PDA

View Full Version : Hillary's NAFTA flip-flopping


HolmeZz
02-24-2008, 02:01 PM
She's running a schizo campaign and I'm not sure why she even wanted to bring the NAFTA subject back up.

-----------------------------

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/022508dnpolobamaohio.247e7dc4.html

LORIAN, Ohio – Hoping to strike a chord with blue collar Ohio voters worried about the sagging economy, Barack Obama on Sunday continued to criticize Hillary Rodham Clinton for her past support of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"Senator Clinton has been going to great lengths on the campaign trail to distance herself from NAFTA," Mr. Obama told a group gathered at a wallboard manufacturing plant. "Yesterday, she said NAFTA was 'negotiated' by the first President Bush, not by her husband. But let's be clear: it was her husband who got NAFTA passed. In her own book, Senator Clinton called NAFTA one of 'Bill's successes' and 'legislative victories.'"

Mr. Obama said he has always been against the trade agreement.

"I don't think NAFTA has been good for America," he said. "I never have."

Mrs. Clinton does not favor NAFTA now, but has spoken in support of it in the past.

-----------------------

Matt Taibbi did a piece on Hillary and NAFTA for Real Time this past week:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NGpnGKnbks8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NGpnGKnbks8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

banyon
02-24-2008, 02:05 PM
Also on point:

But Obama said criticism of her on the trade agreement was still legitimate because the “premise in her candidacy throughout this campaign has been thirty-five years of experience including eight years in the White House.”

“Every good thing that happened she says she was a part of,” Obama added. “So the notion that you can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what isn’t politically convenient--that doesn’t make sense.”

patteeu
02-24-2008, 02:31 PM
“Every good thing that happened she says she was a part of,” Obama added. “So the notion that you can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what isn’t politically convenient--that doesn’t make sense.”

Now is this negativity a case of drawing distinctions or a personal attack? It seems to me that he's calling into question her character, not merely describing policy differences. :shrug:

HolmeZz
02-24-2008, 02:34 PM
Now is this negativity a case of drawing distinctions or a personal attack? It seems to me that he's calling into question her character, not merely describing policy differences. :shrug:

It's a critique on what she's campaigning on. Her whole campaign has been basically running on the success of the 90s(while ignoring any of the bad) and running against things she actually voted for while in the Senate(the war, NAFTA, NCLB).

banyon
02-24-2008, 02:48 PM
Now is this negativity a case of drawing distinctions or a personal attack? It seems to me that he's calling into question her character, not merely describing policy differences. :shrug:

He's calling into question the consistency of her positions. That doesn't mean it's a character attack, you should know as you and I exchange those blows all week long in this forum.

Hydrae
02-24-2008, 03:02 PM
Oh come on. It's not like anyone on this forum is surprised to hear that nearly all political candidates don't do much more than pander to get elected in the first place. I mean c'mon, who drops $5 Million dollars to get a job that pays $400K a year unless there is more value hiding there somewhere?

patteeu
02-24-2008, 03:04 PM
He's calling into question the consistency of her positions. That doesn't mean it's a character attack, you should know as you and I exchange those blows all week long in this forum.

Isn't that kind of inconsistency an issue of character? Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with this type of negative rhetoric, but I was told that Obama doesn't engage in anything personally negative. Taco John, I think it was, said Obama has never gone negative.

banyon
02-24-2008, 03:17 PM
Isn't that kind of inconsistency an issue of character? Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with this type of negative rhetoric, but I was told that Obama doesn't engage in anything personally negative. Taco John, I think it was, said Obama has never gone negative.

I don't think so. It's just a sign of confusion. There are plenty of people in this forum that I would readily submit as confused, but that doesn't mean I think they are bad people.

BucEyedPea
02-24-2008, 03:32 PM
I think it's a fair point for Obama to bring up. It's a policy issue. The inconsistency is a valid point for him to bring up too. Flip-flopping in a candidate is more of an issue as they say things to get elected they may not believe in, whereas in a non-candidate it can be a real change of heart or someone being pragmatic because they're weighing the good and bad a candidate may offer. Besides, if a person is consistently inconsistent then they're actually being consistent when you really look at it.

Back to Nafta:
Obama hasn't pledged to abolish it—just to tinker with by adding regs to it. That doesn't help Americans. He's against the tax credit for taking a business out of the country...but that's also in Nafta. Why not just abolish it. Or maybe he can't say that.

To be fair, I read that behind the scenes that Hillary had reservations about Bill passing Nafta. That she disagreed with him on it. Then again, she's got a lot of corp money behind her and she has to be for it now.

banyon
02-24-2008, 03:38 PM
I think it's a fair point for Obama to bring up. It's a policy issue.

Obama hasn't pledged to abolish it though—just to tinker with by adding regs to it. That doesn't help Americans. He's against the tax credit for taking a business out of the country...but that's also in Nafta. Why not just abolish it. Or maybe he can't say that.

To be fair, I read that behind the scenes that Hillary had reservations about Bill passing Nafta. That she disagreed with him on it. Then again, she's got a lot of corp money behind her and she has to be for it now.

You rally need to read the damn treaty. I'm against NAFTA too, but its not because it's "not free market enough" as you always state.

This time there's a mythical "tax credit for taking a business outside the country". Last time there were "subsidies" so it wasn't really free trade.

Here's the agreement text again (http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=78). I'm sure there won't be any showing that there are either subsidies or the tax credits you reference.

The problem is that this is what (mostly) unregulated free trade looks like, not that it's "not free enough."

HolmeZz
02-24-2008, 04:28 PM
He's against the tax credit for taking a business out of the country...but that's also in Nafta. Why not just abolish it. Or maybe he can't say that.

Abolish which? NAFTA all together? He says that'll just resort in more lost jobs.

To be fair, I read that behind the scenes that Hillary had reservations about Bill passing Nafta. That she disagreed with him on it. Then again, she's got a lot of corp money behind her and she has to be for it now.

The problem is she's voted for it and to expand it.

BucEyedPea
02-24-2008, 08:35 PM
Abolish which? NAFTA all together? He says that'll just resort in more lost jobs.
Hmmm? Never heard that before. I wonder why?

The problem is she's voted for it and to expand it.
I was just commenting on how she was originally against it back in the day behind the scenes from what I read. I never knew that before. I also did not know she voted to expand it either until this thread. It definitely conflicts from how she felt originally though.

patteeu
02-24-2008, 09:14 PM
I think it's a fair point for Obama to bring up. It's a policy issue.

It's certainly a fair point for Obama to bring up (and I applaud him for doing so), but it's not a policy issue. A policy issue is when you say I'm for X, but the other candidate is for Y. This is a character issue.

patteeu
02-24-2008, 09:20 PM
Hmmm? Never heard that before. I wonder why?

My guess would be that as much as NAFTA is not true free trade (without government interference of any kind), repealing NAFTA will result in more trade friction not less. Eventually, the current of globalization will win and the people/nations who try to swim against it will suffer more than the people/nations who face it and start adjusting to it now.

BucEyedPea
02-24-2008, 09:40 PM
It's certainly a fair point for Obama to bring up (and I applaud him for doing so), but it's not a policy issue. A policy issue is when you say I'm for X, but the other candidate is for Y. This is a character issue.
It's a bit of both. But more character.