digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

PROOF: EXPERIENCE AS FIRST LADY? CLINTON PROMOTED NAFTA

reuters.com — "The documents clearly indicated that Clinton had a powerful role at the White House, frequently meeting foreign leaders and presiding over meetings." Now that Iraq has become less of a talking point, the economy will come to the fore. Hiiiillary! You got a lot of 'splainin to do!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • NameTry2468, on 03/20/2008, -6/+95Oh snap! This made it to Reuters in less than a day!?! I hope they play this over and over on loop juxtaposed right next to Hillary's crabby face shouting "SHAME ON YOU BARACK OBAMA!". What a liar. It's too bad the morons in Ohio who fell for her ***** aren't able to take back their votes.
    • aliengoods, on 03/20/2008, -3/+38This is minor. It was a pro NAFTA party at the White House that she stopped by. The bigger story is what was redacted from over 4300 censored pages? If censoring a third of the information you give to the public is considered open and forthright, we've got another Bush on the way.
      • dn11, on 03/20/2008, -0/+12those 4300 pages were ALL personal info of third parties... yeah I believe it. they put 4300 pages worth of peoples phone numbers and addresses in her schedule, makes sense...
      • johnhummel, on 03/20/2008, -0/+13Save for all of the other meetings - this wasn't 1 meeting she went to for "Yay - we got NAFTA". It was multiple meetings that she spoke at *before* NAFTA was passed:

        http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=300860

        And she was in full support of NAFTA:

        Two attendees of that closed-door briefing, neither of whom are affiliated with any campaign, describe that event for ABC News. It was a room full of women involved in international trade. David Gergen served as a sort of master of ceremonies as various women members of the Cabinet talked up NAFTA, which had yet to pass Congress.

        "It wasn’t a drop-by it was organized around her participation," said one attendee. "Her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy. There was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time. Folks were pleased that she came by. If this is a still a question about what Hillary's position when she was First Lady, she was totally supportive of NAFTA.
        Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/cl ...

        Sorry - this wasn't "hey, there's a NAFTA party, I'll just grab some cake!" It was a concerted effort on her part to support, to speak for, to work on getting NAFTA passed. She might be able to pass it off as "Well, I was supporting my husband" - but this "Well, that was Bill's thing, not mine" isn't going to wash.
      • junkwheel, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4"Another Bush on the way" to where? She is not going to the ***** Whitehouse.
    • dn11, on 03/20/2008, -3/+6didn't she state she was opposed to NAFTA even while her husband promoted it? i believe it was in one of the debates. anyone have a clip?
    • fani, on 03/20/2008, -0/+4Well said, however, the doofus; of Ohio won't even read about this. They'll remian that way
      • Chode2235, on 03/20/2008, -0/+4I dont think they are morons in OH, but that more republicans went to the polls to back Hillary and skewed the results.
    • NyteStarNyne, on 03/20/2008, -2/+3Unless you've found a Hillary Clinton sex tape, don't bother. I doubt anything can turn the media's attention from their current infatuation with Wrightgate and "black anger".
      • junkwheel, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1The Wright was best buddies with the Clintons story is doing pretty good. With photos!
    • jabberwolf, on 03/20/2008, -5/+2I think the people from OHIO voted exactly the way they wanted and looked passed the Obamites and their propaganda.
    • reichg, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1my favorite thing about women voting for hillary is the majority of bitches who vote for her, because bitches got to stick together
  • NameTry2468, on 03/20/2008, -3/+47And a little additional info that they didn't publish:
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/cl ...
    "It wasn’t a drop-by it was organized around her participation," said one attendee. "Her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy. There was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time. Folks were pleased that she came by."
  • JimJD, on 03/20/2008, -3/+21That is no bueno.
    • beakerwimp, on 03/20/2008, -6/+2"No bueno dude. Your house is no bueno."
    • ahoy, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1This is only no bueno in the sense that it'll come to haunt her recent words about being critical of NAFTA and it needing a "time out." In reality the net result of good and bad things that come with NAFTA put it in the positive spectrum; every economics teacher has told you about Free Trade. Obama knows this too but he has to pretend there must be extra negotiations: and maybe there must, but most of it is rhetoric as he passes through Steel Country states and other states that suffered job losses. This is the reason he got in trouble when he tried to reassure Canada that he's not planning any major changes.

      I'm glad Hillary supported NAFTA; I only wish she had balls to fight for it now.

      with that said, Obama '08!
  • Misinformant, on 03/20/2008, -7/+38Replacing democracy with hypocrisy
  • pedo, on 03/20/2008, -4/+73everyone who isn't an idiot already knew this. the same people that think hillary is anti-nafta think obama is a muslim that refuses to say the pledge. hillary is counting on the ignorant moron vote.
    • j0hneb0y81, on 03/20/2008, -2/+25luckily for her, there seems to be no shortage of that demographic...
      • dinot, on 03/20/2008, -1/+22can't we just kick the morons out? or to quote bash.org

        "The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?"
      • ooby, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2Zing!
      • GliTCH82, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1God damnit, I know the saying goes that history repeats itself but I just didn't think it would be this soon.
  • joaob, on 03/20/2008, -2/+13Surprised that this somehow avoided the magic marker treatment the other 47% of the documents got. Let's see if Taylor Marsh posts this to her site.
  • datcrazydj, on 03/20/2008, -8/+75CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
    • kaeryn, on 03/20/2008, -33/+3Actually it's quite RUDE. It shows that the poster has little knowledge about the internet and even less about manners. Kind of like ALL OBAMITES.
      • slashbot, on 03/20/2008, -9/+1Oh dear, he angered the Obamites
        • jotate, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2He angered the people who aren't retarded, Obamites or not.
      • spiritditch, on 03/20/2008, -2/+5You're retarded.
      • azurechaos, on 03/20/2008, -3/+4did you really not sense the humor in his post?
  • slashbot, on 03/20/2008, -29/+6The Obama-nauts are resorting to all caps now?

    Those new poll numbers must have them worried.
    • OralCavity, on 03/20/2008, -1/+5who really thinks that the ~6,000 people they polled are an accurate representation of a country of 40,000,000?
      • JulyZerg, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1People supporting hillary, apparently... But they always have been wishful thinkers
        • buhbyebot, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Some of them wouldn't happen to be Republicans now would they? NahhhhhhhhFTA.
      • slashbot, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1You apparently do not understand statistics.
        • lemoocow, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Or the fact that the population of the U.S. is more like 300 million. It's okay, OralCavity, you were only off by 260 million.
  • mal1964, on 03/20/2008, -7/+22NAFTA, Will be around forever its not a bad thing it just needs reform.
    • BlakeEM, on 03/20/2008, -5/+4You obviously don't even know what NAFTA is... Even the name is an oxymoron.
    • BobSconce, on 03/20/2008, -0/+4You're right about need of reform -- the restrictions on imports of corn and sugar from other countries should be dropped, the antidumping provisions are unnecessary and the tariffs on Canadian Lumber are just intended to protect the US lumber industry. Similarly, the protection for "import-sensitive" products is absurd.

      Sure, a number of industries in the US have been hurt by NAFTA. But, a lot more have been helped, as have consumers in all three countries.
    • Wonderama, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5Agreed. Any reduction in trade tariffs is always a good thing. Much of the controversy over NAFTA concerned trade unions (on the left) trying to retain their jobs at the expense of an overall expanded US workforce, and xenophobes on the right afraid of too many brown people moving to the US.
    • AGsilver, on 03/20/2008, -2/+2NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement

      By reforming NAFTA, doesn't that defeat the purpose of FREE trade. NAFTA does need reform, by reform, I mean total revision. We need Fair Trade not Free Trade.
      • mal1964, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4Free trade is the fairest, If its equal.
        • AGsilver, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2But the problem is free trade is never equal and will never be equal as long as their is a power difference between the buyer and the seller. Free trade is about the freedom we give to corporations in dealing with trade practices. Why would you give a corporation who is only interested in money, the freedom to treat the laborers in third world nations anyway they please?
    • Wonderama, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3@AGsilver
      You imply free is not fair and needs more regulation. These seem contradictory to me. How much regulation is enough that the trade barriers arise and it gets back just to where it was?
      • AGsilver, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Free trade is not fair unless both parties have equal power. If one party has more power than the other, like a developed nation versus and undeveloped nation, the party with more power can will take advantage of the situation because the underdeveloped nation has no trade laws protecting them. The developed nation will force the underdeveloped nation to sell their goods at a lower price, and because the underdeveloped nation has no laws or real access to information concerning other buyers, the underdeveloped will compromise their working conditions into order to meet the demands of the developed nations. This creates the raise of sweatshops and global poverty. NAFTA isn't just about the American Economy but about the civil rights of third world nations.

        NAFTA basically allows corporations to institute "immoral" work conditions, without Government interference. NAFTA gives corporations these "freedoms". That is what free trade is about.

        Fair Trade is about the producing and consuming products made in fair working conditions and under fair prices. You can wiki "fair trade" for more info.
  • Shaman760, on 03/20/2008, -3/+13What, a career politician screwing over an entire nation and it's workers and trying to cover it up?
    That's not news. It's reality.
  • Aleman360, on 03/20/2008, -7/+18You stay classy Ohio. Way to vote for her when NAFTA was your biggest issue.
    • breached, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2Ohio: Voting against their better interest for years!
  • judicar, on 03/20/2008, -6/+22Buried for using all caps, what next? Titles in l33tsp3ak or lolcatz?
  • Lanlost, on 03/20/2008, -3/+0Remember that reporter on that local news station that used to do Captain Obvious type stories unintentionally? What was his name? I'm pretty sure hes a Rick something. Maybe all the Rick Rolls have taken control finally. Anyway, the headline reminded me of this. It's been well known that Clinton didn't always hate NAFTA so much.
  • ddawggin, on 03/20/2008, -5/+1Anybody else get really worried about the Xavier - Georgia game?
  • sonaboy, on 03/20/2008, -6/+10Oh Noez!!! It's NAFTA!! You mean Hillary actually attended a meeting about the trade agreement that George HW Bush actually created and put on the fast track in the last months of his presidency?!? GET OUTTA TOWN!!
    • sonaboy, on 03/20/2008, -0/+10NAFTA was initially pursued by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari.
      NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, ----->Clinton did not alter the original agreement.
      The House of Reps passed NAFTA ---->132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans,---->156 Democrats, voted against it.
  • rainbowhandbag, on 03/20/2008, -12/+7It's not like Obama is going to do anything about NAFTA anyways.
  • kingUssop, on 03/20/2008, -3/+15Let's keep putting down the democratic nominees, I hear McCain giggling like a school girl. :/
    • briguymaine, on 03/20/2008, -2/+3you are right. The democratic party seems like such a mess right now. It will be funny when one of them drops out and the next day is a fervent backer of the other. Everyone know that they can't stand each other.
    • EarlOfLade, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1He sounded more like a senile old man who should have retired years ago.
      Ref his Jordan faux-pais. McCain is the worst of the worst and should not have any position anymore.
    • bosoxrock, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Yeah, but at least he's not a socialist....
  • RationalXubrnce, on 03/20/2008, -10/+5 Had Obama been in the Whitehouse at that time he would have been promoting NAFTA also. Sure he can say whatever he wants now but he's as pro globalism as she is.
    • slashbot, on 03/20/2008, -8/+2Exactly. It is sad that more people don't see this.
    • johnhummel, on 03/20/2008, -0/+10Considering that he wasn't, you have no proof of this statement. I'm going to bet that had John McCain been in the oval office, he would have gotten Monica to give him blowjobs.

      But since he wasn't, we can't say that either. It's possibly that Obama might have gone for NAFTA - and possible that, as a person from Illinois who would have known his home state would not have approved (and didn't approve) of NAFTA at the time, he would have been more likely to oppose it.
    • AGsilver, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3I do not support any main stream candidates, but I hate it when people smear other candidates without proof. RationalXubrnce statement is incorrect.

      "It's a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. That's what happens when the American worker doesn't have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that's why we need a President who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a President who will stand with workers not just when it's easy, but when it's hard."
      -Barack Obama
    • sixspeed, on 03/20/2008, -3/+2Shutup with your stupid FACTS. This is Digg, unless you're fawning over Barack Obama, or attacking Hillary Clinton, no one wants to hear it.
  • snotrokit, on 03/20/2008, -6/+6spin this one bitch
  • bagboyrebel, on 03/20/2008, -1/+8Well the title is in all caps, how can I not digg it?
  • kaeryn, on 03/20/2008, -20/+4Wow you Obamites are really grasping at straws now.
    Senator Clinton LEARNS from experience. You wouldn't know about experience since Obama has NONE.
    Keep drinking the Kool Aid.
    • slashbot, on 03/20/2008, -6/+3CHANGE!!111
    • RC212V, on 03/20/2008, -2/+7You are absolutely right. Apparently she learned how to lie, spin, and distort from her husband.
    • ooby, on 03/20/2008, -1/+9Right, Hillary Clinton was elected to be the President’s wife… Obama actually has more experience in elected office than her. The rest of those 30-some years were spent doing something other than being an elected official (like serving on the board at Wal-Mart).
    • JulyZerg, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1If she gets elected (which I doubt), I hope Bill catches her having sex with an intern... :P That would solve our problem!
  • j.carcinogen, on 03/20/2008, -4/+3A President Clinton signed NAFTA into law. How much more proof do you need?
    • sonaboy, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1I don't know - how much actual history are you willing to forget? Go look up who's bill NAFTA actually was and who passed it before the Prez signed it.
  • zephyear, on 03/20/2008, -3/+6maybe this is hillary's way of dropping out without actually saying she's giving up.
  • egbert, on 03/20/2008, -3/+5This video shows us that Senator Clinton relied on her EXPERIENCE in voting for the Iraq War! Obviously, her experience didn't equate to her making the best choices for our nation. http://youtube.com/watch?v=hwLaCb07lAs
  • cwright213, on 03/20/2008, -4/+19It's 3am and your husband is in the other room with Monica. Who do you Call?
  • withears, on 03/20/2008, -13/+6Without NAFTA, we would be paying triple for gas.
    • withears, on 03/20/2008, -6/+2Why am I being dugg down?! IT'S TRUE! Where do you think most of our oil comes from!?
    • mainely, on 03/20/2008, -0/+5North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) covers Canada, Mexico, and the United States. US oil imports from Canada and Mexico is less than 30% of total oil imports.
      • Gnarled, on 03/20/2008, -1/+0Only 30%?? You say that as if nearly 1/3 of all crude imported is some insignificant amount.
      • withears, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Actually the number is just over 36%. Just so you know.
  • MrSkoTSir, on 03/20/2008, -4/+12i'm not exactly an obama supporter, but if you check, obama has spent more time in office than hillary...
    http://doubledemon.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/06/1 ...

    hillary's time spent in the white house with bill was nice, she did lotsa cool stuff, but the fact is, she had no real responsibilities , everything she did was analogous to a famous person using their fame to promote their political ideals, it does not compare with the responsibility and importance of being president, or representing people. no one voted her into the position of first 'lady'.
  • jackdaniels, on 03/20/2008, -5/+0http://digg.com/politics/First_lady_records_show_C ...
  • asskicker32, on 03/20/2008, -4/+10Why dont we hear things like this about Obama and his past coming back to haunt him? Oh thats right, because he is an honest, hardworking American.
  • PxCxG, on 03/20/2008, -5/+7Wait...are you people AGAINST nafta? Seriously, there are people out there who don't support free trade? Wow...what year is this, 1890?
    • RC212V, on 03/20/2008, -0/+9The problem with some of these free trade agreements is that it is putting us on an unequal playing field due to our worker's rights and environmental laws. If you have a company in China that can use child labor, pollute as much as they want, and work people 90 hours a week without overtime, there is no way a similar company in the US can compete. The US company has to pay at least minimum wage, has to pay overtime for over 40 hours, has to provide a safe working environment, and has to spend money to make sure they comply with environmental regulations.

      If the Chinese company had to adhere to the same rules, then it'd be much more fair. But as it stands, it is not.
      • BigMan13, on 03/20/2008, -4/+0NAFTA doesn't apply to china. Dugg down for irrelevance.
        • OralCavity, on 03/20/2008, -1/+4ok, replace china with mexico. same difference.
    • FaithclubDotNet, on 03/20/2008, -3/+4If the United States had tariffs we'd still have manufacturing jobs. The trick is to not let ALL your manufacturing die off, but keep maybe the top 5-10% most efficient ones. With tariffs you can control other nations from destroying your economy by doing stuff it would be illegal to do in the country: flood the market with cheap goods, then raise the price when you get a monopoly. Sure goods would be more expensive, but you'd keep more money in the nation, and don't discount the tax money we'd gain from the actual tariffs. So if you did the math, you probably would have more money to spend. George Bush tried putting steel tariffs early on in his presidency, but backed down when China threatened with full scale economic sanctions. It was a horrible bluff, but Bush fell for it, China would have imploded without the US buying their goods at that critical time.
      • amdahlj, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1You're obviously not familiar with economics. If the tariffs are effective (ie: they raise foreign prices over domestic ones) you are inevitably going to cause harm to domestic consumers. If tariffs on foreign autos lead to higher auto prices, you will increase the welfare of the few who get those jobs but diminish the welfare of everyone else.

        Once you take into account the game theory aspect, it will become clear that any type of protectionism will cause more harm than good. Protectionist policies in one country will likely result in retaliatory protectionism in another, which will reduce exports and you will lose jobs.

        Efficient industries don't need tariffs because they will produce competitive prices. Inefficient industries don't deserve them, and propping them up will only lead to a world where countries make what they arbitrarily decide to rather than what each country's relative advantage is.
    • altgeeky1, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Maybe it's not all against 'free trade', but it's against unfair trade.

      Another way to look at it: what is the POINT of clean air/water laws, worker safety and health, public safety, sane worker hours (70 hour workweeks?), etc. if on the other hand you ALLOW rampant such abuses on your imports. All you do then is create artificial incentive for outsourcing.
      Do you work in a field that's completely unaffected (or helped) by the decline of the US economy? Like schools or politics, Wall Street or military contracting? Just wondering.
    • villageatheist, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Follow the money. Behind every one of these free trade agreements you see a handful of corporations making millions for their top-level executives and their investors at the expense of ordinary workers. When protectionism suits the needs of an economic sector with close government ties, free trade is of course thrown out the window. The American economy was built on protectionism and the exploitation of Western Hemisphere resources (hardly free trade). So no, you can't just say, "do you support free trade?" That's the same thing as saying, "do you support the troops?"
  • victorguttmann, on 03/20/2008, -2/+6So I figure I should put this out there... I'm currently taking a Public Policy class with Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's secretary of labor. In lecture the other day he told us whether or not Hilary supported NAFTA. She didn't. BUT, the reason she didn't wasn't because she didn't agree with it, but rather she believed the political timing would interfere with the Clinton health care plan.
  • hanzel26, on 03/20/2008, -5/+0.....and.......if this was bill's idea, and its widely known (as in taught in my senior year high school government course) that hillary was very proactive and counseled bill frequently, what surprise is it that she would have supported his NAFTA idea?
  • YodaJones, on 03/20/2008, -7/+2I saw Obama banging Hillary on MAD TV. And don't forget to iron my shirt bitch.
  • noseeme, on 03/20/2008, -6/+1Burying this all caps *****. It looks like it might become a top story, though.
  • RaiderWolf, on 03/20/2008, -2/+3WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU. SPEAK UP A LITTLE!
  • fictionalOne, on 03/20/2008, -2/+1"now that Iraq has become less of a talking point..." are you ***** crazy or living in a cave!?!
    • MrSantonio, on 03/20/2008, -1/+0Osama is looking for room-mates.....duh.
  • jcroweall7, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3Meanwhile, the only thing CNN has about Clinton on their front page is that she was in the White House during the "Lewinsky encounters"...
  • cheeseysynapse, on 03/20/2008, -8/+2this party is imploding - and i love it - i just switched my registration today from republican to democrat here in NC so i can screw with the primary in may - GO HILLARY!
    • PoonGnarfler, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0Yeah, thats great, I'm really glad that you seem to think ***** with a democratic system is the best idea you've had in your lifetime. People like you are probably the reason that we got good ol' George in office for a second time. If you love ***** up, corrupt democracy so much, go live in ***** Russia.
  • AriaStar, on 03/20/2008, -2/+8Dammit, her experience as first lady has nothing to do with anything. If being the wife of a (former) president gives her any qualification for the job of president, then I guess every spouse of a doctor should be qualified to practice medicine and do surgery. All the watching from the sidelines in the world doesn't give you experience nor qualifications. So why the hell doesn't she just shut up already about how watching Bill at work makes her the best choice? It's not like she was observant enough to notice his affairs.
    • snotrokit, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3"I was in the White House for 8 years." Well, so was the pastry chef in the White House for eight years.
  • bordo, on 03/20/2008, -1/+7At first I thought that said "Clinton promoted NAMBLA"...would have made the article a little more interesting
    • snotrokit, on 03/20/2008, -0/+3that was a Republican agenda.
    • thebigmatay, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1National Association of Marlon Brando Look a likes?
  • zanek, on 03/20/2008, -4/+1Do something about politics: www.pushtruth.com
  • dmadip, on 03/20/2008, -5/+3hahah dyke
  • FluffyRadish, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3Don't worry, Hillary will just do a 180 on this, just like she did on her support for Iraq. She will do and say absolutely anything to gain more power. If she has so much influence and experience, where is the universal health care she promised? It's all just typical politicking - promise the moon, deliver nothing, then blame the other party for broken promises...

    Mickey Mouse for president!
  • gak001, on 03/20/2008, -4/+3The First Lady is a function of the presidency, not a separate office - it's not like she was free to form her own agenda that conflicted with the president's.

    Congratulations, you didn't find anything all that relevant! Surely you can do better than this.
  • WoollyMittens, on 03/20/2008, -3/+2Uppercase: Burried.
  • mindracer, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3Oh no NAFTA is so bad, you know I hope you americans cut NAFTA, that way us canadians can sell you all this electricity and wood at ridiculous prices... i cant wait!! can anyone else name things americans depend on canadians for and they dont even know it?
    • BigMan13, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0Water will be a big one in the future. Dugg way up.
    • PoonGnarfler, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0Don't forget oil!!! My favorite topic.
  • RRJackson, on 03/20/2008, -6/+4You Obama fans can stop the smear campaign now. Your candidate is done. A week ago he was 10 points ahead of Clinton in the polls and now he's down by 7. Neither candidate is coming close to McCain's numbers now. Congratulations. You lost us another election.
    • jerryparid, on 03/20/2008, -1/+3Lol, smear campaign, more like Smearllary campaign; if the Democrats lose this November, the party will not treat Hillary kindly.
      • RRJackson, on 03/20/2008, -5/+1As if it's had anything to do with Senator Clinton. Review the last four months of Digg articles and count how many smear pieces against Senator Clinton have been forwarded here by Obama supporters. Then count how many Obama smear pieces have appeared. The Clinton campaign hasn't had its supporters running around trashing Obama. The same kindness can't be said of Obama's campaign. They preach a lot about peace, love and granola, but the truth is they're the dirtiest grassroots organization in the history of modern politics.
  • JoeVet, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2HRC had a "role at the White House, frequently meeting foreign leaders and presiding over meetings". Guess that means she has the credentials to deal with international affairs like she claims.
  • MWeather, on 03/20/2008, -0/+2"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton now argues that the North American Free Trade Agreement needs to be renegotiated, but newly released records showed on Wednesday she promoted its passage."

    So she doesn't want to get rid of it now, and she promoted it back then. How is this news?
  • dexedrine, on 03/20/2008, -3/+3You Obama fans can stop the smear campaign now. Your candidate is done. A week ago he was 10 points ahead of Clinton in the polls and now he's down by 7. Neither candidate is coming close to McCain's numbers now. Congratulations. You lost us another election.

    Hillary has lost us another election. If you think she can beat McCain, you belong in the Hillary Camp. I, like many independent leaning democrats, refuse to vote for her. I would rather vote for McCain, then someone who feels the presidency is a birth right. Sorry, it isn't.
    • junkwheel, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2Obama is done? Hilarious. And if you think McCain is presidential material you're nuts.

      As for Hillary, I'm guessing the 4,300 pages they held back are full of real bad ***** that would grind her campaign to a halt instantly.
      • Arrestedevelopr, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Well Dex is right, whether you think McCain presidential material or not, according to the latest rasmussen poll McCain is beating them both by 7 points or more. And I prefer someone with a few decades experience than some guy who is good at making speeches but has terrible policies ideas.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
  •  

    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.