Oprahma is lying, of course. He spoke in defense of NAFTA during his 2004 campaign, when he debated Keyes (Keyes came out against it, BTW.). I know. I saw it when it happened. And it's part of the public record.

Not only did Clinton lie about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia she also lied about her involvement in getting NAFTA passed.

Clinton - NAFTA-gate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BrPZYbCdJ4&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/1/85359/24244

She support the president Clinton on NAFTA.
She support the president Buss on Iraq war.
It sounds like a YES woman, where is her principal? Does she stand up for what she believed? Or is she just rewrite history?

Too late, too late, too late.

Nearly all Repubs and Dems supported this NAFTA. It was the first thing RR and GHWB proposed after firing all the ATC people in 81.

Here's what's happening now; As the dollar continues to plunge, and deficits soar, the effects of NAFTA are starting to hurt.

Shoulda payed attention 25 years ago America. The wages of apathy are now being paid.

Hint: Other 'things' have been changed that haven't bit us yet, but will. Things that sound boring, or 'don't affect me'. We are gonna pay more than we can imagine for the last 8 years. Get ready.

Remember, you voted for it.

Obama is lying? Give me a source, preferably a link. Otherwise, it just rhetoric.

Politics is all about looking good in as many areas as possible.....Clinton and McCain have a long history of this.....Barack Obama has not been around long enough to be corrupted by these policies and therefore, is more electable and priciple driven

Obama08

"the only call Mrs. Clinton would be taking at 3 a.m. was one telling her that she had lost another superdelegate"

I am wondering why Clinton was never asked "Were you ever under sniper fire".. Mis-poke? Mis-stated?

Clueless Shawn:


Here's a couple, Ace. You know, you should really learn how to use this newfangled internet thing.


“Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.” (Ron Ingram, “Obama, Keyes Court Farmers,”
[Decatur, IL] Herald & Review, 9/9/04)


“[Obama] said the United State [sic] should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement…”
(Christopher Wills, “Senate Candidates Speak On Farm, Trade Issues,” The Associated Press, 9/8/04)

Yes, Shawn, I agree with you, if MJ has any proof, please pony up. It will take much more for educated people to "believe" a faceless signature than for you to say you "saw" it with their own eyes. Prove it or quit smearing.

Does anyone believe anything coming out of Hillary's mouth? She is the candidate who has used fraudulant claims of experience (Bosra, China, Children's health care, 35 years of "experience", crossed the threshold to the status of Commander-in-Chief, Ireland, etc). Hillary lies so much to herself that those fabrications have actually become realities in her sick mind. Hillary does not know what "TRUTH" means. Her lack of depth, integrity and honesty is mind boggling!! Why people keep supporting her is beyond understanding.

Bill Clinton never had a surplus. Bill Clinton never paid down the National Debt.

Look on Yahoo.com....Search on Yahoo's search engine for, (Public Debt to the Penny).This is the United States Treasury Departments Website. Look on the left hand side of the page where it says,(Historical Debt Outstanding)....Click on it.
It has the National Debt in 50 year increments.

The last time the National Debt was paid down was 1957!!!!

Now Hillary wants to answer the phone at 3 A.M. to handle an economic crisis?

Is she going to lie and mislead the American public like Bill Clinton did?

George Bush ran a campaign on a tax cut strategy, that defeated Al Gore. It was because of Bill Clinton's little white lie, that Bush got into office to begin with.

There never should have been a tax cut....because there never was a surplus.

Now we owe 4 trillion dollars of extra debt. We'll be lucky if hyperinflation doesn't arrive in the next 5 years, because of this financial blunder.

Thank you for misleading us Bill Clinton. Do the Clinton's really need eight more years? The question needs to be addressed.

campaign, when he debated Keyes (Keyes came out against it, BTW.). I know. I saw it when it happened. And it's part of the public record.

Posted by: MJ | April 2, 2008 7:27 PM

Moron Jerk,

Alan Keyes said that about Obama, Obama didn't say that himself, you tard.

Alan Keyes also said that he wrote the song "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" in a dream before it was actually written!!!!!!!

You're the worst racist on this site, Mr MJ Clownshow.

This is Hillary Clinton: Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky and impeachment, renting out the Lincoln bedroom, the loss of the Rose Law Firm billing records for nearly 2 years until they were miraculously found in the White House living quarters, removing files from Vince Foster�s office following his suicide and before investigators could get there. Her stalling to release her full tax returns and earmark requests from her time in the Senate, as well as her Clinton library donors. Her apology to the African American community (for her campaigns racist comments) which came days too late. Her decline to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at International Profit Associates, or IPA accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record. Lets not forget her campaign eventually returned some $850,000 to Hong Kong businessman Norman Hsu who was found to be a fugitive in a 15-year old theft case. He was indicted for fraud related to his campaign contributions in 2007. Her failed inclusion and diplomacy with congress on her universal health care bid. Her subsequent surrender and alignment to the health care industry. Her flip flop on NAFTA. Her flip flop on Iraq. Her flip flop on Florida and Michigan. Her exaggerated foreign policy experience. Her dealing the race card better than Republicans could. Clinton photo with Rezko. Clinton photo and prayer breakfast with Rev Wright. Her lies about Bosnia. Her failure to get the endorsement of close friend Bill Richardson. Her flip flop on pledged delegates and superdelegates by encouraging party elite to vote against the will of the people - �I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it�s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.� - Hillary Clinton in 2000

Clueless MJ, you piece of work you. How about you argue your false points with fact check dot org, as they have a wonderful article that addresses your rhetoric here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton_edits_the_truth.html

I'm still waiting for some REAL evidence you smearers.

"Hillary Claims She "Spoke Out Against" NAFTA Starting in 1992"

Campaigning in Indiana on Friday, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, claimed to have been a 16-year vocal opponent of NAFTA.

"I spoke out against it starting in 1992 -- the president made a different decision," Clinton said. "I think now with 14 years of experience under our belt, we can see that in some parts of our country there have been, perhaps, some economic advantages, but in other parts of our country, like where we are right here in northwest Indiana, it hasn't worked as it was promised, and therefore I think we need to renegotiate it."

"Given that Clinton was the headline attraction at a pro-NAFTA meeting in November 1993 and was praising NAFTA in public throughout the 90s, the claim seemed interesting. When was she "speaking out" against it"?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/hillary-claims.html

"From the Fact Check Desk: The Clinton Campaign Misrepresents Clinton NAFTA Meeting"

"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".

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/from-the-fact-c.html

Nafta would't have saved all those lost jobs so debating is all about politics. People in the heavy industries states need the right job training program which would enable them to acquire new skills for new jobs. I'd want to pay attention to the candidates' take on job retraining. Who knows thing could have been worse without Nafta.

Yes Steve Wilson, there was a surplus. In the final year of the Clinton presidency, the federal budget ran a surplus -- with more revenue coming in than expenses going out.

That's the surplus they talk about. It's gone now. There's a budget deficit now. You can read about this in the Office of Management and Budget's own historical charts of federal deficits and surpluses -- the Bush administration's OMB, which notes the surplus at the end of Clinton's term.

The other issue you are pointing to is the accumulated national debt, which indeed existed and grew throughout the term of Clinton and his modern predecessors; it has been around a long time and has been growing -- was about 6 trillion at the start of Bush's presidency and will approach 10 trillion near its end, the Bush OMB says so. The table of both accumulated nation debt and annual budget deficits and surpluses is all there as well.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

From Mark Silva's favorite Swamper:

Moron Jerk,

Alan Keyes said that about Obama, Obama didn't say that himself, you tard.

Alan Keyes also said that he wrote the song "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" in a dream before it was actually written!!!!!!!

You're the worst racist on this site, Mr MJ Clownshow.

Posted by: John E | April 2, 2008 9:02 PM

Hmmmm, honest criticism of William Neikirk gets censored, calling someone a Moron Jerk is OK?
Only in the world of the Chicago Tribune's Swamp!

Steve, what Mark won't tell you is that the GOP Congress, which clamped down on spending had more to do with the budget surplus whereas Bill Clinton was brought in kicking and screaming about balancing the budget. Clinton wanted a 7-10 year plan to balance it.
Also, what Mark won't tell you is the stock market craze in late 1990s also played a significant role, and that the market's crash in 2000 and economic downturn that began in 2000 also meant any surpluses would vanish.

Where was Oblahma during the negotiations and passing of the Republican initiated NAFTA? Oh yeah, he was busy sitting in the pews at Trinity and borrowing money from Rezko and making new friends like Bill Ayers. Kind of like the Iraq War Resolution. Probably would have voted Present. He has no business even touching this....Austin Goolsbee anyone? He probably doesn't even know what NAFTA stands for when the teleprompter is missing.

Mark,
Thanks for clearing up the obvious for Steve. Could you please respond to your careless third party sell via Jason Embry that W was cheered more than booed at the Nats/Braves game? John D (dyslin/donut/doughboy) was really set back by that one. I would just like to find the truth. That fleeting, strange ideal that up is not down. Have you looked into Jason's background? The guy is from TEXAS!. I also found a picture of him at the Country Music Awards wearing a COWBOY HAT with a purdy young thing on his arm. I'm guessing another Rovian plant pushing red happy tabs while cursing the devil's strength.

Hey, did you know that Jon Miller is "an avowed liberal democrat"?

Jack Smith from another blog wrote the following and is so true:

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than
Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of
collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the
greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care
can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current
health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against
overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two
wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war
only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission
in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE
AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than
Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest
amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than
Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education
affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting
salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton
who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on
record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches
from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two
master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries,
and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic
candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Obama is not a newcomer to the corruption of politics. He was a state senator for many years; and worked with the best of the most corruptive politicians in Chicago. There he started his illegal and criminal dealings with Tony Rezco. This is the reason he knows how to lie so well.

NAFTA would have worked to the U.S. advantage if the current administration have been more strict with foreign countries in observing the rules of trade. David Gergen who was present during the meetings on NAFTA voiced and wrote that yes Sen Clinton's was always opposed to NAFTA and what is relevant now is that Sen Clinton vows to make changes on NAFTA once elected so it would be a win- win for the U.S. Sen Obama spoke about changes as well but lied about NAFTA when his campaign was found to have assured a Canadian official that those are mainly campaign rhetoric. I would trust Sen Clinton to make the necessary changes on NAFTA. Sen Obama has already made his position clear on NAFTA by lying about it.

Here is the post from Canadian source -- go right to the root source when you have controversy. (3/7/08)

Clinton did NOT brief Canadian officials on NAFTA stand: PMO
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/07/clinton-nafta-gate.html?ref=rss
[copyrighted material, and Canada is adament about copyright.]

There is specific affirmation in the article there was NO briefing from Hillary nor her people to Canada.

There is specific reference there to leaked memo regarding Barack/his people's briefing which have raised questions of double-talk on the campaign trail.

====================
And let us look at our own CBS summary on the same day (3/7/08)! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/07/politics/main3917405.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3917405
BE SURE TO READ THE WHOLE STORY.
Read the CONTENT, and then read the title.. The title is misleading and makes it look like Clinton did talk, but the article clearly spells out that there was no talk. It is titles like this that leave out lingering questions when the article is clearly different from the title.
It is clear that Canada ONLY GOT NAFTA BRIEFING FROM OBAMA ADVISOR.

==========FACTS=========

Neither Hillary/Barack has said they were ready to withdraw from the NAFTA agreement. (verbatim quote from Philadelphia Front Page News)

Both Clinton and Obama have threatened to pull out of the deal if it isn't renegotiated to include protections for workers and the environment. (this sentence is a verbatim quote from above CBC story)

Both have said they would use the threat of withdrawal to pressure Mexico to make changes. (verbatim quote from Philadelphia Front Page News)

I have said I would renegotiate NAFTA, said Clinton. "I will say to Mexico that we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it." -- quoted from Feb26th debate in the midst of the controversy. (reported also in Philadelphia Front Page News)
==========summary=================

The ONLY controversy still remaining on this is why did Barack's advisor assure Canada wink-wink on NAFTA talk on the campaign trail.

Obama's ad adamantly says he is against NAFTA, but when he is asked about it off the record he favors it with reservations.

Read this! http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6452

It took Barack 5 tries (5 different versions) to finally admit that he had his people doing double talk on NAFTA.
============
Bottomline:

Barack has been double-talking NAFTA all-along.

Hillary has held the most consistent public policy position in every substantive matter on NAFTA and has been quite vocal in this regard.

March 20, 2008 - Lou Dobbs weighs in on NAFTA. Lou as you may know is one of the patriotic reporters who wants to protect American economy, prevent illegal immigration, etc. Here he delves into whether Hillary challenged NAFTA and concludes in an objective way with corroboration that she did object to NAFTA in policy circles even as she had to give a public First Lady position. Watch the whole video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Le_vPpj7lg (Lou challenges the reporter lady to be objective, and brings David Gergen who was in the Whitehouse and knew of Hillary's highly vocal position on NAFTA)
Lou Dobbs calls for Objective truth as non-partisan journalists, to set the record straight.
The fact is, she was consistently opposed to NAFTA.
Senator Clinton has been corroborated in this on every substantive issue by others.

==============

We have challenged Hillary to bring her voice, her position, and her plans. Her voice and position and plans on NAFTA ae unequivocal and well laid out.
It is not going to be easy to renegotiate NAFTA. But that is what she has signed up to do. I expect it will be difficult. However, she has not said ANY differently to Canadians than the message she has given us.

I admire the integrity of Hillary.

I question why Barack winks so much and why it takes him 5 tries to come clean; and I question whether he will even attempt to do anything on NAFTA. He is barely articulate on the subject if you start asking him any questions. Only in prepared soundbites can be speak on NAFTA.. but then we already know he had his people tell Canada to ignore the campaign trail words.

Several people who were close to the Clintons have said that Senator Clinton opposed the NAFTA deal.
I believe them because this was common knowledge before Senator Clinton started her campaign for President.

However, Obama supporters do not want to accept the truth, they want to continue bashing the Clintons for their own personal gain.

She was the First Lady and she voice her opinion and dislike of NAFTA to her husband and close friends...they are the ones that truly know.

After having voiced her opinion....she then did what any respectable First Lady would do......support her husband and President.

That is completely understandable and I don't hold that against her...she was not the President she was the First Lady. However, the Obama camp continues to spin and attack the Clintons with lies. The Obama camp has proven to be a group of DIVIDERS who want to win at all costs.....even if it means trashing the longest standing Democratic President in recent history.

SHAME ON YOU OBAMA!

This is one of millions of voters who will NOT vote for OBAMA during the general election.

Hillary Clinton's Economic Plan for Amer.Economy[CNBC]

(April 2, 2008) - Hillary on MAD MONEY [Cramer interviewing Hillary]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23925313#23925313

Bringing the Economy back on track.
On Macro economic policies, mortgage crisis, SEC, FHA, Global issues
How politics could affect your portfolio

Cramer throws a LOT of questions at her, one after the other.

Hillary knows and articulates her positions and plans very well.
Hillary has a very good and PROACTIVE approach.

She gives excellent coverage of key items in her Economic Plan.

=============

I request you to make some effort. Get to know Hillary and her Solutions.
www.thehillaryiknow.com
www.hillaryclinton.com -> go to pull down menu ISSUES for Plans and Solutions, by Issue.

What Eve said is completely true. See below. Thanks Eve.

NAFTA would have worked to the U.S. advantage if the current administration have been more strict with foreign countries in observing the rules of trade. David Gergen who was present during the meetings on NAFTA voiced and wrote that yes Sen Clinton's was always opposed to NAFTA and what is relevant now is that Sen Clinton vows to make changes on NAFTA once elected so it would be a win- win for the U.S. Sen Obama spoke about changes as well but lied about NAFTA when his campaign was found to have assured a Canadian official that those are mainly campaign rhetoric. I would trust Sen Clinton to make the necessary changes on NAFTA. Sen Obama has already made his position clear on NAFTA by lying about it.

Obama has supported NAFTA in the past as well...so I am not sure where he gets off asking her questions. Sort of similar to the "I was opposed to the war" argument... for one thing he wasn't privy to the same intelligence and therefore couldn't really make an informed choice on the matter...not to mention his voting record tells another story. He pretends to be above the fray (which is what makes it extra deplorable) while he plays the game as dirty as any politician. Hillary Clinton is an easy target for the Obamanics. She has a past and Obama does not...everyone knows how appealing an empty slate can be...

Obama is just another stale politician who has been created via blitz and rhetoric to be easily accessible to the mass population. He is MTV, Youtube, the 3-minute sound byte, and everyones best pal all rolled into one...always available to take your donation at barackobama.com.

Just because he wrote two introspective books, found the fast track through a state senate job and then a less than two year Senate job, and he is post-racial or something, he is obviously the "best" choice for president.

Give me a break.

Obama is a creation by a dying breed of democrat elite who wish to invigorate their own legacies by setting up Obama for president . Personally, Obama is probably your average liberal good guy with dreams of unity and peace who saw his chance to do something big. But Obama is also a conscious career politician who took every advantage he could get to climb the political ladder in the least amount of time, which included using his constitutional law degree to weasel his opponents out of past senate competitions. And now, he has done it with FL and MI as well. If you can't win fair and square, make sure there isn't any competition. Gee, I really want someone like that as my president.

If convenience combined with shrewdness and a few good political strategists is all it takes to become president, well, I guess America deserves Obama.

"I'm still waiting for some REAL evidence you smearers."

Posted by: Xcellentform | April 2, 2008 9:15 PM

Genius, your factcheck.org link backed up what I'd said -- simply adding that both sides are lying. Yep. I won't deny that.

So you don't consider newspaper reports (the mainstream press and AP) written at the time of Obama's statements as REAL evidence?

So what would you accept? God speaking thru a burning bush?

NAFTA was a time her title was First Lady. Her husband was the President and made final decisions. Whether she supported it or not, it was his decision, not hers. Do you think her voice would have stopped him? Obviously, it didn't, and for the first lady to speak against her husband in public would not make for good publicity. She now wants to revamp the program and knows it was a mistake. She has the best agendas of the 3 candidates, in my opinion. The good old boys must want Obama for a reason. Do they think he is too green? Obama was voted the most Liberal Senator. I hope if he makes it as nominee he can stand up to those boys in Washington, I know Hillary can. So do they.

This is all so cheap! Hillary Clinton has a long, substantive history of fighting for Americans -- especially those whose voices are in the minority. Her work for children in regard to education, head start, car safety regulations, equal pay for women -- all are so wonderful. Yet, those who fear a bold woman want to detract from her substance. The average democrat sees through the democrat elites and their fear of Mrs. Clinton.

Wait, so, we're debating whether or not Hillary supported NAFTA at the time or if she was really against it? Since Bill was the President and not her, what would it matter what she thought of the agreement? I for one, know that Hillary Clinton would be just what this country needs to help get back on its feel after this failed Bush Administration has destroyed what was once our booming economy, a great nation, now a war-hungry super power to most of the world. We need change for the better. We need Hillary.

I would tend to believe David Gregen's account of Hillary's true feelings about NAFTA before I would put my trust in Miller, who is just part of the irresponsible minions in BO's camp. Of course Miller does not remember he has sampled the kool-aid.

Some of the commenters here are trying to distort facts about Obama's stand on NAFTA.

He ACCEPTS that NAFTA is necessary (free but fair trade) but he want the government to negotiate for the benefit of the people, not large multinational companies.

Obama said " When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/after_nafta_clinton_role_uncle.html

To see some of Obama's lies, go to factcheck.org. There you can see, just one example, how he is lying right now, saying he doesn't take money from oil & gas interests.

Maybe Hillary didn't speak loud enough against NAFTA in the beginning. Maybe Obama didn't speak with the Canadians and let them know that NAFTA wasn't an issue for him. Maybe the Media and the Politicians have all been pushing us into a swamp of lies, telling us why we should vote for the candidate the deem "good enough" and "honest enough" for the American people. That's it! Maybe free-thinking isn't necessary anymore. Maybe I will vote for Hillary even though you tell me not to because maybe I am tired of the media annointing my savior.

Some of the commenters here are trying to distort facts about Obama's stand on NAFTA.

He ACCEPTS that NAFTA is necessary (free but fair trade) but he want the government to negotiate for the benefit of the people, not large multinational companies.

Obama said " When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/after_nafta_clinton_role_uncle.html

To say this disqualifies her for the job of president is ludicrous.

She's got the best healthcare plan of the three of them; she understands the complexities of things, whereas Obama seems to have a more simplistic grasp of foreign policy, economics, the world in general...

Hillary should be given the job if you want something done. If you want someone to talk nice to you and play both sides against the middle, then by all means, vote for Obama.

Who opposed NAFTA or supported it is a little like the asking the same question about the ongoing war in Iraq. Once we finish that tired debate, let's move on to the solutions to fix what is broken, failed or flawed. Most Americans, who might have originally given a whit about NAFTA have heard all the arguments both of our candidates have put forth by now. There are areas of the country such as South Texas along the border with Mexico where NAFTA has contributed positively to both the United States and Mexico. So in the rush to judgment, we should not be too quick to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Dear Editor,
I am a just-retired Georgia school teacher who is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton. I taught school in Athens, GA which is home to the University of Georgia. The University is the largest employer in Athens. The poultry industry is the largest non governmental employer. As a result of this we have a high minority and high poverty enrollment in our public schools. During the 90’s I read Hillary Clinton’s book, IT TAKES A VILLAGE. It was and is probably the most important book for people who are interested in helping solve the poverty problem in the United States. It outlined the ways that our government can support women who are working low paying jobs. After school programs were started in Athens in the 90s which helped provide care for children whose parents were working. These children would be running the streets and getting into all kinds of trouble. In an after school program they were given help with homework and given enrichment choices to expand their horizons. It also called for a support system which was also developed in the Clinton administration called EVENSTART which gave parenting training, very early child support as early as the birth of children of poor people. It followed these children in their most important years. The Bush administration has cut the funding of EVENSTART in our school district. Prekindergarten classes were started in many places to give children a heads-up start before kindergarten. It also called for better school food programs and summer programs to help these kids when they weren’t in school. In my last 15 years of teaching I rarely saw a parent who wasn’t working one or 2 jobs to support her family. These programs made a difference. We have to elect Hillary to take back the education system in our country and get Federal funding to support programs that are research-based which will get these families the hands up they need. Hillary hasn’t just given words, she has followed them up with action all of her adult life. If anyone who reads this letter from an interested Georgia citizen, who has a town or county like Athens, then you need Hillary Clinton as your President, who knows how to solve the problems of poverty in our country. It starts with education of our youngest citizens, and is the skeleton that will support everything else that our government can do make our country the leader in the world in giving everyone who desires a chance to succeed that foundation of a good education.
Nancy Seagraves
Nicholson, GA

Who Opposed NAFTA, and when?

As an adult, I debated on whether or not to discuss this topic, but the childish, juvenile references such as tard, moron, used by Obamabots just beckoned a response.

First of all... the topic is NAFTA, and Hillary's involvement in it.
FACT: Hillary was First Lady during the time of NAFTA. BO contends that her experience and knowledge as First Lady is invalid. So, which is it? Again, he wants it both ways, which is generally his way.
FACT: Hillary was involved in getting the HealthCare proposals off the ground. Health Care -- yes, Hillary and ONLY Hillary was at the forefront of getting Universal health care for ALL.
FACT: Hillary OPPOSED NAFTA. Check, LEGITIMATE, CREDIBLE sources such as David Gergen, ABC's George Stephanopolous, Dee Dee Myers, Claire Shipman, and a MYRIAD of other credible, journalistic and congressional and various other valid sources for that REALITY.
FACT: Hillary opposed NAFTA because she felt that it impeded on her healthcare proposals. However, when it passed, she supported the President. President Clinton.
FACT: Hillary has a PLAN for NAFTA, the economy and how to move this country FORWARD.
If Obama is so much about the future, he never gets himself, his minions, or his arguments out of the past. If he wants to keep hammering on the past... then he'd better man-up and get ready for the barrage that will come his way about his past.

FACT: In 1993, Barack Obama was being courted and bought by Rezko for Rezko's own personal advantage, which Obama willingly allowed. Corrupt, criminal Rezko became his and his family's friend, and he bought criminal property and a house on Rezko's property. Which he is yet to move out of, especially if he is standing on such high, moral ground as he fakes to be.
FACT: In 1993, Obama was sitting in the pews of the hate-filled Trinity Church, listening to his friend, mentor, and father-figure, Rev. Wright spew his anti-American rhetoric, Sunday in and Sunday out.
FACT: Obama is still connected to Rev. Wright, and willingly will NEVER disconnect himself from him or his hateful, racist, anti-American beliefs. And, THAT is Obama's undoing in the final analysis..
FACT: Obama is losing in PA. And, every time that he loses, he and his minions must WHINE, CRY, LIE AND CHEAT to gain an advantage. Hence... NAFTA.
FACT: Obama supported NAFT and MILLIONS of people in Illinois clearly remember that.
FACT: Obama currently supports NAFTA, CAFTA, and a myriad of other Free Trade Agreements. So the argument made against Hillary is just a political ploy to gain an advantage in PA. Grow up, kids -- he supports NAFTA, so the point is MOOT.
FACT: Obama LIED to the Canadians. And, now he thinks that immature, naive, college kids -- who understandably comprise most of his base because he can't "snow" the ADULTS -- will believe him and vote for him because of their gullibility and foolishness.
FACT: Obama is counting on all of the naive Obamabot kids and newbies to the Democratic Party who have absolutely no sense of history to vote for him and to DESTROY the Party of which they have no vested interest. And when it is all said and done, will NOT care or participate in Dem. Party politics again. They will NOT vote again because they do NOT believe in our Party -- they believe in ONE INCONIC MAN. And, when he is defeated, as he inevitably will be, it is a FACT that they will moan, whine, and complain to Mommy and Daddy, and vent on the Internet using childish, juvenile, hateful, disrespectful language.
FACT: Most of you kids, maybe if you are of voting age, seriously need to just GROW UP, especially before you attempt to involve yourselves in things that you OBVIOUSLY know NOTHING about. Read a book, check bonafide sources instead of relying on the Internet -- which you obviously believe is the bearer of all truth and knowledge. No one is obliged to provide you with your sources. Do your OWN research. Or did you fail English 101? You Obamabots would be laughable if you were not so pathetic.

In answer to the Obama supporters criticizing Hillary Clinton on NAFTA and wondering why she didn't speak out more forcefully against it at the time . . . . could it be that according to many at the time, it wasn't the First Lady's role to express strong policy opinions . . .something she was roundly criticized for doing at the time? Many of the same people who want to criticize her now for not speaking out more strongly are some of the same people who were (or would have) critcized her for being too forceful had she done so at the time.

It's well-documented that Hillary Clinton has never been a huge fan of NAFTA. The latest accounts are in Carl Bernstein's book, but that doesn't mean that she has never seen any value whatsoever in the trade agreement. In fact, during her campaign she has said that NAFTA needs to be better enforced because it has been detrimental to some areas/states while a benefit to others and it needs to be revisited to ensure it's working appropriately. That's pretty straightforward, unlike Sen. Obama who says one thing and then has his campaign advisors contact Canadian officials to tell them to ignore his campaign rhetoric . . . now THAT'S dishonesty.

MJ, you were the kid in school that wend to the "special" classes didn't you? The Fact check dot org clearly states that Obama's comments were far removed from context, and that the comments do not reflect his postion. The name of the article is "Clinton Edits the Truth", this being said by a third party source. She is a phony and a liar, and an evil witch to boot.

Shei from Posted by: Shel | April 3, 2008 8:36 AM, PLEASE learn to read as well. The artilce says that Obama has not taken money from Oil companies, and he is 100% correct in saying that. Are politicians supposed to screen their donors as to where they work now before they accept money? Get real. I'm sure if someone was to do the stats, the construction industry WORKERS, and service industry WORKERS, and healthcare industry WORKERS, etc. etc. etc. have all given about equally to his campaign. This is such a non-topic which is trying to be spun by desperate people in desperate times.

Are you for real? Give us all a
break. Parsing, slicing and slanting Sen. Clinton's regard.
Shame on you for your reckless assertions and lack of critical thinking skills.

Are we supposed to take Miller's word over Hillary Clinton? Miller has a dog in the hunt (Obama) and we know for sure that Obama lied in the debate about NAFTA . He told the American People one thing and the Canadian Govt. something else. So take your sleeze and go home Miller.

Come on Obama tell the real truth! You are being guided by race and the Powers to be. Everything you stand against stands for you . As for NAFTA , what about the jobs in Chicago that moved to Mexico? You eve accepted monies from their top people.Tell the truth Obama! What President made 23,000,000 good paying jobs come to life? Wasn't any if your supporters!!!! They fought against JOBS FOR AMERICANS.

Xcellentform:

You are wrong - the link you yourself provided to verify your position that Clinton lied clearly states that Obama said the things Clinton accused him of saying. To be fair it also says that he called for greater enforcement of it's provisions - as Clinton has been doing for years - but it in no way supports your notion that Obama has always been against NAFTA. It says the opposite. He did publicly support NAFTA in 2004, though he also called to improve it through greater enforcement. Clinton did not lie.

The Rovian Democrats don't seem to understand that their crucifiction of the Clintons is just unwitting buy-in to the hate-game the GOP has been playing all this time.

Hillary Clinton has not lied about her experience. The Obama campaign has trotted out their supporters to argue how much credit she deserves for some of the things she worked on with other poeple but Hillary Clinton has never claimed to single handedly have solved all the problems of the world. Rather she has been to 80 foreign countries serving this nation as a dignitary, negotiator and key advisor to President Bill Clinton. We've seen other politicians argue that they deserved more of the credit than she for the eventual outcome - a point that is argued back and forth but that in no way diminishes that she was there, all those years, working on behalf of the American People on all of those issues as a part of the last decent presidency.

Kenneth Star spent years and millions of dollars trying to catch the Clintons in a lie and the closest he got was Bill Clinton avoiding telling the details about his relationship with Monica Lewinski. He found NOTHING wrong with Hillary Clinton's behavior, he just spent years trashing her in the media before quietly surrendering to the truth that she did not lie, did nothing wrong and was the victim of a years long witch hunt.

The Obama campaign, and his supporters continue to lie about Clinton and NAFTA. They use, again and again, the fact that she was AT meetings where NAFTA was discussed to pretend that that means she supported it. The fact that she attended meetings does not mean she was supporting the legislation. Those who were in the Clinton White House close enough to know her advise to her husband all conclude that she was not a supporter of NAFTA, that she advised her husband against it, but then supported the decision of the President of the United States when he chose to move forward with it. She is not lieing about that. The Obama campaign can throw as much misinformation as they want at the subject but it is all just bunk.

Obama lies again and again in state after state in ad after ad claiming to have a Universal Health Care plan which he does not. His plan specifically calls for an opt in if you want strategy. We have that currently with 40 million American's uninsured. Obama does plan to make it more affordable so that 40 million should decline but he is patently lying. He pretends to holds Hillary Clinton's more popular position of Universal Health care just to win primary votes, but he is lying. And it isn't just a small embelleshment about how fast they moved from the plane to the car on a legitimate state visit to Bosnia, it's a lie about a real policy issue facing the next president of the United States. Hillary was right about this issue in 1993 when she courageously took on the health care industry. She was shot down but kept on fighting for the average American as she advanced the discussion sufficiently over the years that we are now ready to enact realy change. For years she has been a champion of all the issues Obama just recently started talking about when he saw how popular she was in the polls. His strategy? Steal her positions, or pretend he shares them, then vilify her by making up whatever smear he can come up with. He is shameless and full of empty rhetoric.

Hillary Clinton is held to a higher standard for every word she utters or has ever uttered when compared to the other candidates. During the campaign Obama first said he did not hear any fiery rhetoric when he attended church -- and shortly thereafter admitted he did. The ad he is running in Pennsylvania says he does not take money from oil companies -- the truth is that he takes money from oil company executives and PACs. Senator McCain has a shady record from early dealings in Arizona -- those are not talked about.

The words that are used many times by the press paint a distorted picture of the candidates: Hillary plots, Obama plans; Hillary attacks, Obama criticizes; Hillary has "selfish ambitions", Obama has "dedication". Many times these "opinion" words are used in a news story headline -- not on the editorial page.

Hillary was emotional and shed a few tears early in the campaign -- somehow this is a big story. Go back and review the interview with Obama after the rally with the Kennedy's -- he choked up about it -- we don't hear about that.

I was a registered Independent during most of the debates. It became clear to me during the last few debates that Hillary Clinton would be the best President. I changed my party affiliation to Democrat and was a passive supporter of Hillary. The more unfair the coverage gets, the stronger I become in my support for Hillary.

Christi Parsons should do her homework. NAFTA has been addressed. The media may not have exploited the truth as much as the myth as much as integrity would have called for, but it was still there, available for us all to find if we were truly interested. If Christi were truly so concerned, she would have gotten all the facts.
As for the personal attacks here, I don't want to engage. Simply more Obama type negative tactics and assaults.
Therefore, I will say, go do your homework, you will find dated quotes in the media regarding Hillary's concerns about NAFTA from years ago. You will find White House insiders who clearly remember her misgivings.
Or, choose to build your dreams on fiction and hope it doesn't come crumbling down when it turns out you needed a solid base.
But stop attacking others for their beliefs. Start supporting your country and it's free election, and use facts, not illusions to have respectful discourse.
You only attack in that manner when you don't have the inecessary nformation to respond more appropriately.
Bullying is the Obama way, not the Clinton way, lest we forget. It is the Obama camp trying to bully Clinton off the playground.
Would we bully our Olympic racers to end the race before it is finished? NO, we proudly support the race itself. And as Americans, we follow through to the end. Well, I guess unless we are Obama-ites. Then we want a freebie. As though this is a box of cracker jacks and not the future of our country.
Think the Republican machinery will be giving anyone a freebie?
If Obama gets the nomination, he will be begging to come back to this playground. He's never played on that playground before.

No amount of spin from Obama will negate the fact that he lied about his campaign meeting with the Canadian consulate regarding NAFTA. He made it clear that he had no intention of changing the trade agreement.

David Gergen, on the other hand, has come out publicly and stated that Hillary Clinton was privately opposed to NAFTA although she had to support it publicly. That makes sense. She could not publicly denounce an agreement her husband, the President, was trying to get through Congress.

The Obama camp is desperate and will stoop to any low in trying to discredit Clinton. It just makes him look all the more slimy. Sorry, Obama, a lot of us Americans aren't drinking your koolaid.

Of course, Hillary Clinton had to support the presidents stance on Nafta puplicly, but behind the scenes she was a vocal opponent. This is verified even by critics of her. Obama is just trying to push this because he got caught in his canada deception. Among the people who can verify Hillarys opposition is David Gerkin the politicall analyst on cnn.

" said Miller, in a conference call with reporters hosted by the Obama campaign." -> this says it ALL... ya know; consider the source!

But I also find it interesting that the obama people crap on Hillary when she trys to use her experience as first lady. They say that doesn;t count. Then they try and use it against her that 'she agreed and helped nafta pass' and want to blame her for it! ~~But oh she was ONLY first lady; ya know, in the kitchen making cookies!~~ Make up your mind you idiots; get your facts straight. Most Americans are finally starting to see thru the CON of this man and are spitting out the kool aid. Its looking pretty pathetic when obama has no merit on his own and tries to make himself look better by throwing shit at his opponent... Better be careful mr arrogance, that shit is starting to come back at cha!

There are several people from the Clinton admin that remember Mrs. Clinton being opposed to NAFTA, David Gergen being one. OK, what moron thinks she really could say so publically???

S.O.S. from Obama.
That NAFTA thing didn't work in OHIO and it won't shine in Pennsylvania.
Way to drudge up old ashes though!!!
Ask David Gergen about it.
Obama is the only candidate I know that could fall in crap and come out smellin' like a rose.

The bottom line is despite what may be said about Hillary's position, Obama provided the Republicans with swiftboating matériel par excellence with NAFTAgate. The Repubs will say this is treason: to give advance information of economic policy to a foreign competitor. Not to mention it was hoodwinking the Ohioians.