Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Kenya Dig It? President Obama Talks Africa, Chastises Politics in Late Father's Homeland
- US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty
- Asked What He Doesn’t Like About Himself, President Obama Cites His Golf Game
- Today's Q's For O's White House
- Afghanistan Offensive and Iraq Withdrawal: Obama's National Security Advisor Discusses Both with ABC News
- Who Makes the Big Bucks at the White House?
- Obama Quizzed at Health Care Town Hall: On Taxing Benefits, Single Payer System, and Costs
- Today's Q's for O's White House
- Spotlight on Non-Profit Work, Obama Calls on “Deep Pockets”
- Obama says Iraqi People Right to Celebrate
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
From the Fact Check Desk: The Clinton Campaign Misrepresents Clinton NAFTA Meeting
March 21, 2008 5:03 PM
I have now talked to three former Clinton Administration officials whom I trust who tell me that then-First Lady Hillary Clinton opposed the idea of introducing NAFTA before health care, but expressed no reservations in public or private about the substance of NAFTA.
Yet the Clinton campaign continues to propagate this myth that she fought NAFTA tooth and nail because she opposed the substance of the bill.The campaign claims over and over that she did not support NAFTA. That may be emotionally and intellectually true -- but actions speak louder than misgivings.
On a conference call today, as Ben Smith from Politico details, Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson claimed that “in four of the five meetings” about NAFTA on then-First Lady Hillary Clinton's schedule, “Sen. Clinton was pushing back.”
Carson says the fifth meeting was the November 10, 1993 pro-NAFTA meeting for businesswomen that we reported on earlier this week, where Clinton was something of the keynote speaker. He says that was just a "drop by" -- which is how it was described in her schedule. But people who attended say it was more like she was the headliner.
And the Clinton campaign will not concede that she was advocating for NAFTA in the meeting.
"That's ludicrous," said Laura E. Jones, executive director of the United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel, who was there. "There was no question that everyone who spoke including the First Lady was for NAFTA, it was a rally on behalf of NAFTA to help it get passed. It's unquestionable. And there are many people out there who were there who remember the incident who work in this industry."
Julia K. Hughes, senior vice president of the same organization is likewise incredulous of the Clinton campaign's claims.
"This is such a non issue to us, because obviously it was a pro-NAFTA group and a pro-NAFTA event," says Hughes. "It was a 100 percent pro-NAFTA event. No one suggested any inklings of doubt since part of the agenda was to promote enthusiasm for passage of NAFTA."
Did that include then-First Lady Clinton?
"Absolutely. She was the highlight of the event. She was absolutely the capper to the event. It was a positive rally. I assure you if there had even been a hint of waffling from her -- because we were in the last days before NAFTA passed and it was a pretty hectic time -- we would have freaked out."
It is entirely possible that Clinton opposed NAFTA personally and was just being a good soldier. But that doesn't change the fact that she helped NAFTA pass, and that at this meeting she was pushing for it.
-- jpt
UPDATE: I originally had thought Carson was saying this November 10, 1993, meeting was one of the four in which she was pushing back -- my mistake. But the campaign will not concede that this was a meeting where she clearly advocated for NAFTA, so the point is the same, since the two attendees say she very clearly was.
March 21, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (115)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
FYI - Rev Wright did not say God Damn America - he said God damned America. WE reaped what WE sowed. Now WE should be accountable and WE have to do the right thing.
Posted by: dotheresearch | Mar 23, 2008 9:57:56 AM
________________________________________
Thank you for the research. Those same cable television stations and newspapers that ran that 30 second snippet over and over would not accept this because as truth because those good old boys from big business, ABC, FoxNews/CNN, Sanctimonious Lou Dobbs,InSane Hanity, ORielly, Ann Coultrus and the analysts, Sen Obama's opponents are pressing this issue only because it affects their wallets, bottom line. It's sad that these type of people have that much power to smear this man's name/character under the guise that he will ruin this country if he is elected, when they know it's more about their wallets. These are the elitists and it's like they enjoy what they do.
They will be accountable in the end when it's their time to leave this earth, God; see's everything and they reap what they sow.
I bet they don't even go to church.
Posted by: KATHY | Apr 18, 2008 9:31:30 PM
On that note the Clinton years are probably the best years America and the world experienced for anyone over the age of fifty. Since Clinton left office every lead indicator took a 180 degree turn.
Posted by: Moot article | Mar 24, 2008 12:11:27 PM
_______________________________________
Better for whom? The upper elitist class like the Clintons who made $109 millmion dollars, some of which was made behind closed doors with China. We have people here that's still homeless, veterans that's homeless. She's got $300 million portk barrel funds set aside, where is that money going, it's certainly not going to help the American people. We pay taxes and our taxes paid for a war she voted for. So forgive me, if I "don't" give her credit for anything but for lining their pockets while the rest of America is hurting. She has a home to go to.
Posted by: KATHY | Apr 18, 2008 8:31:20 PM
BOB S. - Couldn't agree with you more. The Kennedy Clan should embrace the Clinton's, its just the passing of the torch... Hillary now, Chelsea next! Go girls.
Posted by: Chipo1965 | Apr 18, 2008 6:15:43 PM
Question: Is the rumor true; “if Obama gets elected to the “White” House he plans on changing the name to “Black” House and having it RE-painted a different color than “white”? If this is true, isn’t this taking the race card to major extremes?
Posted by: Natalie | Apr 4, 2008 5:51:47 PM
Fact check the historical NAFTA question about Hillary Clinton's position with David Gergen --
Gergen categorically stated in a recent TV-news statement that, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton most certainly did oppose NAFTA in private discussions. Gergen's veracity is above reproach.
Do people really expect a First Lady to publicly oppose a program her husband, the President, is supporting?
Who is promoting this outrageous "nit picking" over every word Senator Clinton said when she was First Lady?
Whoever it is, point those individuals/groups back to the substantive issues. Otherwise we'll all have to go back and review all of Obama's instances of dissembling.
Posted by: 2_cents | Mar 26, 2008 3:17:20 PM
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: tiredofthelackofknowledgeofvoters | Mar 24, 2008 4:07:43 PM
It seems that the Dems have lost track of the fact this is a contest Between T. Kennedyand B. Clinton to see whois going to run the Democratic party in the future. Pay attention!
Posted by: Bob S. | Mar 24, 2008 2:17:30 PM
It seems that the Dems have lost track of the fact this is a contest Between T. Kennedyand B. Clinton to see whois going to run the Democratic party in the future. Pay attention!
Posted by: Bob S. | Mar 24, 2008 2:17:26 PM
How do they Ignore?
Look, where did You find those facts? somewhere down on this media page (some other did not even publish it).
So all those facts are in a whisper, headlines are not saying that. Such a trick.
And clinton’s supporters do not bother themselves neither to read more than headlines nor to think. That is why they are ready to be fooled.
What a pity, Media is doing that.
Dishonest. Do not you think?
Posted by: Linda,Fl | Mar 24, 2008 1:50:11 PM
I think the soldier issue comes into play here on more then just a superficial level. An officer against making a charge will still follow orders after expressing their thoughts. The officer may rally the troops and lead the charge but that states nothing about there own personal thoughts or belief. You can’t expect Hillary Clinton to be the first lady and undermining her husband’s administration. If you want to blame Hillary Clinton for everything in Bill Clinton’s term you have to also credit her with everything positive. On that note the Clinton years are probably the best years America and the world experienced for anyone over the age of fifty. Since Clinton left office every lead indicator took a 180 degree turn.
Posted by: Moot article | Mar 24, 2008 12:11:27 PM
Is it an wonder why the Clintons are called opportunist? The facts speak for themselves. The fact is America is in SERIOUS trouble because of the policies of both CLINTON and BUSH.
That's what our children see, that's what WE SHOULD SEE.. Thee is no place for the same old political games produicng the same results. Whether we like it or not, WE NEED A CHANGE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. Do we really think Cheney wants someone other than Mccane or Clinton?
Posted by: savoymt | Mar 24, 2008 8:13:14 AM
I'm curious, how do the Clinton supporters ignore all the evidence? I am white, female, over 50 and should be supporting Hillary according to the polls. But for the life of me, I cannot support someone that cannot run her campaign without dissention, she is in the red financially with her campaign, she lies to the American public for her own gain. She is an embarassment to me as a woman. Please tell me is manipulation necessary for women to get ahead? Or would honesty and integrity be better. Am I just old=fashioned? I need a President that I can respect.
Posted by: cathy |
FINALLY ... someone who uses her BRAIN. Cathy, you and your likes are unique as compared to the norm.
Posted by: Leba | Mar 23, 2008 11:42:29 AM
How about David Grogin, Tapper?
Hw says he knows she opposed NAFTA, and you, apparently, consider him a liar.
Your Saint John MCCain has stated that he was the first to call for Runsfeld's firing, yet no one can find any public declaration to that effect.
Will either you (or your crack investigative reporter, Brian Ross)check into that, or do you continue to honor the press' endorsement of McCain's election?
Posted by: fjschmi | Mar 23, 2008 10:06:59 AM
You know what -- Did anyone listen to the entire speech from Rev Wright to get whole context of the sermon? The statements that were circulated were actually quotes from Ambassador Edward Peck a retired, career U.S. diplomat who served 32-years in the U.S. Foreign Service and was chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq under Jimmy Carter. Rev Wright prefaced his remarks as a "faith footnote," an indication that he was deviating from his sermon. He said -- "I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday," Wright declared. "He was on Fox News. This is a white man and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true: America's chickens are coming home to roost." Wright then went on to list more than a few U.S. foreign policy endeavors that, by the tone of his voice and manner of his expression, he viewed as more or less deplorable. This included, as has been demonstrated in the endless loop of clips from his sermon, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and nuking "far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and WE never batted an eye." "Violence begets violence," Wright said, "hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism."
And then he concluded by putting the comments on Peck's shoulders: "A white ambassador said that yall, not a black militant, not a reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open and is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice... the ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them... let me stop my faith footnote right there."
FYI - Rev Wright did not say God Damn America - he said God damned America. WE reaped what WE sowed. Now WE should be accountable and WE have to do the right thing.
Posted by: dotheresearch | Mar 23, 2008 9:57:56 AM
Hillary is UnTrustWorthy, she Praised McCain in National T.V. She wont release her tax info, she wasnt even against the War In Iraq, till she decided to run for Office, along with much, much, more, I just hate to mention!
Posted by: Demo Rules | Mar 23, 2008 9:38:34 AM
Who oh who is backing Hillary that no one in the press ever talks about? And he said he is backing her because he has been friends with her for years. And that Hillary is a good person who does great things for America. And he knows Hillary will get us out of Iraq safely and quickly. None other than man of peace:
George McGovern
What didn't he back Obama????? Because Obamas payoff meant less than nothing to him.
The people that endorse Obama are promised something big in return.
Richardson, Kerry and Kennedy to start. It is all about political favors.
And John Glenn also endorsed Hillary in Ohio. Almost the exact same reasons George gave. Two honorable men with nothing to gain by endorsing Hillary accept to see the best president take office.
Thank GOD for good and strong people like Glenn and Mc Govern. We need so many more of them in America.
Posted by: starbuck1979 | Mar 23, 2008 5:22:20 AM
mudgeonc,
were you an Obama supporter prior to the Wright controversy?
Posted by: ddpwoman | Mar 23, 2008 12:49:13 AM
It sounds like all the Clinton supporters are saying Hilary was against NAFTA but was for it. Do you people ever listen to yourselves.
Posted by: dave | Mar 23, 2008 12:48:28 AM
So it sounds like if Hillary was not for Nafta, but did not sound like she was against it enough ...and she is being drawn and quartered for this...then why is Obama getting a pass for not agreeing with Wright , but still attended the church for 20 years...which to me was TOTALLy agreeing with the philosophy of this church....if he can blow in the wind then what is the deal with her?
Posted by: Donna F | Mar 22, 2008 11:19:24 PM
So it sounds like if Hillary was not for Nafta, but did not sound like she was against it enough ...and she is being drawn and quartered for this...then why is Obama getting a pass for not agreeing with Wright , but still attended the church for 20 years...which to me was TOTALLy agreeing with the philosophy of this church....if he can blow in the wind then what is the deal with her?
Posted by: Donna F | Mar 22, 2008 11:11:04 PM
Post a comment
