Get with it, Obama voted FOR NAFTA!

[Clinton Crusader]

"Obama Says He Will Vote for NAFTA Expansion" at: http://tinyurl.com/29rovu

Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress. His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project -- a Wall Street front group working to DRIVE A WEDGE between Democrats and organized LABOR on globalization issues. His announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade policies. Clinton and Obama vote for Peru NAFTA deal at: http://tinyurl.com/2qn59q

Vote for Barack Obama if you want to, but please do it with your eyes open and with the knowledge that Rupert Murdoch -- possibly the worst corporate media CEO around -- has endorsed Obama and is using all the resources of his media empire to help Obama and destroy Hillary Clinton (one has to wonder what Rupert Murdoch hopes to gain from an Obama presidency and fears from a Clinton presidency). And bear in mind that Obama chose as his senate "mentor" the loathsome Joe Lieberman, whose gleefulness in voting with the Republicans and against the Democrats made Lieberman (at the time Obama chose him as his mentor) one of the most despised Democrats in the senate. When Barack Obama had the chance to vote against NAFTA, he voted, instead, to expand NAFTA.

And, Obama voted FOR the Oman Free Trade Agreement. (H.R. 3045, 7/28/05; S. 3569, 6/29/06). OBAMA: "I believe that expanding trade and breaking down barriers between countries is good for our economy and for our security, for American consumers and American workers.
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/issues_trade.cfm

BOTH Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005) Americans need to deal with facts, not pipe-dreams. In Peru Trade Vote, Senate Democrats Break With Base, Dismiss Widespread Public Opposition to More-of-the-Same Trade Policy and Join GOP to Vote for Another Bush NAFTA Expansion Pushed by Corporations. Seven of Nine Senate Freshmen Democrats Oppose Expanding NAFTA to Peru

Statement of Lori M. Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch Division

Public Citizen - Common Dreams - Dec. 4, 2007
WASHINGTON - December 4 - Although not one U.S. labor, environmental, Latino, consumer, faith or family farm group supported the Peru free trade agreement (FTA), a majority of Senate Democrats today broke with their base, dismissed widespread public opposition to more-of-the-same trade policy and joined Republicans to deliver another Bush NAFTA expansion to the large corporations pushing this deal.
The debate in the Senate contrasts with that in the House of Representatives last month. There was little focus on the Peru NAFTA expansion deal in the Senate, but in the House an intense, multi-month debate resulted in a majority of House Democrats, including 12 of 18 House committee chairs, voting against the Peru pact and signaling that it is not an acceptable model for future trade agreements.
The breakdown of this vote vividly demonstrates two phenomena: the distance between most senators and the American public on trade issues, and the depth of the American public's negative opinion about NAFTA-style trade deals. All but two of nine Democratic freshmen senators who recently campaigned extensively in their states opposed the Peru NAFTA expansion today. Most of the Democratic presidential candidates oppose it, including Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

In contrast to most of the Democratic presidential candidates who oppose the Peru NAFTA expansion, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois support it. Clinton and Obama's support for the Peru FTA – after BOTH opposed the 2005 Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which contained identical provisions and now campaign against NAFTA in Iowa, should make voters wonder just what sort of trade policy Clinton and Obama really support. None of the senators running for president voted today, although all four have issued public statements taking positions on the Peru pact. Read the rest at: http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1204-20.htm

[GarbagemanLB]

1. The Clintons will forever be tied with NAFTA. Deal with it. It is much easier to tie them to it than

Obama.

Hillary's going down!

[Ian David]

2. Please leave the candidates' sex lives out of this. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Al Gore is the guy who actually defended NAFTA in a national debate with Ross Perot

It sure as hell hasn't pulled him down, nor should it.

[anamandujano]

28. I was a little ashamed of Gore for that one.

I may have been the only person on the planet who thought Perot won.

[Bluebear]

7. And whose little sockpuppet are YOU?

[rhett o rick]

40. I think he supported Sen Clinton last time before he got kicked out. nm

[ProSense]

3. Again? How desperate are you? The Peru agreement is not the Clintons' NAFTA

Here is information about the bill.

Obama never said he was against trade. NAFTA was a horrible bill, which Bill Clinton signed into law and Hillary has defended.

[rinsd]

6. Obama on NAFTA

Associated Press: Obama said the United States should ‘pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.' "Obama said the United State should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

Decatur Herald & Review: 'Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.' "While some people believe NAFTA has been good for U.S. farmers, the trade results could have been better, Keyes said. NAFTA negotiators said the United States might lose manufacturing jobs but would become a service economy, but now those service jobs also are being exported, he said. Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA. He said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and the United States is no longer the dominant economy. 'We have competition in world trade,' Obama said. 'When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade."

[ProSense]

11. Obama never said he was against trade deals, just horrible ones like Clinton's NAFTA. n/t

[rinsd]

20. Except Obama didn't say he was against NAFTA.

That is where the lying comes in.

[jackson_dem]

22. And except that he has supported other deals like NAFTA, including Peru just three months ago!

[rodeodance]

8. desperate ??--AGAIN-OH NO!

[bellasgrams]

13. I have NEVER heard Hillary defend NAFTA, I did hear her

say it needed to be changed. She will work to keep American Companies by taxing them for leaving. She will work to bring jobs back. BO also voted for the NAFTA Expansion, so stop knocking Hillary for it. He's not the saint that you like to think he is.

[gateley]

5. I have to say this in defense of anyone who voted for NAFTA - or supported

it.

As I understand it, the guidelines set forth by NAFTA aren't being adhered to (shock!). I can't help but think there must have been some positive reasons so many supported it.

The point NOW is, what are we going to do about it?

I'd prefer to take Dennis's and Gravel's approach and just yank it, but I think the other candidates pretty much talked about "fixing" it.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[rinsd]

9. The candidates have discussed a variety of remedies.

Hillary has discussed a timeout combined witha reassessment of trade deal every 5 years or so.

I think Obama has said something similar.

Both have called for additional protections for labor and the environment which is the cover under which they both voted for this Peru expansion.

[gateley]

14. Thanks rinsd --

Nice to see you! :hi:

[rinsd]

16. Good to see you as well.

:hi:

[jackson_dem]

24. Hillary is for a timeout and ressassment of all deals, Obama will resassess only NAFTA

He hasn't called for a timeout either as far as I know. In my trade threads no Obamite has mentioned any timeout he has proposed.

[bvar22]

37. The point is, NOW is too late.

Those horses are OUT of the barn, and they are not coming back.
The time to do something about NAFTA enforcement was 15 YEARS ago.
It is REALLY too late to to stand up on stage today with a big, dumb look on her face and say, "Gee, it didn't quite work out!"
They were warned at the time, saw the abuses, and let it slide because they were raking in the $MONEY$


NAFTA worked (and IS working) EXACTLY as designed.
The RICH got much richer.
The OWNERSHIP Class profited.
Blue Collar got kicked in the face.
Unions and Environmental Protections got BUSTED.

[Skwmom]

10. Murdoch is backing Clinton, NOT Obama.

[GarbagemanLB]

17. True.

[bellasgrams]

21. Murdock endorsed BO! He also donated to Hillary early before

the endorsement

[rateyes]

26. It's spelled "MURDOCH" and he did no such thing.

See my reply to the original OP. The assertion that Murdoch endorsed Obama is a damned lie.

[jackson_dem]

25. His flagship US paper endorsed Obama, his major UK paper called him the new JFK

[HeraldSquare212]

12. Murdoch fears Clinton? Is that why he gave her money?

Face it, he's just throwing in with the winner.

[rateyes]

15. Rupert Murdoch did not endorse Obama....

That's a crock of shit. The editorial board of a paper he owns is not HIM. And, one little search of his name at the Federal Elections Commission site shows that the ONLY candidate (Republican or Democratic) that Rupert Murdoch has given any personal funds to is Hillary Clinton.

www.fec.gov

MURDOCH, RUPERT
NEW YORK, NY 10036
NEWS CORPORATION/CHAIRMAN/CEO

CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM
VIA FRIENDS OF HILLARY
07/26/2006 2100.00 26020631605
07/26/2006 2100.00 26020631605

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/

On edit: In fact, Rupert Murdoch held a damned fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. Get your facts straight.

This little paragraph of yours makes you a damned liar:

"Vote for Barack Obama if you want to, but please do it with your eyes open and with the knowledge that Rupert Murdoch -- possibly the worst corporate media CEO around -- has endorsed Obama and is using all the resources of his media empire to help Obama and destroy Hillary Clinton (one has to wonder what Rupert Murdoch hopes to gain from an Obama presidency and fears from a Clinton presidency)."

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. You seriously think that Rupert Murdoch would let his editorial board over rule his own choice?

Now THAT is funny. I guess Murdoch got out voted and he respected the wishs of his employees to support a candidate that he is opposing, that must be it.

Look at the date of that fund raiser he did for Clinton and that will tell you all you need to know. At that point in time Murdoch not only believed that Hillary Clinton was the inevitable Democratic nominee, but that she was the near inevitable next President. The daily headlines that even his paper couldn't ignore were about what a total disaster the Iraq war was and no one gave the Republicans any chance of winning in 2008 because of that.

Murdoch did not get to be as successful as he is by being dumb.

[rateyes]

27. Bullshit. I just posted the most recent FEC disclosures...

He gave to Hillary Clinton in July of 2006. There's not another New York politician on that list. He didn't give a dime to Obama, nor any other presidential candidate.

To state that Rupert Murdoch endorsed Obama when his pocketbook says otherwise is utter nonsense.

[Straight Shooter]

32. Media endorsement is a more powerful message. New York Post endorsed Obama.

You can go to opensecrets.org and check out the list of how many powerful people spread the money around to both parties. Corporations do it, also.

One little fundraiser and you think he endorses Hillary? That's a really narrow perspective.

[rateyes]

38. I didn't say he endorsed Hillary. I said he DIDN'T endorse Obama.

And, I said, that of all the presidential candidates, Hillary is the only one who got any money from him.

The New York Post endorsement does not mean that Murdoch endorsed anyone. It's bullshit.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. July 2006. Exactly

That is when everyone assumed Clinton would win the Democratic nomination for President and that Republicans would lose in 2008.

When Hillary ran for the Senate in 2000 she pledged to finish her full term in the Senate. When she ran in 2006 she pointedly made no such pledge. Left over money donated to a Senate run can be and often is rolled over after the election and used for that candidate's next campaign. Hillary Clinton was legally able to use money left over from her 2006 Senate campaign to run for President, and she did. Murdoch knew all of that at the time.

[tritsofme]

35. The in kind contribution of an endorsement from a major newspaper far outweighs anything

A $2,300 check written to a presidential campaign.

[rateyes]

39. He did a damned fundraiser,

and, on top of that HE has made no endorsements. The OP is full of shit.

[rateyes]

29. And, where's his contribution to any of the Republicans?

:shrug:

[amborin]

18. Bush, Sr. Salinas and Mulroney

created Nafta, after Reagan first initiated the idea

don't blame clinton, he fought for labor and environment side agreements

[leftofthedial]

19. true progressives have no candidate to support

lesser of evils? or lesser-known of evils?

[anamandujano]

30. Picky! Picky! Picky!

:sarcasm:

Thanks for the research. Keep up the good work.

[jillan]

31. Someone needs to tell this to msnbs - they are talking about how

Nafta is going to hurt Hillary - while BOTH Obama and Hillary just voted for it's expansion...

Just a reminder that Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted against it.

[Cameron27]

33. It wouldn't matter,

MSNBC wouldn't bother reporting it anyway.

[shenmue]

36. Yep, he's a huge hypocrite with nothing to offer for the American economy.

But see if that makes a difference for his supporters.

:sarcasm:

No experience? No plans? No problem!... :dunce: