Obama and NAFTA

Why is Barack Obama attacking Hillary Clinton on NAFTA when his voting record on trade since he’s been in the Senate is essentially identical to Clinton’s voting record on trade?

Obama went on record that he was supporting NAFTA expansion months ago. In fact, as David Sirota reported at the time, Obama was “the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress.” Sirota wrote:

His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project — a Wall Street front group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues. His announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade policies.

Barack Obama always seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. As I have noted here many times in the past, Obama claims he was against the war in Iraq, but he voted to fund it and he voted against Kerry Feingold. Now he’s attacking Hillary Clinton for NAFTA and his voting record is identical to hers.

Obama’s NAFTA mailer “falsely claims that Hillary said NAFTA was a “boon” to the economy,” but Hillary Clinton actually never said that it was. This is not the first time Obama has used a NAFTA mailer against Clinton. In both mailers the Obama camp based their claim on a quote from a 2006 Newsday article that characterized Clinton’s views “without any substantiation.” In fact, Newsday has recently said that “the Obama campaign’s use of their article was “misleading,”” and Politico “called the Obama campaign’s use of the quote “bogus.“”

Here we see once again that contrary to his claims, Barack Obama is running a dirty campaign, which Clinton pointed out today. My saying this here will no doubt rear the hackles of Obama supporters, but so be it. Point blank in my opinion, Barack Obama is a hypocrite on NAFTA, Iraq, health care and most of all on his claims to be above the fray.

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Obama and NAFTA

  1. Bron says:

    I quite agree. The Clinton campaign needs to get these facts out so people can understand them. Kudos for an excellent summary on these points. You will never hear anything about this on CNN or MSNBC or the other networks.

  2. Pingback: Roll Roundup: Sunday Morning Edition « Moue Magazine

  3. Pingback: The Democratic Campaigns « The Krile Files

  4. We need to help promote continued economic development of the Third World, and trade clearly needs to be part of the answer. I’m still looking for anyone who has an answer on this issue that is comprehensive and well thought out.

    Too many on the left are more than happy to say that they don’t want NAFTA, for instance, but never go on to say exactly what they propose that would get the job done better.

  5. Joe says:

    Both candidates have been a hypocritical and flip-flopped on this issue. I think it’s a more nuanced discussion than the campaign debates allow. As an Obama supporter, I take much of his campaign rhetoric with a grain of salt (as should all supporters of all candidates – when was the last time a presidential candidate did not flip-flop, etc,?)

    I like Hilary and was planning to support her but her campaign has not impressed me and she is at times very divisive (and he can be too). I feel like she would be more tempted to stonewall legislation if it wasn’t exactly what she wanted rather than just try to get something passed. We have been talking about many of these issues for years now and no progress is made because the proposals are either completely liberal and get stopped by repubs or completely conservative and get stopped by dems.

    I hope that since he is not as divisive a figure as she that he’ll have better luck, but whether or not this will be true I don’t know. If she wins the nomination, I’m happy to support her, but right now it’s a toss up for me. I really hope dems can rally behind their nominee (whomever it may be) and more importantly, elect congresspeople who will actually pass the legislation these two are proposing.
    If we don’t have the congress to pass it, it won’t happen. If we can’t come together as a party, the Republicans win and all of this discussion is irrelevant.

  6. Angry says:

    I simply cannot understand the stupidity of the Democratic Party. Hillary wins in all the important Blue States … California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and so on. Obama wins in Idaho, Wyoming, and South Carolina … places that will NEVER in my life vote Democrat. And yet the party plans to nominate Obama.

    When Kerry lost to GW, I was upset, but I blamed the Party for being stupid to nominate Kerry.

    This nomination is even more stupid. There is absolutely NO CHANCE that the working people of America are going to vote for some spoiled rich kid who used drugs in high school and attended ivy league colleges … on a free ride from his family. Obama never did an honest day’s work in his life. He is a hypocrite and a liar. His normal Washing “corruption” is worse than the others because he claims to be above it all.

  7. Pingback: Hillary Slams Obama’s Rovian Tactics: ‘Shame on You, Barack Obama, Meet Me in Ohio!’ (Video) | Womenhealth