|
I was thinking about what the Obama person might have said to the Canadians that got interpreted as "his anti-NAFTA rhetoric is just campaign talk," cuz any aide who said would be way out of line, and should be fired. You just don't SAY something like that (or you don't say it that way). And this report--if it's true--is exactly what I was thinking must have been said--that Obama is not no worried about "free trade" with Canada, because Canada has LABOR PROTECTIONS. It is a first world, progressive society. The problem with "free trade" is THIRD world countries, where the corporations go pirating around the world, looking for the cheapest, most unprotected labor markets. THAT is what hurts U.S. workers and communities. Also, if you are Canada, then you are concerned with the stability of trade, as any sensible country would be. They wanted to know: Are you going to repeal NAFTA? That would throw trade relations into turmoil, with a country that HAS labor protections.
This memo allays some doubts I had, based on PARTIAL, and highly distorted, representations of what was said, that Obama has a duplicitous position on NAFTA. I don't think he does. I don't agree with his position. I think NAFTA should be rescinded, not only because it has been a disaster--for third world peoples and for us--but because it was neither discussed, written nor voted on in a democratic manner. It was rushed into law, and was further tainted by Bill Clinton's baldfaced LIE that he would not sign it without labor and environmental protections. I voted for him based on the promise, goddammit. And it was shuckin jive. So, let me tell you, I AM attuned to shuckin jive, on this and other matters, from any politician, including Obama.
But, on the shuckin jive front, I'm afraid Hillary Clinton is the one who's full of it, on NAFTA. She fully supported it, at Davos and in other forums. Of the two, I think Obama is more likely to keep his word that he will re-write it, as it should have been written by her husband, as he promised to do, and as he didn't do! If she had held an independent position on this, when it was rammed through Congress, I could separate her from Bill. I'm a woman and a feminist, after all. I am not saying, like husband/like wife. I'm saying that I KNOW what her position was, and she fully supported it. For her to say now, that she will re-write it, is not very believable. So if I have to choose--as we all do--I'd go with Obama on this issue. I also think his supporters will be more successful at keeping him to his word, than Clinton's supporters would be.
This memo helped me understand this matter better. Thanks for posting it!
---------------------
Someone upthread said something to the effect that it was out-of-line for a presidential campaign to be contacting foreign governments. That is not true. This is ROUTINELY done, and the presidential campaign--especially one like Obama's, a successful one, that may put him in the White House--would be derelict in its duty NOT to hold discussions with foreign governments. The Reagan analogy is entirely off point and unfair. The Reaganites used this routine process in order to sabotage a sitting government of the United States--Jimmy Carter's--in his dealings with Iran, on a highly sensitive matter. And they in fact got Iran's hostage-holders to KEEP hold of their American hostages, as a CAMPAIGN tactic against Carter! What they did was TREASON! What Obama's campaign aide did was normal, acceptable and even required behavior of a presidential campaign. The only question was the Obama campaign's duplicity--which to my mind is settled by the actual content of the talks--which this memo clarifies.
And even if the memo revealed duplicity, we would have to ask, is it the campaign aide or Obama? Also, this kind of mudslinging is really rather silly. I want to say, "GROW UP, people!" Government leaders lie all the time, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. Bush's lies about Iraq were lethal. Would Obama's lie to the Canadians--or to us--about NAFTA, be lethal? No. He would still have to re-negotiate NAFTA. The American people are up in arms about it, and his supporters would exert strong pressure. Or not. He could just sit on it, and watch our country go down the drain. But Clinton and McCain would be much more likely to do that, than Obama--to serve the rich, and the global corporate predators who rule over us. With Obama, we will have more of a chance at a renegotiated NAFTA--EVEN IF HE, PERSONALLY, LIED ABOUT IT--which I don't think he did. It really comes down to that. What are the choices? And, really, the hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign, on this matter, is rather nauseating. I heard Mark Penn going on about it, on C-Span today. My gut feeling: revulsion.
To repeat: I don't trust Obama either, on any issue. I think we have a long, long, lo-o-o-ong way to go to get our democracy back. I like Obama's supporters, though, and his ability to inspire people. Because THAT's what we need more than anything--an activated citizenry. Presidents and politicians will go on lying forever, until we find the way to hold them accountable again. We need transparent vote counting. We need activated citizens. And at least we're getting the latter, with all these folks roused up about Obama. It's a very good sign.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
