Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Obamanomics: Barack Talks Tough on Trade

By John Nichols, The Nation. Posted February 14, 2008.


As the Dem primary campaign moves to states like Wisconsin and Ohio, America's hollow economy takes center stage.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by John Nichols

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

JANESVILLE, Wisconsin -- When I talked with Russ Feingold last week about what the Democratic candidates for president should do to win Tuesday's Wisconsin primary, he suggested that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should go to the senator's hometown of Janesville and talk about trade.

Obama got the hint.

On Wednesday, the first full day of a Wisconsin primary campaign that he hopes will solidify his emerging lead over his once "inevitable" rival, the Illinois senator started in Janesville, where he delivered a rebuke to free-trade policies of the Bill Clinton and George Bush eras that sounded a little like a speech Feingold might have delivered.

"We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control. The fallout from the housing crisis that's cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington -- the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it's produced," Obama told workers at the General Motors Assembly Plant in the southern Wisconsin city.

"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years," continued the senator, who is suddenly very conscious of the need to appeal to working-class voters in Wisconsin and Ohio who have been battered by trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the decision the Clinton administration to extend permanent most-favored-nation training status to China.

In addition to proposing new infrastructure spending designed to "generate nearly 2 million new jobs -- many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis," Obama sought to distinguish himself from Clinton on trade.

"It's also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won't stand here and tell you that we can -- or should -- stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas. But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in," Obama said, taking a swipe at Clinton. "You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring. Now that she's running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election."

Then Obama declared, "(When) I am president, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate -- we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."

This speech represents progress for Obama, who has not up to now been a particularly strong advocate for the fair-trade policies favored by labor and environmental groups and senators such as Wisconsin's Feingold and Ohio's Sherrod Brown. The cautious contender is still a long way from embracing the full agenda of the steel and auto workers union leaders and industrial-state senators and congressmen he has been talking with at some length in recent days. And there will be appropriate skepticism about whether Obama will continue to err on the populist side after Wisconsin and Ohio have finished voting -- and after key players such as Feingold, Brown and former candidate John Edwards have endorsed.

But Obama's message at the GM plant was a good one -- not just for the workers of Janesville and the other factory towns that will be voting in Wisconsin on Tuesday and Ohio two weeks later, but also for Feingold. The Wisconsin senator says he has not made up his mind regarding the Obama-Clinton contest, but he holds open the prospect of a pre-primary nod to one of the contenders.

Obama wants that nod, and the support of Wisconsin workers who have come to see their senator as a champion in the fight for fair trade.

Obama is not where Feingold is on trade and economic issues -- the two recently split on the Peru Free Trade Agreement, with Obama favoring it and Feingold opposing. But the presidential candidate is listening to the Wisconsin senator, and responding. Heck, he was even talking Wednesday about how jobs at the GM plant created the prosperity that caused "homes and businesses (to begin) to sprout up along Milwaukee and Main Streets" in Janesville - avenues not far from where Feingold grew up.

And what of Hillary Clinton? She was in McAllen, Texas, Wednesday morning -- headed not for Janesville but for San Antonio.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: clinton, obama, trade, election08, feingold, wisconsin

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Death of the Middle Class
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 14, 2008 1:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For all of the varied definitions of what Middle Class is, nothing described it more accurately than the unionized factory worker living a good and well-earned living in towns all over the Midwest, Northeast and Far West. Hard-Working, Blue Collar, but comfortable and having a life of dignity.

Enter the snake into the garden- the oligarchical, non-union South. The laggard of the nation in development, enlightenment, politics and worker rights. Using anti-union 'Right-to -Work' laws and a lot of craven cowardice, companies moved south and undermined the middle class trade unionists and the southerners were all for that- advancing their lives at the expense of their fellow Americans and not feeling sorry for those 'Yankees and their damned unions'.

However, greed knows no bounds, and soon those jobs began to migrate from the small-town South to Mexico and Asia and the Southerners started to howl about being undercut by foreigners. What was happening to them was the same thing that they did to their fellow Americans a generation before.

The ironic thing is that the Bible-touting Republicans that Southerners embraced after the racist south abandoned the Democratic Party and their fellow 'free trade' Republicans are the ones that did it to them. Waving the flag and talking about Jesus even as they slit the throat of the very people who elected them.

GM has offered a buy-out of it's remaining US hourly workforce so it can replace them with $14/hour labor after the UAW membership caved in and sold out the next generation of workers for a couple more years for themselves. Ford and Chrysler will follow suit and soon the UAW will be nothing more than a toothless tiger and the middle class factory worker nothing more than a memory. That is not only sad, it is a tragedy.

$14/Hour jobs in 2008 will not support a family- much less a middle class. $14/hour might enable you to live in a trailer and drive a second-hand car, but not a life of dignity and a comfortable retirement. The death of the Blue Collar Middle Class Worker is the Canary in the Coal Mine for the Middle Class as a whole. The Blue Collar Unionists led everyone else into the real Middle Class and set the worker minimums that everybody takes for granted today.

They were undermined from within and without by 'Free Traders' exporting Jobs and 'Right-to-Work' Laws within, enabled by Southerners who wanted the Union Wage but were largely afraid to walk a Picket Line and take a stand. These are the same Southerners, still captivated by racial issues, who have sold out the entirety of American working people out for a couple of decades of low wage factory labor that has left much of the south polluted but none the wealthier.

Heck-of-a-Job, Johnny Reb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Death of the Middle Class Posted by: carbon-based
» Behold The Problem Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Behold The Problem Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Behold The Problem Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Behold The Problem Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: The Death of the Middle Class Posted by: Bobby Decker
» RE: The Death of the Middle Class Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: The Death of the Middle Class Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: The Death of the Middle Class Posted by: mnascimento
» Get a life Homer Simpson Posted by: macaac
» How Low IS Low Enough? Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Get a life Homer Simpson Posted by: andabottleof_rum
Thebigkate
Posted by: Thebigkate on Feb 14, 2008 4:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hooray for Obama. He is waking up to the plight of the American worker! I would like to see him apologize for his "Peru" vote and offer an explanation about why it was a mistake. That would solidfy his change of mind and heart in my eyes!

I wish he would use Ben Cohen's Oreo Cookie Budget theory of several years ago, to illustrate the ridiculous bloat in our military budget, which makes funding for our social programs so impossible, and keeps our economy in a shambles. See it for yourself, if you have not already, or even if you have!

www.truemajority.org

Click on oreo video!

GO OBAMA!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thebigkate Posted by: DefeatBush
» RE: Thebigkate Posted by: cjm
» RE: Talks Cheap, Posted by: Andie927
Barack Is Making Sense
Posted by: Tom Degan on Feb 14, 2008 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want to see this guy elected so badly, I can't even describe it. We've got a real shot at sending a totally new type of person to the White House next January - and I'm not referring to the obvious difference. He is, I believe, the most extraordinary candidate to come down the political pike in a long time.

Hillary Clinton will not inspire "the base" to come out en masse on Election Day in November. Barack Obama will.

Keep your fingers crossed and your hands folded.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
America's Eternal Shame

SUGGESTED READING
I just finished rereading

The Best of Times: America In The Clinton Years
by Haynes Johnson

It is now as well known as his book, "Sleepwalking Through History: America in the Reagan Years" but is just as valid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Barack Is Making Sense Posted by: carbon-based
» BAARHETORIC OBAMA Posted by: macaac
NAFTA good for American companies; bad for American workers
Posted by: nochicagoboys on Feb 14, 2008 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally, a discourse on the problems created by NAFTA. President Bill Clinton spearheaded this mockery of the American worker. He's the one who rushed it through Congress for final ratification. He was its biggest cheerleader.

Senator Obama has finally unveiled Senator Clinton's biggest liability. And, if she wants to continue to spout her "thirty years of experience", she should also accept responsibility for what NAFTA has done. She can't have it both ways. If she, in fact, was co-president during the 1990s, she should be scrutinized for this.

This, I believe, will lead to the final unraveling of the Clinton campaign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We'll get the crap about free trade
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Feb 14, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the establishment economists. The reality is that our trade agreements reinforce Mercantilism for our trading partners, leaving them with increasingly worthless dollars, American jobs and ultimately American resources. We get cheap, tacky, poorly-made goods. This is what the whore economists think is a great deal!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» free trade and trickle-down economics Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» What are you talking about? Posted by: ReallyBearish
» Do some simple math, Yellow Posted by: ReallyBearish
» Oh crap! Posted by: ReallyBearish
NAFTA, GATT, agents of world fascism.
Posted by: leland61 on Feb 14, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OMG - here's another looney, you think.

However the fact that anyone who has examined not only GATT, NAFTA, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO, already knows that these agreements set up powerful supra-national organizations operated by and for the wealthy of the world and the corporations they control or own.

The cooperation of the states with these organizations is exactly that which creates fascism in the classic sense.

Agreements made by these organizations take on the force of law, law that supercedes the laws of cities, counties, states and nations. The rules/laws are not made by people elected in any democratic process (but of course there is no such thing as a democratic corporation), rather they are made by men meeting behind closed doors to work out the future of the corporate exploitation of the people and resources of the entire planet for the benefit of about 1 - 2% of the world's population.

Bill Clinton and his spouse have been strong supporters of this fascist movement since he was elected president. He and the people he represented are responsible for NAFTA - and the immigration problem witch is the first born child of NAFTA as millions were forced off family farms in Mexico, flooded the cities for jobs which were not there because the wealthy of Mexico rather than investing in manfacturing infrastructure were investing in other more lucrative instruments including American bonds and other instruments of impoverishment of the American People.

It is high time that someone with some balls takes on the elite. Obama does it at his own peril. The elite do not like anyone exposing the corrupt nature of what is going on behind closed doors. The distinction between the Clintons and the Shrub on economic issues is a distinction with absolutely no difference in ultimate outcome.

Fortunately Edwards and Kucinich opened the doors to the conversation about class warfare - something that has been going on in this country from its beginnings. Oops!!! We're not to use that phrase. Americans have been carefully propagandized by those who have been activly practicing class warfare not to use the phrase that points to the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» testing Posted by: JoAnne
» RE: "Secrets of the Temple" Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: "Secrets of the Temple" Posted by: yellow
I'm still not impressed
Posted by: WhatNow? on Feb 14, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act"

That sounds like it came from the Eleventh Dictionary of Newspeak. That statement sounds like something the bush administration would use.

I may like Obama better than Hiltery or McCabre but I'm real skeptical about his willingness or ability to do anything substantial to improve most people's lives. Obama, you're gonna have to do alot better before I buy into your shtick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I HOPE HE CAN ACCOMPLISH HALF OF IT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 14, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has very ambitious plans and if he can get half of it accomplished he'll make a big difference. Somehow when people have something to look forward to their behavior changes. He's the best news I've heard in a long time. Big Biz will be an obstacle, but alot of the old guard will be gone. The war will contiue to be an albatross, but other countries will change the way they see us and that could change too. I wish him luck. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Words,words, words
Posted by: freshlemon on Feb 14, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Words, words, words, I'm so sick of words...I need someone to show me! Senators Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee,et.al are very good with words when they have learned what people want to hear. It is not what is said that makes a difference, but what is done.

Many of you probably remember how good Bush sounded on the campaign trail...shirt sleeves rolled up, talking to the "common" people (meaning the blue collar worker). His words were as empty as his head. Now we are being asked to base our votes on the 'words' of other politicians.

Remember the term flip-flop? Well, if we look at the records of all this new crop of presidential hopefuls, both democrats and republicans, it is obvious that they all have done a bit of flip-flopping and back pedaling in the past seven years.
It is true that everyone has the right to change their opinion based on new knowledge and experiences, but I am very skeptical of rhetoric aimed to please. The problems with which this nation is faced are too complex for anyone to make promises about solving them or giving relief to any group.

What would impress me? If Senator Obama or any of the other candidates stood up on the senate floor and denounced the current administrations war in Iraq and hoped for war with Iran, had spoken out against the extreme profiteering by the oil industry at the expense of the American people, had produced meaningful healthcare bills and pushed against the drug and insurance industries control of our health system, had spoken out against the tax breaks given to American companies that moved operations out of this country to increase profits for their stockholders and leaving many people without work, had condemned the politicizing of the American court system, denounced companies like Halliburton for war profiteering,had condemned the fear and hate-mongering by extreme religious factions,etc. I have witnessed no meaningful examples of this kind of courage from any of our "candidates".

This election should not be a high school popularity contest in search of a prom king or queen. Nor should it be about who is the biggest money raiser. It is serious business that requires serious thought on the part of every voter.

Everyone has an agenda. They can support it with words or action....and as I said...
I am sick of words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Words,words, words Posted by: oregoncharles
» pfft! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Obama's a great guy ..but watch out !!
Posted by: ghost in the machine on Feb 14, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes I think he's a great guy ...charismatic and a man of obvious high morals .However none of this will count for diddly squatin overcoming the forces of the market place .

When he says;

"We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control. The fallout from the housing crisis that's cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. "

Well Im sorry he's wrong . He might at best throw workers a few extra crumbs, he might have at an earlier date been able to offset it , but the irresistable logic of the market place is that to maintain levels of profitability competition inevitably does two things. It raises the level of production per hour and seeks to lower its production costs . Hence the drive to need you to work more for effectively less,...or go else where... and thats what business has been doing and will continue to do.... Morality, character and ethics have little to do to change this .

The problem now is that we are if anything in a situation of overproduction and without adequate wages to soak up the goods it inevitably starts to falter.This is what is known as the "insoluble contradiction of capital". It is further exacerbated by the tendancy towards debt , (in order to keep things going ) and its this dynamic which is at the heart of the sub prime crisis.

Now let me ask you ; how would you feel? and more importantly how would you react? if when you bring your car to me to fix because hey! Im this great guy .....and I make a balls of it because I leave something out that is actually quite fundamental .......!!!!?????

We all tend to focus on the positive of competition ....not on its negatives and the consequences there of. I rest my caSE .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama is just going to BULLSHIT on trade just like Klinton did in 1992 !
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 14, 2008 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And then once in office, Obama will allow K-Street to shove another NAFTA clone down America's throat or up its ASS whether they like it or not ! And by the way, why the FUCK would Obama care now that he happily voted to extend NAFTA on the Peru FT scam ?!?!? At this point, I'd much rather we focus on getting real progressives/liberals into power for the people and for that the correct thing to do is support RALPH NADER for PRESIDENT ! Besides, Obama, Hillary, and Mccain are pretty much clones for the most part who "sound" different on the surface !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politicians Speak with Forked Tongues
Posted by: Southern Gal on Feb 14, 2008 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Politicians will say what they think their audience wants to hear to get votes. They will say what the Focus groups tell them to say. They sometimes listen to their constituents. We are not going to get the perfect candidate. I'd like to see a candidate who gathers the best minds including scientists, academicians, real people impacted by the issues, people not represented by corporations, and non profits who specialize in the issues to help develop plans to address the major problems that we face. That would indicate a seriousness and understanding that the issues we face impact the survival of our country and that soundbites and propaganda aren't enough. We need to hold our candidate's feet to the fire on promises made during the campaign. Even with the governmental legislation sausage machine, we should be able to get some things that we deem essential. I am very cynical but I think that when a candidate says certain progressive things during the campaign that we ask them for details and that we hold them to what they say when they're elected. When they backtrack or don't implement we criticise and hold them accountable. We the people also need to pay attention to the Congressional races and keep trying to get progressives elected. I'm glad to at least hear some language that notes that there are labor and trade issues to be discussed on the campaign trail and documented for future action. It's a start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gjoh
Posted by: gjohloc@hotmail.com on Feb 14, 2008 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everybody keeps talking about these presidential candidates as if they were running for king or queen of the country; as if once they get elected they are all powerful and can do anything they want. One of the reasons we now have king George is because Americans have forgotten what it means to be American. They are no longer willing to work for good government; to participate and make their voice heard. All they do now is whine and complain about what their "leaders" are not doing. If people in this country got up one day and said enough and did something, then things would change. There are too many americans that don't like what's going on but won't participate in governing. Yes, it's our government. And we should let our elected leaders know they work for US everyday. Apathy and ignorance are what's killing progress in this country. I like Obama because he energizes the apathetic. I don't agree with all of his policy positions but I see him waking up Americans. And then just maybe we can get our country back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Participate? Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Change? Posted by: nightgaunt
Obama want's Amnesty for 20+ Million Illegals - How will this help Americans
Posted by: TWilliams on Feb 14, 2008 12:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's job creation policies are diametrically opposed to his immigration policies.

The USA already has millions of job opportunities but these opportunities have been nabbed by illegal immigrants.

Since 2000, when Bush took office, the national wage rate has declined by over 5%. This may not seem like much but it is the FIRST TIME in the history of the US this has happened. And current economic research shows it is going to get worse. One huge factor in this is that illegal immigrants are taking jobs, like construction, that Obama wants to create. How about doing something about the 40% of construction workers that are here illegally? Why not protect jobs that have already been taken.

I am dumbfounded why my fellow liberals have abandoned the working class in this country. Since FDR our party has always fought for working class Americans. Now our party is more than happy to let jobs just go to anyone in this country who is willing to work below a living wage. This hurts all of us.

The sad thing is every candidate offers no hope. Amnesty is the only option according to Hillary and Obama. We might as well just totally open the border with Mexico and let our wages eventually drop to theirs. I have given up all hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama Takes Credit for Ideas that were not his..
Posted by: gabbyone on Feb 14, 2008 1:11 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again Obama presents ideas as his that
were taken from Hillary.

Hillary: “I was, however, glad to see that yesterday, my opponent adopted the goal of five million green collar jobs – months after I announced I would create five million green collar jobs.”

Obama would ‘create 5 million so called ‘green collar’ jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources. [AP, 2/13/08]

Hillary ‘outlined a detailed proposal on Monday that she said would transform America's carbon-based economy and create as many as 5 million ‘green-collar’ jobs.’ [University Wire, 11/6/07]

Hillary: “I was also glad to see that he modeled his $60 billion infrastructure bank on a bill I co-sponsored last summer to create a $60 billion infrastructure bank.”

USA Today: Obama to call for $60B 'Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank' [USA Today, 2/13/08]

Hillary: And I'm proud to co-sponsor Senator Dodd and Senator Hagel's National Infrastructure Bank Act that we just introduced to establish a federally-backed independent bank that will evaluate and finance large infrastructure projects by subsidies, loan guarantees, and bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. [Rebuilding America speech, 8/8/07; S. 1926, 8/1/07]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama lies about Hillary and NAFTA
Posted by: gabbyone on Feb 14, 2008 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's some fact checking on Obama's attack
on Hillary from several sources.

In a memo released today the Obama campaign repeats a charge that's been 'widely criticized as bogus' about Hillary's position on NAFTA. From the memo:

As late as September 2006, Senator Clinton touted the President Clinton’s support for NAFTA.
And again:

AS LATE AS SEPTEMBER 2006: Hillary Said NAFTA Was A Victory For President Clinton, Would Lead To An Economic Improvement.
In fact, Hillary didn't say this in September 2006. The Obama campaign cites a Newsday article that asserts what Hillary "thinks" about NAFTA without any substantiation.

The Obama campaign then cites an article from 12 years ago that also doesn't quote Hillary and her book, where Hillary mentions NAFTA as something that passed through Congress in 1996. That's why the Politico called a piece of mail featuring the same claim "bogus" and noted the Obama campaign has failed to produce any evidence that she championed NAFTA.

The Obama campaign fails to mention that he is not calling for the repeal of NAFTA and believes "it's not realistic to expect to renegotiate NAFTA." [Crain's Chicago Business, 2/16/04]

Based on his positions in Illinois and the United States Senate, the National Journal concluded that Sen. Obama was "the most likely presidential candidate to support further trade liberalization." Sen. Obama opposed an amendment that would have prevented the weakening of laws that protect against unfair trade practices. (Hillary supported the amendment.) Sen. Obama also supports fast track authority.

Huffington Post: ‘Meanwhile, Barack Obama has released a mailer in Ohio hitting Clinton on NAFTA. But the literature uses a quote that has been widely criticized as bogus.’ [Huffington Post, 2/13/08]

Politico: ‘An Ohio blogger gets some mail from Obama hitting Hillary on NAFTA, once again using that really fairly bogus claim that she called NAFTA a "boon." [Politico, 2/13/08]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama Is Staking Out a "Fair Trade" Position, Where is Hillary's?
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 14, 2008 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama at least is staking out a position to support fair trade. Now, where is Hillary's position is my question? She might not really favor NAFTA, but does she oppose it? She is trying to straddle the position. Yes, these politicians (Obama and Hillary) go back and forth with the silly he said, she said, while what is more important is spoken advocacy for positions that is definitive. And, this is where Obama is gaining some traction on Hillary. Yes, it was Bill Clinton who was Mr. NAFTA, we all know that. Therefore, it is not really surprising that she is overly linked to her husband's actions. However, she now has the opportunity to state with definitiveness that she is against "free trade," and that she supports "fair trade." She now has the opportunity to make definitive position statements to show where she stands. That is what we are all waiting for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Valentine remembrances
Posted by: herbal on Feb 14, 2008 3:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't we all remember the wonderful populist rhetoric of Bill and Hillary during the election of 2000? Then, still in 1999 lame duck period, Newsweek reported a luncheon date that the President-elect had with Paul Volker of the Federal Reserve and Richard Nixon. We are left to imagine how the dialog went (congrats, welcome to the Club, here's the rule book...), but recall well the immediate and radical departure of Bill's populist tone to his conversion to born again apologist of Geo. Bush, Sr. Clinton adopted the Bush agenda wholeheartedly. NAFTA and GATT were supported and passed without a hitch or grumble; with fanfare. Hillary shut up, also.

Now Hillary would have us believe that she would not, has not, succumbed to the ruling class. Sure, she and Obama have an almost identical voting record on domestic issues. But the tone of foreign relations is the real distinguishing feature between the candidates, not health care as NYTimes Krugman would have us believe.

WAR WAR and perpetual WAR is the issue and labor relations are simply one symptom of a much deeper problem in America. Feingold is spot on, as are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in their diagnoses of cancerous attrition of democracy in America, class warfare, ruling class predation and fascist corporatism. We, however, are not immersed in recessive malaise; we are at the point of economic depression, the like of which will be salvaged by up-and-coming Asia.

We are in need of leadership on the par with Franklin Roosevelt. All the deficit spending of the Bush war machine era will have to be duplicated in the domestic arena so currency is circulated rather than blown up. In fact, as Ron Paul suggests, the 55% of the Federal budget that is spent on militarism, is available for domestic prosperity. The economically ruinous forces that disintegrated the Soviet Union, the arms race, haave inexorably come home to roost and will destroy what has become our anti-democratic, corporatist home rule.

Obama may not be able to broach this subject during the campaign, but he is the unenviable yet exciting heir to the coming economic meltdown. If he does not make the economy an issue now, the Republican Party will be on the prowl for scapegoating President Obama and the Democratic Party in the ensuing chaos.

Were Hillary Clinton elected, we are all toast in the burning of the Reichstag.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lest we get complacent...
Posted by: herbal on Feb 14, 2008 3:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with Obama see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.ht (take out the spaces here) ml?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

about Obama's nuclear politics and campaign funding, in his wrangling with Excelon.

His feet need to held to the fire while he replaces the Clintons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT'S VERY SIMPLE: WE NEED TO BACK A WINNER!
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 14, 2008 4:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In many ways, the politics of Obama and Hillary are not much different. But, a huge difference exists in electability. Hillary cannot get credit for Bill's successes but she will inevitably get blamed for his failures. NAFTA a case in point. Another problem is that Hillary foolishly portrays herself as junior to Bill, and Americans don't like that. Even though Bill was a far better President then either of the Bushes, it does not matter. Hillary is not Bill, and she needs to somehow distance herself from him. Having him campaign for her and be "out front" is suicide for her campaign. Again, it makes her appear as Junior and not Presidential material. It is frankly beyond me how her campaign managers cannot or will not see this, but it is very obvious. As for Obama, he has the benefit of being the man with "the new ideas," and the "hope factor." Even if it is a lot of rhetoric, voters like it. Against McCain, he knows McCain is going to throw his (McCain's) "foreign policy experience" at him, and Obama is ready to throw McCain's support of Iraq back at him. Something Hillary could never do. Obama can also play McCain's age and crankiness against him. But McCain has to be careful how he attacks Obama, too much attacking will be perceived as "racist," and will play into the perception of of him (McCain) as "cranky." So, I think the bottom line in all this is simply the electability of Obama is superior to Hillary's electability. And, it's not a question of Hillary not being as good as Obama or something like that in her politics. It's a question of becoming President, and we need to back a winner in this game. Otherwise, it's 4 or 8 years of Republicanism again! And, I am sick of the wars, tax breaks for the rich, failed foreign and domestic policies, all things the Republicans support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about the inverse relationship between rhetoric and results?
Posted by: Sojourner on Feb 14, 2008 4:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Obama we get the rhetoric with little promise of ability to deliver. I think Obama is great, in the same way I thought Jimmy Carter was great. Outsiders, however, get mashed on the inside lane.

From Clinton we get a few carefully chosen promises, ones on which she has better than half a chance of delivering. People who dislike her because she's an insider have no notion of what Beltway politics is all about. It's who you know and who knows you--if you want results.

I'll take results over rhetoric any day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

About Time!
Posted by: lamac66 on Feb 14, 2008 8:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a big Obama fan. However I think it's a shame that it's taken him so very long to start talking about issues that have cut the every day working class off at the knees. Decent wage jobs leaving this country with corpoartions getting tax breaks to take them there.

Obama is lucky he's beaten Clinton to the punch on this one. He's basically stolen a page out of Edwards stumping speeches.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TOO BAD, he Posted by: Andie927
what took us sooo long folks?
Posted by: jwpa13 on Feb 15, 2008 12:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looking at the above messages we must ask ourselves, WHY? Why didn't we pay more heed to Rep. Kucinich when he spoke out on most of the the above issues? He was the real deal. NOW we talk about putting his words into the mouths of the two candidates the PRESS picked for us with all that "we're going to make history" crap. We must forget the presidential race. We NEED to get as many progressives into the House and Senate as possible. (NOT just people with a "D" on their voter registration cards)We the people MUST take back America from the corporate super rich. If we do not, then soon, there will BE no America
This is AMERICA 101 folks:
A:congress is supposed to pass the laws
B:the president is supposed to carry out the laws
C:the judiciary is supposed to rule on and set the punishment when the laws are broken.
D:WE the people rule congress and the president with our votes
it may not be easy, but it was designed to be that simple. "LETS ROLL" with it Americans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to NoPCZone and the F-you Guy
Posted by: oakgroveinn on Feb 15, 2008 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting reading but neither of you knows the difference between ITS and IT'S.

Keep learning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OHIO woman
Posted by: Bec59 on Feb 15, 2008 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The selling of "hope" has its' drug-like effects
but when the party is over, the big headache sets in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton greater experience than Obama??
Posted by: herbal on Feb 18, 2008 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the point of Hillary calling the O on experience. What experience did whe and Bill have at the timeof their first Persidential campaign. What is the negative effect of the drubbing they got at the hand of a Republican Congress? Experience of helping to usher a fascist Bush Administration is not the kind of experience the US needs right now, than you.

An outsider is exactly what we need and my fear is that Obama's insider experience is too much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama talked tough on nuke leak reporting
Posted by: davescott on Feb 19, 2008 3:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and then meekly asked the Bush NRC if they'd mind just maybe considering reporting rules for radiation leaks if it weren't too much trouble but dont bother really it's ok.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]