‘NAFTA-gate’ story takes unexpected turn

[Dan J 277]

I'm still waiting for clarification on Obama's views on NAFTA

Constantly bitchin' about clinton isn't going to win over independents like myself, or for that matter the general election

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/is....freetrade.html

Hillary Clinton

Supported NAFTA while first lady but now believes NAFTA should be changed. During a 2005 trip to India, she stated, "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue." However, during 2007 presidential debates, she said outsourcing was a problem. Would end the tax breaks that exist in the tax code for outsourcing jobs and have trade agreements with enforceable labor and environmental standards.

Barack Obama

Would immediately call the leaders of Mexico and Canada to try to amend NAFTA. Would eliminate tax breaks for companies that are moving overseas. He stated, "We also have to have an intentional strategy on the part of the federal government to make sure that we are reinvesting in those communities that are being burdened by globalization and not benefiting from it."

- My opinion

This is assuming that either of them would be able to pull together the leadership on the issue. Making too big changes in a short amount of time, will likely slow down growth quite a bit. Since a lot of our growth is related to trade. If outsourcing didn't take care of manufacturing jobs, automation would. The US is moving toward being an knowledge society (which means more people will be in skilled knowledge based jobs, like medicine, engineering, finance, even service and repair), the challenge is how to bring everyone into that society. They both want to end tax breaks, which is good, There should not being any tax advantage for those who want to outsource. We won't be able to stop outsourcing and trade, so instead the better route is to help those that are being replaced to find a place in our knowledge society.

[no name 1]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So where does Obama stand on NAFTA? Do you think he should/would scrap it?

These are going to be important issues if he is to be the nominee and beat McCain, not what Clinton may/or may not have done. And he will be hammered by McCain if he does not clarify his views.

Shouldn't that be something that every curious voter should find out on their own?

Well, one would hope so.

But in all fairness - there is no shortage of anti-Hillary people on VJ who DEMAND answers from her/about her, so why are you O lovers shying away from answering about your annoited one now?

[Dan J 277]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So where does Obama stand on NAFTA? Do you think he should/would scrap it?

These are going to be important issues if he is to be the nominee and beat McCain, not what Clinton may/or may not have done. And he will be hammered by McCain if he does not clarify his views.

Shouldn't that be something that every curious voter should find out on their own? I'm not trying to be smug here, but obviously there's going to an enormous amount of misinformation and disinformation about each candidate and we owe it to ourselves to find out just where they stand on issues. Both Hillary and Obama have stated, several times, where they stand on NAFTA. What originally came into question was whether Hillary had changed her tune (which she has), and that's what lead to this smear tactic to discredit Obama's consistent stand against NAFTA as it is constructed.

And for what it's worth.... (from WaPo)

Both candidates are also guilty of glossing over the difficulties of renegotiating highly complex trade agreements. During last week's debate, both Clinton and Obama threatened to "opt out" of NAFTA unless the deal is renegotiated to U.S. satisfaction. There was no mention of the fact that Canada might like to renegotiate parts of the agreement that give the U.S. preferential access to Canadian oil, or that Mexico may have second thoughts about importing subsidized American grain.

In their quest for votes, both candidates have been guilty of twisting the facts on NAFTA and trade. Obama has been telling Ohio voters that "one million jobs" have been lost as a result of NAFTA, including "nearly 50,000 in Ohio." I examined this claim (originally made by John Edwards) in a previous post, and my fellow fact checkers at Factcheck.org debunked it again today.

For her part, Clinton has sought to give the impression that she has a magic formula for turning economically depressed areas around, when this is far from the case. Running for the Senate in 2000, she promised to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate New York. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was a net loss of 26,500 more jobs in the region during Clinton's first six-year-term as senator. She now calls the promise "a little exuberant."

The Pinocchio Test

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can fairly be accused of "political positioning"--diplo-speak for "pandering"--on NAFTA and trade. Their positions on NAFTA are actually fairly similar, but they are seizing on anything negative to say about the other candidate as part of a no-holds-barred contest for votes. Two Pinocchios each.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checke...id=sec-politics

NAFTA has become the buzzword for free trade in general. Most of the outsourcing is not due to NAFTA itself.

[Dan J 277]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So where does Obama stand on NAFTA? Do you think he should/would scrap it?

These are going to be important issues if he is to be the nominee and beat McCain, not what Clinton may/or may not have done. And he will be hammered by McCain if he does not clarify his views.

Shouldn't that be something that every curious voter should find out on their own?

Well, one would hope so.

But in all fairness - there is no shortage of anti-Hillary people on VJ who DEMAND answers from her/about her, so why are you O lovers shying away from answering about your annoited one now?

I did post his position above. As you can see its almost the same as Hillary's. As as Steven posted, they both have some skeletons to deal with. How about posting your own personal opinion on the issue?

[no name 1]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So where does Obama stand on NAFTA? Do you think he should/would scrap it?

These are going to be important issues if he is to be the nominee and beat McCain, not what Clinton may/or may not have done. And he will be hammered by McCain if he does not clarify his views.

Shouldn't that be something that every curious voter should find out on their own?

Well, one would hope so.

But in all fairness - there is no shortage of anti-Hillary people on VJ who DEMAND answers from her/about her, so why are you O lovers shying away from answering about your annoited one now?

I did post his position above. As you can see its almost the same as Hillary's. As as Steven posted, they both have some skeletons to deal with. How about posting your own personal opinion on the issue?

It's not about my opinion, or yours. It's about Obama's, specifically.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Shouldn't that be something that every curious voter should find out on their own?

Well, one would hope so.

But in all fairness - there is no shortage of anti-Hillary people on VJ who DEMAND answers from her/about her, so why are you O lovers shying away from answering about your annoited one now?

Framing the argument as Clinton lovers and haters is as silly as dividing people between Bush lovers and Bush haters. Each candidate as qualities worth noting and each candidate has issues worth scrutinizing.

[Dan J 277]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So where does Obama stand on NAFTA? Do you think he should/would scrap it?

These are going to be important issues if he is to be the nominee and beat McCain, not what Clinton may/or may not have done. And he will be hammered by McCain if he does not clarify his views.

Shouldn't that be something that every curious voter should find out on their own?

Well, one would hope so.

But in all fairness - there is no shortage of anti-Hillary people on VJ who DEMAND answers from her/about her, so why are you O lovers shying away from answering about your annoited one now?

I did post his position above. As you can see its almost the same as Hillary's. As as Steven posted, they both have some skeletons to deal with. How about posting your own personal opinion on the issue?

It's not about my opinion, or yours. It's about Obama's, specifically.

Its more interesting to have a discussion on a political issue that doesn't involve posting other peoples opinions. Does Hillary support your position on free trade? Does her previous support of NAFTA matter? Do you think it matters to other voters?

Edited March 6, 2008 by Dan + Gemvita

[no name 1]

All this situation has really proved, is that Hillary will use anything, true or not against an opponent.

If this is a sign of her leadership style. She will likely accomplish much of nothing as president.

So where does Obama stand on NAFTA? Do you think he should/would scrap it?

These are going to be important issues if he is to be the nominee and beat McCain, not what Clinton may/or may not have done. And he will be hammered by McCain if he does not clarify his views.

Shouldn't that be something that every curious voter should find out on their own?

Well, one would hope so.

But in all fairness - there is no shortage of anti-Hillary people on VJ who DEMAND answers from her/about her, so why are you O lovers shying away from answering about your annoited one now?

I did post his position above. As you can see its almost the same as Hillary's. As as Steven posted, they both have some skeletons to deal with. How about posting your own personal opinion on the issue?

It's not about my opinion, or yours. It's about Obama's, specifically.

Its more interesting to have a discussion on a political issue that doesn't involve posting other peoples opinions. Does Hillary support your position on free trade? Does her previous support of NAFTA matter? Do you think it matters to other voters?

Deflection.

Robin asked about O's position, not yours.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

From Obama's website...

Trade

Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.

• Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.
• Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.
• Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#trade

.....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Fact Check on Inaccurate Reports Regarding Obama's Position on NAFTA and Canada

February 28, 2008

Canadian Embassy Has Denied The Report. "A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta. 'None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta,' Landry said. He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject. 'We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us,' Landry said. 'There is no story as far as we're concerned,' he said." [Politico, 2/28/08]

"The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama's consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy -- that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

OBAMA'S POSITION ON NAFTA WAS CLEAR AT THE LAST DEBATE

I will make sure that we renegotiate...I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far. That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, when I ran for the United States Senate, the Chicago Tribune, which was adamantly pro-NAFTA, noted that, in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA...And as president, what I want to be is an advocate on behalf of workers. Look, you know, when I go to these plants, I meet people who are proud of their jobs. They are proud of the products that they've created. They have built brands and profits for their companies. And when they see jobs shipped overseas and suddenly they are left not just without a job, but without health care, without a pension, and are having to look for seven-buck-an-hour jobs at the local fast-food joint, that is devastating on them, but it's also devastating on the community. That's not the way that we're going to prosper as we move forward. [Democratic Debate, 2/27/08]

OBAMA'S RECORD ON NAFTA HAS BEEN CLEAR

Obama Said NAFTA And CAFTA Were Not In The Best Interest Of The American Worker "Because They Did Not Contain The Sorts Of Labor Provisions And Environmental Provisions" That They Should Have. "The AP reported, "Obama said he supports the foreign trade deal, which is especially important to labor and U.S. manufacturers. He said active trading is a key way to keep the United States competitive. 'We're not going to draw a moat around the United States' economy. If we do that, then China is still trading, India is still going to be trading,' said Obama, who voted against the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement and opposes the pending trade deal with South Korea. 'I think that NAFTA and CAFTA did not reflect the interests of American workers but reflected the interests of the stock owners on Wall Street, because they did not contain the sorts of labor provisions and environmental provisions that should have been embedded and should have been enforceable in those agreements,' he said." [AP, 10/10/07]

2004 Chicago Tribune Cited Its Difference With Obama's Opposition to NAFTA. The Chicago Tribune wrote in an editorial, "We sharply differ with some of those views, particularly Obama's opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement." [Chicago Tribune, 2/29/04]

2004 New Yorker: Obama Opposed NAFTA. The New Yorker wrote, "This is a regular theme with Obama: supporters who disagree with him. The two big Chicago daily papers both endorsed him enthusiastically in the primary, even though they disagreed with him on major issues-his opposition to the war in Iraq and, in the case of the Tribune, his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement." [New Yorker, 5/31/04]

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/

[no name 1]

From Obama's website...

Trade

Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.

• Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.
• Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.
• Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#trade

.....

See post #29

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I'm still waiting for clarification on Obama's views on NAFTA

Constantly bitchin' about clinton isn't going to win over independents like myself, or for that matter the general election

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/is....freetrade.html

Hillary Clinton

Supported NAFTA while first lady but now believes NAFTA should be changed. During a 2005 trip to India, she stated, "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue." However, during 2007 presidential debates, she said outsourcing was a problem. Would end the tax breaks that exist in the tax code for outsourcing jobs and have trade agreements with enforceable labor and environmental standards.

Barack Obama

Would immediately call the leaders of Mexico and Canada to try to amend NAFTA. Would eliminate tax breaks for companies that are moving overseas. He stated, "We also have to have an intentional strategy on the part of the federal government to make sure that we are reinvesting in those communities that are being burdened by globalization and not benefiting from it."

- My opinion

This is assuming that either of them would be able to pull together the leadership on the issue. Making too big changes in a short amount of time, will likely slow down growth quite a bit. Since a lot of our growth is related to trade. If outsourcing didn't take care of manufacturing jobs, automation would. The US is moving toward being an knowledge society (which means more people will be in skilled knowledge based jobs, like medicine, engineering, finance, even service and repair), the challenge is how to bring everyone into that society. They both want to end tax breaks, which is good, There should not being any tax advantage for those who want to outsource. We won't be able to stop outsourcing and trade, so instead the better route is to help those that are being replaced to find a place in our knowledge society.

His position is very generic and as you say, not that different from HRC. However, the ad he ran attacking her for her previous support sends a bit of a mixed message.

Personally, I think McCain talks the most sense on this issue and I have heard far more specifics from him.

Scrapping NAFTA would be a disaster for my industry as Canada represent billions of dollars in revenues. If we ask them to renegotiate in terms less favorable for them, they could retaliate. That could cost jobs. And their economy is doing a little bit better than ours at the moment.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

See post #29

Are we all now satisfied about where Obama stands on NAFTA?

[no name 1]

See post #29

Are we all now satisfied about where Obama stands on NAFTA?

No. I'm waiting to see what happens with the investigation & the shake out from that.

[Dan J 277]

I'm still waiting for clarification on Obama's views on NAFTA

Constantly bitchin' about clinton isn't going to win over independents like myself, or for that matter the general election

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/is....freetrade.html

Hillary Clinton

Supported NAFTA while first lady but now believes NAFTA should be changed. During a 2005 trip to India, she stated, "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue." However, during 2007 presidential debates, she said outsourcing was a problem. Would end the tax breaks that exist in the tax code for outsourcing jobs and have trade agreements with enforceable labor and environmental standards.

Barack Obama

Would immediately call the leaders of Mexico and Canada to try to amend NAFTA. Would eliminate tax breaks for companies that are moving overseas. He stated, "We also have to have an intentional strategy on the part of the federal government to make sure that we are reinvesting in those communities that are being burdened by globalization and not benefiting from it."

- My opinion

This is assuming that either of them would be able to pull together the leadership on the issue. Making too big changes in a short amount of time, will likely slow down growth quite a bit. Since a lot of our growth is related to trade. If outsourcing didn't take care of manufacturing jobs, automation would. The US is moving toward being an knowledge society (which means more people will be in skilled knowledge based jobs, like medicine, engineering, finance, even service and repair), the challenge is how to bring everyone into that society. They both want to end tax breaks, which is good, There should not being any tax advantage for those who want to outsource. We won't be able to stop outsourcing and trade, so instead the better route is to help those that are being replaced to find a place in our knowledge society.

His position is very generic and as you say, not that different from HRC. However, the ad he ran attacking her for her previous support sends a bit of a mixed message.

Personally, I think McCain talks the most sense on this issue and I have heard far more specifics from him.

Scrapping NAFTA would be a disaster for my industry as Canada represent billions of dollars in revenues. If we ask them to renegotiate in terms less favorable for them, they could retaliate. That could cost jobs. And their economy is doing a little bit better than ours at the moment.

I'm curious as to what part of NAFTA, you see as being necessary to your industry. So most of its provisions and discussions have revolved around agriculture and manufacturing.