I was talking with John Nichols (The Nation) recently after he had exposed Hillary Clinton's "misstatement" or "detruthified comment" or "decepticious statement", or as the rarely acidicly direct "lie" about Hillary Clinton's NAFTA tales of not supporting while actually having been exposed otherwise. As the commentary went:
Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released this week that former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA; now that we know she held at least five meetings to strategize about how to win congressional approval of the deal; now that we know she was in the thick of the manuevering to block the efforts of labor, farm, environmental and human rights groups to get a better agreement. Now that we know all of this, how should we assess the claim that Hillary's heart has always beaten to a fair-trade rhythm?
Now that we know from official records of her time as First Lady that Clinton was the featured speaker at a closed-door session where 120 women opinion leaders were hectored to pressure their congressional representatives to approve NAFTA; now that we know from ABC News reporting on the session that "her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA" and that "there was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time;" now that we have these details confirmed, what should we make of Clinton's campaign claim that she was never comfortable with the militant free-trade agenda that has cost the United States hundreds of thousands of union jobs, that has idled entire industries, that has saddled this country with record trade deficits, undermined the security of working families in the US and abroad, and has forced Mexican farmers off their land into an economic refugee status that ultimately forces them to cross the Rio Grande River in search of work?
As she campaigns now, Clinton says, "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning."
But the White House records confirm that this is not true. Her statement is, to be precise, a lie.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80454/John had mentioned to me that Barack Obama could do very well by making a speech of the same political velocity and historic tenacity like his "Race speech" that addresses the issues of trade.
Having a speech that addresses the differences between older free trade failures like NAFTA (and exposing Hillary Clinton for lying about her support of it from Day One) to the newer policies that don't become signed until environmental controls are set, workers rights are set and other stipulations that don't harm American industry and workers is a speech that can lay down the facts and differences between Obama and Clinton's actual policies and history, especially in the light that thousands of jobs have been lost in Pennsylvania and North Carolina (among many other states) due to Bill Clinton's free trade bill signatures with NAFTA, GATT, China most-favored nation status and other bills. Hillary Clinton's records as First Lady show her support as well as her votes for China MFN and outsourcing links.
Obama will address this issue as part of the Pennsylvania strategy to end the chances for Clinton once and for all. Once Pennsylvanians see just whose side Hillary Clinton is on regarding careless free trade policies vs. what she says about supporting American workers, there will be an avalanche of support that seals the deal for Obama in thr Keystone State.