And, lest we forget, NAFTA passed the Democratic-controlled House in 1993 with a majority of Democrats -- 156 to 102 -- voting against it. Union leaders blame the passage of NAFTA in part for the Democrats' loss of control of Congress to the Republicans in the 1994 election.
As president, Bill Clinton’s support of trade agreements with Mexico, Canada, China and other nations often put him at odds with fellow Democrats and labor leaders who backed a more protectionist approach. Bill Clinton argued that Democrats should support lower barriers to trade because the nation, on balance, would benefit.
And What About Clinton Controversy Over Colombia Free-Trade Pact?
Then there's the not-so-small matter of Bill Clinton's staunch support for a free-trade agreement with Colombia that is deeply unpopular with working-class Americans because of past free-trade agreements Clinton pushed through while he was president that have cost America hundreds of thousands of jobs that working-class Americans have historically relied upon.
President Bush tried to ram through the Colombia trade pact through Congress by putting it on the "fast track" with a 90-day deadline for Congress to cast an up-or-down vote. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sensing an attempt by Bush to drive a wedge between Democrats and one of their most loyal constituencies -- blue-collar workers -- led House Democrats to kill the 90-day deadline, putting the trade pact in indefinite limbo.
That both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama fiercely oppose the Colombia free-trade pact -- and that the Clinton campaign was forced to publicly acknowledge a split between Bill and Hillary over the issue -- is sure to undermine Clinton's claim that Obama is an "elitist."
Clinton's campaign spokesman, Jay Carson, was forced to acknowledge that, “Like other married couples who disagree on issues from time to time, she disagrees with her husband on this issue. President Clinton has been public about his support for Colombia’s request for U.S. trade preferences since 2000.”
Adding to Senator Clinton's credibility problems: The firing of her top campaign strategist, Mark Penn, a week ago Sunday, after it was reported that he had met with Colombia’s ambassador to the United States to discuss passage of the agreement. Colombia was a client of Penn’s large public relations firm, Burson-Marsteller.
A $100 Million Fortune Amassed by Clintons in Just Seven Years
While the Clintons' personal wealth pales in comparison to billionaires like Trump, Murdoch and Gates, it is nonetheless highly disingenous to this blogger that the Clintons can claim to be able to connect with working-class Americans anymore, especially since Bill Clinton has amassed more wealth in the past seven years since leaving the White House than all three of his immediate predecessors -- and certainly more than most working-class Americans, this blogger included, can even dream of amassing in an entire lifetime.
According to an analysis by Politico.com, the Clintons' multi-million-dollar fortune hasn’t kept the 61-year-old Bill Clinton from taking maximum advantage of the publicly-funded perks offered to former presidents. In fact, his presidential retirement benefits cost taxpayers almost as much as those of the nation's other two living ex-presidents -- Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, both 83 -- combined.
The price tag for Clinton’s federal retirement allowance from 2001 through the end of this year will run $8 million, compared to $5.5 million for the senior Bush and $4 million for Carter during the same period.
Since 2001, according to Politico.com, Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to former presidents than his predecessors -- from his pension to his staff’s salaries and benefits to supplies. His $420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both nearly surpassed the totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and the late former presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined. As a group, they spent $484,000 on telephone service and $3.8 million on rent in the same span.
And Hillary Clinton has made millions of dollars in her own right from royalties on her best-selling book, Living History. Even before the book was published, she received a near-record $8 million advance from her publisher, Simon & Shuster (Which, ironically, is owned by the News Corporation, controlled by the Clintons' political arch-nemesis, Murdoch).
So for Hillary Clinton to accuse Obama of being "elitist" and "out of touch" with working-class Americans is ludicrous, given how far removed she and her husband are from working-class Americans themselves.
Indeed, to say that the New York senator and former first lady is full of hypocritical B.S. on this issue is an understatement. Combined with getting caught in a lie about coming under sniper fire while on a visit to Bosnia in 1996, is it any wonder that Hillary's lead over Obama in Pennsylvania is crumbling?
As president, Bill Clinton’s support of trade agreements with Mexico, Canada, China and other nations often put him at odds with fellow Democrats and labor leaders who backed a more protectionist approach. Bill Clinton argued that Democrats should support lower barriers to trade because the nation, on balance, would benefit.
And What About Clinton Controversy Over Colombia Free-Trade Pact?
Then there's the not-so-small matter of Bill Clinton's staunch support for a free-trade agreement with Colombia that is deeply unpopular with working-class Americans because of past free-trade agreements Clinton pushed through while he was president that have cost America hundreds of thousands of jobs that working-class Americans have historically relied upon.
That both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama fiercely oppose the Colombia free-trade pact -- and that the Clinton campaign was forced to publicly acknowledge a split between Bill and Hillary over the issue -- is sure to undermine Clinton's claim that Obama is an "elitist."
Clinton's campaign spokesman, Jay Carson, was forced to acknowledge that, “Like other married couples who disagree on issues from time to time, she disagrees with her husband on this issue. President Clinton has been public about his support for Colombia’s request for U.S. trade preferences since 2000.”
Adding to Senator Clinton's credibility problems: The firing of her top campaign strategist, Mark Penn, a week ago Sunday, after it was reported that he had met with Colombia’s ambassador to the United States to discuss passage of the agreement. Colombia was a client of Penn’s large public relations firm, Burson-Marsteller.
A $100 Million Fortune Amassed by Clintons in Just Seven Years
While the Clintons' personal wealth pales in comparison to billionaires like Trump, Murdoch and Gates, it is nonetheless highly disingenous to this blogger that the Clintons can claim to be able to connect with working-class Americans anymore, especially since Bill Clinton has amassed more wealth in the past seven years since leaving the White House than all three of his immediate predecessors -- and certainly more than most working-class Americans, this blogger included, can even dream of amassing in an entire lifetime.
According to an analysis by Politico.com, the Clintons' multi-million-dollar fortune hasn’t kept the 61-year-old Bill Clinton from taking maximum advantage of the publicly-funded perks offered to former presidents. In fact, his presidential retirement benefits cost taxpayers almost as much as those of the nation's other two living ex-presidents -- Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, both 83 -- combined.
The price tag for Clinton’s federal retirement allowance from 2001 through the end of this year will run $8 million, compared to $5.5 million for the senior Bush and $4 million for Carter during the same period.
Since 2001, according to Politico.com, Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to former presidents than his predecessors -- from his pension to his staff’s salaries and benefits to supplies. His $420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both nearly surpassed the totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and the late former presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined. As a group, they spent $484,000 on telephone service and $3.8 million on rent in the same span.
And Hillary Clinton has made millions of dollars in her own right from royalties on her best-selling book, Living History. Even before the book was published, she received a near-record $8 million advance from her publisher, Simon & Shuster (Which, ironically, is owned by the News Corporation, controlled by the Clintons' political arch-nemesis, Murdoch).
So for Hillary Clinton to accuse Obama of being "elitist" and "out of touch" with working-class Americans is ludicrous, given how far removed she and her husband are from working-class Americans themselves.
Indeed, to say that the New York senator and former first lady is full of hypocritical B.S. on this issue is an understatement. Combined with getting caught in a lie about coming under sniper fire while on a visit to Bosnia in 1996, is it any wonder that Hillary's lead over Obama in Pennsylvania is crumbling?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
