Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

No matter how many claims of being "fully vetted," no matter how much you say that you are transparent, in the end it only matters until it doesn't.  It no longer matters how much Hillary says she has been vetted.  It no longer matters how often her surrogates say that she is a very open person who has undergone decades of scrutiny.  It no longer matters how many years of tax returns are available for the public.

It no longer matters because she is no longer "fully vetted."

Less than 24 hours after the release of Clinton's schedule as First Lady, and the Associated Press has already begun to find a few interesting nuggets.  ( olitics/5633560.html , 308/From_the_schedules_Working_on_Nafta. html#comments )

Clinton says her years as first lady equip her to handle foreign policy and national security as president.

But the schedules show trips packed with plainly traditional activities for a first lady, along with some substance.

This is not so surprising, especially after a review of hillarys_adventures_abroad.html ).

This next comment from the Clinton campaign is such the political answer.

The Clinton campaign said the schedules are merely a guide and don't reflect all of her activities.

Indeed.  And what was that about Hillary not being enthusiastic about NAFTA?

She was also involved in helping her husband win congressional approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal she now criticizes and says she would try to change.

Oh.   Jack Tapper at ABC has more( 2008/03/clintons-1993-n.html ).

It wasn't a drop-by it was organized around her participation," said one attendee. "Her 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 if NAFTA.

Considering that the schedules haven't even been released for a full day, one really has to wonder what else will be found.  What dots shall be connected?  Will there be any?  Will this revive some of the old scandals?  Almost certainly.  Everyone is combing through the records.  What has the Clinton campaign responded with?  "Obama, release your schedule as a state senator!" Silly silly.

April 15th is a full week before the primary contest in Pennsylvania.  If Clinton doesn't release her tax returns, expect there to be a lot of well-deserved criticism.  Obama has been pretty vetted in the last couple of weeks- Hillary's turn is coming up.

Tags: donuts, schedules, tax returns (all tags)



Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

Yawn - this has already been debunked,like 5 times on this site already.  But thanks for playing!

by cmugirl90 2008-03-19 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

Nice tactic.  Just because assertions have been routinely attacked by you and your cronies on this site does not a "debunk" make.

by oregonkcg 2008-03-19 03:28PM | 0 recs
Blah, blah, blah.

Seriously, Setrak. Will you diary anything? You have decent writing skills, but I think lately there's been a decline in your judgement. Have you taken a walk outside lately?

by Soitgoes 2008-03-19 03:31PM | 0 recs
Wow. I had no idea.

"Goddam America" and "white people invented AIDS to kill blacks" now seem so trivial compared to these revelations.

by lombard 2008-03-19 03:38PM | 0 recs

What matters more, the remarks of some pastor or helping pass a trade agreement that completely changes the lives of millions of American workers?

by animated 2008-03-19 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Indeed.

On a related subject-- what really happened with the Canadian consular officer and an Obama senior adviser NAFTA thing again?  I never got a straight answer on this.  Perhaps you can rehash it for us.

by Sieglinde 2008-03-19 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Indeed.

You know, I'm not completely sure either, but I doubt it matters much. Problem is, the Clintons own NAFTA, and Hillary has been lying about her support for it, as these documents clearly show.

by animated 2008-03-19 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Indeed.

What really happened: a meeting with some Canadian consular staff, requested by the Canadian government, at which many topics were discussed. Parties involve agree that NAFTA was a topic of discussion and that no reassurances or other statements of the sort were made.

What's alleged to have happened: A meeting with the Canadian consul, requested by the Obama campaign, the focus of which was reassurances about NAFTA.

See how truth and allegations differ?

And the irony is that CTV originally got the story because it was overheard that someone from the Clinton campaign had contacted the Canadian government with reassurances. There is no evidence that this actually happened, but the evidence in its favor is just as strong as the evidence that Obama's campaign did anything two-faced on NAFTA.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-19 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. I had no idea.

>>>>She was also involved in helping her husband win congressional approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal she now criticizes and says she would try to change

She attended a meeting - and the reporter or some jerk says she was involved in NAFTA.
But - Obama followers will post any lies in an attempt to boost Obama.

Think! it's not illegal.

by annefrank 2008-03-19 03:47PM | 0 recs
I was being sarcastic

by lombard 2008-03-19 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. I had no idea.

Interesting that the words in the ABC article used the words Hillary Clinton and phony in the same sentence. Obviously, you didn't read the article referred to in this diary. And Hillary set up the meeting and invited all the attendees. She also ACTIVELY supported NAFTA, much to the chagrin of the women today that attended that meeting in 1993.

by victoryfordems 2008-03-19 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. I had no idea.

Not nice of you to call those women that Hillary invited to the meeting that day, "jerks".

by victoryfordems 2008-03-19 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. I had no idea.

Hope Hillary has more respect for the office of the Presidency, than Bill had when he and Monica were getting it on six different days in the White House while Hillary was home. Hey maybe if I contribute to Hillary's campaign, I can good a good deal on renting the Lincoln bedroom, just like in the old days.

by victoryfordems 2008-03-19 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow. I had no idea.

Really?  We need comments like this?  Come on now.  

While the released schedules today do point out some interesting things, both positive and perhaps negative, they are just what they are, schedules.  Let the dialogue begin, but how about we keep the flame-throwing for the Republicans.

by PittsburghPete 2008-03-19 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

34 Days until the Penn. Primary. Lots more of these stale Hillary Hater diaries to come. Take them with a grain of salt. This might be a good time to reflect on the Holy Week if you are a Christan and reaffirm the greatness of life.

by Safe at Home 2008-03-19 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

OK. Which is Obama camp's talking point? Hillary was not involved in any serious matters in the White House and is exaggerating her experience? Or Hillary was the force behind everything bad happened during Clinton administration such as NAFTA? I am hearing these conflicting arguments all day. It seems rather desperate.

by praxis1 2008-03-19 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

She takes credit for the good things that happened, and runs from the bad ones. Or she runs from the issues that were good at the time (NAFTA), Iraq vote, but disavows them now that she is running for President. Thirty five years of good, selective memory experience. Hey, the skies are opening up and a beam of light is shining down.....

by victoryfordems 2008-03-19 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

That does not justify inconsistency on Obama's part.

by praxis1 2008-03-19 10:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton
I would take this any day over the Rev. Wright disaster.
The Wrightgate scandal happens maybe every 30 years.
Its one of those scandals that guarantees  general election defeat.
by labanman 2008-03-19 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

I am sooooo NOT worried about this. In fact, I am proud of all of the things she's done and the honorable ways she has represented the country.

Not vetted enough for you? The Republicans have tried and tried for over fifteen years. They've "kitchen-sinked" her like nobody's business. She's had SIXTY books written about her. If you are banking on wild revelations regarding Hillary Clinton all I can do is laugh.

Obama, on the other hand, well, I think Wright and Rezko are indicative of things to come.

Tough times ahead, my butt. I see victory ahead. I see an Obama melt-down and the polls prove it.

by cc 2008-03-19 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

Yep, the same polls that show Obama retaking the lead over Clinton today.

by animated 2008-03-19 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

Actually the Gallup Daily Tracking is showing a decline for Obama and a gap we haven't seen in her favour for some time.  More Wright fall-out, I suppose.  But I don't think it will be a problem in the long run.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-03-19 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

<Illinois Sen. Barack Obama wants to make something clear: When it comes to hating NAFTA -- the North American Free Trade Agreement -- he's way out in front of his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. <p>

"Sen. Clinton, as part of the Clinton administration, supported NAFTA," Obama says. "In her book, she called it one of the administration's successes."

The very suggestion that she might like NAFTA made Clinton furious.

"This is wrong," Clinton says. "And every Democrat should be outraged. So shame on you, Barack Obama."

The two candidates seem to really hate NAFTA. And they both seem to hate even more the idea that someone might get the impression that they don't hate NAFTA, or that one of them hates NAFTA a bit less than the other. To some, it's a bit odd that a 14-year-old trade agreement has suddenly become such a hot issue as the Democrats campaign in the run-up to the Ohio primary.

The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1994. It's known as TLCAN in Mexico and ALENA in the French-speaking parts of Canada. NAFTA eliminated most tariffs -- or import taxes -- on goods moving from one of the three countries to another. Most economists believe this has been good, overall, for the U.S. economy. But like all trade agreements, NAFTA has hurt some industries, particularly some in Rust Belt states -- which brings us to present-day Ohio.

Are Obama and Clinton right? Has NAFTA hurt Ohio's economy?

"Oh, absolutely not," says Ned Hill, economic development professor at Cleveland State University. "NAFTA is more political theater than an economic event."

Hill says Ohio is suffering economically; unemployment is high.

"But that is not due to NAFTA," he says. "That is because of the failed strategy of three companies" -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.

U.S. automakers are suffering -- largely, Hill says, because they don't make cars people want. So, their workers suffer, which means an auto state like Ohio suffers. Hill says NAFTA has helped the state -- the agreement has, on balance, helped increase employment and raise Ohio's gross domestic product.

Hill is a centrist Democrat and supports NAFTA and free trade. Rob Scott, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, a pro-labor, anti-NAFTA think tank, despises the agreement.

But as much as he doesn't like NAFTA, Scott says it's just not that important.

"More important was the formation of the WTO in 1994," he says. "And the entry of China into the WTO in 2001."

The WTO, or World Trade Organization, is like a global NAFTA. It lowers trade barriers in most countries, particularly China. The U.S. trade deficit with China is more than three times greater than with Mexico or Canada. So, if you think free trade hurts the United States, China is a much bigger threat than NAFTA. If you think free trade helps, China is far more helpful.

Which leaves some puzzling: Why do Clinton and Obama talk about NAFTA so much and not about other things, like China?

Pierrette Talley, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO of Ohio, thinks she knows the answer.

"Workers know about NAFTA because we did a lot of education around the impact of NAFTA and what it would do when it was passing through legislation, back in the '90s," she says.

She says it was organized labor's last huge nationwide campaign -- and it cemented NAFTA as a big issue in union members' minds. And, of course, anyone who wants to win the Ohio Democratic primary needs to win union votes. Candidates can try to explain that NAFTA isn't that important and focus on other issues, or they can just blame the other side for not hating NAFTA quite enough.

As it happens, Clinton and Obama have pretty much the same record on the issue. They both support the existence of NAFTA. They both call for its reform, along quite similar lines. Neither was in Congress in 1994, so they didn't vote on NAFTA when it passed. But they have both voted in favor of most free trade deals when they have had a chance.> .php?storyId=38185288

by Soitgoes 2008-03-19 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

I love it.  Two attendees, niether of whom are attached to the campaigns.Well if they're not attached, why can't Jake put their names out there?

This is all BS, and just straw gasping.  If ABC and Obama want to bring heat to Hillary, they will have to do more than this.

ABC's story is weak.  Because if this is all it takes to push NAFTA, then Hillary saved Social Security and Medicare, she saved Belfast, she saved the N. Ireland peace accords as well as ushering in Democracy and Higher learning for Russia, all single-handedly.  I wonder if ABC/Obama will use the same weak thread link to support those "facts".

LOL...of course they won't.

by TxDem08 2008-03-19 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

It's not the same thing, and here's why:

Clinton ran tv ads in Ohio that were mock-news reports about the NAFTAgate story, a story now shown to be false. There is no strong evidence that, at the time, the Clinton campaign knew they were false, so to that extent I don't blame them. I do think the ads were highly questionable.

However, at the time, Clinton was campaigning and stating that she had never been in favor of NAFTA and had always disagreed with it. That, clearly, she knew to be false at the time.

So, while her campaign was accusing Obama widely and publicly about being two-faced on NAFTA, she actually knew beyond any doubt that she was being two-faced about it.

And that's extremely hypocritical, to say the very least. That is an inappropriate campaign tactic.

Your argument, that:

if this is all it takes to push NAFTA, then Hillary saved Social Security and Medicare, she saved Belfast, she saved the N. Ireland peace accords as well as ushering in Democracy and Higher learning for Russia

is not a valid representation of the argument. No claim is being made that Hillary Clinton was a major player in passing NAFTA. There's no factual basis to support that claim.

What is being claimed is that she said she never supported it or was in favor of it, while there is now firm evidence that she did support it and, whether or not in favor of it, worked on its behalf.

The proper analogy would be if she had denied any involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process, or Social Security or Medicare.

By itself I wouldn't consider this an issue. She lied; politicians occasionally lie. People seem awfully upset when Barack Obama appears to do it, especially when it's shown later that he didn't, but so be it.

But this was lying about a politically significant matter, knowingly, at the same time as she was slamming an opponent for lying about it, which he did not in fact do.

That's hypocritical, two-faced, and wrong.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-19 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

I don't see how Hillary's "anti-Nafta" stance was ever even up for debate.  It's been well-documented that she has, at the very least, partially supported it, even as a Senator.  I don't care if she supported it then and doesn't support it now.  That's all good and well within her right.

What's not, however, is the fact that she's saying she never supported it.  This is easily verifiable, and has been shown again and again (as these documents confirm once again).  I'm not sure how she did, but she's managed to convince people of something that is factually, and verifiably, incorrect.

by leshrac55 2008-03-19 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

Hmmmmm. You mean like "I was never in the pews when....." or "Nobody from my staff talked to...." or "Barely had a thing to do with Rezko...." or "The troops out by...." or "Sure we want the votes to be counted...."? "Present?" "Oops, hit the wrong button?" Words, just words.

by Soitgoes 2008-03-19 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton

So let's see...

1) true, according to all the evidence thus far

  1. true, according to the evidence
  2. mostly true; he didn't said "barely had a thing to do with", and it's clear by now that Rezko was wildly overblown -- or did you not see the Chicago papers' reporting that he's been a model of honesty and transparency?
  3. true; his only concern is that the situation could preclude an immediate withdrawal, which would be the exact same position that it turns out Clinton holds
  4. was never said, and it's been entirely clear that revotes were blocked by the Michigan Republican Party and both parties in Florida. Besides, which candidate dragged their feet for over a month insisting the delegates from ridiculously non-democratic elections be counted?
  5. Something Clinton has never done, of course. And she's never missed important committee meetings. Nor has she ever failed to grasp even the most basic things that were discussed in a committee she was on. That wouldn't happen. Of course.
  6. Again, something that would be absolutely impossible to do under any circumstances. No one ever makes a mistake; everything is entirely by design.

Answer that?

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-19 06:17PM | 0 recs
No, not really.

Though I'm sure you thought it so. You believe what you believe; I believe what I believe. And I believe your candidate is a dangerous mistake. You'll continue to try and find anything you consider wrong with Clinton and amplify it. I will do the same with your candidate. On and on it goes.

by Soitgoes 2008-03-19 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Tough Times Ahead for Senator Clinton


by coolofthenight 2008-03-19 06:29PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads