  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The Mail WarPosted on Feb 26, 2008
Hillary Clinton was so irked by a couple of Barack Obama campaign mailers that a few days ago she publicly scolded him and said “every Democrat should be outraged.” Clinton herself has been accused of sending misleading mailers to voters, including one that went out shortly after her now infamous “shame on you” news conference. For inundated Ohioans, it’s a question of whom to trust. The short answer is no one. It’s probably not best to base important political decisions on a glossy piece of mail anyway. According to the excellent and independent FactCheck.org, both candidates’ mailers are misleading, but not entirely untrue. The Obama camp sent out two items, one that alleged Hillary Clinton was a NAFTA booster until she started running for president and another that accused her of wanting to force people to buy health care they might not be able to afford. The first charge is the hardest to parse. As David Sirota has pointed out on this Web site, Clinton is reported to have praised NAFTA. But, as FactCheck.org documents, she is also said to have opposed the agreement privately from within the White House, leading FactCheck to conclude: “We frankly find Clinton’s past position on NAFTA to be ambivalent.” The second charge is more or less accurate, though lacking in details. Both campaigns have gone a bit overboard in stressing the one major difference in their health care initiatives, the mandate that is at the center of this accusation. It is true that Clinton’s plan would force people to buy insurance, perhaps even if they couldn’t afford it. What the mailer doesn’t mention is that Clinton and Obama both would offer subsidies to make health care more affordable and, by not mandating coverage, Obama’s plan could pass unforeseen costs on to the taxpayer. Clinton responded to the Obama fliers with outrage, but then sent out her own mailer that distorted the truth. The subject, once again, was NAFTA. Citing two articles that covered the same 2004 event, the mailer portrayed Obama as a free trader while omitting key quotes that moderated his position, including: “The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of workers and communities.” The good news in all this is the topic. When is the last time, outside of a Dennis Kucinich stump speech, that trade agreements and the plight of the American worker got this much attention? Read more on FactCheck.org about Obama’s NAFTA and health care mailers. Read more about Clinton’s response attack. Read David Sirota’s column on Clinton and NAFTA. Update: The Associated Press fact checks Clinton and Obama’s records on NAFTA. Previous item: Republicans Probe Race, Gender Boundaries Next item: Iraq to Turkey: Get Out Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
AIDS and the Myth of the Oversexed Negro
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Bruce, February 26 at 10:26 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Billary, sorry, Hillary, please you can still pip Obama at the post, just turn on the waterworks sweetheart, cry those eyes out honeypie, cause nothing like a weepy wench distorts a man’s judgment more than the sight and sound of a wailing WHITE woman.
Report thisBy Liza, February 26 at 9:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Before Iowa, I was almost neutral about Hillary Clinton and her being the Democratic nominee in 2008. My biggest problems with her had to do with foreign policy.
At this point, I think she is the most DESPICABLE woman in the US. Enough said.
Report thisBy Maani, February 26 at 8:35 am #
May I ask a question, to which I hope to get a serious and honest response?
When I posted the same thing on three threads, I was accused of being a “troll” and of “spamming” those threads. This would seem to suggest that it is considered “spamming” - and poor etiquette - to simply jump from thread to thread posting the same thing.
So why does MMC “get a free pass” here as he posts the exact same thing on every single thread on the entire website?
Just wondering…
Report thisBy RdV, February 26 at 8:04 am #
LOL!
Yes, I do believe school marm, Ms Hillary has been doing some chastising.
Report thisIt is surreal to watch her act out on the world stage when it is such a mediocre performance. Billary has no shame and that is their asset--nothing humiliates them, nothing embarrasses them, nothing humbles them. They are dysfunctional and I find myself watching with a mix of fascination and repulsion.
By CHENEYSATAN, February 26 at 7:49 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Interesting that you feel this way. Many Americans just assume nafta is a big giveaway to other countries. I know from my own reading that it has decimated agriculture in those countries. Local farmers are losing their farms, held for many generations, because they cant compete with mass produced high mechanized and subsidized farming in the US. Who wins? besides Big scale agribusiness? not the US taxpayer, thats for sure
Report thisBy Aegrus, February 26 at 7:33 am #
Hillary is just embarrassing herself now. Both of these candidates support FTA’s. It’s a complete bunk argument to have. Just because Hillary can’t stand up to her past unless she cherry picks parts which put her in a good light doesn’t mean anything when both candidates essentially stand equal on the issue.
Report thisBy Maani, February 26 at 7:31 am #
RdV:
What part of “...it’s a question of who to trust. The short answer is no one” didn’t you get? Or did you miss the parts that chastised Obama for HIS role in misrepresenting HILLARY’s positions?
Peace.
Report thisBy RdV, February 26 at 7:00 am #
that increasingly Hillary is morphing into Nixon?
Report thisBetween the dark glares behind the smile mask that harden the more resentful she feels, the dirty tricks and secrecy, the meaness, the mocking, the bitter resent, the questionable record, and now the public debasement…
By Expat, February 26 at 6:27 am #
^ down with FTA’s. I live in a country currently negotiating with the U.S. on an FTA. While it holds my adopted country to many good agreements regarding the environment and social/physical infrastructure (clean drinking water, proper sewage treatment); it basically screws them on the actual goods imported and exported and gives the U.S. a commanding presence and financial advantage. With all of this; it ignores this countries financial inability to implement the sweeping infrastructure changes demanded by the FTA. Make no mistake; the U.S. is only looking out for its own advantage at any cost. My adopted country has refused to go along. This is both good and bad because we need serious environmental programs to save the environment here. In this, the U.S. is the villain, which is becoming the norm.
Report this