgment.
      • bemenaker, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2If he stacks the deck (his cabinet right), that's all he has to do. You don't have to have the answer to every question, you need good advisors to lead you. (See Reagan's first term). The cabinet makes or breaks the President. BC's first cabinet was weak and loaded with too many friends, and the congress of 94 ate his lunch because of it.
      • pintomp3, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4given our foreign policy for the past 50 years, i don't know if i'de want that kind of experience. it's like saying mike tyson has a lot of interpersonal experience.
  • dukeeeey, on 03/26/2008, -4/+18They all support NAFTA, that's why they have time on TV. It matters not which candidate you choose. The anti NAFTA candidates have already been neutralised.

    Obama: "As president, I will restore that leadership by working to advance the common prosperity and security of all of the people of the Americas. That work must begin with a renewed strategic partnership with Mexico."
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opi ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tg8suvwS3o
  • fodbirdy, on 03/26/2008, -3/+15What a Bitch
  • bitfreak, on 03/26/2008, -4/+16Clinton, thanks for the
    Unbelievably
    Nice
    Talking Points
  • caponumen, on 03/26/2008, -1/+10Not to mention pushing to get China most favored nation status and opening the flood gate of imports.
    She is unelectable just on this count alone, add in the ridiculous health care system her corporate owners what so very badly and she is unconscionable.
  • TexanRudeBoy, on 03/26/2008, -3/+6Duh
    • dimebags, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7if you mean we should have already known that hillary supported nafta then i second your duh.
  • bigpeeler, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1Well, at least she just locked up the Hispanic vote.
  • fanboydcs, on 03/26/2008, -1/+8Bill surely did not teach Hillary how to lie...
    • drmangrum, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5Bill didn't teach her a lot of things. If Bill was running again the republicans wouldn't even try; he would destroy them.
  • allengeer, on 03/26/2008, -2/+14I did not have approving relations with that agreement, NAFTA.
    • bemenaker, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Did you see Family Guy's meaning of NAFTA? Nother Afternoon to F*** That Ass -Bill Cllinton to Louis
    • JavanSClark, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I see what you did there
  • FATEorFORTUNE, on 03/26/2008, -19/+1Why is this even news? It's been covered for days. Obamaphiles: GET OVER IT. You pounce on every little factoid that could possibly be negative about Hillary, but overlook any of Obama's shortcomings. Get a brain.
    • dimebags, on 03/26/2008, -0/+18we should ignore the fact that she lied about the most important issue in the ohio primaries multiple times? that's a 'little factoid'?
    • cderry, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1 FATEorFORTUNE misspoke.
    • ruyen, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2It's news because she lied about her position on an issue to get votes. Similarly the Bosnia and other issues are news because she is running on her "experience" and lying about the "experiences" she claims to have. If anyone should get a brain it's you for asking why this is news.
    • kiubo, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2its not like its being made up.
  • mortey, on 03/26/2008, -6/+5So? Maybe some people like NAFTA?
    • dimebags, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7the point is that she lied about her stance in the past. this lie bought her at least a few points in ohio. that win is part of the reason we still have to suffer through more news coverage.
    • Alpione, on 03/26/2008, -3/+3Yep, like the economy as a whole. NAFTA has been a win for the US, Canada and Mexico by pretty much every single economic. measure. Any job loss isn't due to NAFTA, even though the Dems have pandered like it is.
  • tblaney6591, on 03/26/2008, -5/+6Anyone get the feeling that she's an adroid working for Sky-net?

    http://wtcctr.blogspot.com

    • cderry, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3I might have dugg your post, but spam makes it so hard.
  • NATED066, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7If she wants to have any future political career, she will bow out gracefully right now.

    If you take one look at her though, you know she won't... she'll go down in flames and I'll watch it all on the internet, with a big bowl of popcorn.
  • opticwind, on 03/26/2008, -6/+6Some people support NAFTA, you know?
    • soot, on 03/26/2008, -0/+14She flat-out lied about opposing NAFTA from its inception, you know?
    • muckemuck, on 03/26/2008, -4/+3Please tell us who and why. You might be surrounded by folks who like it but I'm not. I'd really like to hear what reasoning people have for supporting NAFTA. And do you also support the North American Union? Obama and Hillary do..
      • vailripper, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0NAFTA has lowered prices consumers pay, by allowing goods to be sourced from where they can be produced the cheapest. While it's true that it has caused manufacturing jobs to decline, there has been zero effect across all sectors in job growth. So we have more goods available, cheaper prices, and no loss of jobs in aggregate. Sounds like a win to me, so long as you have programs in place to help displaced workers (which there are).
        • muckemuck, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1so.. you're fine with the textile mill workers around here who lost their jobs and now have to work two and sometimes three jobs to make the same money? That's cool? And exploitation of cheap labor in countries that don't protect the worker and don't protect the environment - you're cool with supporting that to save 50 cents on a widget? I haven't seen lowered prices on the stuff I buy.. but I have seen big corporations making higher profits.
    • adrianmonk, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0The issue is not whether NAFTA is good. The issue is that Hillary says it's bad and that she never supported it, but she did support it. The creation of NAFTA was a response to the creation of the EU, and the idea was very popular back then. There was a whole lot of "they're doing it, so we'd better do it too" thinking.
  • greven, on 03/26/2008, -9/+2So what? She helped pass NAFTA. Who cares.
    • dimebags, on 03/26/2008, -0/+12ohio for one.
    • soot, on 03/26/2008, -0/+10People who don't like being lied to.

      Why is this flying over people's heads? Its not about NAFTA, its that she has systematically and repeatedly denied her support of NAFTA and talked about how she has criticized and opposed it from the very beginning when records show she supported and advocated for it many times as first lady.
      • youareretarded, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4I guess people have been so brainwashed by politics as usual that they fail to see when their candidate is lying right to their face.


        It's one thing to be for or against something but to lie about your position is unnecessary and disheartening.
      • cderry, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3"Why is this flying over people's heads?"
        GET DOWN! Sniper!
        • soot, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3DON'T LET THEM TAKE SINBAD

          SHERYL, USE YOUR GUITAR AS A SHIELD
    • bemenaker, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Why hasn't anyone been calling her out for months about this big lie, other than us on the forums that don't live with our head up our a$$
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4Well at least she was right back then. Shame on her for flapping in the wind to please the "they took 'er jobs" populists, which is what has to be done to win that party's nomination.

    Sorry you've all been duped into thinking we should try to return to being a hub of low skill manufaturing. It's too late BTW.
    • youareretarded, on 03/26/2008, -3/+6I'm sorry you are an idiot. It's not about supporting nafta or not supporting it, it's about lying about your position on it for what looks like to gain votes.

      It's politics as usual in the Clinton camp.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Well I guess I dismissed that part of the thread, since I had that part of her character figured out a decade ago.
        • JavanSClark, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1This begins the, "Lol Noobs, I told you so!" Portion of the Republican Rebuttal to the Clinton Administration.
  • DogofFire, on 03/26/2008, -4/+1Yep. And when running for senator in 2004, Barack Obama said we need more trade deals like NAFTA. It's all rhetoric, folks. Wall Street runs this country, not the President. So long as people think that just sit back and watch TV, waiting for some savior to come make everything better, nothing will change.

    www.oilempire.us/obama
    www.oilempire.us/hillary
  • NelsonR, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Now what can you say about the Ohio voters living with the consequences of NAFTA yet they believed all Hillary's lies about her railing against NAFTA. I don't know whether to be mad or sad for Ohio voters. It is so sick what the downtrodden will believe from a candidate when a vote is desired. If more companies move out of Ohio to overseas destinations, no skin off my back, you reap what you sow. Hillary's race baiting was the last straw for many and hopefully if she steals the election a third party candidate will emerge. McCain is such an old warmonger who knows absolutely nothing about economics who would dare vote for him. NEO CONS.
    • Alpione, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Hillary and Barak clearly know absolutely nothing about economics considering their ridiculous anti-NAFTA views. Hell, I've even read liberals speaking out about how dangerous their NAFTA pandering has been to our economy. Fareed Zakaria had a great article in Newsweek about this very thing.
      • NelsonR, on 03/26/2008, -0/+0I haven't heard Barrack or Hillary shrillary, say like Iraqi John, they know absolutely nothing about economics but McCain the war monger has said it a minimum of three times. The old coot can't even remember what he said yesterday considering he has problems with dementia for current events. Eight more years of insane leadership is not a desirable factor to look forward to.
      • vailripper, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0While I agree none of the candidates have shown much economic prowess, the anti-NAFTA thing has clearly been for political reasons. I'm sure none of the candidates actually believe we would be in a better place if we were without NAFTA.
  • leethemanpowell, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4A few things need to happen for this country to work correctly. First our presidential candidates need to stop lying to us about what they do and do not support. Second people (voters) need to become more aware of their candidates past, and not get caught up in the criticisms Hillary generates seemingly every day. Has she never been told the proverb: "he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones"?
  • sofaKing812, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2I hate how Schuster ends all his pieces:
    "I'm David Schuster *paaaauuuusssse* for Hardball in Washington."
    • soot, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2"I'm David Schuster for Hardball *paaaauuuusssse* in Washington."
      • slowercase, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1He also says "Hardball" all weird. I always laugh at that.
  • Suzilla, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2Not a Hillary supporter here. I would, however, like to point out that if you watched the entire video, they interviewed WH communications director Jim Gergen who states that Hillary was, at best, luke warm on NAFTA at the time. Overall, it suggests that she was trying to be a team player and support Bill's efforts to pass NAFTA, but, privately, didn't support it.
    This, like the Iraq war vote, is not so black and white as the corporate media would have us think. Let's be smarter, and less hasty to jump to their conclusions, shall we?
    • pintomp3, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2so she's a follower, not a leader?
      • Suzilla, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3so ... you'll spin this to anti-Hillary no matter what?
    • bemenaker, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2She still ran around the country, campaigning for support for NAFTA to help her husband. So, regardless, yes, IT DOES MATTER. Her actions directly supported it.
    • dagamer34, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1We don't care about "flip-floppers.
    • skribble, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Well, If she publicly went all Cheerleader about NAFTA "Goooooo N-A-F-T-A" and helped gather support for it's passage then the reality of it is she not only supported it, she helped it get passed. If she didn't like it, and was still sent out to support it then it shows she is a spineless puppet with no convictions or leadership skills. More and more she looks just like "W" and could in fact turn out worse (if that's possible). either way she is bad for the democrats and bad for the U.S.
      The thing that scares me about Hillary is that she'll end up afraid of touching the wealthy, and bound to the poor and will thus end up squeezing the Middle class out of existence.
    • emotecontrol, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1"I felt really bad about closing that orphanage and throwing those poor kids out into the street, where they would turn into thieves and prostitutes just to survive. And despite the fact that I worked my ass off to get that place shut down, campaigned for weeks to get the necessary support, and spoke at length to insiders about how the orphanage just had to be scrapped, I expect that my having felt a bit bad at the time is equivalent to having opposed it completely. My hesitation is morally equivalent to taking action to prevent it."

      Who cares what she wanted to do? The issue is what she did. Folks shouldn't be voting based on the fantasies that float around in that bubble-head of hers. They should be voting based on her record.
  • headzoo, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3It seems like Hillary's lies are coming home to roost. If she's lying at this point in her campaign, you can be assured she'll lie as a president.
    I guess this is where Obama's lack of experience helps him. He has fewer skeletons in his closet, that can come out to bite him in the ass.
  • ralphodog, on 03/26/2008, -1/+0Good, she'll win over the economists that way. There's a significant portion of the moderate voters who feel distanced from both parties because of their tendency to pander to the ignorant portions of their constituencies rather than put through a sound (and complex) economic policy.
  • ileftfark, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3I thought it was common knowledge that Hillary helped push for NAFTA in '93... It was only one of the talking points of every single one of the Democratic debates. It was very clear that while she was instrumental in getting NAFTA through, she's been very critical of the model in it's current state. NAFTA can work, but amendments must be made, and the United States must have ways to adapt to situations.

    To blame the deindustrialization of America on NAFTA is myopic and to blame Hillary Clinton for NAFTA in its current state is moronic.

    *prepares for ultimate bury*
    • emotecontrol, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Okay, since you asked, I'll bury you. I think that anyone who asks to be buried should be summarily buried regardless of the merit of their post. If that becomes common practise, perhaps we will see fewer annoying "zOMG I now u will bury me but @$$H4t" posts.
      • ileftfark, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Reading comprehension. You'll get it one day.

        I didn't ask to be buried, I simply acknowledged that saying anything that could be construed as critical of Obama or a defense for Hillary will automatically get buried (at one time I was at 9 diggs, and you can see where that ended up) when the Obamabots come in. And the proof is right in front of your eyes.
        • Kyan, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1reading comprehension: *prepares for ultimate burial*=I believe I've just made a very astute comment, but since the majority of diggers are idiot douchebags (and of course I'm not in that majority), I'm prepared to see them bury my comment with the *ultimate* burial, thus proving I was right to believe most of them are douchebags, because my comment would not get buried if it they were all as imformed and objective as I am and not only will they bury it, it will be an epic burial thus proving that not only is my comment astute, it is the most astute comment ever made on digg.

          Did I get anything wrong, ileftfark?
          • ileftfark, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Plenty. Again, 'reading comprehension' apparently means 'reading between the lines' to you, and unfortunately, you're not very good at it. As I specifically laid out, the "prepares for burial" thing acknowledged that what I said is not in alignment with popular opinion on digg.com, and I understand that saying unpopular things will result in getting buried in a hurry, no matter how relevant or sincere the comment (although I made no assessment of my own comment, other than I knew it would be unpopular). That's quite a strawman you've built there.
    • shortysmyname, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1The point is she LIED about supporting it to get Ohio voters to vote for her! She's not being blamed for the problems with NAFTA, she's being called out because it's another lie in a very long list.
  • Look4Truth, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2No surprise for a globalist.
  • pintomp3, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1nafta was not a trade agreement anyway. it was a legal contract to give US corporations immunity for their actions in foreign countries.
  • MadMax3000, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1It doesn't matter how many truths that have to come out, or how many lies she had to tell, America is a dumb bitch, she'll do the same mistake.

    Obama 08!
  • MikeFallopian, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Blueprint to losing an election that is handed to you on a silver platter:
    1) field candidates who are anti-NAFTA

    Seriously, how ***** stupid are these people? Right now there is an upopular war and civil liberties breaches, both caused by the Republicans. So naturally, Hillary and Obama choose to focus on opposing a treaty that has boosted trade and prosperity, alongside their platforms of increased spending and taxes - at a time when the economy is is trouble.
  • bwmack, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1What a ***** liar!
    • Kyan, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Give her a break. First, you adjective is misplaced, she wasn't getting any, remember? Second, if she did support NAFTA, I'm sure it's only because she was a bit sleepy at the time.
  • thehawk23, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2"The fact is, Hilary helped get NAFTA approved. And like her vote authorizing the Iraq war, Clinton may once again face trouble with voters who believe that leadership is about ACTION, not what a canidate says now about their state of mind."

    EPIC BURN.
  • sixspeed, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Meanwhile Obama has his own version of the "truth". This from factcheck.org:
    Barack Obama's campaign is distributing a mailer in Ohio that plays upon anti-NAFTA feelings in the Buckeye State. But the flyer is misleading:
    * Obama is quoted as saying that "one million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio." But those figures are highly questionable and from an anti-NAFTA source. Other economic studies have concluded the trade deal resulted in much smaller job losses or even a small net gain.
    * The mailer quotes Hillary Clinton as saying "NAFTA has been good for New York and America." That quote, however, is taken out of context. She also said in that same news conference that NAFTA was flawed and old trade deals needed to be revisited.
    • wtauzin, on 03/26/2008, -0/+0NAFTA is NOTHING compared to normalizing trade with China and giving them the green light to join the WTO. We can thank Bill Clinton for:

      Our enormous and expansive trade imbalance

      Manufacturing jobs leaving the US

      Higher oil prices due to the growing demand of China

      Downward pressure on the dollar.
    • JavanSClark, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2epic fail. Hillary is acting like a child who's been caught in a lie. Instead of owning upt o it, she tells another, gets caught, tells another, gets caught tells another... Obama on the other hand, has 1 "misstatement" accordng to ONE source, and a second was a quote taken "out of context".

      HRC has been caught in a Bald Faced Lie. Four times about Bosnia, with more and more "misstatements" being uncovered everyday. To makes thngs worse, MSNBC opened the door on her involvement with the Foundation, aka the Family. You think Obama had Pastor issues, just wait. Whether it's now or in May when the book comes out, HRC faces some serious issues, when more truth comes out.
  • nycmac247, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1OOPS... WHOPSIE!!!
  • pxlpshr, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1if you don't like NAFTA, you don't know how to adapt to a changing world in which globalization is inevitable. Vote for FTAA... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade_Area_of_th ...
  • mlvassallo, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2NAFTA was sure a large part of her husband's administration, so I don't know who the hell she is foolin'.
  • CicurateGroup, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1This cannot be overlooked in the media anymore. People of Pennsylvania, don't make the same mistake that Ohio did!!!!!! She is unfit for the Presidency let alone public office.
  • jarogers, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1David Schuster has had it in for the Clinton's ever since he got in trouble for his comments about Chelsy. Trust me I am no Clinton support but I just kinda find it funny that every story he does is negative about the Clinton's now.

    Obama 08!
    • JavanSClark, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1He does the stories he's told to do.
  • LilBoyLuver, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2I am socially liberal and I support Barrack Obama because I believe he is the best mainstream candidate.But how can anyone think that saving a few manufacturing jobs for people in Ohio and Texas is good for the economy? International competition and trade is what spurs innovation. If we close off our economy we will slowly self destruct and lose all competitiveness with the rest of the world.
  • 0Zeitgeist0, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I wonder how her supporters in Ohio feel about this revelation.
    Especially the ones who lost their jobs because of NAFTA...
  • wtauzin, on 03/26/2008, -0/+0NAFTA is NOTHING compared to normalizing trade with China and giving them the green light to join the WTO. We can thank Bill Clinton for:
    Our enormous and expansive trade imbalance
    Manufacturing jobs leaving the US
    Higher oil prices due to the growing demand of China
    Downward pressure on the dollar.
  • KillaJazzBass, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Hilliary, GET OUT and save your party from defeat!
  • HellDonut, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Ah, give her a break, she just misvoted.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.