[RamRod]

I know Bill pushed NAFTA as did his predecessor, and Hillary has come out saying it should be reviewed. I don’t know that she ever had a pro-NAFTA stance other than supporting her husband. I think NAFTA does need our attention.
As for abortion, I’ve never known her stance to be other than pro-choice. On torture she advocates following the Geneva Convention but does not condemn questionable techniques like waterboarding. Is that a surprise? From what I’ve seen John McCain is the only candidate to outright denounce torture. The debated technique is waterboarding. I’m sure if you spelled out all of the things one could or could not use for interrogation you would get a more definitive response. Ask a vague question, get a vague answer.
On Guantanamo, I’m not aware of any stance change. Perhaps you could be more specific.
On campaign fundraising, I view it as the same mudslinging the GOP did during the last Clinton campaign. The fact is, accusations flew but nothing could be substantiated. It would greatly disturb me if Hillary was selling out to the Chinese and as so would not receive my vote. But, aside from right-wing accusations there has been no evidence. Another fact that you are missing is special interest groups are going to find a way to contribute to any horse they think might win the race. The Chinese were suspected of doing the same thing on the other side of the table. http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&Affiliat ion=C&PressRelease_id=318&Month=4&Year=2003
But no action because of no real evidence. So who is to say what is real and what is rhetoric? I’d like to thing our overwhelmingly right-wing justice system would happily snap the cuffs on Hillary is she were really doing anything illegal.
By the way, the delay in your response tells me you actually research and give thought to your argument. That is more than a lot of people do and I appreciate it!