Looks to me like the LFT reporter was confused by their intentionally ambiguous statements, but that didn't stop him from writing at length.
Doubt this will help much, it is from the NY Times:

Despite NAFTA attacks, Clinton and Obama Haven't Been Free Trade Foes. Michael Luo. Feb. 28, 2008.
As they have tussled for votes in economically beleaguered Ohio, ...Obama and Clinton have both excoriated the North American Free Trade Agreement while lobbing accusations against their opponent on the issue.
Lost amid the posturing, however, is that both have staked out nuanced positions in the past on Nafta and have supported similar trade deals. Although their language has become much more hostile to free trade as they have exchanged charges and countercharges, neither of them would have been mistaken in the past for an ardent protectionist or a die-hard free trader.
Instead, both appear to have been part of the conflicted middle ground within the Democratic Party that is groping for a proper balance between being friendly to free trade agreements, believing they are beneficial to the economy, but also seeking to level the playing field for the United States when it comes to labor and environmental standards and addressing job losses that come with globalization.
............
"They're hedging their bets," said Rep. Mary Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat whose district in the northern part of the state has been decimated by job losses. "They're trying to have it both ways, and you can't."
For Mrs. Clinton, her past on the issue poses a special dilemma as she stumps fopr votes in Ohio, where Nafta is extremely unpopular, given that it was her husband, Pres. Bill Clinton, whose administration pushed through the trade agreement, making it a top priority and counting it as one of his legislative triumphs.
She now says that she supported the trade agreement as a loyal member of the administration but had reservations in private, although there is scant evidence of this in her public statememts because she typically espoused Nafta's benefits.
_____________________.................
"The Obama campaign has seized on past statements Mrs. Clinton made about the positive effects of Nafta, including one from 2004 when she said "on balance Nafta has been good for New York and America" during a news teleconference. But she said in the same teleconference that past trade deals needed to be revisited with an eye to enforcing labor and environmental standards.
.................................
They have both sent out mailers with selective quotes. One from Clinton's camp quotes Obama in 2004 when he was running for the Senate praising Nafta, declaring "Ohio needs to know the truth about Obama's position on protecting American workers and NAFTA."
One from Obama's camp that quoted Mrs. Clinton as saying in Newsday that Nafta had been a "boon" to the economy- she objected, saying the word was not hers but part of the newspaper's assessment of her position on the trade agreement.

Doubt that this helps. Both camps seem to be intentionally ambiguous, and reporters try to make sense out of nebulosity.