Shame on you, shame on you!” said Sen. Hillary Clinton on Saturday. No, she wasn’t scolding her dog for eating Friday night’s dinner or her husband for having another affair. She was talking to her competition in the democratic primaries: current front-runner Sen. Barack Obama.

Fliers circulated by the Obama campaign that went days without Clinton seeming to notice their existence outlined her stances on healthcare and NAFTA. It stated that Americans would be forced to pay for her healthcare plan even if they could not afford it, as well as her support on NAFTA. Lucky for that Good Samaritan to bring these fliers to her attention, or these “lies” might have gone unnoticed by anyone!

Let’s go back in time to 1993: President Bill Clinton was signing a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), promising that it would bring good jobs to Americans.

“Most Americans are working harder for less. They are vulnerable to the fear tactics and the adverseness to change that is behind much of the opposition to NAFTA,” said President Clinton in a press document of the NAFTA agreement.

Though Sen. Clinton arues the point that NAFTA was her husband’s deal and not her own, Sen. Obama was quick to point out that it was stated in her book as being a “success” of her husband’s. She has also said that it is good for the American people.

This is a fine line that Clinton has to decide between: supporting her husband or supporting her own views. Yet, we have only seen mixed viewpoints on her support of NAFTA.

Though Sen. Obama was quick to bash her husband’s plan, (which blended into her own) he has also said that he does not see NAFTA going away. Obama went onto say that it would result in more job loss to repeal it, reported an article on ABC news’ website.

Though Obama’s fliers showed Sen. Clinton’s (and her husband’s) original support for NAFTA, it does not help his campaign much if he does not offer any solutions or resolve for it.

Pointing out someone’s hypocrisy is helpful, yes, but does not do much purpose. The residents of Ohio probably already know or are now researching about NAFTA before they make their decision for the March 4 primary.

Yet, it does do one thing: show Hillary supporters that yes, indeed, she has supported NAFTA in the past. There is written and recorded evidence of this. She and her supporters can deny it all they want, but they can’t ignore the proof. If she changed her stance on the issue, then she should be honest and say it, instead of pretend like she has never supported it.

Thanks to the recent development of the Internet, it is easy for a voter to fact check a politician’s background and see if they have changed their support of any issues over the years.

This flier may bring light to something voters did not know about Hillary before, but I doubt it will change anyone’s mind. Hillary has supported her husband on almost everything (oh, that Monica), so it should be no surprise that she has repeatedly supported him on NAFTA. If it is a suprise to Hillary supporters now, then they should have paid better attention to their candidate.

The fliers were unnecessary for a candidate who is the current leader in the democratic race, but he sent a message out that he felt Ohio voters needed to hear.

If all fails and a voter cannot read between this democratic mess, they always have another, new (well, old) option: they can vote for Ralph Nader.