Obama Hits Clinton on NAFTA Support

[ious]

Source: Associated Press

LORAIN, Ohio (AP) - Barack Obama accused Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday of trying to walk away from a long record of support for NAFTA, the free trade agreement that he said has cost 50,000 jobs in Ohio, site of next week's primary.
At the same time, he said attempts to repeal the trade deal ``would probably result in more job losses than job gains in the United States.''

One day after Clinton angrily accused him of distorting her record on the North American Free Trade Agreement in mass mailings, the Illinois senator was eager to rekindle the long-distance debate, using passages from the former first lady's book as well as her own words.

``Ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America,'' Obama said. ``Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have.''

``The fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president,'' Obama told an audience at a factory that makes wall board, located in a working class community west of Cleveland.



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7333587

[From The Left]

1. Hillary Has Supported NAFTA for Years

She and Bill love NAFTA

[Joyce78]

18. Iraq Funding

Obama claims he was opposed to the war ... however, he did not have the backbone to vote stop spending funding for this illegal war. He is all Style and NO SUBSTANCE.

[coalition_unwilling]

41. Obama voted against the first supplemental to come before the Senate

after the Nov. 2006 elections when it failed to include a timeline for US withdrawal. Please stop mis-stating Obama's recent legislative record.

[OKthatsIT]

32. Excuse me but Obama supports NAU,and NAFTA, too

Barack Obama: I will repair our relationship with Mexico

I will repair the strained relationship with our southern neighbor

Dallas News
February 20, 2008

Under George W. Bush, the United States has not lived up to its historic role as a leader in the Western Hemisphere. As president, I will restore that leadership by working to advance the common prosperity and security of all of the people of the Americas. That work must begin with a renewed strategic partnership with Mexico.

Mr. Bush took office vowing to make the Americas a top priority. But over the last seven years, the administration's approach to this issue has been clumsy, disinterested and, above all, distracted by the war in Iraq. Indeed, relations have not fully recovered since Mexico refused to fall in line with President Bush's rush to war.

Mexico's President Felipe Calderon just traveled across the United States but didn't even go to Washington, which isn't that surprising given how little Mr. Bush has done to improve relations.

Starting my first year in office, I will convene annual meetings with Mr. Calderon and the prime minister of Canada. Unlike similar summits under President Bush, these will be conducted with a level of transparency that represents the close ties among our three countries. We will seek the active and open involvement of citizens, labor, the private sector and non-governmental organizations in setting the agenda and making progress.

more...

======================================================================
Bush hasn't stopped dialogue with Mexico or Canada. All 3 presidents have been planning and orgaanizing military ops, etc. for several years now. Obama claiming Bush and Mexico have a bad relationship is only playing on the dumbed down public.

THIS IS BULLCRAP! Obama is a GLOBALIST. And he's telling you he intends to to continue with the GLOBALIST AGENDA once he's in office. He's a liar!

[Akimbo2112]

2. Do you think.....

he'll really be able to amend NAFTA?

[rosetta627]

5. Again, Kucinich's platform is even better

He's long said he'd cancel NAFTA and start over with FAIR Trade agreements.

[BearSquirrel2]

19. I also think revision is most appropriate ...

I also think that revision is most appropriate. But if you're not willing to chuck it, I don't think you'll get the other parties to agree to revision.

If O'Bama is not willing to chuck NAFTA, I don't think he should criticize Clinton by association. Hopefully though, we can get these two to force promises of revision and trade protection for domestic manufacturing both for the sake of job preservation and national security.

[coalition_unwilling]

42. Hillary was for NAFTA . . before she was against it (now). -n/t

[mdmc]

3. I support fair trade

:kick:

[kotsu]

4. Having cake

...and eating it too.

"At the same time, he said attempts to repeal the trade deal ``would probably result in more job losses than job gains in the United States.''

[daleo]

6. He's against it, but he won't change it

"At the same time, he said attempts to repeal the trade deal ``would probably result in more job losses than job gains in the United States.''"

The Liberal Party pulled this stunt in Canada, too.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. Then people need to ask him point blank what he plans to do about NAFTA nt

[parkeradison]

7. Obama and Clinton

Obama is too smart and eloquent for Hillary. She's fading fast in Texas and Ohio. It might be almost time for her to wave the white flag.

[OzarkDem]

8. Obama is hypocritical as usual

that's why he's not picking up much support in Ohio.

[The Croquist]

9. NAFTA isn't the problem

The North American Free Trade Agreement is between Canada, Mexico and the United States. We're bleeding jobs but not to Canada or Mexico.

NAFTA is just a convenient whipping boy.

[L0oniX]

13. Agreed. The WTO needs some looking at as well. n/t

[bulloney]

15. NAFTA has some provisions that accelerated companies' decision to move operations to Mexico.

One provision states that if a relocated plant is taken over by the government, that company is compensated with G-7 currency. This removed any hesitation companies may have in moving operations to Mexico.

Another thing--at the time NAFTA was being debated in Congress, almost half of the trade between the U.S. and Mexico was intrafirm. In other words, GM was moving products from a GM plant in the U.S. to another GM plant in Mexico. That's not trade. That's moving inventory. That's no different than GM moving auto parts from Ohio to an assembly plant in Michigan. But the pro-NAFTA side would use these inflated export figures to make their case of trade with Mexico.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. You're right, but Clinton was implicated in everything, including GATT & WTO all of which he

supported. He was either in full support, or completely in a coma. I doubt he was in a coma. He sold us out. So far way over 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs and almost 1,000,000 white collar jobs have been lost. Some say this number is too small compared to reality.

And here's this:
_____________________
On August 20, 2001, the World Trade Organization (WTO) decided a two-year battle between the European Union and the United States by declaring that the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000 (hereinafter EIEA or Replacement Law), a U.S. law allowing U.S. companies to receive a tax break through foreign sales corporations (FSCs), was an impermissible subsidy on exports. (1) Consequently, the WTO has authorized the European Union to impose four billion dollars in trade sanctions on the United States in response. (2) The United States claimed that the sanctions, if imposed, should be worth about $956 million (3) but no more than $1.1 billion. The United States contended that the figure endorsed by the European Union was "somewhat high." (4) The European Union countered that the amount it requested was "rather conservative." (5) On August 30, 2002, the WTO accepted the EU's proposed amount and authorized four billion dollars in sanctions. (6) These sanctions would not be exercised to force corporations that received the benefit to make payments to the European Union; rather, the sanctions would serve as reprisals against any U.S. industries that the European Union may choose. (7) The European Union plans to delay sanctions as of now but has reserved the right to impose them at a later date, choosing to exact the punishment on industries such as agriculture and machinery. (8) The United States decided to appeal the decision, hoping that the WTO Ruling Panel would reverse the Appellate Body's decision and save the tax scheme used by many U.S. corporations. (9) The Panel affirmed the decision that the tax plan was illegal on January 14, 2002, and compliance is now the key issue in the long battle. (10)
______________________

What this means is that under Clinton, the U.S. was REWARDING corporations for taking their jobs abroad by subsdizing them. It's really hard to believe that Hillary Clinton wasn't aware of any of this, or that she was against it. Her husband certainly wasn't against any of it.

And he was also in favor of NAFTA. Not sure about CAFTA but I think there wasn't a trade agreement Bill Clinton didn't like.

[The Croquist]

36. OK I'm stupid...

I understand only a little of that quote. Can you help give me a source to better understand this stuff?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

45. Here it is.....

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 35, 2002
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HDzBLK0GcCPnnYTNhG8LHXQHGSzbCzQx9f4pHpMJJV9C4Q8xBk2B!-1527123887?docId=5000663664

[Political Heretic]

20. Wow that's just categorically false.

We lost jobs to Mexico in droves.

[The Croquist]

33. If we lost so many jobs to Mexico why are so many Mexicans sneaking into the US?

We lost jobs but not to Mexico or Canada. NAFTA was only between the Canada, Mexico and the USA.

[eilen]

39. It started with NAFTA

First corporations moved the jobs to Mexico, paying a barely survival wage to the people there. Once they realized they could have a cheaper labor pool in Asia, they then took the jobs from Mexico and brought them to China, Sri Lanka, etc. Thousands of Mexicans, their jobs gone, their economies affected by drought and unfair agricultural subsidies, then found the greener side of the fence here in the US. This has crippled the public services sectors in border states (schools, hospitals) and also fueled greater drug/arms trade and human trafficking over the Mexican/US border. Now we are looking at a super highway and trucking (which used to be one major occupation that was not outsourced) -- anyone in border states and not so close to the border states have to deal with higher auto insurance premiums d/t uninsured illegals? Wait till they are driving 18 wheelers.

Believe me, Mexico is very concerned about security of their Southern Border. Frankly, I don't know why they aren't all pouring the the other way, into the Shangri-La of Chavez's Venezuela.

[The Croquist]

46. Sorry but I don't buy it

You're telling me that the people who own or manage factories weren't smart enough to know the costs of doing business in China until they already had moved to Mexico?

I don't remember a giant migration of jobs to Mexico followed buy them moving the jobs to Asia. Most of the jobs that we lost to China were manufacturing jobs. China is a very cheap place to do business in.
You're allowed to pollute all you want.
You don't have to pay living wages.
You don't have to provide health-care.
You don't have to provide disability.
You don't have to provide retirement.
You don't have to worry about Kyoto.
Oh wait, I just described the US.

Seriously though China is much worse in all these categories then the US is.

As to the customer service and programming jobs that have gone to India, Mexico never significantly threatened these jobs. India has a huge pool of people who speak passable english (far superior to Mexico) and many more highly educated people.

[liberal4truth]

29. WTF!!! NAFTA was a complete sell-out of Amercian jobs no matter what party you blame !!

Get a clue!!!

[OKthatsIT]

34. Come on...NAFTA is too the problem. And a problem we can stop.

NAFTA really means NORTH AMERICAN UNION. It's a completely unregukated corporate agenda.

[The Croquist]

37. I don't remember India signing NAFTA, Correct me if I'm wrong.

I know of no IT companies operating out of Mexico City nor do I know of any major industry relocating to Mexico. I know of lots that went to India or China but neither country signed NAFTA.

[sarcasmo]

10. Go at Her with the truth, kick.

[L0oniX]

14. Indeed. Keep nailing her with NAFTA ..and the Iraq war vote.n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. Does Obama mean it? Will he do something about it?

If he does and if he will, I LOVE the man!!!!

[leftofcool]

23. So you think that one man

can negate treaties that have been made with other countries? I hope it is that simple. I would personally be interested in exactly how he plans to go about that.

Left of Cool

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. I would hope he would express his distaste for such treaties and study modifications to same nt

[lark]

40. No, he won't help

He's against it only for campaign reasons to beat up Hillary. He then says we'd lose more jobs if NAFTA was repealed, so he's both for and against it - like so many things. We really have no idea of what he'd do. He rails against HRC's Iraq vote, then votes every time to continue the war funding. Really, is there anything he'd take a firm stand on?

lark

[Joyce78]

17. I've had it with Obama and Michelle ... I'm just tired of people like these two ...phonies.

[Political Heretic]

21. Hey look, more substanceless personal attacks!

Clinton, of course is the real "authentic" person, as her multiple personality disorder say-anything-to-win campaign indicates. :eyes:

[leftofcool]

22. I think you will find

millions of Americans who agree with you as well as many foreign leaders. I really like Obama and in my heart I want to believe in his speeches but in my old age, I can no longer afford to fall for flowery speeches and promises. We need someone with substance, experience and action. I don't think Obama can pull that off. His campaign is really about "look at me, I'm the magic man" and not about the people of this country.

Left of Cool

[coalition_unwilling]

43. The blood of 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians is drip, drip, dripping from

the hands of "the experienced one." Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip . . .

[leftofcool]

44. And GWB

had what "experience" when he stoled his way into the WH??????????? A president with any real experience in foreign policy would not have made a pre-emptive strike against another country

Left of Cool

[unapatriciated]

24. Neither are my first choice but .....

the difference between Clinton and Obama is very small. I do not understand all this hatefulness. They have both used tactics that are negative. Why can't we just support our choice based on actual records and platforms without using RW tactics.


"Obama's claim that Clinton flip-flopped on NAFTA is half-true. She did change her position, but she did so long before she began running for president."

"Politicians are humans too, and sometimes they do change their views on issues. Obama is well within his rights to point out that Clinton used to hold different views. But it's misleading to encourage the impression that he and Clinton currently differ on NAFTA or on the war in Iraq."

In January 2007, the Washington Post analyzed Clinton's and Obama's voting records. During the two years that they overlapped in the Senate, they voted differently just 40 times – out of 645 votes. That works out to 93.8 percent agreement. And in at least a few instances, the two agreed on the issue but voted differently because one favored a stronger version of the bill.

Interest groups score the two identically, or nearly so. In 2006 the AFL-CIO gave both of them a 93 percent pro-labor vote rating, and the liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave each a 95 percent score. The American Conservative Union gave each an 8 percent rating. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce gave Clinton a somewhat higher pro-business score, 67 percent, than it gave to Obama, who received a 55 percent score.

The news organization Congressional Quarterly scored Obama's party unity record (that is, the extent to which he voted with Democrats on votes in which majorities of each party took opposite sides) at 97 percent in 2005 and 98 percent in 2006. Clinton's scores: 96 in 2005 and 93 in 2006. Similarly, CQ found that Clinton supported President Bush's position 50 percent of the time in 2006, while Obama supported Bush 49 percent of the time that year.

The simple fact is, Clinton and Obama champion similar policies and have nearly identical voting records. There are real differences between the two, but by accusing each other of crypto-Republicanism, Clinton and Obama are writing scripts for The Theater of the Absurd.

Sources
Congressional Quarterly, Sen. Barack Obama (D–Ill.) Interest Group Ratings, April 2007.

Congressional Quarterly, Sen. Barack Obama (D–Ill.) CQ Voting Studies, Jan. 2007.

Congressional Quarterly, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D–N.Y.) Interest Group Ratings, April 2007.

Congressional Quarterly, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D–N.Y.) CQ Voting Studies, Jan 2007.

Jensen, Kristin and Mark Drajem. "Clinton Breaks With Husband's Legacy on Nafta Pact, China Trade." Bloomberg News. 30 Mar. 2007. 31 Oct. 2007.

Murray, Shailagh. "Clinton-Obama Differences Clear In Senate Votes." The Washington Post, 1 Jan. 2007.

Obama, Barack. Afternoon with Barack Obama, video by James Ball. 14 Jan. 2008.

Project Vote Smart. Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. January 2008. 24 Jan. 2008.

Project Vote Smart. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. January 2008. 24 Jan. 2008.

Tumulty, Karen. "Hillary: 'I Have to Earn Every Vote'." Time, 1 Feb. 2007.

Zelney, Jeff. "Clinton Goes Negative in South Carolina Radio Ad." The New York Times, 23 Jan. 2008.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/103203/output/print

[Zhade]

35. Well, Clinton's suggested she can pick her own presidential powers. Obama hasn't.

That's a pretty big difference.

[unapatriciated]

38. I do not know what you are talking about...

Since I voted Edwards and have not been in the fray of the Obama -Clinton he said she said thingy. So please provide a link or a little more detail to what you are referring to. I still do not see much difference between them and do not understand all this hate on both sides. I must say I have seen a lot more hate speech directed at Clinton in the last few weeks, some of the comments here would make the repugs very proud.

edited to add link

By Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff | October 11, 2007
Senator Hillary Clinton said yesterday that if she is elected president, she intends to roll back President Bush's expansion of executive authority, including his use of presidential signing statements to put his own interpretation on bills passed by Congress or to claim authority to disobey them entirely.
"I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the presidency," Clinton told the Boston Globe's editorial board.
Although Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements, declarations that accompany his signature on bills approved by Congress, Clinton said she would use the statements only to clarify bills that might be confusing or contradictory. She also said she did not subscribe to the "unitary executive" theory that argues the Constitution prevents Congress from passing laws limiting the president's power over executive branch operations. Adherents to the theory say any president who refuses to obey such laws is not really breaking the law.
"It has been a concerted effort by the vice president, with the full acquiescence of the president, to create a much more powerful executive at the expense of both branches of government and of the American people," she said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/11/clinton_vows_to_check_executive_power/

Doesn't look like she is picking and choosing, but is trying to restore balance.

[FreakinDJ]

25. Hilary won't do well in Ohio because of NAFTA

As so many in the "Rust Belt" they have felt the ill effects of NAFTA the worst

[durrrty libby]

27. In 2004 BO not only supported NAFTA, he said it should be expanded

BO continually lies and distorts. His converts enable this false prophet

[Deep13]

28. Mexico can give back those jobs and we can give back AZ, NM, TX and CA.

Frankly, I don't see that it is such a bad thing. I don't think job losses to Mexico were caused by any treaty and now both the USA and Mexico are losing jobs to China. Now, President Gore may have been in a position to correct anything that was wrong with our trade agreements, but of course, Bush failed.

Nevertheless, considering the damage this country has done in Latin American in support of cheap argicultural production for sugar and bananas and later for oil and maritime rights, I don't think we can begrudge them a piece of the prosperity we enjoy as a result of that exploitation. Also, it is pretty hypocritical to bitch about jobs going to cheap labor in Mexico while supporting the cheap labor that has come to the USA to undercut labor in this country.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. Many people don't know what NAFTA is!

Some have never heard the term NAFTA! If you describe what it is they know.

[McCamy Taylor]

31. I don't why Dem infighting is headline. We should be talking about Seigelman.