Chris Matthews & Andrea Mitchell "Left Policy=Bad Policy. Every educated person supports free trade"

[Leopolds Ghost]

From Tonight's Pre-Debate Warm-up in Cleveland, after the meaningless
"I'm an Indians fan" rhetoric and the mindless cheering from a studio
audience of Clinton & Obama supporters:

Prominent Reporter: "Look, Chris, NAFTA is not going to be an issue here.
BOTH of these candidates are free trade candidates, with reservations."

Chris Matthews: "Like any well educated person in America. Andrea,
do you think either of the two candidates will allow themselves to be
pulled to the left on this issue? What would you get if they decide
to govern from the left on the issue of trade?"

Andrea Mitchell: (emphatically, almost angrily) "BAD POLICY."

"Look, Chris, neither Obama nor Clinton is going to pander to the left
on this issue because intelligent, well-educated people understand that
trade is good for America. You're not going to have a candidate promise
to bring people together around the world and get America on our side
turn around and shut down trade."

Chris Matthews: "What does Clinton say to her most loyal supporters, then, those working class, non-educated white voters? Does she pander to them?"

Andrea Mitchell: "But this issue cuts both ways, Chris, and that's why Obama
is making inroads. You've got one state, Ohio, that has lost a lot of jobs
and there are people in Ohio who feel that NAFTA is to blame."

(note NBC's continual refusal to extend or modify this formulation
to do anything but suggest that these people are mistaken.
This is their stock phrase. They will not allow their talking heads
to speak out against NAFTA on the air or imply that any jobs were lost
because of it without being FIRED.)

Chris Matthews: "Then you have Texas --"

Andrea Mitchell: "Right, Texas, an area that HAS BENEFITED GREATLY FROM NAFTA. It's created thousands of new jobs down there. So neither candidate will win by pushing this NAFTA issue. It is a left issue, Chris."

Prominent Reporter: "I think a lot of the union supporters of
both candidates are going to wake up and be very suprised when their
candidate gets elected and governs from a moderate, pro-trade platform
after the election, Chris."

Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell are at the top of the food chain at NBC News Division.

This is the message they are sending out:

We support Obama because he is OUR (corporate) Manchurian candidate
on the trade issue. Liberals read into him that he is opposed to free trade.
Conservatives read into him that he is socially conservative than
evil Northeastern liberals like us, and we define liberalism to
mean us. Because liberals are arrogant Northeastern rich people
who secretly run this country thru the media because that's who we are.
That's what liberalism means. We're the liberal media.

And college-educated liberals know that free trade is necessary and
those working class voters are obsolete. Their jobs will not come back;
their jobs SHOULD not come back.

They were dirty, non-green jobs. If we want to be green in this country,
we should promote "clean jobs" at service industry wages and IMPORT
all our dirty manufacturing goods from elsewhere. If Barack Obama knows
what's
what, his job is to stay silent on the NAFTA issue while Hillary is forced
to "pander" to voters by reversing herself on the issue. What we need is
a popular leader who will reaffirm the U.S. commitment to free trade
ACROSS the political spectrum and sideline all those who disagree.
Like Clinton did when he was still popular. That is what we see in Obama.

This is part of an ongoing pattern showing that the wealthy pro-corporate
journalistic press has nothing but contempt for the non-college educated
American working family.

They have the lowest possible expectations of their intelligence and
right to a decent wage, and the lowest possible estimation of their
reasons for initially siding with Hillary, since they REFUSE to draw
any distinctions between Hillary and Obama on the trade question,
because their copy-editors do not want there to BE any. WERE there
any, they would come out against Obama and condemn him and destroy him
as an individual, as if he were Lou Dobbs or Don Imus.

Here's another example from a week ago.

Chris Matthews, after extensively questioning how Hillary could possibly
make herself look god "to Pittsburgh voters" on the NAFTA issue,
literally laughed a Pittsburgh news correspondent off the air when he
suggested that complaints about free trade were legitimate:

"So, she'll pander to Pittsburgh voters. That's what you mean."

"No, I think many people, not just in Pittsburgh, want to see those jobs brought back to the US."

"So she'll pander. Like Obama's doing. But Obama's lucky enough not to have a record."

"Look, in Pittsburgh you have a lot of jobs that have been lost since NAFTA, especially steel jobs."

"STEEL JOBS?! Ha! You want STEEL JOBS in Pittsburgh? What, do you want to return to 1946???"

"Well, yes, some of those jobs would be nice. But Chris --"

"So you want Hillary and Obama to pander to Pittsburgh and Ohio voters
on the issue of NAFTA and free trade, an area where Hillary's working class
white voters care deeply about, we'll see how that works. Moving on..."

[bluestateguy]

1. The "educated" people are often wrong

Real Life is not found in the pages of an academic journal.

[anigbrowl]

9. I think you're confusing being educated with being academic.

Myself, I am a very strong believer in free trade. Frankly, I think NAFTA was a good idea, but one that was entered into too enthusiastically, without consideration to the short and medium term costs that would be borne by industrial workers.

[spooky3]

21. What makes you think these two twits know what

the academic journals actually say? I think you are giving them WAY too much credit.

on edit, just to clarify - the "two twits" I'm referring to are Tweety and Andrea.

Academics don't agree any more over "free trade" than do other people.

[Selatius]

2. I support Fair Trade, but nobody listens to that communist bullshit.

:sarcasm:

Here's what fair trade is all about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Fair Trade is the right thing to do, for sure

[Selatius]

8. Gee, but in America they make you feel so wrong for supporting it.

MSNBC probably supports it for the fact that General Electric, owner of NBC/MSNBC, could more easily sell its war machines to more foreign customers and countries, get big-ass dividends at the end of the year and gigantic x-mas bonuses for the senior execs.

[UALRBSofL]

15. Fair trade and NAFTA could work

Except all the money from removing tariffs is going to the rich and not going to the poor. It was suppose to lower the costs of consumer goods to be more affordable. Anyway, if any one wants to be upset about trade they should actually be looking into WTO which China joined in 2001. With the import of cheap consumer goods they have eliminated quite a few american industry's.

[Cha]

17. My co-op supports Fair Trade

you bet..there's a whole educated, subterranean culture that tweety and mitchell know nothing about that supports Fair Trade Big Time.

[belpejic]

3. I'd bet good money

That neither Matthews or Mitchell could articulate why free trade is good in some cases and bad in others. For them it's a talking point and nothing else. I would count them as neither intelligent or well-educated, regardless of the names on their degrees.

*Edit* Plus, could they disrespect Ohio voters any more? They're basically suggesting that Ohio voters are stupid, uneducated, naive yokels who don't merit any inclusion in "serious" debate. Arghhhhhhh! Talk about showing their true colors! This is how "serious" Republicans treat conservative evangelicals. I really hope it isn't how Democrats treat their own.

[joeybee12]

4. Me think dose peoples insults me...me mad...n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. LOL I am not a violent person, but that sort of thing really pulls at the

inner primate at me. I wanna just sling some poo at them! :grr:

[joeybee12]

7. I'm not totally againt free (and fair) trade...

...but the arrogance of those 2 to equate intelligence with being for that position is just too...well, arrogant!

[katsy]

10. If nafta defies common sense and common good,

it doesn't matter how educated you are, you will be skewered in the end.

[KoKo]

14. Those who "stick fingers in their ears" and plug the hearing of it...or don't want to know

because it's "inconvenient" to their lifestyle.... Those are the folks who will find one day...that they should have "unplugged." ...But, for many Americans..THEIR WAKE UP will be long past what could have been helpful for the rest of us.

That's why we need to wake up NOW...and not sleep or plug our ears..not to hear it.

[katsy]

18. That inconvenience to their lifestyle stems from "greed".

And greed has nothing to do with intelligence.

But what can we expect from corporate mouthpieces except lies and more lies.

[yourout]

11. I dare him to walk into a union hall and say that.

[billyoc]

16. He wouldn't get that far in my hall. nt

[KoKo]

12. A Most Excellent Post...I hope folks will read it...and digest it....

because you got the TRUTH OF IT...(although, there are legions here who don't want to hear the TRUTH of IT!)

K&R.

[GCP]

13. Jeez, word of the day at NBC is "pander"

Insert as many times as possible to denigrate people you don't agree with.
Of course working class people hate NAFTA. There jobs disappeared because of it, and I'm sorry, Andrea, a McJob at Starbucks doesn't quite bring in the same bucks as a good manufacturing job did.

[UALRBSofL]

19. In reference to lost jobs in Ohio

If you look at where there jobs were lost, many were lost in the automotive industry due to most people purchasing imports where the big 3 automakers have been struggling, which has nothing to do with free trade. I think NAFTA is a bad word in Ohio due to the large organized labor.

[jackson_dem]

20. The reporter is right and frankly we deserve it. We had Edwards

And it won't be just union members who are going to be shocked...

"I think a lot of the union supporters of
both candidates are going to wake up and be very suprised when their
candidate gets elected and governs from a moderate, pro-trade platform

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. We need to start outsourcing media jobs... Rationalize the industry of news delivery.

There's no earthly reason (pardon the pun) why "World News Tonight" should
be based in New York and not London or Singapore or Dubai.

Of course, the media elitists and the expert economists at CNBC will turn
around and claim no, there isn't, but that's why we need to make New York
a "world city" for the global elite, who have no single nationality.

Hence, we need to keep the streets clean and put more money into hotels,
and less money into schools for poor people who don't belong on the island
anyhow... or even that bastion of upper-income educated jobs, New York,
will "lose out" in the "global marketplace" for "idea centers"... these
guys are not accountable to anybody, not the cops, not politicians, not
the hoii polloi...

their job is to sell stuff to consumers nationwide, ideas, toothpaste, gasoline...
not be influenced by what TV viewers in Ohio think. They are sufficiently educated
by virtue of the fact that they are successful, and the rest of us are unsuccessful
by dint of some flaw in our personality or education.

[closeupready]

36. That's so funny, because you know it's true. They only

favor NAFTA because it helps them make money, and it hasn't (yet) affected their own jobs. When it does, they'll have epiphanies, but by then it will be too late.

[ananda]

23. Actually, any educated informed person would..

.. completely condemn and deplore all
free trade agreements as pure evil.

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. Hey, stop counter-programming us!

You seem to be implying that I can't trust the studiedly "liberal"
media outlets I've so loyally relied upon to be impartial sources
of information about the economy in a sea of even more devious propaganda!

After all, you gotta have something to cling to. :hi:

And what's wrong with lattes and fine wine anyway? We wouldn't have any
of that without the free trade agreements of the post-Cold War Era! Why,
I remember the rationing and privation of the Cold War, during which the
Soviets starved us into submission by limiting our access to imported
goods from around the world, forcing us to make our own merchandise!
Those were dark days indeed... then we invented the Internet and were
liberated from the need to slave away at a factory or office! Now we
work from home and make hundreds of thousands of dollars as a consultant!
Except for the forgotten lower class who make under 200K...

[KoKo]

27. lol's...I hear 'ya!

:hi:

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. Self-delete

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. What an idiot.

Democrats need to correlate free trade with outsourcing and open borders. They also need to remind Chris Matthews that bank bailouts are not free trade.

I'm so tired of all the pundit dishonest discourse.

[Canuckistanian]

28. What an ignorant asshole

Does he actually think that there are PLENTY OF JOBS around to replace steel companies, automakers and manufacturing jobs lost to NAFTA?

"do you want to return to 1946???" Well, actually, Tweety, we do.

Those were the "golden years" of an ascending middle class making good wages, getting a pension (Anyone remember pensions?) and having some disposable cash to spend on products that OTHER AMERICANS MADE.

One problem though - it wasn't such a good time for corporate bosses - they only had to make do with a paltry 17X the lowest worker's salary.

Now, top executives make 419X or more. And the article I got it from is now 9 years old.
http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/april99/040899e.htm

[OwnedByFerrets]

29. Thom Hartman is more educated "and" smarter than both

those right wing tools put together and he HATES free trade. You want to know why, go read at his site. They both would do good to get a little education there.

[Marie26]

30. That makes me so angry.

Tweety laughs it up at unemployed steel workers - and anyone who criticizes globalization is either an idiot or pandering to idiots. Tweety should visit a Pittsburgh bar with those comments.

[krkaufman]

31. Wow, what a shocking thing for the wife of Alan Greenspan to say.

Shouldn't MSNBC regularly disclose Andrea Mitchell's relationship with a lead architect of our current economic crisis?

[closeupready]

37. I know, I thought of that, too.

:rofl:

[bvar22]

32. NAFTA is GREAT.....

if you are the Owner of a Large Global Corporation.

If you have to work for a living, or own a small Mom&Pop Independent business....not so good.

[Leopolds Ghost]

33. After the debate, Chris and Andrea said something backhanded about both candidates criticizing NAFTA

Chris: "Ohio politics! All politics is local, I guess. Still, you would
think that the wife of Bill Clinton, who created NAFTA, would be proud of
his creation and would come out and endorse it!"

Twety said nothing about Obama attacking NAFTA. Like I said, I think they
are banking that both candidates are misleading the voters on this issue
and will not seriously threaten to back out of NAFTA.

Isn't it interesting how the media gives candidates PROPS for
misleading the voters on important ECONOMIC and FOREIGN POLICY issues
that wealthy people depend on?

Where the assumption is that the voters need sweet talk to let the
medicine go down, and the truth would be too damaging to the cause
of right-thinking people?

But they attack the candidates for misleading people on even the smallest personal issue.

It's Jesuitical, almost!

Mislead someone about domestic wiretapping, which security and telecom
and software industry depend upon for innovation in the direct marketing
and consumer tracking field and the burgeoning "national security industry"
where lots of money is to be made.

(just look at recent innovations in infrared cameras designed to replace
car-pool lanes with HOT lanes, simultaneously pushing more Americans to
buy cars -- albeit hybrid vehicles to make them feel better -- and
tracking consumers (what used to be called citizens in public highays)
to see if they are "qualified" to be in a privatized toll lane.)

Technology they intend to use to make a NAFTA superhighway possible.

Mislead someone about the intent of that, and it's OK because national security depends
on us walking the dark side, right? And a public controversy would defeat the purpose
of doing that.

Mislead someone about NAFTA, and it's OK because it is assumed that the politician's
JOB is to mislead Americans about economic issues, because they don't know what's
good for them, they don't understand that what's good for multinational corporations
based in the Cayman Islands is good for them because in the new economy, those people
will be the ONLY employers. There will be no little guy left, so what's good for
General Motors will indeed be good for the country -- by force.

Mislead someone about universal health care necessitating "mandates"
is suddenly necessary to attack people who attack "mandates" from the
right or left, not because the media is liberal, but because the policy
is invented by the insurance lobby and they are there to serve the
interests of their advertisers. Instead of attacking what is a pretty
statist policy like they constantly say they must on every issue,
because "liberalism is dead except here in the media", all of a sudden
universal health care (like they have in Cuba) is socialistic
and mandates (forcing all Americans to purchase a private plan,
whether they want to or not) is suddenly the libertarian solution! Why?
Because it is a huge giveaway to the insurance industry modeled exactly
along the lines of Bush's Social Security plan (require all Americans
to invest in the stock market instead of a universal single payer
nonprofit pension plan) and Clinton's Telecom deregulation (require all
Americans to purchase digital TV sets so broadcast networks can get
billions of dollars of additional over-air bandwidth absolutely free.)

Oh yeah, and mislead people about leaving "non-combat advisors" in Iraq
for years to come, like the French did in Vietnam, to ensure that Iraqis
comply with OUR prescribed legislation (the 18 benchmarks we insist they
adopt in order to become a satellite nation of the US) is NOT what Stalin
did to Hungary, is NOT all about privatizing Iraq's oil, but is in fact
about "vital national interests" and you can't openly tell the American
people we are in there to keep Russia or Iran getting their hands on
our oil.

[Skidmore]

34. We're talking about Mrs. Greenspan here working with a serial panderer

suffering from peroxide saturation poisoning.

[Leopolds Ghost]

35. HA!!

I think it's strange that nobody ever calls women in the media on it when
they marry 80-year old men in positions of power, but they feel free to
attack celebrities for doing the same thing. If called on it she would
be forced to admit that she was either (a) a trophy wife or (b) deeply in
tune with Greenspan's politics. At least Carville and Matalin can claim
that they are something other than a power couple because they deserve
each other.

[Leopolds Ghost]

38. Tweety and Andrea were right: Clinton and Obama coordinate TO DECIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

This is a coordinated effort to decieve the American People by a
wealthy permanent government elite. We are being presented with
a false choice by people who will do anything to destroy and
character assassinate anyone who "falls out of the mainstream"
on this issue.

Lawrence O'Donnell (angrily) on Dan Abrams:

"The two candidates are being absolutely silly on (both health care and)
NAFTA. There is no chance, none, that these proposals will be sent to
Congress, and no chance that they would pass. NAFTA has been nothing but
good for Canada, Mexico and the United States. I was Hillary Clinton's
person on the Hill when NAFTA was passed and I promise you she was not
opposed to NAFTA, only thought her health care bill should have priority.
I promise you that neither of these candidates will DO A THING to touch
NAFTA once they are elected. They are being absolutely silly pandering to the American voter on this issue. I know what Hillary thinks on this issue."

Obama sends high-level private communications between his corporatist
Democratic Wise Old Men handlers and Canada's corporatist Wise Old Men:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4805060

***The (Obama) staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.***

My sister in Toronto called me tonight and told me that this was one of the top stories on CTV National News tonight in Canada. Here's the article I found on CTV.ca:

Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric

Updated Wed. Feb. 27 2008 10:26 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have ratcheted up their attacks on NAFTA, but senior members of their campaign teams have told Canadian officials not to take the criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.

The Democratic rivals have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said.

Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.

More at link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227?hub=TopStories

"During the broadcast report, the reporter stated that the Clinton camp has not only denied to CTV News that any conversation with Canadian officials took place but that blanket immunity has been given so the source with their camp could be revealed, if there is one. So far, no source."