Political Punch

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

« Previous | Main | Next »

Hillary Clinton's NAFTA Sincerity Problem

March 20, 2008 11:30 AM

The Clinton campaign sent out talking points for supporters today, which included this odd little "myth" versus "fact."

"Myth: Contrary to her stated opposition to NAFTA, Hillary Clinton attended NAFTA meetings to work for its passage.

"Fact: It is no secret that passing NAFTA was a priority of the Clinton Administration, but numerous contemporary accounts make clear that Hillary Clinton was personally opposed to NAFTA, and her position on NAFTA was and remains consistent."

OK, first of all, that "Myth" is not a "Myth" -- it's a fact.

Clinton attended NAFTA meetings to work for its passage. True statement. Period. End of story.

As we reported yesterday,  on November 10, 1993, Clinton headlined a briefing and rah-rah session for businesswomen to support NAFTA.

And as the AP reports today, the recently released 11,000-plus pages of her First Lady "schedules show her holding at least five meetings in 1993 aimed at helping to win congressional approval of the deal."

Our friends at the Clinton campaign should look up the word "Myth" in the dictionary.

But the more troublesome question I have is one the Clinton campaign has repeatedly refused to answer ever since we talked to two attendees of that 1993 meeting in which then-First Lady Clinton was telling businesswomen NAFTA would be good for the country and the economy.

If "Hillary Clinton was personally opposed to NAFTA" at the time, as her campaign now claims, why was she telling the American people that it was good for the economy?

Why did one attendee of that November 1993 meeting -- unaffiliated with any campaign -- recall the meeting to me by saying Clinton's "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."

Clinton is not claiming her position has evolved, mind you.

She's saying she opposed it at the time. And the facts are: she publicly and privately spoke in favor of it at the time.

So….was she being sincere then?

Or is she being sincere now?

- jpt

March 20, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (146)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You need to be from New York to know the facts about Hillary. She PERSONALLY obtained for Indian Nationals WORK VISAS so India could import workers to New York State to take IT jobs that she PROMISED to upstate New Yorker's through TATA Corp. She obtained THOUSDANDS of work and student visas for India Nationals AND worked to help India through Cisco Systems, who paid Bill Clinton a couple hundred thousand for speeches, AND donated to both Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign AND Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, to SHIP OVERSEAS jobs, therefore leaving thousands of US citizens out of work. Hillary Clinton has with her own actions decimated job opportunities for IT Professionals in New York State. And that is just ONE example of how her actions about "outsourcing" jobs have hurt US workers, most specifically New York residents. She won her Senate seat on the promise she would help the depressed northern part of New York State with jobs, yet can only point to 10 JOBS for Syracuse! And while we are at it, she puts on that fake concern for the needs of low-income and middle class, yet her campaign has not paid the health insurance premiums of her paid staff, leaving them WITHOUT health insurance. Talk about saying one thing and doing another. You should talk to residents of New York State to actually KNOW what Senator Clinton has done in her actions, not what she says.

Now we have new news about Bill Clinton's ties to Yahoo China who are assisting China in posting warnings to those who engage in support of Tibet. Do a search on Bill Clinton/China Yahoo and you will see for yourself.

Bill Clinton made hundreds of thousands of dollars giving speeches in China and the Clinton's ties with China go deep, yet again Hillary says one thing and does another by calling on President Bush to boycott the olympics opening ceremony because of their actions in Tibet, yet her own husband makes MONEY from a company engaged in censorship of Tibetan citizens.

Let's say it like it is. Hillary Clinton is a liar!

Posted by: fran | Apr 14, 2008 11:39:22 AM

Hillary doesn’t seem to realize that we are not all fools and some of us do remember what the Clintons were up to back then. She not only supported and promoted NAFTA, she dropped the health care program she was working on to do so. I am so tired of the media covering statements that Obama made that were innocent and being blown out of proportion. I knew it was coming though. The media witch-hunt of Obama before another state votes. Funny how real problems like Hillary flat out lies about Bosnia, her husbands dealing with Columbia and her lies about Nafta have taken a back seat once again. Happens every time!

Posted by: Mem | Apr 12, 2008 3:30:25 PM

I think people are also forgetting that Clinton is "undecided" yet supports part of the deal that provides free trade with Peru. Isn't that under NAFTA?

Posted by: Sarah | Mar 27, 2008 11:16:25 AM

Personally, I am ignoring what "relevance" any of the U.S networks are spewing out on any of the candidates. I follow the BBC and Foriegn coverage. I am basing my vote on real smart concrete options. 1) Hilary is a Clinton and she didn't throw bill out when he used the oval office for his own pleasure. Granted I as a christian forgive bill for the act ; but in the oval office ? Next comes Mcclain, while I think he has the right credentials as far as military, his age and some of his physical problems could become a problem, so for me to accept him - he would have to have a GREAT VP and if he chose Huckabee then I could per chance accept him. This leaves Obama - maybe he isnt the best and we do know that none of the three candidates has been Presiident so they all are first timers. But Obama is younger and could get the appropriate people in place so that we could finally have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. so while yes my vote is under my choice and may not be the best advised but isnt that why America was formed ????

Posted by: Ken | Mar 24, 2008 4:57:50 PM

i m pretty much sure "HILLARY CLINTON" will win in this election. You will see soon!!!!!
God bless America!

Posted by: Yan | Mar 24, 2008 10:51:52 AM

well I believe the media play a big role in this campaigns , the media didn't focus on the main issues , Clinton made it clear she supported NAFTA and she attended many meeting to push the deal a head
so why she change her mind
to gain political achievement even if she have to lie
why she didn't ell the truth

Posted by: maurice | Mar 22, 2008 3:40:54 AM

well I believe the media play a big role in this campaigns , the media didn't focus on the main issues , Clinton made it clear she supported NAFTA and she attended many meeting to push the deal a head
so why she change her mind
to gain political achievement even if she have to lie
why she didn't ell the truth

Posted by: maurice | Mar 22, 2008 3:17:02 AM

Oh Yeah........
Hillary also secretly opposed Bush's war with Iraq while she dotted her I's and crossed the T's ?

Posted by: enaudnella | Mar 21, 2008 12:29:32 PM

Veronica,,,
First wives go along with everything the husbands say?......Is this the gender card? Why cant Obama go along with Wright and secretly disagree?

Posted by: enaudnella | Mar 21, 2008 12:23:38 PM

Say what you want about NAFTA and Hillary's stances on it now, and in the 1990s. She just can't admit she is ever, or was ever for that matter, wrong about anything. Regardless of your personal stance on the Iraq War, Hillary can't admit she made a mistake when supporting it even though she now blatantly opposes this War which she initially supported. Her views seem to change like the wind blows, or more precisely when the polls come in. She can't even say that she was wrong when she changes her opinion. In my opinion she doesn't have many real convictions, but changes the majority of them when convenient so she can obtain political office.

Posted by: Joe | Mar 21, 2008 11:52:58 AM

Can I respectfully suggest that people not use caps in their posts. Not only is it rude (is comes across as shouting) but it also detracts from your arguements as it suggests you don't have the conviction that your words alone will convince. Thanks!

Posted by: jlawler | Mar 21, 2008 9:29:56 AM

AS IS OFTEN TRUE OF OBAMA, HE'S SPOKEN BOTH FOR AND, AT A DIFFERENT TIME, AGAINST NEARLY EVERY BILL OR ISSUE THAT HE ACCUSES CLINTON OF HAVING BEEN MISTAKEN ABOUT. THIS IS TRUE OF NAFTA
BOTH OBAMA & CLINTON HAVE PRAISED NAFTA AT SOME POINT, & IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, OBAMA VOTED FOR & SUPPORTED AN EXTENSION OF NAFTA FOR PUERTO RICO, SO HIS ACCUSATIONS AGAINST CLINTON ARE HYPOCRITICAL. HILLARY'S STANCE RE NAFTA: BIOGRAPHERS CONFIRM THAT SHE SPOKE AGAINST IT TO BILL REPEATEDLY WHILE IT WAS BEING CONSIDERED. AS FIRST LADY SHE NATURALLY HAD TO SUPPORT BILL'S DECISION PUBLICLY.
AND ACTUALLY FOR SOME U.S. STATES NAFTA HAS ACHIEVED THE INTENDED GOOD RESULTS. FOR OTHER STATES IT BACKFIRED & NEEDS TO BE RENEGOTIATED.

Posted by: factfinder4 | Mar 21, 2008 9:10:18 AM

Let's be fair, how many First Ladies do you know that spoke out against policies that their husbands were supporting. I have read numerous articles that Hillary was not completely sold on NAFTA, but promoted it because of Bill. At the time, noone knew how awful it would become. I believe David Gergen and others that have indicated that Hillary was a behind the scene critic. If Obama is selected, do you think Michelle Obama will openly critize policies that her husband supports. This is a part of being a Presidents spouse.

Posted by: Veronica | Mar 21, 2008 8:36:27 AM

Ohhhhh I'm just so mad at these comments and that article. Say what you will about her, she takes it all. She says she helped to bring peace in Ireland and you say, well she was just the little women having teas, These damn teas and other "woman jobs" make a difference in our politics and our history. Just because a wifes efforts and her name doesn't get listed in the history books doesn't mean mean there haven't been a vast number of presidents wives who didn't affect policy.

Posted by: drae | Mar 21, 2008 8:05:38 AM

And another thing, wasn't NAFTA something they inherited from Bush senior. Didn't he start the process and then they came into office. At the time, it was what needed to happen. NAFTA was good for us in the beginning, opening up markets, prosperity remember. Long term, we have some major growing pains. We couldn't expect globialization to always be in our favor. We have to adjust. Now, it can be fixed.

Posted by: drae | Mar 21, 2008 7:59:53 AM

Let's put this is context shall we. Ms. Clinton was a political WIFE. The Presidents wife. All last week you were asking how could Mrs. Spitzer and the other wives stand by and be humiliated like that. Well guess what, It's part of the power wife job.
In addition, at the time people were harping at her all the time, she's doing to much, she's pushy, etc. She wanted her heath care. She's a very good, stand by her man wife, and an excellent cross the isle politician.
So she says her piece in private, like a good little wife, loses the battle, puts on her best smile and sells it like she has to. What did you expect her to do. You are judging her past here like she had real power, and then last week she is being belittled for saying she did anything when all she did was have wife teas. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS.
She did her job. Sometimes you don't get it your way, you have to compromise, you have to be a wife and sell the women. That was her job at the time. It does not take away from what she may or may not have said to policy people behind closed doors.
She wanted Health Care, remember. If helping pass what was going to happen anway, that's just what a political wifey does. If she hadn't you all would have attacked her for that.
Today, of all days you will say these things without even looking at the position she was in? What's the major story running today on those papers at CNN? I'll tell you...that Bill was downstairs gettin busy while she was there upstairs. How friggin fair is that? This role today is a different role than then. She has feelings though. Jeez you people are heartless!!!!!!!!

Posted by: drae | Mar 21, 2008 7:52:48 AM

That's why I supported Barack, when I saw Edwards wasn't picking up traction or voters. I wish they Obama and Edwards would ticket up. DC, here We the People come.

Posted by: Kim Richmond Virginia | Mar 20, 2008 10:33:41 PM

Depends what your definition of 'sincere' is.

Posted by: Tom J | Mar 20, 2008 9:48:58 PM

This just proves that the Democrats do not have a good grasp of reality. NAFTA was all the rage back in the 1990's. All you Demos were for it. Who would be stupid enough not to know that exporting our jobs would be BAD for us?

Posted by: valerie | Mar 20, 2008 9:12:45 PM

to Sarah: Good point, but Hillary didn't admit that she changes her mind. On the contrary, she claims to be right since "day one" on any issue. (probably since her day of birth) Her weakness is her pride.
Obama quite often commits faults and errors, and thats one of his strengths. Hillary wants to show consistency. Well to me she just acts consistently selfish.

Posted by: Michele | Mar 20, 2008 8:23:18 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS