Home › Forums › WSB Reader Recommendations › Tales of NAFTA (and others)
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 4, 2008 at 11:29 pm #586687
c@lbobMemberA few weeks ago, amid reports of an Obama aide meeting with Canadian officials and, supposedly, doing a wink and nod about Obama’s comments about NAFTA on the campaign trail in Ohio, Hillary Clinton said:
“I would ask you to look at this story and substitute my name for Sen. Obama’s name and see what you would do with this story… Just ask yourself [what you would do] if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments.“
Well, none other than Clinton’s top aide, Mark Penn, has been doing just that:
April 4, 2008 at 11:41 pm #621419
JoBParticipantIt sounds like there was real conflict of interest on Mark Penn’s part….
But it is also clear that this could simply be a conflict of interest …
which i didn’t remember being part of the scenario where Obama’s aid was talking with Canadian officials about Obama’s position on NAFTA.
And it doesn’t appear that Mark Penn was doing any winking and nodding.. his conflict of interest is pretty clear.. he was negotiating on behalf of his corporate client and the negotiation clearly benefits that client.
it does trouble me that the Columbians were unsure if Hillary was involved ..
and i would be very interested to see what Hillary’s response to all of this is.
But i don’t think you can call it apples and apples at this point…
The main reason being that the there was no ambiguity about who was being represented when Obama aids were talking to Canadian officials about Obama’s campaign position.
There apparantly is ambiguity here.
I am very interested in this and can’t wait to see what else is reported and how the Clinton campaign responds.
April 4, 2008 at 11:42 pm #621420
beachdrivegirlParticipantIn 1998, she traveled to Davos, Switzerland to thank businesses on behalf of NAFTA…sounds really opposed doesnt it???
April 4, 2008 at 11:44 pm #621421
JoBParticipantyes.. in 1998.
that would be before her senate term and before the real problems with NAFTA began to present themselves?
yes?
April 4, 2008 at 11:57 pm #621422
beachdrivegirlParticipantCanadian officials have already stated that they misrepresented mr. goolsbee’s commits and have apologized for the leak report. It is unfortuante that this apology came after the Ohio primary.
April 5, 2008 at 12:00 am #621423
beachdrivegirlParticipantBut she has lied b/c she has openly said that “she had raised a yellow flag” to Bill about NAFTA when he was passing it-which seems very far from the truth.
Furthermore, she said that she had lobbied against it, yet she never lobbied Represenatives such as George Miller, who opposed NAFTA. Seems, she has a tough time remembering fact from fiction in all of her “experience”.
April 5, 2008 at 12:49 am #621424
walfredoMemberClinton is so full of crap its hard to articulate. According to her campaign, she was like a VP to Bill, deeply involved in international meeting and policy decisions. Always sent to the most dangerous places; left to dodge sniper fire at every turn… Yet she had no security clearence, and was read poems by 8 year olds and greeted with poetry, in steely defiance of the snipers bullets whizzing all around.
Then when she does a complete 180′ on the policies set forth by “her” administration- she recollects that she was in fact against the policy at the time, and has been consistent. Despite actively and openly campaigning for it at the time, and publicly supporting it numerous times for over a decade prior to it being an unpopular decision during her presidential bid.
This from the woman who’s husband, can’t answer a questions because it depends on what your definition of “is” is. It is so deep seeded into there very being that it is unconscious, and very dangerous… Simple stuff, you just lie, and fill in the details… Her crazy, borderline schizophrenic recollection of her Basra story- had almost nothing to potentially gain her, but the fact that it was such a psychotically far-fetched, innaccurate telling of a story is sinking her campaign. How many more times has she out and out lied about her experience? Northern Ireland, NAFTA, and Basra are clear examples of her distorted (made up) recollections of her grand role in the past. How many more of these are there? Is she really planning to run a general election campaign based on her “experience” versus John McCain and not expect to get absolutely torn to shreds for consistently and habitually lying about her role, and record? Does anyone think that her message of experience, combined with her support of the war up until about a month ago (I voted for the war before I voted against the war worked good last time), and top that off by getting the election despite not actually being selected by voters after a bitterly divided convention in late September! I smell great success for the democratic party in November! You go girl…
April 5, 2008 at 1:39 am #621425
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl…
how do you know that she didn’t raise a yellow flag to bill when he was passing NAFTA?
Have you ever raised a yellow flag yourself (say.. to your husband) and then supported his project even though you had reservations?
i have.
April 5, 2008 at 1:41 am #621426
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl
“Canadian officials have already stated that they misrepresented mr. goolsbee’s commits and have apologized for the leak report. It is unfortuante that this apology came after the Ohio primary.”
And this came after much hullaballoo in the canadian press for the leaks.. and the assertion that it was wrong to “interfere” in the American elections that way.. and a ton of governmental pressure.
yes.. they recanted… does that mean it never happened? i don’t know.. but i think not.
April 5, 2008 at 1:47 am #621427
JoBParticipantWalfredo…
i thought about this…
but it seems to me that any post that starts with “Clinton is so full of crap its hard to articulate” probably has no where to go but down.
So i am going to do myself the favor of not reading it and not replying to it….
I am torn.. because at least this time you aren’t harping on overturning the votes and stealing the election… and i really feel i ought to honor that…
but… my blood pressure trumps all…
i think you would feel the same with any post i began with “Obama is so full of crap its hard to articulate”.
With that i am shutting down for the night. Anything worth a reply will still be there tomorrow… including that post.
April 5, 2008 at 2:09 am #621428
JoBParticipantWalfredo…
ok, i couldn’t resist. it would have bugged me all night.. so i came back and read your post.
so.. how do you really feel about her and that husband of hers?
sounds like you are firmly in the camp of those who have been disillusioned by Clinton.. dare i say a confirmed Hillary Hater?
That’s pretty clear.
probably no point in even trying to discuss any of that stuff…
maybe tomorrow will be better:)
i am looking forward to the caucus.
April 5, 2008 at 5:01 am #621429
JanSParticipanthmm…seems to me that this thread is in the wrong category?
April 5, 2008 at 5:15 am #621430
charlabobParticipantYou’re right, but there’s no known way to move threads and looks like it’s been found. (If I’m wrong, and it can be moved, I’m sure I’ll hear.)
:-)
April 5, 2008 at 6:50 am #621431
JanSParticipanthi, Charla…I believe that the only person who can switch it to another thread is..TR :)
so…maybe we can find a recommendation for this thread? lol…
April 7, 2008 at 12:37 am #621432
walfredoMemberNow this was interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040401572_2.html
April 7, 2008 at 12:50 am #621433
JoBParticipantWalfredo..
when you link to an article.. please link to the whole thing.. not just the page that refers negatively to Clinton.
context matters.. and as it happens that entire article was interesting.
of course NAFTA is going to be difficult to renegotiate…
that’s why both Clinton and Obama are being careful just how they phrase their campaign promises…
Do you think the reality changes if Obama becomes president? Not much.
April 7, 2008 at 12:52 am #621434
walfredoMemberApril 7, 2008 at 1:00 am #621435
JoBParticipantthanks walfredo.. i was able to go back and catch the whole thing.. but a lot of poeple wouldn’t have been without signing in…
April 7, 2008 at 1:21 am #621436
JoBParticipantfor anyone who really wants to know the current economic analysis of NAFTA’ impact on the US economy…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/nafta_gets_a_bum_rap.html
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/03/increases-in-productivity-have-caused.html
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_13/b4077000922817.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
three very different articles… but all point to the idea that NAFTA itself isn’t quite so simple… and that there is far more to what will be required for economic recovery than simply going after NAFTA…
the only reason i believe that Hillary privately argued against NAFTA during policy formation is that NAFTA did not include strong provisions for worker’s rights.. and that actually happens to be a subject that is important to her…
that.. and vague memories of reading political memoirs of those close to her that were written prior to her run for the presidency that support her resistance to the policy… it seems i recall some real sour grapes by some of Bill’s other advisers….
i am too tired to go looking for them now.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.