Barack Obama to attack Hillary on NAFTA, Iraq.

Hillary Clinton will try to tell you otherwise. She will claim that she oppposed NAFTA all along. But here is Obama's closing argument to the people of Ohio:

Real change isn’t calling NAFTA a victory and saying how good it was for America until you decide to run for President, like Senator Clinton did.

In response, The Hub writes:

Hillary started criticizing NAFTA long before she ran for President. In her run for Senate in 2000, she called NAFTA "flawed."

But then, in 2003, in her own book, she called it a legislative victory for her husband and said that she pushed for it in addition to her healthcare plan. She can't have it both ways -- she should either stick to one line or stick to the other.

In Sen. Obama's run for Senate in 2004, it was reported that Sen. Obama told a group of farmers that "the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA" and the U.S. should "pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

But context matters. It is telling that the Hub does not include the links to the original story. There is a big difference between stating an advantage of NAFTA and supporting it by pushing for it to be included in the legislative agenda and calling it a legislative victory like Hillary did.

Next, Obama will say:

Real change isn’t saying that you’ll stand up to lobbyists and special interests when you’ve taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any Democrat or Republican running for President, like my opponent has.

The Hub responds:

Hillary has been standing up to the drug industry, the insurance industry, the oil industry and other interests represented by lobbyists her whole life. That's why she voted against the Bush/Cheney energy bill, which was written by oil industry lobbyists, while Sen. Obama voted for it.

The vote on the energy bill is a fair criticism; however, the rest of the argument is flawed. Hillary Clinton, once again, is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, she is saying here that she is standing up to the drug companies. But on the other hand, she equated lobbyists with ordinary Americans at the Yearly Kos Convention last year.

The Hub then cites this article from the Wall Street Journal.

That doesn't mean Sen. Obama has shunned lobbyists altogether. Business lobbyists often are the most knowledgeable people on policy issues, and since many got their start on Capitol Hill or at federal regulatory agencies, they often have strong grasps of both politics and policy -- expertise that presidential campaigns, including Sen. Obama's, need.

Daniel Shapiro, who advises Sen. Obama on foreign policy issues, is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute and other corporate clients. Broderick Johnson, a friend and informal political adviser, heads up the lobbying arm in Washington of the Bryan Cave LLP law firm, where he represents Verizon and Shell Oil, among other clients.

Mr. Johnson sees no conflict in Sen. Obama seeking lobbyists' advice while declining their donations. "Sen. Obama's overriding objective is to break the link between lobbyists, their money and their petitioning of the government," Mr. Johnson said. "It doesn't matter to him if you're contributing through your personal efforts."

The reason that lobbyists have the kind of power that they do is because they can keep Congressmen informed on legislation that they might be unaware of otherwise. Most Congressmen do not have the kind of time necessary to wade through the thousands of pages of bills that go through Congress every day. Becoming knowledgeable about public policy and then informing Congresspeople is what these people are paid to do. But Obama has taken an important first step -- he has refused to take contributions from them.

I don't think any reasonable person would advocate getting rid of lobbyists altogether. But what I do think is that if we are to change the way things are done in Washington, then we have to focus more and more on what is going on; calling attention to bills, hearings, and other such proceedings; watching C-Span on a regular basis; seeing where our taxpayer dollars are going. In other words, if we are to take back power in Washington, we have to become the kind of information source for Obama and our other elected officials that lobbyists are/were. Even people like Obama don't know everything that is going on around the world.

Obama will say:

Real change isn’t voting for a bankruptcy bill that makes it harder for working families to climb out of debt and then saying that you’re glad it didn’t pass once you start running for President. One of the first things I did when I got to the Senate was fight against the credit card industry’s bankruptcy bill...

The Hub responds:

This is a distortion that Sen. Obama has repeated throughout the campaign. Hillary said she regretted her 2001 vote, which is why she was glad the bill didn't pass.

But try explaining that to the voters, who rejected John Edwards' admission of being wrong on his vote for the AUMF. I accepted that admission; however, most Democrats did not -- they would rather have a candidate like Barack Obama who is right in the first place.

Obama has expressed no regret for voting against an amendment that would have capped interest rates at 30%.

But, as Obama had said, the bill was poorly thought-out -- the cap was too high, it had never gone through hearings, and it had not been discussed or vetted. We need more legislators like that who will make sure that they know what they are voting on before they approve it. Russ Feingold, for instance, was the only Senator who actually read the Patriot Act before voting against it; Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Senate did not. Obama did the responsible thing here.

Obama says:

And real change isn’t voting for George Bush’s war in Iraq and then telling the American people it was actually a vote for more diplomacy when you start running for President.

The Hub responds:

This is false. What Hillary has said was that she wanted President Bush to pursue aggressive inspections. And that's exactly what she said on the floor of the Senate in 2002: "War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections."

Then, she should have voted against the AUMF in the first place -- the intent of the bill was very clear from the title -- it was not titled "A bill to protect the integrity and security of the UN." It was a bill that gave the President a blank check to invade Iraq. It's too bad that Hillary did not speak up when the bombs first started to fall on Iraq and declare that this was never the intent of Congress for the President not to work through the UN. Bush's action was never approved by the UN Security Council, and there was no clear and present danger from Saddam Hussein.

The fact of the matter is that Congress has the Constitutional power to declare war on countries, and we are bound by the Constitution to follow treaties that we sign. The UN Charter, which has the force of law, requires that we work through the UN in order to take military action against countries like Iraq. And furthermore, with her vote, her vote was an abdication of responsibility for Congressional oversight of our foreign policy. The principle is clear -- if someone is in breach of UN resolutions, then it is for the UN to enforce them, not the President of the United States. Hillary's vote did grave damage to the system of checks and balances in this country by giving the President a blank check to invade Iraq. We are still trying to restore that system.