Latest Clinton Mailer Tries to Save NAFTA Face

By On February 25, 2008 · 8 Comments

This NAFTA issue must be hounding them. I got this in the mail today:

clintonobamamailer080225.jpg
(click for full pdf)

Won’t comment too much on it. I do love the “FALSE ATTACK ALERT”. Most especially in a piece that uses reporter quotes to appear as Obama quotes. I wonder if Ben Smith will correct them by claiming he “called Obama’s mail bogus”. Actually, what he said was:

An Ohio blogger gets some mail from Obama hitting Hillary on Nafta, once again using that really fairly bogus claim that she called Nafta a “boon.”

(They actually use the quote twice, the second time with the accurate context — an unexplained assertion in Newsday from 2006.)

False attack alert indeed.

Funny how we need to “fix NAFTA”. What’s wrong with NAFTA Hillz? Can you elaborate on this for us? Can you get Bill to speak on this to Ohio voters. I’m sure they’d love to hear that as well.

Tagged with: • •
 
  • Modern Esquire

    I’d suggest that Hillary wants to “fix” NAFTA the same way the Obama has said he wants to “fix” NAFTA.

    Eric, this is the weakest defense yet of Obama’s blatant misrepresentation of Clinton and his own record on trade yet.

    There’s nothing misleading about the Clinton’s campaign’s use of the Politico report. It said the central claim of the piece, that Clinton has called NAFTA a “boon” to the economy, was bogus. That’s what they say in the mailer, too.

    Apparently, Obama’s public comments on NAFTA are far more mixed than his campaign has led on. Not surprising, given his actual voting record.

    Obama’s campaign launched their Ohio campaign by trying to tap into the voter’s visceral hatred of NAFTA, even though the candidates records and platforms on trade are virtually identical.

    Anyone who has any real objectivity on this issue has recognized that it’s all a sham, and that Obama is no better than Clinton on trade. And yet, he has fooled a majority of primary voters into thinking that he’s “against” NAFTA when his history and position on the issues is as muddled and nuianced as Clinton.

    And unlike Obama’s misleading NAFTA piece, this piece makes it pretty clear that these are indirect quotes. In Obama’s piece they took a reporter’s characterizations and represented as a direct quote. Far different.

    Obama is closing the gap in Ohio on the blatant lie that he is somehow different from Clinton on trade. His history indicates otherwise.

  • @1: There you are! Wondered where you been hiding! There isn’t a single direct Obama quote in the entire mailer. Ben Smith NEVER said the mailer was bogus. I wrote what he said in the post.

    If you want her experience to count back when Bill was President, then you are going to have to take with it NAFTA and the reason we have to “fix” anything to begin with. It’s really that simple.

    I don’t think Obama’s closing of the gap has anything at all to do with NAFTA. It’s what happens in every state once he begins campaigning there. At best they are neutralizing some of the institutional advantage Team Hillary has had since last year.

    I hear gloves are coming off in the debate tonight. Leads are narrowing and desperation is setting in. Wonder what idiotic one-liner she was fed this time? Care to guess?

    Are you proud of the campaign Clinton has run ME? You proud of Mark Penn saying “cocaine” over and over? You proud of madrassa stories getting leaked? You proud of turban photos getting leaked to Drudge? You proud of Stephanie Tubbs Jones talking about Obama wearing clothing from his “native land”? Does it all make you swell up in the chest?

    Your outrage is misdirected and I’d figure you smart enough by now to realize that.

  • Modern Esquire

    This isn’t the movie “Dodgeball” but you’ve regurgitated the Obama talking points well.

    (Oh, and I’ve been out of commission for the past three days)

    I think the fact that polling shows a majority Ohio primary voters are under the misimpression that Obama is “against” NAFTA, explains why Obama has closed the gap. That and his impressive media buy (give the saturation of tv and radio here in SWO, you’d think Ohio was Obama’s firewall. I think I’ve seen nearly 6 to 1 Obama to Clinton ads.)

    Just like the rest of the Obama crowd, you want to make the debate solely about Bill Clinton on trade. Bill Clinton isn’t on the ballot, and Barack Obama is, and if you’re going to attack Hillary Clinton on trade, then you have to deal with your own candidate’s record on trade and the reality that his record is no different.

    Barack Obama is trying to pass himself as Sherrod Brown and for anyone who votes for him with that expectation is going to be sorely disappointed if Obama becomes President.

    Eric you really should become a barber with you splitting hairs like you are. Politico says that the central claim of Obama’s mailer is “bogus”, and you want to create a distinction without a difference by criticizing the Clinton campaign’s characterization of the mailer as bogus.

    Obama is trying to tap into resentment over NAFTA while hiding his own public statements and record on the issue that shows no difference from his opponent.

    It’s a fraud and you know it.

  • @3: Actually never seen the movie, so don’t get the reference. Ironic coming form the BSB Hillary talking point carpetbomber! Ironic indeed. I even heard you were stooping so low as to spout MCCAIN talking points! Hillarity!

    Obama is “against” NAFTA just like Hillary is now. It’s not a misimpression that he thinks we need to make some fundamental changes to a policy that has left many OHIOANS out of work.

    Listen, Hillary and her team MADE this about Bill Clinton, not us. They sent him out as a surrogate to attack Barack and intimate that if he is elected we’ll be attacked by terrorists.

    What I’m saying about both mailers is precisely what Team Hillary said about the Obama one. Name one thing false in his mailer. Go ahead.

    You need to be a better judge of fraud’s my friend. You got this one twisted!

    What will we see today? Weepy Hillary proud to be on stage with Obama? Or attack Hillary waving flyers around and tersely pointing her finger at Barack?

    What do you think?

  • @3: Me split hairs? Dude. You spent the better part of a week trying to parse a phrase on a debate to mean something it didn’t. Guess what we get to do tonight? See the debate you harped on for so long as desperate as the campaign you profess not to officially support. BALANCE! BALANCE!

  • Modern Esquire

    Things false about Obama’s flier:
    1. Obama has “consistently” been against NAFTA.
    2. Hillary Clinton called NAFTA a “boon” to the economy.

    Given that those are the only two claims in his mailing, that’s pretty bad.

    So because Bill Clinton attacked you candidate that means he is free to attack Hillary on an issue without his own record being part of the debate. That is what you are arguing.

    I was actually correct about the Ohio debate. Jerid and Russo hinged their entire argument on the fact that CNN still had the debate on their calendar, a debate Obama never agreed to attend.

    Again, I don’t think the Obama campaign would send Mike Coleman out there to defend why a debate in Ohio won’t hurt Obama if they weren’t considering not participating in any debates in Ohio, a position they quickly backpeddled from when the trial ballons went over like lead.

    You want to attack Hillary’s style, but ignore the fact that on every objective level, she’s is correct that Obama’s health care and NAFTA mailing were deceptive and misleading and just about every media agency that has evaluated those mailings have reached the same conclusion.

    Obama has made himself appear in Ohio to be far more protectionist than his prior rhetoric and record indicates.

    BTW, ask Jerid, I’ve never accepted talking points from the Hillary campaign and have actually refused to be referred to anyone on the campaign. And whenever I have wrote ANYTHING from a third-party source, I have always cited it.

  • Modern Esquire

    I meant to say that they wouldn’t have sent Mike Coleman out to explain why NO debate in Ohio would not likely hurt Obama… damn medicine.

  • @6&7: Damn. You must be micro-refreshing! Not even using the comment subscribe thing yet you are all over it!

    Sorry to hear you are sick (re: medicine)

    I don’t work off of talking points either, so let’s just end that here and now. You think what I say sounds like talking points but they are just my takes. I say the same about you but they are just yours. Fair enough.

    They both use reporters takes and not direct quotes. The mailers are trying to drive the same wedge. Ohioans care about the economy and the collapse of the manufacturing base here. They both want a piece of that.

    Hillary called NAFTA one of Bill’s successes. Maybe she meant that he intended to harm the economy by shipping jobs off shore. Maybe she did.

    You and I know it’s never good being caught playing defense. That’s what has Team Hillary so upset and it’s totally understandable.

    BTW, Obama is able to outspend Hillary due to massive grassroots support in the $50-100 range of donors. I’m sure they’d like to win Texas and Ohio and end this thing. No surprise there.

    I just wish we could see Hillary’s tax returns so we could find out more about that $5 million loan. What is your take on her inability to uphold our Governor’s standard of transparency in governement?

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...

Archives

All entries, chronologically...