Obama, Clinton & the NAFTA Kabuki Dance

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Obama, Clinton & the NAFTA Kabuki Dance
By David Sirota, Campaign for America's Future. Posted November 15, 2007.

They don't call it the "silly season" for nothing: Hillary will vote for more of the same failed trade model she opposes; Obama attacks Clinton for supporting the same deal he does.

We are watching something truly absurd - and that says a lot for the generally absurd realm of American politics.

Earlier this week, we saw Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) promise to call a "time out" on passing NAFTA-style trade deals if she is elected president - a promise that was made just four days after she announced she would be casting a vote to enact a vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement - the latest NAFTA-style trade deal moving through Congress.

Now, today, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is criticizing Clinton for being a part of the previous administration that passed NAFTA-style trade deals. It's fair criticism, of course - but not if you yourself have already promised to vote for the same NAFTA-style trade policy in the near future. Yes, Obama's criticism comes just a few weeks after Obama himself declared he, too, would be voting for this same NAFTA-style trade policy moving through the Senate.

The Associated Press reports that Obama told an audience of union workers that he "vowed to fight any deal that doesn't protect workers and the environment." Clinton has made the same promises. Both square this circle by claiming the NAFTA-style deal they are going to vote for does include strong labor and environmental protections. Yet, Washington's top corporate lobbyists have long ago told the public that the supposedly strong labor protections in the NAFTA-style deal he is going to vote for "cannot be read to require compliance." Meanwhile, no major environmental, labor, human rights, anti-poverty, consumer protection or religious group in either Peru or the United States has endorsed the deal. In fact, most of them have put out statements strongly criticizing the deal.

...

So let's just step back and ask a simple question: What the hell is going on here? Why when polls show overwhelming bipartisan opposition to NAFTA-style trade policies are two leading Democratic candidates talking out of both sides of their mouths on the issue? NAFTA-style trade policy is so unpopular that even Republicans like Mike Huckabee are using it to climb in Republican presidential primary polls. So, again, what the hell is going on here with Clinton and Obama?

...

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/68032/

[antigop]

1. What the hell is going on-- the question is,"Why are DEMOCRATS supporting them?" n/t

[Orwellian_Ghost]

3. Heh

Figured this one would set an all-time record for sinking into the pit of oblivion.

:toast:

to reality

[eridani]

2. They are kissing the behinds of their paymasters

I'd have thought that was obvious.

[antigop]

4. Yes, it's obvious... so why are DEMOCRATS supporting these candidates?

Do Democrats support outsourcing?

[eridani]

10. Because of bandwagoneering MSM bullshit

They think there is no choice but to get behind a "winner," the definition thereof determined by corporate media.

[antigop]

13. Democrats on DU support them n/t

[eridani]

15. Preferring fluff to substance is commonly found in the blogosphere--

--as well as in the non-wired world.

[Red Knight]

5. We get what we vote for

I just don't want to read any bitching by the Obama/Clinton supporters later. They can't say they didn't know, or they had no choice.

There are PROGRESSIVES and then there are "progressives".

It's not what you say you support---it's your actions that define you. Clearly if you support Clinton or Obama, you do so knowing that you support NAFTA deals.

Just don't hide from that fact later.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. ...

:thumbsup:

[calmblueocean]

8. Support doesn't occur in a vacuum.

I supported Kucinich, and was ready to caucus for him. But I understand that politics do not revolve around one issue only. It's important, for example, to get a Democrat in office this year because if we don't, the Supreme Court may become a conservative institution for the rest of our lives, and that could mean that Roe v. Wade gets thrown back to the states, or worse. If evangelicals succeed in some of their backdoor methods of passing a Human Life Amendment at the state level, a conservative court might accept their argument that the 14th Amendment requires the federal government to allow states to extend "protection" to unborn "citizens".

I'm not willing to let that happen. So I just have to work for the change I want, and not just make voting the sum total of my political action.

[Red Knight]

9. true

But we can take their healthcare plans that continue to prop up the "for profit" system as another issue.

In Hillary's case we can take the war issue she voted for.

We can take the issue of corporate money or highly placed corporate lackeys involved in their campaigns.

All of that turns me off and doesn't suggest "change" in any meaningful way. The choice is in the primary, of course. In the general election there isn't much choice except the lesser of two evils in a lot of cases.

Of course I'll vote for the Democrat in the general election.

But the primary is where the heart and soul of the party is uncovered. In that, IMO, we failed.

[calmblueocean]

7. Thank you for posting this.

I supported Kucinich for precisely these reasons.

These free trade deals are trillion dollar giveaways to big business at the expense of the working class in every country around the world. I find it frustrating that none of our remaining candidates speak out credibly about this subject.

The only thing we have anymore that the world wants is access to our markets, and day by day, even that power is dwindling. We ought to be using that power to negotiate gradually increasing labor and environmental standards in every country that wants their products in our stores. The fact that we don't is a moral failure on our part.

Politics are complicated, and involve more than one issue, so there are still reasons to support candidates who fail here. But they should still be called out for their failure. David Sirota rocks.

[Triana]

11. What the Hell is going on here is...THERE ARE THREE candidates...

...and ONE of them would likely NOT triangulate so on this issue - but interestingly HE isn't mentioned.

THERE IS ANOTHER CHOICE - EDWARDS.

What the Hell is going on here is that Sirota AND America's voters have OD'd on the goddamned corprat kool-aid.

Duh.

Jeebus H. Friggin Keeerist people.


Got CLUES?


From Edwards's site and speeches in Iowa:

# Enact Smarter Trade Policies: Trade deals need to make sense for American workers, not just corporations. Edwards will make sure any new trade agreements include strong labor and environmental standards and will vigorously enforce American workers' rights in existing agreements. He will also expand trade adjustment assistance to do much more for the workers and communities that are hurt by global competition and reform our international tax code to remove incentives for companies to move overseas.

_ _ _ _ _

* Create good jobs: Edwards will invest in renewable sources of energy to create new industries and at least 1 million new, good-paying jobs. He will pursue a trade policy that ends tax loopholes for companies that send American jobs overseas, and end the NAFTA trade model. Edwards will also raise the minimum wage, reform our tax code, build career ladders, and strengthen organized labor.

THERE IS ANOTHER CHOICE. CHANGE IS THERE - IF YOU WANT IT

But you are NOT going to get it with Obama or Clinton. Wake up and smell the damn NAFTA!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

14. Yes

[Helga Scow Stern]

12. Good information. n/t