Huh?

Can someone please explain to me how this is consistent?

TODAY:

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wants to take a close look at foreign trade deals. She says she'll call a 'time out' on trade agreements if she wins the White House.'" - Associated Press, 11/12/07

FOUR DAYS AGO:

"Clinton Says Yes to Peru Deal...Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, after prodding from a rival campaign, has issued positions on several trade deals currently before Congress, including her support for an agreement with Peru that is dividing her party." - New York Times, 11/8/07

I guess technically the two statements don't contradict each other, in the same way I guess you could technically question what the definition of "is" is. I mean, yeah, she could be for a strategic pause when she's president, but not just now. But I'd say that would be a pretty strange position. Why should we take such a "time out" in a year, but not now?

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future