Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton hits China again on toy safety

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 09:05 AM
Original message
Clinton hits China again on toy safety
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/11/clinton_hits_ch.html

Clinton hits China again on toy safety
By Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor November 23, 07 03:28 PM

On one of the year's busiest shopping days, Hillary Clinton pushed back today against criticism from the Chinese government over her condemnations of lead-tainted and other unsafe toys.

A spokesman on Thursday said that the Chinese government is "conscientious" about product quality and safety, blamed design flaws by foreign companies, and said that "any slander or exaggeration of facts is irresponsible."

In a statement issued this afternoon by her campaign, Clinton hit back: "This is the same government that just this month revoked the licenses of more than 750 of its toy companies because of quality control problems and ordered another 690 to renovate or improve their facilities, even as it asserted that 99 percent of toy exports met quality standards, And the Chinese government's watchdog agency reported earlier this year that 20 percent of the toys made and sold in China pose safety risks. That is unacceptable."

Other Democratic presidential candidates have also called for tougher steps, including restricting imports or sending US inspectors to China.

more...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. What the hell did she expect from "free trade" and MFN for China?
This kind of stuff is the inevitable result of the "free trade" policies the DLC/Clintons champion.

The very fact that the US economy has become so dependent on the whims of the Chinese government for our products belies the "promise" of globalization.

The fact that our policies either encourage -- or are apathetic enablers -- of the corporate trend to ship production overseas is biting us in the butt. And it will continue to.

Of course "it's all about the children" so Hillary is safe in verbally beating up on China on this particular problem. Meanwhile, the whole type of economics she champions is ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yawn......typical, anti-Clinton attack here on DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. How about giving a pro-Clinton defense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. How about attacking repukes?
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 01:57 PM by cuke
They're the ones blocking nforcement of safety, labor, and environmental regulations.

And what do you want to hear about Clinton? That she is single handedly inspecting every toy that comes in from China?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. now how the hell is that post an 'attack' on Clinton?
The poster has some very serious and good comments on free trade, etc. and you want to turn it into a hater thread. good fucking christ what is wrong with you people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Can you please explain how the "free trade" policies with China
helped contribute to China making defective products?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. China doesn't have to comply with the same safety, labor, environmental and...
...other standards that the US does when making toys or anything else that is imported into the US.

Prisoners make the toys and in many cases die from fire, poisoning and suffocation due to inhumane factory standards. The toys made are copies that don't have to comply with licensing standards. The materials to make the toys don't have to comply with US standards.

China MFN, later renamed normal trade relations (NTR), allows China to avoid all basic standards under the ruse that it's a way to make "democracy" happen in China.

Who passed the legislation? Who voted FOR the legislation? Do some homework and see who the usual suspects are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Wrong
WTO has standards. Blame the repukes for not making sure they were being enforced
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. So if someone votes for legislation, they shouldn't be held accountable for its repercussions?
The Clintons gave China normal trade relations. Are they too fucking stupid to know what will happen with their support?

I know... it's free pass time. No one is accountable. It's all an animation.

:crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. with that logic...
...the legislature is responsible when someone breaks a law that they pass. Hmmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. So if you vote for something, it doesn't really matter what way you vote?
How convenient...

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. ummm...no I was responding to the conversation here on this thread
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 03:01 PM by Evergreen Emerald
If NAFTA has safeguards that are not followed or enforced, that is no more the fault of the legislature than when someone breaks any law.

If I choose to drive my car beyond the speed limit, the legislature is not to blame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zueda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #26
58. Why would Hillary want the rules enforced?
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 10:43 AM by Zueda
Wouldn't that hurt Wal-Mart's bottom dollar?

on edit: seriously...if China used the same environment and labor rules as here in the states wouldn't that negate the whole purpose of "free trade" from the corporate viewpoint?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. They are morally responsible and professionally responsible to make the right decision for Americans
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 03:05 PM by ClarkUSA
But Hillaryworld is beyond such silly notions such as moral responsibility, didn't you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
37. Ask Ross Perot.
He explained it ALL in 1992.
This is NOT a new issue, though some feign surprise when the US markets are flooded with substandard or hazardous retail products from 3rd World countries with horrible Human Rights/Environmental/LABOR records.
This was BOUND to happen.
Don't look so surprised.

This is similar to Condi Rice's famous look when she stated, "No one could have imagined they would use airplanes as weapons".


EACH & EVERY restriction on "Trade" was put into place to protect something IMPORTANT!

EACH & EVERY restriction on "Trade" should be reviewed periodically to determine if they are still necessary or helpful to the American consumer and the Human Rights, Environmental Quality and Organized LABOR of the trade partner.

Blanket removal of ALL trade (Corporate) restrictions is NEVER a good idea.


”Unlike other candidates, I am not funded by those corporate interests.
I owe them no loyalty, and they have no influence over me or my policies.”
---Dennis Kucinich

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. may I ask what could end up being a stupid question?
the chinese government is selling american brand name dangerous toys?

okay, I'm not in the loop on this - but it is my understanding that the many recalled toys were American Brand Names. That means American Corporations sold some rights to the manufacturers in China (or just set up a sweat shop there) to make their brand and it is these same corporations who are Responsible for their products to be safe in the market no matter where they are made or who they are sold to.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlertLurker Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. Differences of Opinion on China:
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 11:14 AM by AlertLurker
In 2000, Hillary Clinton supported giving Most Favoured Nation Status to China, despite concerns over human rights at the time. http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm


Kucinich voted NO on giving China Most Favoured Nation Status, Voted YES on deterring arms sales to China, and voted NO on giving China Permanent Normal Trade Relations. If Congress had listened THEN, the USA might not be in the economic/trade/product liability mess it is in NOW.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Dennis_Kucinich_Foreign_Policy.htm

"The time to worry about China trade was really when some of my friends up here on the stage actually voted for most favored nation. Now, as president, my most favored nation is America."


Support Dennis Kucinich TODAY. He's the "real deal."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. Funny how her campaign manager Mark Penn is the PR rep of a big Chinese recalled toys maker
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 11:10 AM by ClarkUSA
Hillary chief strategist, Mark Penn, is the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, the PR company that represents Aquadots. Aquadots were
recalled by United States Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The Aqua Dots recall is one of the most serious announced by CPSC in recent years. When we first announced the recall on Wednesday,
we knew of two children who had fallen into non-responsive comas after ingesting the beads used with this arts and crafts toy. Since
the recall was announced, we have learned of seven additional incidents, some involving children who had to be hospitalized. —Scott
Wolfson, Deputy Director, Consumer Product Safety Commission, November 9, 2007.


http://anthonybarba.net/

Ah, the Politics of Parsing candidate takes Hillaryworld Hypocrisy to a whole new level while pandering to women for the concerned mom's
vote. Some children's advocate she's turned out to be when she turns a blind eye to her own Karl Rove's business activities. I guess when
you're Hillary Clinton and already ignoring the fact that Penn represents PR for Blackwater and tobacco companies and has engineered foreign
coups by fixing exit polls, what's a few million recalled Chinese toys that killed kids across America? Winning is the only thing that matters,
right?

"Lobbyists are people, too." ~ Hillary Clinton at Yearly Kos 2007
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. LOL!!!
Mark Penn is now her campaign manager?

You guys are desperate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Um, Mark Penn IS Clinton's campaign manager AND her Karl Rove.
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 12:27 PM by ClarkUSA
Illuminations From Todays Washington Post profile of Clinton’s Campaign Manager and top confidant, Mark Penn:

In their $5 million Georgetown mansion, Penn and his wife, Nancy Jacobson, a former staff member for Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) who is now a fundraiser with the Clinton campaign, run something of a salon for like-minded friends. They recently threw a book party for Jeffrey Goldberg, the New Yorker writer, to celebrate the release of his memoir on Israel. On another occasion, they hosted David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist, for a dinner party and political discussion.

Penn has deep roots in the national security wing of the Democratic Party, along with other centrist Democrats — some of them Jewish and pro-Israel, like Penn — who saw the merits of invading Iraq before the war began.

Penn gained his foreign policy expertise working on numerous campaigns overseas, especially in Israel. In 1981, he and business partner Doug Schoen helped reelect Menachem Begin, one of the most right-wing prime ministers in the country’s history, and emerged with a new outlook on the Middle East. “We got a chance to experience firsthand the perils and possibilities that the state of Israel presents,” Schoen said in an interview.

Ever since, Penn has been a prominent advocate of conveying strength in foreign policy. As recently as the 2004 presidential contest, Penn argued that Democrats would lose if they failed to close the “security gap.” His client list includes prominent backers of the Iraq war, particularly Lieberman, whose presidential campaign Penn helped run in 2004, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose campaign he advised when Blair won a historic third term in 2005.

On no stormy sea has Penn been more of an anchor for Clinton than on Iraq, so far the defining issue of the 2008 election. “I don’t think there’s any gap in their thinking,” said Douglas Schoen, Penn’s former business partner.

Basically, this guy is Clinton’s Karl Rove in terms of how large of a factor he is in her decision making.


http://withinempire.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/hillary-clintons-campaign-manager-and-main-policy-advisor-is-a-neocon/

******

Clinton's PowerPointer
With Data and Slides, a Pollster Guides Campaign Strategy

It was fairly simple, Mark J. Penn said calmly to Vice President Al Gore, reporting the findings of an exhaustive survey he had conducted in the early stages of the 2000 presidential campaign. Voters liked Gore's policies. They just didn't like Gore.

Gore laughed, according to people who attended the meeting. He had heard that before. But the vice president, worried about the effect President Bill Clinton's scandals might have on his campaign, had another question for his pollster: Was there any evidence of this "Clinton fatigue" that people kept talking about?

"I'm not tired of him," Penn replied. "Are you?"

It was a flippant response -- and the final straw for Gore, who had long been wary of Penn and concerned that his real loyalty was to Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. His senior advisers agreed, regarding Penn as arrogant and controlling, someone who pushed the boundaries of his job by dispensing strategic advice rather than simply interpreting data. Shortly after the meeting with Gore, Penn was fired. One of the party's most prominent pollsters sat out the presidential campaign, but he signed up that year with a familiar face making her inaugural run for office in Penn's native New York -- Hillary Clinton.

Eight years later, it is Clinton who is running for president, and Penn, 53, is her chief strategist.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042901661.html

Try picking up a paper about the campaign sometime, too. I have.

Remember, reading is fundamental.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
43. Mark Penn is not her campaign manager
he's her "chief strategist." Her campaign manager is Patti Solis Doyle. Anything referring to Penn is her campaign manager (such as the blog you cited) is incorrect. Here's a blog entry from Hillary's own website by "Patti Solis Doyle, Campaign Manager"

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=14398

And one by "Mark Penn, Chief Strategist"

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=16443

It sounds to me like you're the one who needs to be a little more informed about the campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. Ah, splitting hairs will do when there's no distinction.
Everyone knows Mark Penn calls all the shots. He's a control freak's control freak. I rarely read an article that even mentions Doyle
(who's she but a loyal retainer left over from the Senate campaign days - which haven't been difficult, believe me) but I've read plenty
that mention Penn as her campaign manager. Maybe the reporters also need to read her website, eh?

If anything, being her"chief strategist" means he's her uber campaign manager because he's the one that pulls Hillaryworld's strings
regarding all things political. Patti Solis Doyle probably handles campaign operations which makes her more of a COO to Penn's
CEO with both marketing the packaging of their product: Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. it's not splitting hairs
there are different functions and different job titles in a campaign.

Penn is not her campaign manager. Neither is Terry McAuliffe, who has also been referred to here many times as her campaign manager.

It's a simple factual matter - and you were wrong. An adult would say simply "whoops! sorry!".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. Of course it is.
Penn is Clinton's de facto campaign manager and every political journalist on the campaign beat knows it.
What can you expect from The Politics of Parsing candidate, after all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. LOL
you're just wrong. Clinton has a campaign manager - it's not Mark Penn, despite what you think you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. I choose to trust the Washington Post and other news sources over Hillaryworld, thanks.
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 03:48 AM by ClarkUSA
The Queen of Parsing's campaign manager that's named in news reports like the ones I quoted and linked to is Mark Penn,
the same moral whore who represents the maker of one of the largest recall of Chinese toys in American history while
his candidate, also a moral whore, is denouncing unsafe Chinese toys.

Leave it to Hillaryworld acolytes/apologists to argue semantics and ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton is a morally bankrupt
hypocrite who is guided in all things by her Karl Rove, a man who defends tobacco companies and engineers foreign coups
by manipulating exit poll data. I guess cognitive dissonance is the only way a Democrat could support a Goldwater Girl.

Hillaryworld = Bizarro Bushworld

Mark Penn = Bizarro Karl Rove

Hillary Clinton = Guess who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. so you contend
that Mark Penn is actually Clinton's campaign manager?

That's some fine willfull ignorance you got going there!

You were simply wrong on his job designation. It shouldnt have been a big deal, but your refusal to acknowledge you were wrong on a simple factual matter says more about you than it does about this issue.


now... to the REAL question.

So what if her campaign strategist has a company that also represents chinese firms? How does this reflect badly on clinton in this situation? She wasn't defending China - she was attacking China. So any implied claims of a conflict of interest ring hollow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #56
59. The WP article you linked to didn't call him her campaign manager
it correctly called him her campaign strategist. Also, just because you don't hear about Patti Solis Doyle in the newspapers doesn't mean she doesn't mean she isn't calling the shots - you just don't hear about her because she very rarely talks to the press. Also, you said abouve that Patti was merely a loyal retainer from Hillary's Senate campaign - not entirely true. Patti has been with Hillary since the '92 campaign, so they've been through even more than just a couple of Senate campaigns together.

Listen, I certainly don't agree with all that Mark Penn does, but working with him doesn't make Hillary George Bush.

As for the former Goldwater Girl stuff, if we're going to vote for people based on what party they belonged to when they were young, why don't we all just go support former Democrat Rudy Giuliani? Or sing the praises of another former Democrat, Ronald Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Yep, very convenient the OP leaves this out. LOL. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
55. What's convenient about it?
Wouldn't it have been more convenient if it were left out from an article about Clinton defending China? This is about Clinton attacking China - so why is it convenient that the OP left this out?

It would've been more convenient to point it out - to show that Clinton is standing up for the right values, regardless of the interests of a campaign aid.

Or maybe you don't know what "convenient" means? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
9. Give China a free trade pass and expect what in return?
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 01:16 PM by zulchzulu
Like NAFTA, Hillary Clinton wants to black out the China MFN free trade legislation when she borrows her husband's resume to use as her own for "experience".

Did Bill and Hill want NAFTA together? Did Bill and Hill want China MFN status? Um... (insert cackle here), how dare you pick on a Goldwater Girl!

:boring:

So giving China a free pass like giving Bush a free pass on wars in Iraq and Iran is NOT to be discussed...gee, who wants to be called a "Hillary Hater"?

Let Captain Smith float the boat toward the iceberg. We all like to swim.

Was this press release available by clicking on the "Finger In The Wind" button on her web site?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Obama's record on trade is the same as Clintons
So is Edwards. Don't know where you got the idea there is a significant difference between any of the dem candidates, with the exception of Kucinich
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Wrong again. The facts: He never masterminded and pushed NAFTA and he voted against CAFTA.
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 02:35 PM by ClarkUSA
DLC Clinton and her ex-DLC chairman hubby lauded NAFTA for a decade up until recently, when she started pandering
to the Democratic base.

Fact:

Obama has a strong pro-labor voting record. Obama voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement and has said that NAFTA should be renegotiated. Obama has cosponsored many important bills to help workers, including: an increase in the minimum wage, and the Employee Free Choice Act. He also championed efforts in the Senate to help air traffic controllers engaged in a labor dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration.


http://obama.senate.gov/press/061023-senator_obamas_6/

Try again, this time with EVIDENCE to back up your nebulous assertions -- since you're so big on it on other threads:

cuke (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-24-07 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #42

48. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. IE the OP

That would be you


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3751966&mesg_id=3752941

lol

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. You should have had a WARNING: Facts and the truth may make your head explode
The records are the same if you count them as words on a page. Perhaps since the legislation contains words, then it must all be the same...no?

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Since when did Hillaryworlders let facts get in the way of smearing other candidates?
I think you've hit on their standard MO.


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Ironic
In another thread you got called on claiming Clinton's staff buildup began in November when it really began in October. Someone posted a link proving you wrong and you still are trying to avoid acknowledging your mistake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Blowing more hot air? The facts: Hillaryworld's staff interviewing began in early November
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 04:18 PM by ClarkUSA
I read the same article from the NYT in that other thread. In fact, I posted the article on DU when it was published.

You'd have to show me EVIDENCE otherwise because I saw the "PLEASE HELP ME!" ads by Clinton all over DC starting
in early November, after their advertising at a Virginia job fair on Oct. 28/29 didn't pan out well.

Own THAT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. The buildup began in October
you still can't admit it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. No, the idea was discussed in late October with want ads appearing in DC in early November.
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 04:20 PM by ClarkUSA
Prove your nebulous assertion with the ENTIRE context of the link you said you had. Otherwise, I and everyone will assume you're
full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Nope, the buildup began in October
You tried to claim that the buildup was in response to the polls, but your ridiculous claim has been shot down. The link clearly shows the buildup began in October
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. You keep repeating patent falsehoods and refuse to provide a link.
I feel sorry for you.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. You're wrong again
Hillary didn't mastermind or push NAFTA either and her opinion on NAFTA is the same as Obama's. They both want to modify NAFTA. Neither want to pull out of NAFTA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. The "two-for-one" Clinton presidency did mastermind AND push NAFTA.
Her opinion only changed once she decided to run for president. Prior to that, she was a big fan of the Clinton administration's
"accomplishment": NAFTA.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. So again you won't admit you were wrong
Now you want to change what you said and hope no one notices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. You keep parroting nonsense. Polly wanna cracker?
I feel sorry for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
44. Hillary never pushed for NAFTA. Actually, she encouraged her husband not to focus on it
From a 1993 article in Time Magazine:

The First Lady opposed making NAFTA a top priority this fall, senior officials point out, and remained silent on the subject for weeks. But Clinton campaigned hard for the treaty anyway, proving he could overcome long odds -- and his wife's doubts -- and win.


Link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979688,00.html

So, Hillary hardly pushed for NAFTA, and she also voted against CAFTA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. According to "senior officials," she didn't want NAFTA to be the focus in the fall of 1993.
That doesn't mean she didn't push for it to be passed, period. In fact, up until recently, she lauded NAFTA as one of the
premier accomplishments of the Clinton administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. I don't think it was something she was heavily involved in is my point
once her husband decided to push for it, it was pretty much a given that she was going to him because the First Lady isn't going to differ publicly with her husband. But it's not something she had a heavy hand in. And, like I said, she voted against CAFTA, so I don't think she's ever been a major of proponent of free trade, even if it's not something she's entirely against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. That's not a conclusion I can make from your quote.
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 09:06 PM by ClarkUSA
It seems to have been a timing disagreement more than anything else between the Clintons, not a philosophical difference. Anyway,
your sentence illustrates the problem I have with all of her positions on controversial issues:

I don't think she's ever been a major of proponent of free trade, even if it's not something she's entirely against.


Does she have convictions at all? Besides her belief that she must be president? Or is everything about her positions carefully triangulated
depending on what audience she is in front of?

Informative reading:

Hillary Clinton, NAFTA & Triangulation 2.0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-nafta-_b_71544.html

Hillary Clinton's Change of Heart
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2007/03/hillary_clinton.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
19. Most notibly, Joe Biden....
Like how that was left out;

From the debates;
SEN. BIDEN: If I were president, I'd shut down, flat shut down any imports from China, period, in terms of toys -- flat shut it down, number one. (Applause.)

Number two, imagine if this -- Morocco was selling these -- these toys. We would have shut it down a year ago.

They have mortgage on our house because Bush mortgaged us to a trillion dollars to them. He is responsible for this. This is outrageous.


CNN debate; Biden: President needs to cut off China. Shut it down. Enforce the WTO agreement.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveinMD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
20. here's the problem
we've allowed China to finance almost all of our debt. If they decide to sell off, our economy could really plummet and they've threatened to do so. This is why we need to pay down the national debt and why the last eight years have been such a disaster for our economic security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
36. H.R. 4444 [106th]: U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-4444

More Republicans voted for this bill and it was supported by big business. Labor, environmental and human rights organizations opposed the bill.

House vote
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2000-228

Senate vote
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2000-251


Clinton hails Senate vote on China trade

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/19/pntr.vote.hfr/index.html

"Critics argued that opening trade with China would reward a repressive communist state, undermine labor and environmental protections and cost jobs for U.S. workers. But Clinton said bringing China into the global trade regime will help make Beijing a more responsible and accountable member of the world community...

The Senate beat back 19 amendments on labor, covering environmental concerns, human rights and weapons proliferation, during the two weeks it argued over the measure. Any amendment would have required the bill go back to the House, where opposition was stronger."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/19/pntr.vote.hfr/index.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. OMG!!! You're one of the Hillary Haters!!!
It's NOT FAIR using her voting record and public statements to slime the next queen!!!
HATER!!!


There! I sure showed YOU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. Facts are stupid things
Ronny Raygun was a genius...

Heck, that quote was from 2000! Hillary Clinton changes her opinions on issues every 15 days or so...so that quote is irrelevant.

Plus it's all a right wing conspiracy Hannity talking point to point out what she actually said on record.

Plus you're picking on a girl!

Gee, what else...um... blame Clinton!

Um..what else... um... she's leading in the polls! Neener neener neener! Hater! Hater! Hater!

:crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #39
62. At least Dennis saw the problems before he voted on the bill and
to be fair Hillary did not vote on this bill, the same cannot be said for some other senators currently running for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Ouch!
Bookmarked for future thread use. Thanks. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #40
61. YW...just now catching up from the past week :) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough already Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
41. She's so courageous
*yawn*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carrieyazel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
46. Does she think releasing all these statements will change anything for her?
The damage was done in Philly on the day before Halloween. Smacks of desperation from Sen. Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
50. seeing how the Clintons are cozy with China, I'd say this is a nice pander for votes only
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
60. I usually don't comment on your plethora of Obama-bashing threads ...
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 01:59 PM by AtomicKitten
but I find the Clintons' support of NAFTA and particularly trade status with China at odds with Hillary's "concern" for the repercussions of same deliciously ironic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC