Despite rhetoric, Obama and Clinton are not free trade foes and more evidence Hillary opposed NAFTA

[jackson_dem]

We deserve it. We had a viable candidate who was a fair trader and opted for two "free" traders and some did so for the most shallow of reasons. There weren't many differences between the candidates on the issues but trade was one of the big issues where Edwards was different than the $100 million candidates. We as a nation had a choice and we must live with the consequences of it.

As to Hillary, Bernstein, who is obviously no fan of Hillary given his biography of her, has also said Hillary opposed NAFTA in 1993 and after Edwards dropped out said her views on trade were closer to Edwards than most people would think.

P.S. Don't be fooled by CAFTA. Almost every Democrat voted against it, including the vast majority of the DLC. Their CAFTA votes are not a sign of them being fair traders. Oman is more revealing about their instincts. Very few Democrats voted for it but there they were voting for it along with all but two rethugs (Dole and Snowe) and the following Democrats:

YEAs ---62

Baucus (D-MT)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Kerry (D-MA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00250

-snip-

Lost amid the posturing, however, is that both have staked out nuanced positions in the past on Nafta and have supported similar trade deals. Although their language has become much more hostile to free trade as they have exchanged charges and countercharges, neither of them would have been mistaken in the past for an ardent protectionist or a die-hard free trader.

-snip-

Opponents, however, said crucial provisions in Nafta that led to jobs being shipped overseas were also part of the Peru agreement. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were also among only a dozen Senate Democrats who voted for a trade agreement with Oman in 2006.

-snip-

But Mickey Kantor, who is a friend and supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and was the United States trade representative when the agreement was pushed through, said in an interview in December that Mrs. Clinton raised concerns about the lack of provisions for labor and environmental standards and wanted to tackle health care instead.

David Gergen, a senior adviser in the Clinton administration, recalled Mrs. Clinton being “extremely unenthusiastic” about Nafta. Her feelings did not necessarily flow directly from her objections to the agreement, he said, although Mr. Gergen said he remembers her being dissatisfied with aspects of it. Rather, he said, Mrs. Clinton badly wanted to move on to health care and worried the Nafta fight would alienate constituencies like organized labor that she needed for that battle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28nafta.html?ref=business

[anigbrowl]

1. Good. I'm pro trade as well.

And it's not because I'm rich or have a company I'd like to move overseas.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Me too, but you won't get much love on DU

Some are still convinced that Smoot-Hawley was a good thing.

[Occam Bandage]

13. As am I, and I've learned it's best not to argue that here.

[jackson_dem]

6. So is everyone else

The difference is some are for fair (fair=fair for working folks) trade, others for pro-corporate "free" trade.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Both Obama and Clinton are "Fair" traders.......

please!

But it is Bill Clinton that instituted NAFTA.....

and it has already been revealed that Hillary's problem initially had something to do with timing NAFTA to take prescendence over her Health Care project.

President Clinton upon signing NAFTA:

Thank you very much. I'm delighted to see all of you here. I thank Speaker Foley and the Republican Leader Bob Michel for joining us today. There are so many people to thank, and the Vice President did a marvelous job. I do want to mention, if I might, just three others -- Laura Tyson, the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors; Bob Rubin, head of my national economic team; and one Republican member of the House that wasn't mentioned, Congressman David Dreier, who went with me on a rainy day to Louisiana to campaign for NAFTA. There are many others that I might mention, but I thank all of you for what you have done.

This whole issue turned out to be a defining moment for our nation. I spoke with one of the folks who was in the reception just a few moments ago who told me that he was in China watching the vote on international television when it was taken. And he said you would have had to be there to understand how important this was to the rest of the world; not because of the terms of NAFTA, which basically is trade agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, but because it became a symbolic struggle for the spirit of our country and for how we would approach this very difficult and rapidly changing world dealing with our own considerable challenges here at home.

I believe we have made a decision now that will permit us to create an economic order in the world that will promote more growth, more equality, better preservation of the environment, and a greater possibility of world peace. We are on the verge of a global economic expansion that is sparked by the fact that the United States at this critical moment decided that we would compete, not retreat.

In a few moments, I will sign the North American Free Trade Act into law. NAFTA will tear down trade barriers between our three nations. It will create the world's largest trade zone and create 200,000 jobs in this country by 1995 alone. The environmental and labor side agreements negotiated by our administration will make this agreement a force for social progress, as well as economic growth. Already the confidence we've displayed by ratifying NAFTA has begun to bear fruit. We are now making real progress toward a worldwide trade agreement so significant that it could make the material gains of NAFTA for our country look small by comparison.
http://www.buyoutfootage.com/pages/titles/pd_na_325.html

[jackson_dem]

8. Is Bill running?

Do we really want to compare Bill's record (22 million jobs) with Mr. Post Office?

[UALRBSofL]

11. Frenchie, both candidates are in favor of parts of NAFTA

NAFTA can work if it's directed the right way. Think about it, this part of NAFTA where they remove Tariffs on consumer goods should decrease the costs that are passed down to the consumer. What happened was the tariffs were removed but the monies that were saved on tariffs went to the corporate suits and they still increased the prices of consumer goods. This is the problem that the US Government should have been regulating all along but we never had a watch group to prevent this. Ohio has had a large percentage of job loss. However, looking at where these jobs were lost a big chunk of it was in the auto industry. This wasn't due to NAFTA, it was the big 3 automakers losing billions of dollars due to many americans are buying imports because they are made better then american autos.

I think people need to look closer at the WTO. This is where we are losing jobs, and, they are allowing deregulation. China joined the WTO in 2001 and at this point imports increased considerably, selling cheap consumer good and american company's can't compete with them because China uses cheap labor whereas US company's do not. I think imports from China, India and other country's should have Tariffs placed on them and maybe that might encourage companies that have moved off shore to return. I wouldn't include the country's involved in NAFTA though.

I'm just throwing some ideas out. :)

[Johnny__Motown]

4. I guess you missed O'Donnell's statement today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4805060&mesg_id=4805278




He was there, her "person on the hill" and he promises that she did not oppose NAFTA.


Game over, she lied about being against NAFTA. She continues to lie now about being against NAFTA and you can bet she will lie about it again and again and again.

He says he knows what Hillary is thinking.

How he thinks he knows what Barack is thinking I have no idea, but I would love to hear him explain that little mind reading trick.

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. To be fair, what Barack is thinking is all that matters now. Hillary's unlikely to be the nominee.

So it becomes a matter of tracking down and finding out what the hell
Obama's (mostly ex-Clintonite or even ex-Hillary supporter) top trade
and labor advisors said to the Canadians and whether it was part of a
coordinated effort by the two candidates to "neutralize" the NAFTA issue.

It sounds to me like the wise old men from both campaigns -- the future
ambassadors, trade delegates, treasury and investment banking and labor
regulators, the revolving door Washingtonians -- got together and decided
to take a "trade time-out" in Ohio, so to speak. A little mutual
demagoguery, pandering to the Ohio voters they feel are so ignorant
and undeserving of "old economy" jobs, followed by a return to your
regular free trade programming after a nominee has been chosen.

That is what I'm afraid of. Fortunately, with this big movement, Obama
can prove us wrong by assembling a coalition to call out the free traders
within the ranks and make rewriting NAFTA acceptable discourse. Right?

More likely, Obama will play coy and it will later be revealed that,
just like JFK, he is far to the right of the movement he created.

Hell, folks forget that Dean was a centrist Democrat in Burlington
who overturned rural anti-sprawl regulations, or some such.
His position against the war transformed him -- or at least his
supporters made it seem so, anyhow. Same with McCain's liberal
supporters back in 2000. Will Obama's liberal supporters take a
stand on trade? Or will they embrace and normalize right-wing
rhetoric because "if Obama's willing to take conservative stance,
I am too?" (like in the Campaign Finance Reform issue -- again,
forget Clinton as she's unlikely to be the nominee) Does Obama
have to be a Wellstone Dem to take a few important key positions
that Wellstone would have taken??

[jackson_dem]

7. That Obama shill?

I'll take Kantor, the USTR at the time, and two biographers (one who is very negative overall to Hillary) along with the objective Gergen who was there over an Obamite shill who once demanded in an article that Edwards quit to make way for the coronation of Obama.

[Levgreee]

9. I'll take what Hillary herself has said... and she had spoke in approval of NAFTA for a long time

[jackson_dem]

16. What did she say in 1993?

Did you hear her speak about NAFTA in 1993 like Gergen and Kantor?

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Edwards? Where did he stand on the biggest free trade vote of his Senate career?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00251

[jackson_dem]

15. That wasn't a free trade bill

That was a bill to give China the same status we give virtually every other country. Edwards has opposed every FTA (Oman, Singapore, CAFTA, Africa-Carribean, Chile, Peru, South Korea, and Andean trade) during his political career, although he was wrong on China but the Obama swiftboats misrepresent what China trade was.

The vote was 83-15 and it was 35-7 among Democrats (which is why those engaged in the Obamite netroots swiftboating of Edwards never mention the vote tally and who voted with him).

Some prominent progressives in the yes category: Boxer (D-CA), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Harkin (D-IA), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Reed (D-RI). Are you going to seriously suggest Dorgan sold out on China by supporting a bill that gave China the same status most countries have in an effort to bring China into the system so it would play by the rules?

[Armstead]

12. I wish either of them would go to the core problem with "free trade"

The so-called "free trade" policies of the last 30 years are nothinbg but an attempt to impose a right-wing corporate ideology on the entire world.

If we would acknowledge that as a starting point, we might actually have a true debate over how to foster international trade without destroying the world's political systems and culturel values in teh process.

[UALRBSofL]

14. Armstead, your right about that

The problem is much of the FREE TRADE is NOT being regulated. I think if we had a watch-dog group assigned and reworked much of our freed trade policy it could work, or, at least work better then what it's doing now.