NEITHER candidate will opt out of NAFTA

[Nederland]

Obama won't opt out.

Hillary won't opt out.

Nor will either one of them even "threaten" to opt out. For one, Canada would love a chance to renegotiate a new treaty that deals with all their newly discovered oil in a way that is more favorable to them and less favorable to us. More importantly, NAFTA has been around for over a decade. The nature of free trade deals is that certain industries win and others lose, and the effect plays out rather quickly in the two or three years after passage. Opting out of NAFTA would not result in any of the jobs that were lost coming back and only result in the jobs that were gained being lost.

It simply isn't going to happen.

[Little Star]

1. Hillary never led anyone to believe she would drop out.

She has known for a long time there are many problems that need to be straightened out regarding NAFTA. She has been up front about it. The other one, not so much.

[Taverner]

2. Personally I think we could make NAFTA benefit everyone if it were rebuilt

Something more akin to the EU...

[Nederland]

4. I agree

But Mexico and Canada will never relinquish control over their currencies. Why would they, especially now with the dollar falling like a rock?

[Taverner]

7. Well now's not the time to do that

If they would have put it in place in the 90's, the dollar wouldn't be sinking so low right now, and inflation would be kept at bay.

[LSparkle]

3. That's true, but one candidate seems AWFULLY sensitive about criticism

of it. I don't think Obama ever claimed he wanted to get out of it altogether -- he just voiced criticism of it and implied he might not have signed it had he been president. Yet even mentioning Clinton's name and NAFTA in the same sentence caused her to go ballistic ... Can't we have a discussion about the pros and cons of NAFTA -- an "accomplishment" of the Clinton administration -- without her taking it as a personal slight, worthy of a tantrum?

[EFerrari]

5. That sounds like a good call to me. n/t

[TheWebHead]

6. agreed.

this is completely political on both sides. there may be some sort of window dressing alterations for PR purposes, but this is all about votes.

[tucsonlib]

8. And Another Newsflash For You:

Neither candidate will bring our troops home from Iraq. Neither candidate will provide us with universal health care. Neither candidate will repeal the Patriot Act or otherwise stop the erosion of our civil liberties. And neither candidate will hold the Bush administration accountable for the crimes they committed. In short, nothing will change. In short, the Republicans have already won. It was all over when they, with help from the media and the DLC, anointed the two weakest, most vulnerable Democratic candidates as the "front-runners". So cast your vote for Tweedledee or Tweedledum in November; And when McCain magically "wins", accept the explanation that Clinton was too "divisive", or that Obama was a victim of "racism". And just like in 2000 and 2004 you'll keep your doubts to yourself, 'cause after all - "McCain won! Get Over it!!

[Nederland]

12. Ralph Nader?

Is that you?

[Flabbergasted]

9. I think most Americans understand this premise. It would simply be bad business...

[GoldieAZ49]

10. Well of course not, whatever made you think they would? No POTUS will opt out.

It has been an asset to the USA as well as Canada ad Mexico.

As for Ohio, the job loss is not due to NAFTA as much as companies going overseas. Also Unions, companies in the USA are favoring right to work states instead of union states.

I heard something about Alabama having job growth, companies moving there because they are a right to work state.

[Enrique]

11. I agree

talk about pulling out is just b.s.