HRC and NAFTA - can't have it both ways

[mdmc]

Either HRC is a two term Senator with very little experience or she is the former first lady that knows how Washington DC works and learned that stuff while in the White House.
Recently I viewed a Yahoo! story where HRC was pissed that Obama claims she supports NAFTA.

Either you are a junior senator from NY that fights for working families, and supports fair trade or you are a DLC insider that has always seen NAFTA as a boon for middle class Americans.

Ya can't have it both ways

[zabet]

1. Kinda like saying you are against it and

then voting to expand it.

[paulk]

2. not when you live in a black and white world

like our OP does....

[sloppyjoe25s]

12. Mrs. Clinton is a major Flip Flopper

And the re=pubs would nail her to the wall on it in the GE.

[paulk]

16. blah, blah, blah

Obama rocks!

that's about the level of your political discourse, isn't it?

[mdmc]

13. this race seems pretty black and white to me (not racially)

The new hottie versus the broken oldie.
Hope versus experience.
Untested versus tested.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. That's Clinton's Trademark

She's FOR everything - and AGAINST everything - at the same time. She simultaneously holds both positions on every issue.

And she's so darned good at it

[zabet]

4. Obama did it on this issue.

Does he get a pass for misrepresenting
his stance just because others may have?
If that is the line of reasoning used to
defend him voting to expand NAFTA after
repeatedly touting that he was against it,
if he wins he can finish dumping the country
down the tubes and change his positions and
it will be excuseable simply because someone
else has already done it.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Can You Be Specific On Obama's Vote To Expand NAFTA?

What exactly did he vote for?

[zabet]

6. Here ya go.....

"Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter's protests to the contrary. He also affirmed his support for free trade."

The voter's "protests to the contrary" are exactly right. The AFL-CIO does not support the bill expanding NAFTA into Peru, and the much-trumpeted labor/environmental standards leave enforcement up to the Bush administration, rather than empowering third parties to enforce them (like corporations have the power to enforce investor rights provisions in these same trade agreements). Leaving enforcement to the Bush administration -- or any administration -- is the biggest loophole possible. It is precisely why corporate lobbyists have bragged to reporters that the standards are not enforceable.

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.

Trade has been known to be a huge issue in Iowa (remember Dick Gephardt in 1988), so this announcement could very well ripple through the 2008 primary. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/breaking-obama-says-he-w_b_67780.html

And right here on DU....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4628724

Hope this clarifies it. :hi:

[MannyGoldstein]

8. That's Not An Expansion Of NAFTA

Different rules which are much more fair, and Peru is a small and dreadfully impoverished country which accounts for much less than 1% of our trade. I think of this as more of an aid program than an expansion of NAFTA

[zabet]

9. Call it what ever you wish.....

It is expanding NAFTA, even Obama called that.
That is the way it was presented, the way it is
written. If NAFTA is the evil thing everyone says,
well, 1% is too much to add when we should be cutting
it out. You cannot say it is bad and then call one
tiny part of it an aid program, without giving due
credit to whatever other good it may have accomplished.
"Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress"

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

11. That ain't NAFTA, That's CAFTA.

It's the China unfair trade that's killed our middle class.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Yup

The Clintons' permanent "almost-free" trade status for China is the big debacle - don't know why NAFTA takes more hits. (Not that NAFTA was a good thing either...)

[mdmc]

14. I see Obama as the same thing as HRC on almost all issues

and agree with you.

I don't hate Obama. I don't see him as a divisive figure.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Actually, you can, if you are Hillary.

It's called triangulating, and is called by some a very effective campaign strategy.

Others call it lying to all sides.

[sloppyjoe25s]

10. Bingo!

Except she has the "Machine" backing her.