Slamming Clinton on NAFTA

C

Cypress

Well-known member
This is a legitimate criticism of Clinton, that Obama could hammer. She is completely disingenous about her support for NAFTA, a failed trade policy, and selling out the middle class.

Further, by attacking her on this, it reinforces progressive values. It doesn't tear them down. Attacking Clinton on universal healthcare using rightwing talking points, poisons the well and weakens the progressive position on universal health care. Because republicans won't do crap on healthcare, and blue dog democrats will be afraid to touch universal healthcare. In contrast, slamming Clinton on NAFTA strengthens progressive values. The republicans are never going to fundamentally change corporate-sponsored phony free trade. It's an issue the Dems can draw a strong contrast with the reich wing on.

Obama is adopting John Edwards rhetoric on NAFTA. What worries me, is Obama's actual record. I think the dude supported that NAFTA-style Peru free trade agreement.

The Issue That Could Decide the Democratic Nomination and the General Election

by David Sirota,
Open Left
February 23, 2008 at 9:49 AM.

None of us likes being lied to by politicians, and not just because being lied to is insulting, but because when a lie comes from a politician, it suggests that none of their promises should be believed. ......

It would be one thing if Hillary Clinton was admitting that yes, she vigorously supported NAFTA, but that support was misguided. But no, as the column shows, Clinton is now trying to convince voters she never supported the North American Free Trade Agreement - the trade model whose lack of labor, human rights and environmental standards made it a tool for Big Business to ship jobs abroad. Not only is she claiming to be a longtime opponent of the deal, but she's actually trotting out former Clinton administration officials-turned-corporate-lawyers like Mickey Kantor - the very architects of the deal - to tell us that behind closed doors she really wasn't for NAFTA. Shocker - these are the same hacks who have lashed their careers to Clinton's campaign in hopes of getting back their White House jobs.

The strategy assumes that the media will simply report this revisionist history as fact, and worse, that Americans who have been crushed by this unfair trade policy are a bunch of idiots. We are simply supposed to ignore the speeches she made telling us what a great success NAFTA was, including the one where she traveled to Davos, Switzerland to give a speech in which she thanked corporate interests for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA" (that's a direct quote from her mouth). And the lying is about the best indicator that all her rhetoric promising a new trade policy under a Hillary Clinton presidency would be tossed out the window when she got to the White House - much like Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign promises to oppose NAFTA and China PNTR were tossed out the window when he was inaugurated president.

But now, Barack Obama is picking up where John Edwards left off and is reminding folks of the real history, promising to get serious on trade, and consequently the polls in Ohio appear to be closing.

Though Obama is certainly not as aggressive on the issue as some of us would like, the rhetoric is encouraging in that he sees his political opportunity in standing with progressives. That means if he manages to win on this message, he will have begun the process of building a real public mandate to reform our broken trade policy - a mandate that he will be under enormous pressure to respect and fulfill as president.

http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/#77580
Click to expand...
 
Protectionism sells out the middle class. THere has yet to be any real negative effect of NAFTA, besides a booming economy, which the turbo- Dems hate because it means they can't play on fear to get another 4 years in the office.

Trademongers are regressive. If trademongers are "progressive", as you say, then Herbert Hoover was americas greatest progressive.
 
Watermark said:
Protectionism sells out the middle class. THere has yet to be any real negative effect of NAFTA, besides a booming economy, which the turbo- Dems hate because it means they can't play on fear to get another 4 years in the office.

Trademongers are regressive. If trademongers are "progressive", as you say, then Herbert Hoover was americas greatest progressive.
Click to expand...

You may be f'ing around with your response but you're point is pretty accurate Watermark (although I wouldn't say a booming economy is a result of NAFTA but free trade is a positive).
 
cawacko said:
You may be f'ing around with your response but you're point is pretty accurate Watermark (although I wouldn't say a booming economy is a result of NAFTA but free trade is a positive).
Click to expand...


NAFTA isn't free trade. Free trade is a slogan without any particular meaning.

NAFTA is a one-thousand page long treaty, chock full of rules and regulations, mostly allowing the flow of corporate capital to seek out cheaper labor. While doing little to nothing, to free up the movement of labor, let alone the protection of labor.
 
then a REAL free trade agreement, would be one paragraph long. It would say, no duties or tariffs. Period.

NAFTA is a thousand pages long, full of rules and regulations. Which benefit a myriad of interest groups.
 
Cypress said:
then a REAL free trade agreement, would be one paragraph long. It would say, no duties or tariffs. Period.

NAFTA is a thousand pages long, full of rules and regulations. Which benefit a myriad of interest groups.
Click to expand...

NAFTA isn't free trade. Just because you call it something doesn't make it so.

Shit you call yourself a liberal, but support massive government intrusion in the life of the individual.

Clearly terms don't mean what they should.
 
Epicurus said:
NAFTA isn't free trade. Just because you call it something doesn't make it so.

Shit you call yourself a liberal, but support massive government intrusion in the life of the individual.

Clearly terms don't mean what they should.
Click to expand...
NAFTA is highly regulated trade, definitely not "free" trade.
 
Watermark said:
Protectionism sells out the middle class. THere has yet to be any real negative effect of NAFTA, besides a booming economy, which the turbo- Dems hate because it means they can't play on fear to get another 4 years in the office.

Trademongers are regressive. If trademongers are "progressive", as you say, then Herbert Hoover was americas greatest progressive.
Click to expand...

God its been a long time since I agreed with something you posted... Albeit, you claim to be trolling...
 
Damocles said:
NAFTA is highly regulated trade, definitely not "free" trade.
Click to expand...

Yes. ALL trade is regulated trade. There is no such thing as the dictionary defintion of "free trade" that watermark provided, and American agribusiness and business consortiums would never tolerate it's practice.

The problem, as seen by many, is how you regulate trade. NAFTA is a piss poor way to regulate trade. IMO.
 
Cypress said:
Yes. ALL trade is regulated trade. There is no such thing as the dictionary defintion of "free trade" that watermark provided, and American agribusiness and business consortiums would never tolerate it's practice.

The problem, as seen by many, is how you regulate trade. NAFTA is a piss poor way to regulate trade. IMO.
Click to expand...
Yet you continuously pretend that it is "free trade" by repeating it. I simply point out that crappy regulation does not make it "free", it is still highly regulated whether or not you agree with the regulation.

There is no "fair trade", working towards that is what NAFTA created.
 
Incorrect damo. I have always called NAFTA "so-called" phony free trade.

Its your buddies on the reich wing who tell me I'm against "free trade" whenever I criticize NAFTA. You might want to take it up with them.
 
Cypress said:
Incorrect damo. I have always called NAFTA "so-called" phony free trade.

Its your buddies on the reich wing who tell me I'm against "free trade" whenever I criticize NAFTA. You might want to take it up with them.
Click to expand...
My post was clearly aimed at supporting the position of another. Yours was "all trade is regulated this be bad"...

We agree. We have for a long time on NAFTA. We disagree on the position the government should take to fix it though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top