"Newsday" says Obama flyers against Hillary are misleading

[carlotta]

"The second mailing, on the North American Free Trade Agreement, quotes a 2006 Newsday article suggesting Clinton believed the agreement had been a "boon" to the economy. NAFTA and other trade agreements are extremely unpopular in Ohio, which has suffered an exodus of blue- collar jobs to other countries in part due to such agreements.

It's a particularly sensitive matter for Clinton, whose husband championed and pushed for passage of the agreement as president. She is counting on the support of white, working class voters in the state.

"I am fighting to change NAFTA," she insisted. "Neither of us were in the Senate when NAFTA passed. Neither voted one way or the other."

Clinton said Newsday had corrected the record about her views on the agreement. Indeed, the paper published a blog item earlier this month saying Obama's use of the word "boon" was unfair.

"Obama's use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading. The quote marks make it look as if Hillary said "boon," not us. It's an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office."

[tabatha]

1. An article by David Sirota

We need a candidate for president who not only understands this, but is ready and willing to work for real reform and an America First Attitude. Hillary Clinton's record on this is spotty at best, and John McCain will stick with the Bush tax cuts and the GOP company line. In my opinion, Barack Obama is the candidate who get's it, and we can't afford a president who does not.

http://ronbeas2.blogspot.com/2008/02/fair-trade-trouncing-free-trade-myth.html?referer=sphere_related_content

[Hieronymus]

35. Thanks, some good observations.

[lligrd]

2. Most Campaign Flyers Are Misleading

Hillary's are no exception. Why Hillary even wants to bring up NAFTA is a mystery to me. It can't do her any good.

[MADem]

10. Uh, the misleading flyers are from the OBAMA campaign. They lie about Clinton. NT

[lligrd]

14. That's Right, The One She Sent About Obama Being Against

the right to choose was not misleading. It was an outright lie.

[MADem]

18. Gosh, let's dig up that PRESENT vote business, like it relates to this at all.

Are we going to pull this tit-for-tat string all the way back to the start of both campaigns?

We CAN play that foolish game all day. It's not terribly instructive, though, and I'm disinclined to play "history lesson" to provide you with a diversionary tactic.

Of course, it's easier from your perspective than responding to the actual topic/substance of the discussion, which is that flyer.

Whatever.

[lligrd]

22. So The Fact That They Both Do It Is Irrelevant?

Only Obama's supposed mistakes matter in your world. Okay. The fact is, that Obama's flyer may be a bit misleading but the just of the flyer is accurate. Why Hillary even wants to bring up NAFTA is beyond me.

[MADem]

28. It's not like that topic hasn't been discussed here. If you want to revisit

that issue, click on the SEARCH function and go back in time via the DU archives. There's PLENTY of discussion of that topic. Thread after thread. But that isn't the topic of this one. It serves your purposes to not speak of this topic, because it reveals your candidate to be less than honorable.

Never mind "Politics of Hope and Change." More like "Politics of smear, innuendo, and outright falsehood."

"Politics AS usual." But hey, "BELIEF" will overcome the fact that your candidate perpetrated false information.

It's not a "bit misleading." That's about as misleading as the phrase "a little bit pregnant."

It is ENTIRELY misleading.

And quite regrettably, you're EXCUSING mendacity, because it suits your purposes. That's unfortunate.

[BL611]

3. Hmmm misleading?

You mean like quoting the Newsday blog entry in a selective way when the entire entry presents a far more nuanced view and implies that in Hillary's 2006 Senate campaign she did indeed support NAFTA?

Here is the link,people can judge for themselves whose being "Rovian"...


http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/_the_democratic_campaign_has.html

[Stephanie]

11. The correct title should be, "Hillary says that Newsday says..."

Otherwise we'd have the Newsday story in the OP.

[Hieronymus]

36. How observant of you.

[VolcanoJen]

4. "Neither of us were in the Senate when NAFTA passed. Neither voted one way or the other."

OK, but one of the candidates has a spouse who was the President of the United States at the time. And one of those candidates is counting those White House years as part of a "35 Years of Experience" package.

So, sorry, but I'm not buying, and she can't have it both freaking ways.

[MADem]

12. So, you're saying if Michelle Obama did anything hypocritical, that should reflect on her husband.NT

[VolcanoJen]

15. When Michelle runs for President, sure.

But that's not the case here, so I wouldn't be playing the "hey look over here" game with this.

If part of Hillary's 35 Years of Experience involved being an advisor to her husband while he was President, then she owns a little bit of NAFTA. She can't have it both ways.

[MADem]

20. Uh, Bill Clinton is a private citizen. He's not RUNNING for President.

And I honestly doubt she was sitting around the table hashing out the details of NAFTA while she was advising him on women's, children's and Human Rights issues. Nice try, though.

That is some Magical Thinking you've got working there.

Not terribly surprising.

[VolcanoJen]

21. Hmm. But she'd have us believe she has executive experience through First Lady Osmosis.

Weird.

[MADem]

26. She "has us believe" that she served in an ambassadorial function for her husband to over eighty

nations.

She "has us believe" that which her husband has acknowledged--that he consulted her on the issues I named above.

What's weird is your deliberate inability to see her role as she has plainly described it. It doesn't speak to any skill in digesting information and placing events in context.

That black and white, lockstep and static view is more characteristic of the other team, usually. You are an interesting exception, apparently, to prove the rule.

[VolcanoJen]

30. So you're calling me a Republican.

Duly noted.

[MADem]

32. No, I am plainly not doing that. What is DULY noted, though, is that you don't read for context.

What part of this sentence, and the underlined word, most specifically, is UNCLEAR to you?

You are an interesting exception, apparently, to prove the rule.

[jackson_dem]

16. Yes, and she fought against NAFTA in the White House

What more could she have done? Held Bill hostage? :eyes:

[sandnsea]

5. The rest of her remarks

Just because Newsday retracted their own story, it doesn't mean Hillary didn't support NAFTA, she did.

http://thepage.time.com/saturday-obama-campaign-release/

2003: Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. “Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once . I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances.”

2003: Clinton Called NAFTA a “Victory” For President Clinton. In her memoir, published in 2003, Clinton wrote, “Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn’t hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill’s successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA.”

1996: Clinton Said “I Think Everybody Is In Favor Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth.” A questioner pointed out that UNITE opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed by the Clinton administration, on grounds it sends American jobs to Mexico. In March 1996, three years after President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, Hillary Clinton said, “I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth,” she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. “That’s what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about,” she said.

1996: Clinton “Vowed That Her Husband Would Continue To Support Economic Growth In South Texas Through Initiatives Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement.” AP wrote, “Mrs. Clinton vowed that her husband would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Rio Grande Valley empowerment zone, which allows tax breaks to businesses that relocate to the border.”

1996: Hillary Clinton “Touted” President Clinton’s Support for NAFTA, Saying it Would Reap Widespread Benefit. On a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton “touted the president’s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region.”

[Johnny__Motown]

6. The more she tries to explain the "Boon" thing the worse she will look, even though it is a misquote

[LadyVT]

7. also on the AP wire now, and on CNN

[BL611]

8. Here is the entire Newsday passage

"Because it's raised questions -- with Clinton criticizing Obama for making "false claims" in the mail piece -- we've looked into the chart. In it, we did not have the Clinton campaign using the word "boon" in describing NAFTA. The word was our characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements.

Tasini called for scrapping NAFTA in 2006. She did not.

We do not have a direct quote indicating her campaign told us she thought it was good for the economy at that time. Also, for that matter, Clinton's campaign did not contact us to question the item after it appeared in print.

Obama's use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading. The quote marks make it look as if Hillary said "boon," not us. It's an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office.

That said, we should have been clearer."

Again its highly ironic that you are criticizing Obama for being misleading while doing the EXACT same thing yourself.

[MADem]

13. Obama's use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading.

Hell, even NEWSDAY is on that page.

If the misleading flyer hadn't been put out, no one would be discussing this at all....

[BL611]

17. No as it says above

Newsday admits to not being particularly clear about whether it was using a direct quote or its own summary Hillary's position. It believes it was not a direct quote, but that Hillary was certainly gave the appearance of being pro-NAFTA. The Obama campaign AT WORST used as a quote something that was in fact a summary of Hillary's position at the time. Hillary never voiced any disagreement with the characterization until now.

Was attributing it as a quote misleading? Possibly.

Is it anything compared to Hillary's abortion mailer? No


Rovian tactics? This is the pot calling the kettle black.

[MADem]

19. My subject line was a DIRECT QUOTE from NEWSDAY. Yet you say "NO?"

More like YES. That line was from Newsday, saying the use was .... what's that word?

MISLEADING.

[BL611]

23. The whole quote is

"It strikes us as misleading...That said we should have been clearer"

Again people can see it for themselves and make their own judgment.

The implication that the Obama campaign came up with this out of thin air, and slandered her, is not consistent with the Newsday piece.

[MADem]

27. Yes. They mislead. They should have been clearer. They weren't.

The Obama campaign, though, KNEW IT WAS FALSE when they used it. That's why they "misled"... see?

It's worse than just making shit up, in actual fact.

When you know something is false, but you use it ANYWAY, in order to impart a level of "truthiness" via the NEWSDAY imprimatur, that's not just misleading, that is MENDACITY.

And it's pretty fucking disgraceful.

[BL611]

29. How do you know they knew it was false

Where does it say that in the piece?

Even if they DID know it was false, it is underhanded, but still does not misrepresent what her opinion was at the time. Since Hillary has been guilty in mailer's(as well as other venue's) of misrepresenting Obama's actual positions, I don't see how she can call it disgraceful.

[MADem]

31. Because they actually aren't stupid idiots. They know facts, and timelines.

They're mendacious, but to suggest they didn't know indicates you believe they are dumb, that they are lazy, that they don't do their research.

What I can't help note about your post is that "underhanded" is OK. This wasn't underhanded, it was a falsehood.

ATW. Anything To Win.

How terrible to be corrupted, and corrupted absolutely, before power is even achieved.

It does not bode well.

[yourguide]

9. See this thread

she is ON record:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4728341

[AX10]

24. kick

[ProSense]

25. Link? Newsday issued a correction, admits they screwed up!

They NYT just reported it a, but not clearly:

(Reporters from Newsday responded on its Web site last week, but stopped short of a correction. “The word was our characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements,” they wrote, adding that the Obama mailer made the word ‘boon” appear to be Mrs. Clinton’s statement. “Obama’s use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading,” they wrote.)

link

Here is what they said

The Democratic campaign has moved in earnest to Ohio, where times are tough and NAFTA has become a dirty word. In an effort to score points, Barack Obama has been dropping a mail-piece (left) that repeats a charge he has made several other times during the campaign -- that "Hillary Clinton believed NAFTA was 'a boon' to the economy."

This attack has attracted a flurry of attention, from Clinton's campaign and some reporters. As it turns out, the primary source is us. Back in Sept. 2006, an abbreviated chart printed on Newsday's Spin Cycle page compared Hillary with her Democratic US Senate primary challenger Jonathan Tasini on a variety of issues. The issues chart included this:

<...>

Obama's use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading. The quote marks make it look as if Hillary said "boon," not us. It's an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office.

That said, we should have been clearer.

link

[Skip Intro]

34. "Obama's use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading."

Does highlighting, "that said, we should have been clearer," make the charge of Obama being misleading disappear?

[ORDem]

33. So, let me see if I've got her arguments correct ...

She's the candidate with 35 years of experience. Okee dokee.
Oh, but if anything bad happened during those 35 years, even if I'm counting my time "in" the WH as part of it, it doesn't count, because I didn't vote on it while I was in the Senate.

Wow, this logic is tortuous.

Of course she supported NAFTA. It was politically expedient at the time. That's basically what drives all her views, such as her vote for the Iraq War.

:dem:

[DeepModem Mom]

37. ...