Obama and NAFTA

[kerrygoddess]

Obama and NAFTA
February 23rd, 2008 @ 7:06 pm

Why is Barack Obama attacking Hillary Clinton on NAFTA when his voting record on trade since he’s been in the Senate is essentially identical to Clinton’s voting record on trade?

Obama went on record that he was supporting NAFTA expansion months ago. In fact, as David Sirota reported at the time, Obama was “the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress.” Sirota wrote:

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.

Barack Obama always seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. As I have noted here many times in the past, Obama claims he was against the war in Iraq, but he voted to fund it and he voted against Kerry Feingold. Now he’s attacking Hillary Clinton for NAFTA and his voting record is identical to hers.

MORE & LINKS - http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2008/02/23/obama-and-nafta/

[lligrd]

1. Why Are Hillary Supporters Even Bringing Up NAFTA?

It is not one of her winning issues.

[jackson_dem]

11. Trade is a winning issue for her against Obama if the truth ever got out

NAFTA is being discussed because the smoke and mirrors campaign is using it instead of discussing how he is to the right of Hillary on trade.

Both celebrities are "free" traders but this is what Democrats deserve for ratifying the msm decision to boot fair trader Edwards.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

18. Alternet article says this will hurt Clinton campaign

The Issue That Could Decide the Democratic Nomination and the General Election
Posted by David Sirota, Open Left on February 23, 2008 at 7:49 AM.

None of us likes being lied to by politicians, and not just because being lied to is insulting, but because when a lie comes from a politician,
it suggests that none of their promises should be believed. As my new nationally syndicated newspaper column shows, this is precisely what is going on in the presidential race when it comes to trade and globalization policy - key policies as the race heads into the working-class bastions of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

It would be one thing if Hillary Clinton was admitting that yes, she vigorously supported NAFTA, but that support was misguided. But no, as the column shows, Clinton is now trying to convince voters she never supported the North American Free Trade Agreement - the trade model whose lack of labor, human rights and environmental standards made it a tool for Big Business to ship jobs abroad. Not only is she claiming to be a longtime opponent of the deal, but she's actually trotting out former Clinton administration officials-turned-corporate-lawyers like Mickey Kantor - the very architects of the deal - to tell us that behind closed doors she really wasn't for NAFTA. Shocker - these are the same hacks who have lashed their careers to Clinton's campaign in hopes of getting back their White House jobs.

...But now, Barack Obama is picking up where John Edwards left off and is reminding folks of the real history, promising to get serious on trade, and consequently the polls in Ohio appear to be closing....

[jackson_dem]

21. It probably will because marketing and image trump actual policy

The msm will never actually compare their positions on trade and Obama is a great example of the power of marketing. He was seen as "change" while Edwards wasn't.

[OHdem10]

17. Because Obama (very cleverly ) leaves the impression that

he is against Trade Deals. If you would ask any worker they
would think this.

He started the attack on HRC about Nafta . Obama has learned
the triangulating talk real fast since arriving in D.C.
I think he learned it in Chicago Politics.

[jackson_dem]

22. The smoke and mirrors Obama constantly uses is disturbing

[sandnsea]

2. Hillary Clinton on Peru Trade

"I support the trade agreement with Peru. It has very strong labor and environmental protections. This agreement makes meaningful progress on advancing workers' rights, and also levels the playing field for American workers. Most Peruvian goods already enter the U.S. duty free, but our exports to Peru have been subject to tariffs."
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4113

Hillary said herself that Peru is not NAFTA.

He is attacking her for supporting NAFTA because she said NAFTA was a victory in her own book, just a few years ago.

He supports trade agreements with labor and environmental regulations IN THEM.

Hillary said NAFTA was a victory and it DID NOT have those regulations.

Not complicated.

[kerrygoddess]

5. From the HuffPo

The attack is misleading and you are perpetuating it:

The attack is, most observers say, misleading. The “boon” line, a paraphrase lifted from a September 2006 Newsday article, has yet to be confirmed as an authentic quote. But, more importantly, the mailer misrepresents what former Clinton administration officials and biographers say was Hillary Clinton’s long-held opposition to the legislation.

“In August in 92, we had to make a decision,” Mickey Kantor the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Clinton adviser, and free trade advocate recalled for the Huffington Post. “President Clinton had to make a decision as governor, whether or not he would support NAFTA, and of course he did… Hillary Clinton was one of the great skeptics in the discussion as to whether he should do. So she was always skeptical beginning in 1992 and onward.”

Indeed, as Kantor went on to note, Hillary Clinton long held reservations over the labor and environmental fallouts of the free trade agreement. In addition, she was, at the time, eager to see her health care reform (not NAFTA) pushed through Congress. As such, Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith writes in her book “For Love of Politics,” her disapproval of the trade agreement was both political and philosophical. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html

[sandnsea]

10. From HER book

2003: Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. “Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once . I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances.”

2003: Clinton Called NAFTA a “Victory” For President Clinton. In her memoir, published in 2003, Clinton wrote, “Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn’t hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill’s successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA.”

And her words at the time:

1996: Clinton Said “I Think Everybody Is In Favor Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth.” A questioner pointed out that UNITE opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed by the Clinton administration, on grounds it sends American jobs to Mexico. In March 1996, three years after President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, Hillary Clinton said, “I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth,” she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. “That’s what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about,” she said.

http://thepage.time.com/saturday-obama-campaign-release/

[Flabbergasted]

16. There it is. Well done

[jackson_dem]

12. Peru=More of NAFTA. Obama, Clinton, the DLC, and other "free" traders were BSing voters

[casus belli]

3. Correction - Obama is attacking Clinton on NAFTA, not trade.

No fool in their right mind would be against global trade. To suggest that Obama's attacks on Hillary amount to an attack on her entire position when it comes to global trade is absurd. NAFTA has proven to be a huge mistake, and he's pointing out that Hillary vehemently supported it, but now tries to distance herself from that.

She's the one claiming experience, is it wrong for him to point out that experience doesn't necessarily equal correct?

[kerrygoddess]

6. She never vehemently supported it

Good gracious - do some research.

http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2008/02/14/obama-misleads-on-clintons-positions/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html

[casus belli]

8. self delete

[ProSense]

14. Yes she

did

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

15. Hillary: "I think that, overall, NAFTA has been good for New York and America."

"I think that, overall, NAFTA has been good for New York and America."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw

[kerrygoddess]

7. And you miss the point

NAFTA is a trade agreement and their voting record is the same on trade. Obama was for expansion of NAFTA just a few months ago.

[casus belli]

9. No. He wasn't.

I'd ask you to provide a link, or source but I know one doesn't exist. The quotes to which you are most likely referring have long been debunked when the full quote in context was given. The word you are looking for is "restructuring", not "expanding".

But don't just take my word for it...

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/19/fact_check_obama_never_said_we.php

[jackson_dem]

13. He already did. Peru=expansion of NAFTA

[casus belli]

19. That's a stretch.

It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about, so I'll just back out thanks. In closing I would highly suggest you review both programs so that you don't make these kinds of false assertions in the future.

[ProSense]

4. She's attacking him because she was exposed as supporting NAFTA, that

and she desperate!

Clinton Camp Again Pushing Inaccurate Quotes on Obama and NAFTA That Were Debunked Months Ago

February 16, 2008

The Clinton campaign is trying to push old, inaccurate quotes that misstated Obama's position on NAFTA. When they tried to push the quotes months ago, we put up the full transcript of the question Obama was asked in 2004, that clearly shows he did not say he supported NAFTA. In fact, Obama has consistently opposed NAFTA-like trade deals and the 2004 the report that the Clinton campaign cites is inaccurate.

Obama Said He Supported "Restructuring NAFTA." "Do you support rolling back NAFTA or GATT?" Obama said, "I would support restructuring NAFTA and GATT to make sure that environmental protections, labor protections and so on are in place. And I also think that we've got to enforce some of these provisions more aggressively, the same way other countries are doing. I use the example of China. If China is devaluing its currency by 40 percent and we are not challenging them on that, then there's not much point of having China in the WTO, if they're not respecting our trademarks and our copyright laws. If we have countries that continue to present barriers to us - non-tariff barriers - to our products getting to market, then those are all issues that I think we've got to challenge these countries on. And that's the responsibility of the Administration. The problem in a lot of our trade agreements is that the Administration tends to negotiate on behalf of multinational companies instead of on behalf of workers and communities. If we had a shift in orientation in terms of who are we negotiating for, then I think you'd see some different outcomes." (Illinois Farm Bureau Transcript, 9/8/04)

2004 Chicago Tribune Cited Its Difference With Obama's Opposition to NAFTA. The Chicago Tribune wrote in an editorial, "We sharply differ with some of those views, particularly Obama's opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement." (Chicago Tribune, 2/29/04)

2004 New Yorker: Obama Opposed NAFTA. The New Yorker wrote, "This is a regular theme with Obama: supporters who disagree with him. The two big Chicago daily papers both endorsed him enthusiastically in the primary, even though they disagreed with him on major issues-his opposition to the war in Iraq and, in the case of the Tribune, his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement." (New Yorker, 5/31/04)

Obama Said NAFTA And CAFTA Were Not In The Best Interest Of The American Worker "Because They Did Not Contain The Sorts Of Labor Provisions And Environmental Provisions" That They Should Have. "The AP reported, "Obama said he supports the foreign trade deal, which is especially important to labor and U.S. manufacturers. He said active trading is a key way to keep the United States competitive. 'We're not going to draw a moat around the United States' economy. If we do that, then China is still trading, India is still going to be trading,' said Obama, who voted against the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement and opposes the pending trade deal with South Korea. 'I think that NAFTA and CAFTA did not reflect the interests of American workers but reflected the interests of the stock owners on Wall Street, because they did not contain the sorts of labor provisions and environmental provisions that should have been embedded and should have been enforceable in those agreements,' he said." (AP, 10/10/07)

[dailykoff]

20. Valiant, but lame and hopeless.

There is no way a WalMart lawyer can do anything but lose on this issue.

[jackson_dem]

23. Except if the truth somoehow managed to get past the msm and get out there

Unlikely but we must do what we can at the grassroots level.

[dailykoff]

24. The truth is she backed NAFTA and profited from sweatshops.

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

[jackson_dem]

25. She profited from sweatshops?

Hillary was trying to persuade Bill not to sign NAFTA when the man in your avatar was voting for it.

[dailykoff]

26. Directly.

She was paid several hundred thousand dollars annually by Walmart.