Why does the M$M allow Hillary's lies about her support for NAFTA to go unchallenged?

[redqueen]

They came unglued about Wright... they're spinning themselves blue over "Bittergate"... but she just lies like a rug to voters and... nothing? That's not a story the voters might be interested in?

Odd, isn't it? :think:




http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/20/sitroom.02.html

1996: "I think everybody in is favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth."



Clinton Defends NAFTA, Heads To Costa Rica Tonight
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/07/clinton.mexico/

1997: Hillary went to Mexico and proclaimed “NAFTA is working, working for you and working for the American people… We must accelerate the pace of these efforts, to reach more people and more communities.”



Clinton Breaks With Husband's Legacy on Nafta Pact, China Trade
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=atUKcP4eSEvY&refer=politics

1998: Hillary went before the World Economic Forum and lauded multinational corporations for mounting “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.”



Remarks of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to the 2002 DLC National Conversation
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=250750

2002: We all know the record of the DLC, the Progressive Policy Institute and, of course, the Clinton-Gore Administration. The economic recovery plan stands first and foremost as a testament to both good ideas and political courage. National service. The Brady Bill. Family Leave. NAFTA. Investment in science and technology. New markets. Charter schools. The Earned Income Tax Credit. The welfare to work partnership. The COPS program. The SAFER program. All of these came out of some very fundamental ideas about what would work.

The results speak for themselves.



I love how she talks up the DLC & PPI.

[Hugabear]

1. Lying about important issues is okay

You should know that by now.

[zulchzulu]

2. I've been pointing this out too

Barack Obama needs to fire a volley of hits into the Clinton campaign for the China MFN trade bill and NAFTA destroying Pennsylvania's (and Indiana and North Carolina) manufacturing base.

Talk about elitist? She said the unemployed masses in PA are doing fine. Let them eat cake...

[Bensthename]

3. I have been beating my head against the wall over the same question.

[DJ13]

4. The MSM frames the public debate to benefit the pro-business candidates

Of the three remaining candidates (incl. McCain), Clinton has the largest amount of corporate pac donations.

Obama doesnt accept corporate PAC money, so who do you think the corporate MSM is going to promote?

[redqueen]

5. Thanks for stating it so succinctly.

Now let's hope it sinks in for some who seem to be so "concerned" about Bittergate. :hi:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

26. the MSM aided Bush in bringing us the war, so what do you think they'd do

help us elect someone who serves the public?

[jobycom]

6. Dunno. Why do they allow Obama to say he was opposed to the war

when his first vote on the matter was against withdrawing the troops, and he broke a campaign promise soon after by voting for increased funding for them?

The media is the media. They are incompetent on good days, and complicit on bad.

[redqueen]

7. Did Obama ever brazenly lie, saying something like "I haven't voted for war funding

since the beginning?"

What was the wording of Clinton's bald-faced lie again?

[SIMPLYB1980]

13. Yes he has told many brazen lies.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/834887.aspx

So it turns out that Obama takes money from the oil companies after all.

Explains this vote very well.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/1/votes/213/

[redqueen]

15. Heh... companies can't give money...

please note that he amended his statements to avoid giving dissemblers the ability to do what you're doing there:

"I don't take PAC money,” he said this evening. “I don't take money from federal registered lobbyists. I don't want those strings attached.”

:hi:

[jobycom]

22. That's dissembling.

You know full well that the intention of statements like that is to claim that Clinton does take oil company money. He, like Bush and Reagan, told a technical truth to tell a lie. Claiming he wasn't lying because he could technically argue it was true is dissembling.

And he's taken a ton of cash from oil company execs, lobbyists, and corporate interests all over the board. If Clinton is compromised by doing it, then so is he. If he isn't, then neither is he. Either way, he's creating a fiction to slander his opponent, as he's done all along.

[redqueen]

24. No... the intention was to say that Clinton takes PAC & Lobbyist money.

Do try to keep up.

Obama takes money from PACs and lobbyists? Proof please?

[jobycom]

30. Give me a tough assignment next time. Here you go.

"Back in 2005 and 2006, Obama raised $123,283 from other political action committees and put them into a political action committee of his own. He called it Hopefund.

Hopefund is what is known as a “leadership PAC,” a frequent target of campaign watchdogs because it can raise money in much larger bundles than individual candidates. The Candidate of Hope from Illinois followed the example set by Senate and House members who establish such accounts to raise money and then spread it around to other politicians in the hopes of gaining new best friends. Legally, such PACs are supposed to operate independently and cannot coordinate with any campaigns of their owner.

Now that Obama is running for president, he's handing out the bulk of Hopefund money to politicians and groups who happen to be in early presidential voting states, as the Washington Post's John Solomon noted the other day. The pace of giving has increased in recent months and this has led to some remarkable coincidences.

New Hampshire state Sen. Jacalyn Cilley, for instance, received $1,000 from Obama's PAC last summer. Six days later she happened to endorse the same Obama for president. "I endorsed him because I believe in him and his policies," she said.

Likewise, Obama's PAC recently felt moved to donate $9,000 to Rep. Paul Hodes, who happens to have been the first member of Congress from New Hampshire to endorse Obama early this year."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/oops-1.html

And he tries to claim that PACs are bad and that Clinton is beholden to corporate interests by taking mone from them. Here are a few PACs. MoveOn, Sierra Club, Democracy for America, Progressive Democrats of America, Democratic Action PAC, Generation Blue, ACT Blue... John Edwards has a PAC, I've forgotten the name of it.

If he doesn't take money from PACs now, it's a technicality. As always with him.

In fact, read this on how Mr. God uses his own PAC: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/26/clinton_critiques_obama_pac.html

Here's another story on Obama's addiction to lobbyist and PAC money: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

A quote from it: A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

As for lobbyists, they are as likely to be liberal as conservative. Many former liberal icons become lobbyists, and many liberal organizations hire them. Ann Richards, for instance. Would you have a problem with a candidate taking money from Ann Richards?

Anyway, I'm bored of schooling you. Vote how you want. On Obama, you can learn now, or you can learn later, but at sometime your heart will be broken over this man. Your choice on when.

[redqueen]

31. Schooling me?

That's a joke, right?

You can cry all you want about technicalities, but the truth is what it is. He's careful with his words... she just lies like a rug.

[jobycom]

32. Nice collection of facts and/or rebuttals. Class dismissed, nt

[redqueen]

33. Thanks for the kick!

Hehehehe... class...

[jobycom]

19. Pretty much, yes

He claims he was against the war from the beginning, but his record doesn't show that. He stated plainly while campaigning for the Senate that he wouldn't vote for increased funding on the war, but he did. He's even been unclear on how he'd have voted on the IWR, saying once that while he saw no proof of wmds, he didn't see everything Congress saw, and said "I don't know" when asked about it. That doesn't stop him from saying he'd have definitely voted against it while campaigning now.

And on NAFTA, since that's what this thread was about, Obama told voters he was against it, and had his top campaign advisers tell Canadian officials to ignore his rhetoric. One was a bald-faced lie. And that was very revealing of Obama's character, since he tried to pretend it was Clinton who had made that claim, double-whammying her for his own lies. He was caught in the same type of lie over troop withdrawal, telling voters he had a 16 month withdrawal plan, and having a top adviser tell the BBC that he wouldn't stick firmly to his plan. Another of his advisers in another context said that the 16 month time from was a "best case scenario."

To me, those are blad-faced lies, to the point where I honestly don't know what Obama really will do. He's Bob Roberts, he says what the polls tell him to say.

And I'm not sure which "bald-faced lie" you are refering to for Clinton. Most of her "lies" are overblown attacks on her by Obama or his team (like the sniper story or the hospital story), and most of his are defended with blind loyalty. If you are talking about NAFTA, then yes, she's probably pretty much lying her ass off. I suppose it's possible that Clinton was really against NAFTA but backed it only because her husband (and the leader of her party) asked her to--many politicians of both parties have to sell things they are against. So I guess it's possible she's not lying on that. She has always been more progressive than Bill, and when they've disagreed, she's taken the more liberal/progressive angle. That goes back to her law school days when she was comparing marriage to slavery (from a legal perspective only). But I don't believe her.

But there's a much longer list I don't believe Obama on, so it's just not a key issue for me. What are they going to do now, is the question, not what they did fifteen years ago. You don't believe for a second Obama, with his record of going along to get along, would have voted against NAFTA, do you?

The bottom line is that Clinton and Obama are both politicians, and will both say anything to get elected. They are not very different in essence, when one gets down to it. Both are trying to sound more solid than they were on issues. The big difference is that Obama gets away with it, and Clinton gets blasted for it.

[redqueen]

20. tl:dr

Quote the lie and proof that was a lie please.

Like I did.

Otherwise... er... I'm just gonna figure you're dissembling.

[jobycom]

25. Google it yourself. You've quoted nothing but talking points, and you know I'm right.

[redqueen]

27. WTF... I've quoted Hillary's OWN WORDS!

Thanks for admitting you're wrong... even if it was only in the roundabout way.

[redqueen]

11. I found her lie!

"You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it because I was part of the administration. But when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic."

[SeaLyons]

17. Clintons negative stance on NAFTA

has long been confirmed. Why do you want to keep bringing this up. You must be feeling insecure about Obama today...

Go Hillary!!

[redqueen]

18. Did you miss the OP?

Not insecure... just can't figure out how those blinders stay so effective...

[SeaLyons]

21. we can agree

on blinders....you've got yours on securely.

Go Hillary!!

[redqueen]

23. Soooooo... you just ignore what she said... and continue thinking

that she was, indeed, against it from the beginning.

Ohhhhhhhkaaaaaay... *backs away slowly*

[1776Forever]

8. Throw this in for good measure: Sen. Clinton tied to Offshore Outsourcing U.S. Jobs

http://modernpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/09/buffalo-news-critics-charge-sen-clinton.html

Saturday, September 22, 2007
Buffalo News: Critics charge Sen. Clinton tied to Offshore Outsourcing U.S. Jobs

The "Buffalo News" in Buffalo, NY has a story today about Hillary Clinton's ties to Indian Job Outsoucing giant TATA/TCS. The headline of the story is "Critics tie Clinton to offshoring" ( subtitled, "Touted company’s promised local jobs never materialized") This follows on earlier stories in the LA Times and the Washinton Post.

Eye-catching quotes:

"She touted how she brought Tata to Buffalo – and in the meantime Tata is one of the biggest body shops in America,” bringing cheap foreign labor to this country while exporting other jobs to India, said John Bauman, founder of the Connecticut- based Organization for the Rights of American Workers."

"In its last fiscal year, nevertheless, Tata — which reported revenues of $4.1 billion — ranked as the top Indian exporter of software and services this year, according to the National Association of Software and Service Companies."

“What she did was really pretty dumb from an economic development point of view,” said Ron Hira, an assistant professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology and the author of “Outsourcing America.” “Tata destroys a lot more American jobs than it created Buffalo.”



The article fails to mention that Ron Hira, quoted above, is also with the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Links to his writings and a video of him discussing the use of guest worker visas to replace American middle class workers appears on this blog site. See the links to the side noting that TATA/TCS uses imported Indian "guest workers" (rather than Americans) for its managerial, engineering and technical positions (what have historically been good, well paying middle class jobs) in the U.S. -- nearly 8,000 imported workers in 2006. TATA was #1 user of L-1 "guest workers" and #4 in H-1b in 2006.

[redqueen]

9. They don't call her the Senator from Punjab for nothin!

Or no wait... she calls herself that...

:think:

[invictus]

10. The MSM is corporate owned; they support free trade, job outsourcing etc. Hillary is their girl. n/t

[redqueen]

12. But... I thought the M$M loved Obama...

that's what many at DU believe, anyhow.

[SoCalDem]

14. Because it's more fun to nit-pick & create soundbytes

than it is to actually have to have a real discussion of policy..and because Viacom/GE etc LIKE nafta/cafta/shafta

[redqueen]

16. I think maybe you're just bitter.

:P

[meow mix]

28. i dunno, i hate that.

she has a free pass :shrug:

[redqueen]

29. But... I thought it was Obama who was getting the free pass...

:shrug: