ABC's Tapper distorted Clinton's comments on NAFTA
SUMMARY: In a blog post, ABC's Jake Tapper wrote, "Campaigning in Indiana on Friday, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, claimed to have been a 16-year vocal opponent of NAFTA." But in the very comments Tapper cited, Clinton did not assert that she had "been a 16-year vocal opponent of NAFTA"; rather, she said she "spoke out" against NAFTA starting in 1992.
In a March 31 post on his Political Punch blog, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper wrote, "Campaigning in Indiana on Friday, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, claimed to have been a 16-year vocal opponent of NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement]." But in the very comments Tapper cited, Clinton did not assert that she had "been a 16-year vocal opponent of NAFTA"; rather, she said she "spoke out" against NAFTA starting in 1992. As Tapper himself reported, Clinton said, "I spoke out against it starting in 1992 -- the president made a different decision. ... I think now with 14 years of experience under our belt, we can see that in some parts of our country there have been, perhaps, some economic advantages, but in other parts of our country, like where we are right here in northwest Indiana, it hasn't worked as it was promised, and therefore I think we need to renegotiate it."
Moreover, Clinton's comments are consistent with past comments -- previously reported by Tapper, but not included in his March 31 blog post -- by former presidential adviser David Gergen: "I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that's putting it mildly. I'm not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn't see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there's some justification for her camp saying, you know, she's never been a great backer for NAFTA."
Tapper's blog post, headlined "Hillary claims she 'spoke out against' NAFTA starting in 1992," in full:
Campaigning in Indiana on Friday, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, claimed to have been a 16-year vocal opponent of NAFTA.
"I spoke out against it starting in 1992 -- the president made a different decision," Clinton said. "I think now with 14 years of experience under our belt, we can see that in some parts of our country there have been, perhaps, some economic advantages, but in other parts of our country, like where we are right here in northwest Indiana, it hasn't worked as it was promised, and therefore I think we need to renegotiate it."
Given that Clinton was the headline attraction at a pro-NAFTA meeting in November 1993 and was praising NAFTA in public throughout the 90s, the claim seemed interesting. When was she "speaking out" against it?
Clinton campaign communications director Howard Wolfson says that Clinton argued against supporting NAFTA internally on the 1992 campaign before then-Gov. Bill Clinton decided to support it.
Would you consider that to be "speaking out against it"?
What do you think about the story, Bobthep? Is Tapper right, or is Media Matters right?
What is McBush's position on NAFTA? I haven't heard.
"But Hillary was not against NAFTA when we needed her , back in 93..."
Interesting position BobtheP. Let's try this scenario out... You're the President and you want some legislation passed but your wife disagrees with you. Hmmnn... what to do, what to do? Oh yeah, you just tell her to schedule a press conference to let the media know how she feels. That way she's covered if she ever decides to run for President herself.
More word parsing silliness from MMFA. 1992-2008 = 16 years. When Mrs. Clinton says she "spoke out against it STARTING in 1992", that essentially means she claims she has been a 16 year opponent of NAFTA.
Just more Clinton wanting it both ways and is pandering to those whose votes she wants, now claiming she "internally" opposed NAFTA, does anybody really believe her?
I do not believe her , that is why I have been supporting Obama.
This pandering and insincerity appears to be part of a conspiracy that extends beyond Hillary. In addition to David Gergen being an accomplice in this "he said, she said," we also have other conspriators:
Clinton biographer Carl Bernstein:
"She argued with Bill Clinton when she was First Lady, her husband, she said ‘Bill, you are doing Republican economics when you are doing NAFTA.’ She was against NAFTA."
Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith:
"The economic team and other key advisors, including Mack McLarty, Mickey Kantor, and David Gergen, were likewise urging Bill to use his momentum to push or congressional ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)...Liberal Democrats, including Hillary, opposed it primarily because it could take jobs away from American workers."
Robert Shapiro, undersecretary of commerce during the Clinton White House years:
"The whole time that she was first lady," said Robert Shapiro, the undersecretary of commerce during the Clinton White House years, "she, like everybody else...[was] not supposed to deviate from the position of the administration. There is no freedom of speech in there, and that certainly applies to a first lady."
Mickey Kantor, former U.S. Secretary of Commerce:
"President Clinton had to make a decision as governor, whether or not he would support [George H.W. Bush's] NAFTA, and of course he did... Hillary Clinton was one of the great skeptics in the discussion as to whether he should do. So she was always skeptical beginning in 1992 and onward."
So this appears to be a deep-rooted conspiracy on the part of many people to put us under a false impression that Hillary was privately opposed to or skeptical of NAFTA. But as the right-wing taught us back in 1998, what goes on privately in the White House isn't important <snark>.
It's a question of.... "first spoke out 15 years ago" and has been a "vocal opponent for 15 years". Some would say it means the same thing but it doesn't. The second phrase is what Tapper thinks Hillary is implying. It's not what she said. Others argue that "speaking out" must be in public. Speaking out in private to the president and others doesn't count to them.
News men should quote, not paraphrase.
Yep, no pandering on this issue by Clinton speaking to distressed workers in Indiana by patting them on the head and telling them how she began voicing her opposition to NAFTA in 1992, or as Tapper correctly points out, she claims she has been a vocal opponent of NAFTA for 16 years.
Wow, what incredible misinformation, I can understand your distraction.
Robert Shapiro, undersecretary of commerce during the Clinton White House years:
"The whole time that she was first lady, she, like everybody else...[was] not supposed to deviate from the position of the administration. There is no freedom of speech in there, and that certainly applies to a first lady."
I did not render a verdict and say it definitely wasn't insincerity or pandering.
What I'm saying is if that's the case, she's not alone and it must be an organized effort of some kind to rewrite history, since there are numerous others who corroborate it.
Are these people conspirators? Or were they coerced under threat of the "Vince Foster" option? Or, God forbid, is she being sincere?
Absolutely Tom,
McCain is just a profile in courage.
He was against the religious right extremist before he was for them.
He was against the Bush tax cuts for millionaires before he was for them.
He was against pandering to the far right on immigration, before he was for it.
He was against the confederate flag before he was for it.
talk about pandering.
Tommy, do you disagree with this part of the statement?
"I think now with 14 years of experience under our belt, we can see that in some parts of our country there have been, perhaps, some economic advantages, but in other parts of our country, like where we are right here in northwest Indiana, it hasn't worked as it was promised, and therefore I think we need to renegotiate it."
I am often reminded, and scolded, that the emphasis here is on the media misinformation and the person doing it, not the politician. In that regard, Tapper distorted nothing.
Nothing is perfect, NAFTA overall has been a good thing.
ah yes, word parsing. A petty take on what could be a decent discussion about substance. <sigh!>
Tommy, thought you'd appreciate this!
MMFA claims Tapper is distorting her comments, while he is clearly not.
I agree with you Tommy.
"I spoke out against it starting in 1992..." [bold mine]
Sounds to me like she's claiming to be a 16-year vocal opponent of NAFTA.
If I said "I spoke out against illegal immigration starting in 1992" wouldn't you figure I'd been a vocal opponent for 16 years?
If Tapper appears to be misinterpreting Hillary's statement it's because she left the impression that she had in fact been a 16 year opponent of NAFTA.
So in this case it's her own fault, not his.
Sir Jeter, you devil. Playing dead isn't nice. I was concerned about you. Of course I haven't been here too much either for some of the same reasons as you. And you thought we'd never agree on anything. ;-0)
Hello again my sweet Lady Julia :-)
Yeah I had to take a few weeks off from this place just to clear my head. I'll admit watching Dems snarl at each other was barrels of fun at first, but you know what they say about too much of a good thing...
I'd bet you & I probably agree at least 50% of the time. Not too bad for Con-Boy & a Lib-Girl ;-)
Yes, I think you're right, er correct. We probably agree at least 50% or more. You are after all the self described "fairest poster of them all". ;-) At least that's what your mirror says. Ha.
You are after all the self described "fairest poster of them all". ;-) At least that's what your mirror says
Now that Lady Julia was clever. And it made me laugh. We need more laughter here...too many grumps lately.
Sounds to me like she's claiming to be a 16-year vocal opponent of NAFTA.
Oh yes. Why report what someone says when you can instead say what it "sounds like to you". That is the gist of the MMFA post.
ABC News. We tell what the news "sounds like to us".
Be alert. We need more lerts.
Can't let the pooples take over.
What bugs me is the claim that her opposition has been consistent, well-documented, and verified (claims easily found on youtube). Consistent? Obviously not. Well-documented and verified? Her own campaign doesn't seem to be able to document or verify any history of opposition, if all they can do in response is claim that she opposed it internally before supporting it publicly.
The issue to me isn't whether she did or didn't support NAFTA in the 90s. The problem is that she is again saying something that is demonstrably false, seeming to figure that no one will bother to check.