Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Family and Medical Leave Absence | Main | George Bush Foreign Policy 101 vs. National Security 101 »

Clinton's 1993 NAFTA Meeting

March 19, 2008 4:58 PM

One interesting event in Sen. Hillary Clinton's just-released schedules from the 1990s comes on Nov. 10 1993, when the former first lady was to serve as the closing act during a briefing on NAFTA, the trade agreement she now assails.

11:30 am -
11:45 am

NAFTA BRIEFING DROP-BY
Room 450, OEOB
CLOSED PRESS

PARTICIPANTS: Approx 120 expected to attend
(See briefing book for further info)

FORMAT:
- Alexis Herman intros HRC for brief remarks
-HRC concludes program

(pp. 1375 and 1376)

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.

That first attendee recalls that the First Lady's office in the East Wing put together "the invitation list, who was invited authorizations and all that stuff."

And what is this attendee's response to Clinton today distancing herself from NAFTA? "For people who worked hard to pass NAFTA and who support the importance of markets opening for the economy in the long term, they're very upset. A number of the women who were there are very upset. You need to have some integrity in your position. The Clintons when Bill Clinton was president took a moderate position on trade for Democrats. For her to repudiate that now seems pretty phony."

Recalls a second attendee, "they were looking for women in international trade who supported NAFTA. Senator Clinton came by at the end. And of course she asked for our support and help in passing NAFTA."

Women who attended that event, the second attendee says, have been incredulous to see Clinton distance herself from the trade agreement as she campaigns today. "They're all saying, 'What's this all about?' We all heard it firsthand." She says Clinton isn't being honest with voters today.

- jpt

UPDATE: The Clinton campaign has asked that I post this recent quote on CNN from Mr. Gergen, referenced above, saying, "I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that’s putting it mildly. I’m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn’t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there’s some justification for her camp saying, you know, she’s never been a great backer for NAFTA."

It's long-established that Hillary Clinton wanted to tackle health care before NAFTA. I don't know that that necessarily undermines the idea that she supported NAFTA. But if she didn't, then why was she telling this room full of businesswomen how great it would be for the economy?

March 19, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (250)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/27266372

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clinton's 1993 NAFTA Meeting:

User Comments

here's a news flash. Hillary made a speech on a future housing plan today in Philadelphia; what's so strange is that it is so similar to the memo Obama sent out March 2007 to Federal Reserve Chairman and Treasury Secretary. Hillary has a lot of gall and what she banks on is the American people not reading...

Posted by: rle | Mar 24, 2008 3:25:27 PM

It is an indictment of main stream journalism, including news organizations such as ABC, that after they made such an extraordinary effort to smear Barrack with a story from a dubious source which was subsequently discredited only after the Ohio primary, they do not bother to even report that the Hilary campaign has indeed had meetings with the Canadian government. It is also very dishonest of the Hilary campaign and Hilary herself to have taken advantage of this erroneous story, when they knew it was false and very hypocritical considering that Hilary was never critical of NAFTA till it became a campaign issue. And now that she has suddenly "always been critical" of NAFTA" she really hasn't said what specifically she doesn't like about it.

Posted by: Philip L | Mar 24, 2008 4:13:47 AM

As the old saying goes fair exchange is not highway robbery. If you are with a person and you have been knowing this person a long long time and he is your friend, you go walking with this person and he are she suddenly decides to jump off a bridge doesn't mean that you will do the same. You can lead a horse to water but it doesn't mean that the horse is going to drink the water.

The media, paper and magazines will always concentrate on the negative to make you buy. That is how they make their money. If you believe everything you hear are see then you are a troubled person.

Put the postives and negatives that you like about each candidate and if you have more negatives then that is not the candidate you want.. Take the Enquirer for example, do you believe all that is in it? Think about how much money is made if everyone buy it. Get the entirety of everything before you make a decision of who you want to be your president. America needs to say lets move on and get to the real issues. Stop wasting time. We are smarter than that to figure out what is going on.

Posted by: Sharon | Mar 22, 2008 2:36:42 AM

Think about it this way: If Hillary can persuade others to vote for NAFTA, just think how she could do in the White House getting health insurance, the economy going again and building up the reserve again, ( like her husband did, remember )

Posted by: ikkeye | Mar 21, 2008 12:33:59 PM

THE CLINTON'S ARE PATHOLOGICAL LIARS.

THIS HAS BEEN CLEAR SINCE 1992.

Posted by: sammie | Mar 21, 2008 11:20:27 AM

I deeply resent my post being removed. With all the diatribes here. All the obvious "dumbed down" campaign posts.

Posted by: Michael | Mar 21, 2008 2:06:22 AM

Now, you see after reading that, people still have made up their minds in who they are going to vote for. It doesn't matter how many Documents they release on Hillary, or how many of Obama's sermons you see on the TV, In the end, you all already chosen what you want. Lets see how many votes are tallied when the dust has been cleared.

Posted by: SDVoter | Mar 20, 2008 11:08:48 PM

Yes, it's crystal clear that Senator Clinton lied when she said she never supported NAFTA. Why do you think she hasn't released tax returns and other records showing contributions from lobbyists? What could the reason be that she won't expose this information until after the PA primary? On the other hand, Obama, openly and honestly fesses up to frailties and has open books. Come on Senator Clinton for once be transparent and quit hiding.

Posted by: lambs | Mar 20, 2008 10:41:15 PM

Isn't it interesting that these docs were held until after the Ohio primary, just long enough to allow Hillary's lie to get her extra votes.

Posted by: fool me once | Mar 20, 2008 8:51:48 PM

A SURE WAY TO DETERMINE IF HILLARY IS LYING: SEE IF HER LIPS ARE MOVING, IF THEY ARE, SHE'S LYING.

Posted by: Randle Bate | Mar 20, 2008 5:05:22 PM

Everyone should look into Hillary's membership into the "Family", a religious cult of the elite around the world. No wonder she isn't saying too much about Obama and Rev. Wright. And look up the Tuskegee Experiments - see how the U.S. experimented on blacks with syphilis for 40 yrs. Bill Clinton apologized to blacks for this past agregious act of the U.S.'s. Rev. Wright should have used that example!

Posted by: Susan M | Mar 20, 2008 2:23:30 PM

Say Hello to President OBAMA everybody.

Posted by: Will | Mar 20, 2008 1:59:23 PM

Another of the LIES of Hillary. Let's talk logic: do you think that while her husband was ACTIVELY PROMOTING NAFTA, his wife would organize on 10 November 1993 a drop-by meeting with 150 influential and business oriented women in the White House to oppose the treaty? ARE WE STUPID OR MENTALLY RETARDED? This shows again that Hillary would say ANYTHING to get to the White House !!!!

Posted by: Denis van Dam | Mar 20, 2008 1:48:49 PM

Lets talk VP ...PLEEEAAASSSEE.

I really like Kathleen Sebelius as VP to Obama. She is a woman of integrity, honest and she is a woman who stands on her own tru experience. As a woman, I believe in strong independent women who do not need to pretend they have experince and honesty, they just have it. She would make an excellent VP for Obama as she has all the qualities needed.

Posted by: Karen | Mar 20, 2008 1:46:18 PM

"I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that’s putting it mildly. I’m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn’t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care."

It would seem that Hillary was more concerned that her pet project of universal healthcare was taking a backseat to NAFTA than she was concerned about whether NAFTA was good or bad policy.

So, where does that leave us?

-If, at that time, she really didn't believe NAFTA was good policy, she was saying what she believed to be politically expedient THEN.

-If, at that time, she believed NAFTA to be good policy, she is saying what she believes to be politically expedient NOW.

I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we can expect from her as a leader. More spin, obfuscation, and distortion - the same as we've had for 8+ years. It is time for change.

Posted by: jb | Mar 20, 2008 1:02:02 PM

This isn't news. America knew Hillary was lying when she said she opposed NAFTA.

Hillary is a LIAR folks get used to it.

Posted by: Syl | Mar 20, 2008 12:38:43 PM

I'm confused fellow bloggers; was this article about Hillary or Obama?

Obama '08

Posted by: ddpwoman | Mar 20, 2008 12:25:34 PM

"I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that’s putting it mildly. I’m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn’t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care."

It would seem that Hillary was more concerned that her pet project of universal healthcare was taking a backseat to NAFTA than she was concerned about whether NAFTA was good or bad policy.

So, where does that leave us?

-If, at that time, she really didn't believe NAFTA was good policy, she was saying what she believed to be politically expedient THEN.

-If, at that time, she believed NAFTA to be good policy, she is saying what she believes to be politically expedient NOW.

I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we can expect from her as a leader. More spin, obfuscation, and distortion - the same as we've had for 8+ years. It is time for change.

Posted by: jb | Mar 20, 2008 12:24:51 PM

She is one woman who does not shiver at the thought of lying. She has PhD in fabrication and falsehood.

Posted by: Kizeem | Mar 20, 2008 12:11:52 PM

From reading all these comments,just lets me know, We the PEOPLE have a lot of racism, sexism and hatred in our hearts. The Media is SUCCESSFUL with what it is trying to do. Keep us separated!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

I am an Obama supporter, but I do like some of the values the Clinton's posed as well. However, i have many of friends, that has horrible views on life or people, yet, they are still my friends. If we hold him accountably guilty by association, than we are ALL GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION.

Honestly, I would be fine with Obama or Clinton in office, Although, I am a strong Obama supporter. I am just looking at the facts: SUPERDELEGATES will not go against the will of the people and we need to take a look at who is ahead in the delegate count. Obama, even if Hillary wins, she will not win a large enough margin to gain delegates, even if Fl & MI was included. It is time for us to wake up and come together and start working on building a better world for us, and our children. Look at what is going on around us. The Republicans are loving this battle.

This yeas seems to be the end of the Democratic Party!!!

Posted by: Natasha | Mar 20, 2008 11:49:13 AM

She is always laying.
Not a discovery.
Just take it and throw her out of race.
Our votes count.

Posted by: Luda | Mar 20, 2008 11:42:27 AM

I find it interesting that some people feel this story is not relevant. There are statements such as 'all politicians lie,' which seem to dismiss the doubletalk on this issue. Why should we accept that? It has been said before, but if Hillary wants to claim her First Lady years as experience, she needs to own up to all that happened, both positive and negative. Otherwise, she should have just left it alone. Obama is doing that; owning up to the negatives like Rezko and Wright. I can not trust someone who refuses to apologize for past behaviors or admit mistakes. That is what we have in George W. Bush.

This is a shining example of Hillary saying what others want to hear, saying something she does not believe in just to achieve a political goal. It reminds me this behavior did not just start during her run for the White House, it is a pattern of behavior she has engaged in for quite some time. Frankly, it is the type of behavior that turned me off politics since her husband's election.

I have identified myself as a Democrat since I was aware of the concept of President of the United States (Jimmy Carter era); campainged for Mondale/Ferraro in my grade school. But, the negativity and lies I have witnessed in my adult years have soured my thoughts of what democracy means. It wasn't until I heard the words of Barack Obama and realized a candidate who took no money from lobbyists could ever have a shot at becoming President that I have become excited about democracy again. Stories about how a candidate like Hillary Clinton
says things they don't mean remind me of my apathetic voting days that I hope will not return.

Posted by: Carol, WI | Mar 20, 2008 11:22:04 AM

I HAVE always known she was lying to her teeth when she said she never supported NAFTA.

Posted by: Kizeem | Mar 20, 2008 11:11:28 AM

This is race to nominate what might be the next President of the USA not a religious convention on morality. But, WE MUST JUDGE the candidates on the basis of what they say they stand for and if it is discovered that what they say is all lies it matters! We need to inject integrity back into the political process and not allow any candidate to get away with lying over and over and over again. TIME TO GO HILLARY! YES WE CAN!

Posted by: NewDay | Mar 20, 2008 10:39:40 AM

ALL POLITICIANS LIE! EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD HAS TOLD MORE THAN ONE LIE IN HIS OR HER LIFETIME! WHY IS EVERYONE THROWING STONES WHEN THEY KNOW THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF ARE HYPOCRITES IN SOME SHAPE OR FASHION. "HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN, CAST THE FIRST STONE." IT NEVER CEASES TO AMAZE ME HOW PEOPLE ARE SO QUICK TO JUDGE OTHERS YET FAIL TO LOOK AT THEMSELVES IN THE MIRROR!

Posted by: wake up | Mar 20, 2008 10:25:26 AM

Go go Obama....They can not stop you now....What we need is unity,love and peace and better economy we normal people are the loser..they dont know our problems when they are in the white house....we love and support u.....

Posted by: kibs | Mar 20, 2008 10:09:44 AM

Excuse me? Hillary's campaign asked you to update your reporting with a quote from one of her supporters and you comply? Nice going Jake!

Posted by: Chude | Mar 20, 2008 9:52:36 AM

Yeah that meeting that took place 15 years ago is really important / relevant.

Posted by: Bing! | Mar 20, 2008 9:15:36 AM

"She's a LIAR!"
"No, he's a liar!"
"No, she is!"
"No, he is! And he's a racist!"
"No, she's a racist!"
"I'm gonna tell on you!"
"I'm gonna tell on you first!"

So this is political dialog in our country? Within the same party, no less. Everyone grabs the nearest sound byte and clings to it for dear life.

Nice.

Posted by: Em | Mar 20, 2008 9:09:40 AM

HILLARY, MAKE YOUR HATERS YOUR MOTIVATORS!

GO HILLARY!!! HILLARY 08!!!

Posted by: Eric | Mar 20, 2008 9:03:43 AM

Liars? Seriously? Obama is the liar:
1) He lied about his stance on NAFTA to the OH voters - this has all been proven by the Canadian govt.
2. He lied last Friday when he said he didn't hear Wright's controversial statements, then he said he did in Tuesday's speech.
3. He lied about how much Rezcko gave to him in campaign funds (see court docs).

Are you seriously kidding me? There's something happening here and guess what? It's happening by the end of the week and Obama will step down. There is no way this liar and fraud will step foot in my WHITE HOUSE, period.

Posted by: Jenny | Mar 20, 2008 8:34:36 AM

The Democrat candidates, one of them are a liar, and the other is a racist, you can decide which one is which. BTW, if you believe for a minute that the whole Rev. Wright thing was exposed by anyone other than the Clinton campaign, you are being naive

Posted by: drock | Mar 20, 2008 7:45:57 AM

The topic is Clinton 1993 NAFTA meeting--yet many bloggers mention Obama. He hasn't changed his position on NAFTA, or the war. Let's discuss the topic! This slight of hand to change the discussion so that accountability is never addressed is how Bush/Cheney got re-elected. Clinton did support NAFTA that is the topic for discussion. If you support Clinton embrace her decisions!

Posted by: DQuinn | Mar 20, 2008 7:19:50 AM

The American people are getting exactly what they voted for, lots of boldfaced LIARS! Ron and Dennis were the only honest candidates running this time and both were soundly rejected by the voters. Don't pay any attention to anything the rest of them say and you'll never be disappointed. For example, if this so called "War on Terror" were really true, our borders would be secure. If NAFTA had really been a good thing, our jobs would still be located in America. Our country is now facing so many serious problems and this is what we vote for? These self promoting liars and con artists are the best we can do? This is exactly how we ended up looking for nonexistent WMD's with Bush. This is why our dollar is being destroyed and our rights under the constitution trashed. This is why we now openly torture people. This is why our wars never seem to end and our government must borrow money from our enemy's to fund our stupid foreign policy blunders. It's why our jobs have been shipped overseas with dumb trade policy deals like Clinton's NAFTA. Electing liars who promise "smaller government" is exactly why were nearing 10 trillion in debt. It's why the rest of the world is now shunning the dollar and laughs about the "Stupid Americans". What a sad joke this country is turning into and most Americans are too blind to see it. Perhaps a repeat of the great depression will help them to wake up. Perhaps when the dollar is completely worthless? Just what will it take? Unless a good Independent runs, I'll just sit this one out and prepare my family for the economic nightmare that's now facing our leaderless country.

Posted by: Stephen Clark | Mar 20, 2008 7:19:41 AM

The Clintons are both liars--well known for their ability to lie to the people of America. What will they do, if elected and back in the White House? I bet you know. The first thing, in view of how secrecy, like Bush, is they will lock up/hide all their papers coming from our house. If forced to release them, they will redact three quarters of them. You can bet Bush has plenty of bad embarrassing stuff about Hillary and Bill hiding in his briefcase and will hand over to McCain anything to help him win. The friendship with Poppy Bush was more than a nice little vacation in Maine--it was networking.

Hillary had some eight years as Senator from New York. The excuse that she has a right to change her mind after fourteen years is quite shallow, but understandable, as it seems, stretching the truth and spinning is a Clinton disease caught by their followers. If she were really against nafta, she could have addressed the people of New York with that and done something to help them. She did not. It is only to get votes in Ohio that she lied and no doubt would have told the same lie to the people of Michigan. Little wonder that her minions in Michigan pushed up their primary date in violation of the rules because at that time, the Clintons were running on name recognition and thought they would take the state early before the real issues of this primary were discussed.

Posted by: duck puddle | Mar 20, 2008 7:06:54 AM

Hillary's schedules are not the real issue! It is getting the Republican's out of power that is the most important thing right now. Obama no longer has a chance. The Republicans will scare everyone with Obama's pastor's words and videos. There is no way Obama can win the general election now. We need a revote in both Florida and Michigan in order for any chance for change from the Republican agenda. Obama may be putting his own interests above the countries if he opposes this effort.

Posted by: desertclair | Mar 20, 2008 6:47:41 AM

Hillary (America's Evita) will attempt to destroy the democratic party in her lust for power. Also, the bloggers here still going on about Rev Wright need to get a more interesting life. As a 50 something african american, black church life is filled with hypobole and that was not a "hate filled speech" It was received by the intended audience as a cautionary speech and is very much typical of black church presentations - so I am reading these blogs from people who took a snippet and made a thesis out of it - Give me a break!

Posted by: Ohioliberal | Mar 20, 2008 6:39:48 AM

It is a huge deal. Obama's entire candidacy is based on hope, peace, love and unity, and he is mentored for 20 years by a bigot, a racist, and Anti-White and Anti-American preacher, who was his spiritual adviser. And only when he is caught in a web of lies and deceit does he try and distance himself from his friend and mentor.
Forget about any secret agenda, I want to know, how does Obama really feel about the white race? Read his books, he considers himself black and shuns his white heritage. I want a president who I know is working for all people, not the people of his own race.
I was born and raised in Chicago, very near Mr. Obama's district. Since he was elected to the State Senate, he has done nothing for the people of Illinois, The City of Chicago, so what makes you think he will do anything for the USA & the entire world. He is a self-serving politician, only in this for power and his own political agenda.

Posted by: Jay | Mar 20, 2008 6:01:40 AM

It looks like there is an old fashion blood and guts brawl going on in the Democrat Party. It is also starting to look apparent that you seriously wounding your chances to win in November. Say what you will about John McCain. He is a gentlemen. He is stable. He has split his own blood in defence of this country. This may not be the blog forum to share this information, but you are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...or something like that.

Posted by: bill | Mar 20, 2008 5:59:23 AM

Also, this Pastor Wright thing is just not a big deal. An angry black man that grew up in the 50s and 60s? Wow, I am shocked.

The people making this a big deal are engaging in the worst kind of racism. What, do you think that Obama has some sort of secret agenda to lead a black revolution and kill whitey? So, no one can run that ever knew someone that felt as though they had been prejudiced and spoke out against it? People are really grasping at straws in an effort to besmirch Obama. I'm not even a big fan, and will probably vote for Nader. But, seriously...how is this a big deal? Can someone explain it to me?

Posted by: Mike | Mar 20, 2008 5:54:07 AM

Actually, Mr. Obama is damaged good at this point. The super delegates are all sitting and waiting until every state has voted and Florida and Michigan get resolved. Then I am very confident they will fall behind Mrs. Clinton, because of the Pastor Wright fiasco, Mr. Obama is no longer electable, so since neither nominee can reach the 2024 earmark to secure the nomination, the Supers will have to support Hillary, or the Dems will be committing political suicide. By giving the general Obama, we will ensure the Republicans another 4 years of controlling the White House.

Posted by: Jay | Mar 20, 2008 5:42:19 AM

Thanks Ed, I try hard, but the Obama folks don't like it, and have no visible sense of humor except when they try to make fun of Hillary and they are so lame when they attempt it. But make a joke about their deity and all holy hell breaks loose.
Of course from what I have seen of Obama, he left his sense of humor in the Senate, with his "Your likable enough Hillary joke..lol

Posted by: Jay | Mar 20, 2008 5:18:58 AM

Jay... that was funny.

Posted by: Ed | Mar 20, 2008 5:09:41 AM

The Obama express is over.

Posted by: Ed | Mar 20, 2008 5:07:55 AM

Duane... Looks like Hillary Rodham Clinton leads Barack Obama by 49 percent to 42 percent in daily tracking polls conducted this past Sunday to Tuesday.

Posted by: Ed | Mar 20, 2008 5:04:49 AM

In news today, the Obama camp is asking for the release of Hillary’s medical records, dental records, social security #, driver license records, urine samples, hair follicles, fingernail clippings, DNA, old clothes, bank account and credit cards records, and all the names of her pets since she was born.

They will do anything in ObamaLand to distract the people from all of Obama’s lies.

Posted by: Jay | Mar 20, 2008 5:03:06 AM

Sorry Duane: Hillary didn't lie at all. She has a right to change her mind after 14 years. NAFTA was new and untested and it turned out it was a faulty concept. Hillary is just stating the obvious. Now you want to talk about a liar. I watch Obama on Olbermann stating profusely he NEVER heard those type of racist and hateful ANTI white and Anti-American remark from the pulpit while he attended church. I watched his speech 3 times and in his speech he said he has heard those remarks. A complete reversal and outright lie by Obama.

Posted by: Jay | Mar 20, 2008 4:59:28 AM

Here are some of the headlines I can concoct to mark Obama’s mesmerizingly stupid speech
Obama lectures White America on Original Sin
Hate-Speech is Fine, as Long as You’re Really Angry
Obama - White Americans Hate like Blacks, so We’re Even.
Obama, Interprets America’s History, Tells Whites to Lay-off
Blacks to White America - “On Sunday we Hate You. Live with It.”
Obama, Black-America’s New Sharpton, Makes White America Understand
Obama Slams Clinton, Ferraro, McCain, White Guilt Innuendo
Obama says Distorted View of America Common To Blacks, no Apologies.
Obama Admits to Lying About Hearing Inflammatory Words, but Says “So What?!”
Obama Outraged by Pastor’s Remark, But Then Says They Are “ok.”
Obama Speaks, Media Listen, Voters say A-men
Former Slaves, Free To Hate
Obama and King; Two Ways to Sit-In
Obama Calls Wright a Distraction and Accuses Americans of Treating Race as Spectacle
Obama a spectacle of Logic. America Generally Wrong, Wright Generally Right
Obama Onslaught on Reason, When Will it Stop
Obama’s Impersonation of Lincoln, a Tasteless Parody

Posted by: Ed | Mar 20, 2008 4:58:02 AM

Clinton is thru......look at the delegate count. Bush won on the delegate count not the popular..Bye Bye
If this is ALL u can come up with concerning Obama........Bye Bye
Do you remember division of Church and State? See Ya

Posted by: Duane | Mar 20, 2008 4:56:45 AM

In his lust for personal wealth
has Barack Obama
sold his moral compass?

Posted by: Ed | Mar 20, 2008 4:56:43 AM

The Obama express is over and i love it.

Posted by: Ed | Mar 20, 2008 4:50:57 AM

Jay..........
Lets stick to the story....Hillary LIED!!!! Obama did not make the comments...his pastor did..If we are guilty by association then you are guilty of anti-women's lib and you support men who do monica lewinskys in the oval office while the wife is down the hall!!! sick!

Posted by: duane | Mar 20, 2008 4:47:44 AM

Silly Me, I was working the phones for Hillary all day and night and got on here to read about the NAFTA and white house doc release. I laughed so hard at all these Obamabots, BKMC, Vanessa, Joris etc...
I got this picture in my head of 3 or more large vultures circling the sky for the dead rotting carcass of Hillary's White House schedules, picking over every little scrap of paper and tearing it to shreds and devouring it..lol.
Talk about much ado over nothing. Hilarious I tell you.
They are all squawking and making noise to divert the attention away from the Obama train wreck, only they don't realize no matter what, he is losing ground every day. I spoke to over 300 random people today in PA, and 12 supported Obama, and even they said they we still leery of his 20 year relationship with Pastor Wright. The Obama express is over.

Posted by: Jay | Mar 20, 2008 4:19:15 AM

You mean Hillary Clinton is a PHONY who will DO or SAY anything to get elected? ... Are you sure. Just because there are 100 examples of this does not mean it is true.

Posted by: Robert Morrow | Mar 20, 2008 3:43:27 AM

shame on you OHIO NOW YOU SEE HOW HILLARY SHE,S A LIAR SHE'S SUPPORTED THE NAFTA SHE,S A LIAR NOW PENNSYLVANIA OPEN YOURS EYES THAT WOMEN SHE'S DANGEROUS FOR MARICA A GOOD ADVICE FROM YOUR CANADIEN FRIEND.

Posted by: ERIC BARTHEL | Mar 20, 2008 3:05:11 AM

Oops, Geneva.

Who would have thunk it?

Posted by: daveinboca | Mar 20, 2008 2:48:19 AM

Sorry, Bridgette, I left out a word.
"Perhaps someone should tell Bridgette that Hillary recently [like two weeks ago] SAID that she was against it [NAFTA] from the beginning."

[But now evidence comes out that Hillary "misspoke," or even LIED THROUGH HER TEETH.

Probably the latter, Bridgette, I'm afraid.

Posted by: daveinboca | Mar 20, 2008 2:45:12 AM

Some of you are ridiculous, and also have some spelling issues to say the least. She was condemned for not being supportive enough of NAFTA, and now she's being targeted as if it was HER policy. I have listened to the woman talk, and she has never once taken credit for something her husband did as President. She has only talked about her programs feeding a million hungry children, her work getting health care for women and children, and her relationship with foreign diplomats. She isn't picking and choosing work her husband did and using that in her campaign. She is talking about what she's DONE. Not a speech she gave about it.

Nafta at the time was thought to be a good program, and it benefited many people in several states. It was her husband's policy. GET OVER IT.

Posted by: Geneva | Mar 20, 2008 2:43:59 AM

Perhaps someone should tell Bridgette that Hillary recently [like two weeks ago] that she was against it from the beginning.

Oh Dear, perhaps as a consequence, Hillary will have been caught in a bold-faced lie.

Unprecedented, eh?

Who woulda thunkit?

Posted by: daveinboca | Mar 20, 2008 2:39:40 AM

Hey folks, remember, Clinton cant win at this point without wining by at least a 60% margin in all the remaining races. She has already lost.

Posted by: Lazaro | Mar 20, 2008 2:35:12 AM

Thank you Bridgette-

Posted by: jgaw | Mar 20, 2008 2:25:19 AM

So let's say she DID support NAFTA in the beginning. Why in the world would anyone be upset that she doesn't anymore. It's not flip-flopping, it's called adapting your beliefs to the way things are playing out.

Clearly, NAFTA hasn't played out as expected and there are problems with it. Is it wrong for her to want to fix those problems? NO! So really, I could care less what her stance was in the beginning, what REALLY matters is her stance now and what she's going to do in the future to help the American people!

Posted by: Bridgette | Mar 20, 2008 2:18:51 AM

CLINTONS FAMILY ARE THE MOST GREAT LIER IN US HISTORY ...stay out from dinasties nonsense.

CHINA LOVE CLINTONSSSSSSSS

Posted by: slick willie | Mar 20, 2008 2:15:21 AM

I recall that Mrs. Clinton's husband was impeached by the United States House of Representatives on two charges, PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.-LYING
It wasn't the intern, it was the LYING, not just to the Authorities, but to the American people, right into the camera lens with finger wagging emphasis.

Does any thinking person yet believe that the Clinton leopard has changed it spots?
LYING...also condemned in Church, but the Clintons were too busy in borrowed Church pulpits crucifying Obama by proxy to read the fine print about "bearing false witness"

Posted by: NO DIEBOLD PRESIDENT | Mar 20, 2008 2:05:57 AM

Hillary lied about something again? NAFTA, you say. Oh, you mean she opened her mouth and started talking.

Posted by: bob10001 | Mar 20, 2008 1:40:36 AM

John from Victoria, Canada: "Please cancel NAFTA, I know a lot of people in Canada wish you would. You would no longer have free unrestricted access to our water/oil/resources. We could make our Oil cheaper for the Canadian people and charge what ever we wanted to anyone else (NAFTA does not allow that). "
John, do you really think that any Canadian oil company would sell it's oil "cheaper" to Canadians? Dream on, kid. The US has no access to Canadian resources that any other country doesn't have. We pay our "good friends" in Canada for oil the same price we pay the Arabs. You don't give us even a penny break on price. The US does not import Canadian water. Canada has been no friend to the US in recent years. All it has been good for recently is importing America hating Muslims and opposing the US at every turn. If we had any brains we'd turn Canada into a US territory whether you liked it or not. You couldn't stop it since you have always depended on the US for military protection thereby freeing up your tax money for your own benefit. As for NAFTA, it has been an immense benefit to Canada and Mexico. The US has done nothing but suffer. For Canada and, especially, Mexico it has been a dream come true. Canadians resent the US because you wouldn't have any economy whatsoever without the US and that always breeds resentment. Any fool can look at the trade numbers, John. Try it.

Posted by: Doug W | Mar 20, 2008 1:33:24 AM

I guess it's crucial to realize that this is an ABCnews site, not some unmoderated discussion. We should do a better job of keeping things civil.

Dogsoldier: Let me buy you a beer if you're ever in Chicago. Our evolving exchange got hacked, and anyhow is probably too nuanced for a space like this.

And, more power to Huckabee.

Posted by: Tungsten | Mar 20, 2008 1:30:22 AM

Dear Friends,
why are we engaging in this type of conversation. If we are going to tear the only 3 canidates left who are running for president. Who will we have. those of you who are engaging in this type of talk-must be living pretty good, no concerns for healthcare,student loans, the economy, or all the good people dying is this war. I enjoy getting on Political Punch
What shall we do? Obama is no good anymore-and I'll bet some of you voted for him) and you think Hillary has a nerve running for president-and Mccain is just an old war hawk-and plus he's old. Why- are we doing this? We have this wonderful technology-the blog-we are blessed to be living in this country-able to go and vote. and all we can do is write this stuff? Please, lets try and pick up the tone of this conversation-we are intelligent people-at least we know a little about typing-what don't we spend some of this time trying to discuss what could be right about the only canidates we have (Now I know some are mad because Paul, huckabee and other are not running anymore) so Obama, Hillary and Mccain are all we have left-Lets try to discuss some of the issues facing us today-we are not perfect people-and nor are the 3 we have running for president. Now, I happen to be a Hillary supporter-you are not going to change my mind about Hillary-by bringing up all the old stuff. I like what Hillary has said she will do for healthcare, student loans-(I have one child in college class of 2010 and one who will start college in 2010) I like where Hillary stands on the issues of the economy-what she will do about the war going forward. i believe she will do what she is saying she will do about ending the war. We all need to check ourselves-If you had the desire to serve this country-the way these people have decided to-could you pass the test-you are putting on them?
As I said I am a Hillary supporter,two of the reasons why are-I do not think obama is ready-he said it once himself-
One day I hope before I die maybe he will be-his political career is still young-Mccain scares me with the notion of we could be in this war another 50-100 years. (a war he will not be around to finish) As I have said before, If I need surgery-I want the surgeon with the best mind-ability to know where to cut-and the courage to cut. I do not need them to be perfect Human Beings-just a good command of the profession they have chosen. Now for me, Hillary is the full package-Se runs circles around Mccain and Obama on the issues-we need a president who is able to think on their feet-and able to voice the what they will do about the issues that face us today-plainly. for me the complete person-of the three left is Hillary. Lets take advantage of this most great mean of communicating to talk about what is right about the 3 left, instead of tearing them down, which will not help any of us.
The World is holding its breath hoping we get if right this time-(as spoken 1st by HRC.
Please no more rubbish, just the issues.

Posted by: jgaw | Mar 20, 2008 1:22:15 AM

ABC, you are beating a dead horse while infuriating Clinton supporters and others who demand a measure of fairness in the news. This article breaks every canon of ethical journalism because it transparently targets Hillary who shouldn''t have to pay for Bill''s indescretion years ago. It is time to get into current news. Readers of tired of this garbage!

Posted by: Ed | Mar 20, 2008 1:19:13 AM

Obama favoured 50 state strategy and criticized Clinton for not supporting it. 50 state strategy has failed. Obama seems to have some Math problem or did FLIP-FLOP on his decision. He will get decision from 48 states as his campaign already derail the Do-Over in Florida and in Michigan it seems that it is almost off the table. Again, it is politics of Mr. Obama's convinience.

Posted by: Humm | Mar 20, 2008 12:53:53 AM

As Sam Rayburn once said "I only wish they had been elected dog catcher sometime in their career". Meaning, neither Hillary, nor Obama, has any real meaningful experience that suggests they are ready, or able, to be Chief Executive of the United States. Yeah, they got elected Senator, so what. So did John McCain. Personally, both parties had at least four years to groom and develop a viable candidate. One who could be "President", not just want to be one. They failed miserably.

Posted by: Richard | Mar 20, 2008 12:49:19 AM

J. Wright, (ok Donna, I found it)

Interesting. Since you QUOTED that remark, I am sure you can point us all to the exact citation so we can all look it up.

Regarding your "favorites" I suggest that you look in the senate records instead of in the Hillary website. You will find that those good amendments were tied to generally extremely poorly written bills, or in some cases were good bills weighted down by dozens of extremely bad last-minutes "earmarks".

Posted by: Lady Professor | Mar 20, 2008 12:46:08 AM

The civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary’s largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media thanks to heavy pressure from the Clinton campaign (see note of mysterious Clinton-related deaths below.................).
Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California’s anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law.
Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary’s attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures.
Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary’s biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit’s allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary’s Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill.
The media - except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary’s last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary’s campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary’s campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report.
In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul’s $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul’s partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money.
Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the “overly critical” media!
Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary’s role as a witness in Bill’s fraud trial for defrauding Hillary’s largest donor- and Hillary’s refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970’s before her first Senate election in 2000?

Posted by: Lady Professor | Mar 19, 2008 10:52:16 PM

All you Hillary revisionists and Obama haters are becoming more conspicuous hour by hour. Your passion for a woman with faux experience is insulting to men and women across the country who have spent time leading, managing and handling risks that Hillary can only simulate in speeches.

I'm an independent voter who wants an honest leader as our President and she is not qualified on this count and many others.