Reply #27: NAFTA

[Xithras]

Generally my feeling is yes, but Hillary will be a real problem for me. NAFTA, in my book, was just as evil as the Patriot Act and FISA, and probably did more damage to working Americans. Hillary is running on her husbands legacy (according to her and her supporters, it's her White House experience with Bill that qualifies her for the position), and her husbands legacy is irretrievably tarnished by NAFTA. I was quite vocal back in 99 that it was a GOOD thing that Bill couldn't run for a third term, because NAFTA forever erased any chance of me voting for him again. His rejection of Kyoto simply cinched the deal.

Hillary has not attempted to really distance herself from Bill's trade policies, and her own history in that area (and her cozy relationship with Indian outsourcing firms and her stated support to increase H1-B visas) makes me believe that a Hillary presidency will simply be a replay of the 1990's when it comes to their free market trade policies. Many people nowadays forget that the HUGE WTO and trade protests of the late 90's happened under the Clinton watch, largely in response to Bill's own trade policies. Eight years of busHitler have made many people put on rose colored glasses and forget most of the less pleasant aspects of the Clinton era, but MANY of us (yes, even Democrats) weren't terribly happy with the last Clinton presidency.

Some of us have not forgotten. I would never vote for McCain or Romney, but a Hillary nomination will make me think hard about skipping the GE altogether. A free traitor is a free traitor, no matter their party affiliation.

I'm not a big Obama fan, but he's one of the most pro-labor leaders in the Senate and has already called for the renegotiation of NAFTA to fix the job loss issues. I still think that Edwards would be a better president, but I can deal with Obama. Clinton? I'll have to get back to you in a few months on that one.