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 [1]
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 [2]
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?
1825 K Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006
202-955-5665 (tel) | 202-955-5606 (fax) | www.ourfuture.org
Links:
[1] http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=7348981&nav=HMO6HMaY
[2] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/clinton-says-yes-to-peru/