MyDD :: Obama softens on NAFTA.

Obama softens on NAFTA.

by canadian gal, Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:26:16 AM EST

In the upcoming Fortune magazine, Barack Obama seemingly has backed off of vow to use the "hammer'' of opting out of NAFTA to force the renegotiation of the trade pact and now says he will seek change through dialogue if he is elected president.

This is a marked change from the stance taken at the debate in Cleveland in the final days of the Ohio primary campaign in March, when Obama agreed with Hillary Clinton when she said the six-month opt-out clause should be invoked on NAFTA to force changes. He said:

I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labour and environmental standards that are enforced

In contrast, Obama dialed back his anti-NAFTA stance in the interview Fortune interview:

Now, however, Obama says he doesn't believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA. On the afternoon that I sat down with him to discuss the economy, Obama said he had just spoken with [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen] Harper, who had called to congratulate him on winning the nomination.

"I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.

To some progressives - this is not sitting well. And while I am not a fan of NAFTA, I'm certainly not surprised. Are you?

Tags: obama, nafta (all tags)

Permalink :: 74 Comments :: Post a Comment

its always about the oil, huh? (2.00 / 3)

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:26:56 AM EST

surprised? (2.00 / 3)

pander to the far left to get the nomination, and then go back right to the Clinton middle to win the election. I thought the Daily Kos, Ariana Huffington, and some here hated triangulation. Oh well.

by Lakrosse on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:28:30 AM EST

Re: surprised? (none / 0)

if you read the diary, a writer at HuffPo is not happy.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:33:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: surprised? (none / 0)

cmon, you get the idea of what I mean. They're probably going crazy at other Obama blogs like Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, etc.

by Lakrosse on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:36:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: surprised? (2.00 / 1)

Yup, many are upset. I'm looking foward to hearing criticisms of Obama's lack of being a perfect president...much more than I would look forward to hearing same about a President (crosses self) McCain.

McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.

by catilinus on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:26:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: surprised? (1.00 / 0)

did u read the comments there on huffo canadian girl? seems like we ported our finest cheerleaders from mydd.

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:50:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama softens on NAFTA. (2.00 / 1)

Lean to the Left

Lean to the Right

Stand up, sit down.

Fight Fight Fight!

by MediaFreeze on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:33:21 AM EST

Nothing contradictory (2.00 / 3)

I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labour and environmental standards that are enforced

and

"I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.

Are entirely consistent and even complimentary. Note the use of "potential" and "leverage" in the first quote, which indicates negotiation is involved.

The second quote indicates negotiation and cooperation.

This is a BS non-issue, -PlaceName- -female casual diminutive-

McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.

by PantsB on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:45:42 AM EST

Re: Nothing contradictory (1.00 / 0)

I really realy( as god's my witness) am glad he is walking away from his position. But in all honesty to reply to your parse. lets be honest.

THEN:"I have always opposed NAFTA."

"I don't think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have."

NOW: Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing contradictory (none / 0)

Except, your last quote is a complete fabrication. Obama is clearly pro-markets and, likewise, a proponent of free trade in the abstract. But, he has never walked back from his criticisms of NAFTA--namely, the lack of environmental and labor provisions.

You can think NAFTA is bad law while believing in the advantages of globalized trade-in the same way one can oppose quotas while still supporting affirmative action, generally speaking. Support for a general political idea doesn't mean you supporter every law enacted with that idea in mind.

by DPW on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:03:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing contradictory (1.00 / 0)

Except, your last quote is a complete fabrication

Proof -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-siro ta/memo-to-obama-you-cant-re_b_107907.ht ml

I'll take that apology anytime ;) j/k.

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:11:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing contradictory (2.00 / 1)

Nowhere in that link is there a quote from Obama saying "NAFTA not so bad after all" or anything even close. He just said some of the rhetoric on the campaign trail gets a little overheated, which the "journalist" from Fortune magazine interpreted to mean that "Obama doesn't want to unilaterally blow up Nafta after all."

By the way, you may want to check out David Sirota's newest post giving Obama more favorable reviews on trade. David Sirota is the HuffPo author of the piece you cite. He's clearly more hostile to NAFTA and global trade than Obama, but David is a good writer and he's generally fair, so check out his follow up here.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jse ssionid=7CD2A1C6153192F2A9085559B9B50C98 ?diaryId=6499

He was also using the first HuffPo piece you cite to plug his new book, for which I don't blame him. Nothing wrong with a little self-promotion, and I plan to read the book soon.

by DPW on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:19:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

come on now. (2.00 / 1)

surely you see a dial back in his comments. and that's okay, because as i said - there are clear political implications (see: oil) in reopening NAFTA. but let's be honest here okay?

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:21:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: come on now. (2.00 / 1)

I agree that he's dialed back the rhetoric a bit, but I don't think he's changed anything substantive. The change is mostly one of intensity, attitude, and style. He has always maintained that these trade deals are flawed due to their lack of labor and environmental safeguards. But, he voted for the Peru agreement this year (during the heat of primary battle) since such safeguards were included. It really wasn't until Ohio that Obama tried to ramp up the populist rhetoric, and I gave him shit for it at the time (I am pro-trade compared to many of my progressive friends, and I don't think NAFTA is the real enemy. We don't even have NAFTA-style trade deals with India and China, but that's more of the outsourcing has been directed.)

by DPW on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:26:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing contradictory (1.00 / 0)

Nowhere in that link is there a quote from Obama saying "NAFTA not so bad after all" or anything even close.

DPW OMG ! lol --- IT'S IN BOLD QUOTES in that article 3rd paragraph down .

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:29:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing contradictory (1.00 / 0)

Here ya go Exact copy / paste of the Quote , since for some reason big BOLD / highlighted quote in the article is avoiding your eyes.

Yet, as Obama courts organized labor, we get this from Fortune magazine:

Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all The general campaign is on, independent voters up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade. In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee suggests he doesn't want to unilaterally blow up NAFTA after all. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake."

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:32:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing contradictory (2.00 / 1)

See my comment below. You've proven you have no interest in the truth. That is not a quote from Obama. That is the writer from Fortune's language, based on nothing but her imagination.

by DPW on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:34:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you seriously that illiterate? (2.00 / 1)

I mean, really. You actually thought the TITLE of the editorial was a quote? Quote usually have... well... quotations. The look like this "see?"

Good luck with your campaign.

Gobama!

by USArmyParatrooper on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:11:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing contradictory (none / 0)

Dear lord, what's wrong with you? That not a quote from Obama. That's the "journalist's" exagerrated interpretation (notice that Sirota says the same thing in the post you link).

Show me language from Obama where he is saying something substantively different than what he said about NAFTA during the primary or anytime in the past.

by DPW on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:32:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing contradictory (1.00 / 0)

you know what I see your " quote" point. I give you that...because I read it as a quote. Yup when I'm wrong I'll say it. although thats exactly what he is projecting. Lets say major shift in stance. and plz come on --w/ the conspriracy from the journalist theory .

but " "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake."

is direct quote from him . and is marvelous back tracking...from his ads "

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2400/2271 807377_c8a637c9f7.jpg

and

http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck /imagefiles/Image/03.03.08%20obama%20naf ta%20mailer/Obama_NAFTA.jpg

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:54:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing contradictory (2.00 / 1)

You do understand the difference between words outside quotation marks and words inside them, right?

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:52:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nothing contradictory (none / 0)

A shift or change of course would be going from "I think we need to renegotiate the terms of NAFTA" to "NAFTA is fine the way it is". This ain't that. It is simply, as said, toning down the rhetoric, which had eclipsed his stated policy.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:10:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, intelligent diplomacy! (none / 0)

That's such a nice change from the current approach.

The Four Generational Cycle diary that was popular in the last week or so has had me thinking. I tend to agree with the implication that the Boomer Generation is inclined to ideological extremism, and that we have suffered under that from those Bomers in both parties for a while now. Much of the hype about Sen. Obama showing signs of the pragmatic ability to compromise to advance goals and ideals is, imo, more of that "scorched-earth" diplomacy that is characteristic of Boomer mentality.

I could not be more pleased if in fact Sen. Obama does prove to be the kind of negotiator who is willing to use all of the tools of diplomacy to make actual progress. It has been my misfortune to watch entirely too many ideologues take hystionic moral stands at the expense of advancing any actual ideologies.

-chris

"Because after an eight-year hiatus it is vital to have a president who leads the country instead of lassoing, roping and branding it." Shaun Appleby

by chrisblask on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:49:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not getting anything on those "quotes" (none / 0)

From Google aside from you saying them here and someone posting the same thing at NoQuarter.

Can you show me a link for those "quotes" that's not from NoQuarter?

Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?

by BrighidG on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:10:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Right on schedule... (2.00 / 1)

no wait, it is still too early for that (only June now). What more change lies ahead.. in July/Aug

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:45:16 AM EST

I'd like to actually see what he says (2.00 / 1)

before forming an opinion. There's entirely too much paraphrasing going on, and very little actual Obama speaking.

by Neef on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:00:23 AM EST

fair enough. (none / 0)

but the bit i included in the diary is a direct quote.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:05:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

oops (none / 0)

replied to you below by accident

/doh

by Neef on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:31:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama softens on NAFTA. (2.00 / 2)

eeshk. apparently everyone's progressive ideals are going to 'hell, in a handbasket' today.

[at least thats what it seems like]

"Rankles and Rush Limbaugh, ruining the chaos brand since 2008."

by alyssa chaos on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:21:34 AM EST

yep. (2.00 / 2)

But Mr. Obama wants to reinforce them, by demanding that Canada and Mexico reopen negotiations. What Mr. Obama actually wants to discuss with Canada is an open question. He argues that future trade agreements should contain environmental and labour protections, so that Third World (read Mexican) sweatshops can't undercut American workers. But just how is Canada a laggard in protecting the environment and the rights of workers? Three times I have asked this question in conference calls with Obama campaign officials. They have no answers. One congressman specifically said that Mr. Obama was referring to Mexico, not Canada. Yet Mr. Obama persists in specifically mentioning Canada when promising to reopen NAFTA.

IMO this can of worms should not have been opened.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:09:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yep. (none / 0)

well double speak is what poltics is all about. keep saying canada when you mean mexico; its not a surprise that mexico would be our true focus in all this.

"Rankles and Rush Limbaugh, ruining the chaos brand since 2008."

by alyssa chaos on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:28:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, I'm sure (none / 0)

However, a "but" in the next sentence would change the sense entirely, no? "I'm not a unilateral guy but this is an important issue, and blah blah".

I have seen him do that before, say he loves the free market then by the third sentence we're all agreeing regulation is GREAT.

Just saying I'm sure parsed the hell out of his answer, and I want the full version.

by Neef on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:30:06 AM EST

nah. (none / 0)

i get your point about parsing - but clearly this is a dial back.... and i believe for the reason i mentioned. in fact reopening NAFTA is pretty much wanted here in canada - but its not so good for the american people and their oil prices.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:49:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no this isn't a dial back (none / 0)

he's still saying and pursuing the same thing.

tell me why are you so desparte for something to hold against Obama?

And further do you really expect to agree 100% with a candidate?

Because if you do, I think you're a little delusional

The fact is there's a number of positions I don't like Obama holds and there will be things that Obama does that I won't like.

But in the end I agree with him and his actions more then I disagree and that's really all that matters.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's nice for you.... (none / 0)

and another new person here that is questioning my intentions. how refreshing!

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:00:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oh come on (none / 0)

this is thin and you know it given that your 'smoking gun' isn't even Obama's own words but the words of a journalist.

I mean come on what the hell is up with that?

As I see it you're either an idiot or have a negative agenda.

And you never answered my question, is the only way you'd vote is if you agreed 100% with a candidate?

Becuase this 'purity' routine is a little hypocritical for some and I want to see if you fall into that group or not

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:02:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

to answer you question.... (none / 0)

And you never answered my question, is the only way you'd vote is if you agreed 100% with a candidate?

no.

but no the diary includes a direct quote. and again its not surprising for the reason i listed - but lets be honest shall we?

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:11:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yes let's be honest (none / 0)

that 'quote' is a direct quote from the freaken journalist NOT Obama.

That is why you're getting the response you're getting because your position is so stupid that frankly as I said either you're purposefully taking this position or you're an idiot.

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:16:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

CAN YOU READ? (none / 0)

"I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOOK I CAN USE ALL CAPS TOO (none / 0)

That's not a softening of his stance.

He said the exact same thing several months ago.

How do you think treaties get renogiated? You don't just say 'um Mexico, Canada we want to renogiate'.

More over Obama has said repeatedly that he thinks everyone should have a seat at teh table so what exactly are you surprised about?

I mean seriously?

-7.33, -3.35 The song that best describes life

by drache on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama softens on NAFTA. (none / 0)

Oh My God - Obama IS a politician.

Damn.

I've been duked.

by devoted1 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:51:38 AM EST

Re: Obama softens on NAFTA. (1.00 / 2)

Poor CG It's going to be a long eight years. Your candidate McCain is a hero but he's the wrong guy.

by Politicalslave on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:55:50 AM EST

Re: Obama softens on NAFTA. (2.00 / 1)

is that a joke?

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:12:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think it was. (none / 0)

And for one I don't think you are an actual GOP supporter. You do verge on the edge of attacking Sen. Obama quite frequently, however, so if people take it that way you shouldn't be overly surprised. You aren't as patent as the shameless Hate-Baiters and you engage in dialogue, so you're alright with me, but being surprised with the reponses from those supporting the Democratic bid for the white house shouldn't be a shock.

Since the two of us have talked a lot I hope I can ask this without being offensive - are you a Yank in Canada or a Canadian interested in US politics?

-best

-chris

"Because after an eight-year hiatus it is vital to have a president who leads the country instead of lassoing, roping and branding it." Shaun Appleby

by chrisblask on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:40:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

um no. (2.00 / 2)

the edge of attacking? i really dont think that is an accurate description of me at all. in fact patently untrue. and the fact of the matter is this is a democratic blog not an advertisement for a particular candidate. NAFTA is a serious issue and one which we all involved have got mixed messages from the democrats.

i am calling this out. there's something called critical thinking (and blind devotion) and this is not part of that.

to answer your question, i am canadian with deep ties in the US
(father and siblings who are american) and a person with a genuine stake in the outcome of the election.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:53:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um yes (none / 0)

Call out what you like, I was being pleasant. I do not recall your commentary making points in support of the Democratic bid for the white house post-primary, but you are always ready to point out flaws. Chortling about any perceived weakness in the Democratic Parties bid for the office of President like the troll suzieG below would be actual outright attacking, your threads ride the line between that and actually supporting those of us working to unseat the Bush dynasty.

Nothing wrong with foreigners having commentary on internal American issues, but don't overstate your ties. I have similar ties with Germany, and every human is directly impacted by what happens in the US presidential elections, so come on in but imho you should more often be clear that you are not either a citizen nor a resident of our country.

In all my calls into CFRB in Toronto I always made the point that I was an American living in Canada. Not doing so would have been assuming a position that I did not feel I deserved, and being disengenuous about my perspective. And I lived there for twenty years or so, went to school there, started companies there, married a Canadian and have three dual-citizen children, two of them born in the country.

I'll be honest. If I were you and did not clearly and frequently state that I was neither a citizen nor lived in (nor had ever lived in?) the US I would be ethically uncomfortable to say the least.

-chris

"Because after an eight-year hiatus it is vital to have a president who leads the country instead of lassoing, roping and branding it." Shaun Appleby

by chrisblask on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:05:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

being pleasant? lol (2.00 / 2)

you are attacking ME for daring to bring up an issue that is clearly an important one and to which MANY democrats have sent mixed messages. and yes - i joined mydd during the primary for a variety of reasons, does that mean that i must now get in lockstep as a BLIND cheerleader? no.

i think what you are doing is trying to discredit me personally (see: questions about my nationality and mischaracterizing my reputation) because you do not like the content in my diary. and to this i say good day chris!

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:15:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

touchy, much? (none / 0)

No, if I were attacking you it would be unmistakable. I am not known for my subtlety in that realm...

As I said, I have extensive personal experience in commenting on countries that I am only partly part of and have strong views on how I think I should to that. I fault towards being overwhelmingly clear where my commentary comes from. I even go out of my way to state - often, in my comments, in my profile,... - that I am not a Democrat (Upper Left Purple Independent). Because when you enter a dispute among family members you are well served to either: stay out; or be exceedingly clear that you do not have equal standing with the siblings and cousins beating each other up.

Your overly strong reaction to the discussion raises more questions in me than it answers. Must I only discuss with you in BLIND (what are the caps about, btw?) lockstep with you?

-chris

"Because after an eight-year hiatus it is vital to have a president who leads the country instead of lassoing, roping and branding it." Shaun Appleby

by chrisblask on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:31:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i think this will be the last... (2.00 / 1)

of my comments to you unless they are directly related to the content in the diary...

you've used to the word 'smear' to characterize the content here and tried to bring up allusions to why my opinion in this matter needs to be qualified. to which i say - BOO.

you are free to explain your positions in which ever way you deem necessary. and i my own way. you know nothing about me, and i you - so how about instead of questioning me personally you address the content in the diary - okay?

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:38:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As you will (none / 0)

But since all we have here is information, questioning the source of the information is entirely valid. If you would like to have a post-graduate level discourse on the use and managment of information I am both more than happy and more than qualified to do so.

To that point, I did not in any way use the word "smear" in regards to your diary nor imply such. I was very careful to phrase my comments to reflect my thoughts, any misunderstanding of them is either my failure to do so with clarity or your failure to read them with clarity.

Lastly, I believe I have commented on the content of this issue at length often enough, but for clarity I will do so again:

Senator Obama is in my opinion engaging in politics and diplomacy to pursue the goal of furthering the best interests of his country. I do not believe that his answering of the question put to him during the referenced debate was incorrect or disingenuous (if you are unable to negotiate the conditions of NAFTA will you be willing to cancel it?), nor do I take exception with he or anyone else engaging in the tactics of such negotiations. As a results-oriented person, my view of the success or failure of such political and diplomatic maneouvering will generally come after there are results to measure.

-chris

"Because after an eight-year hiatus it is vital to have a president who leads the country instead of lassoing, roping and branding it." Shaun Appleby

by chrisblask on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:20:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama softens on NAFTA. (none / 0)

Make that 'four at most'.

by killjoy on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:50:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You keep dreaming n/t (none / 0)

Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?

by BrighidG on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:13:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

canadian gal (2.00 / 2)

Nonsense. This whole thread above debating canadian gal's motives is barking up the wrong tree. She was a consistent and good-faith advocate for Hillary Clinton during the primary and, along with sricki, has been one of the strongest voices for unity since Clinton conceded. She is no fan of John McCain and has consistently called out Republican trolls.

Criticizing our candidate is good. It makes him stronger. If we're disappointed in things he's been saying, we should call him out. I know there's a fine line between being a disappointed supporter and a concern troll, but writing something critical of Obama does not make you a McCain supporter.

The key, I think, is to look ahead. Okay, Obama didn't say or vote how I wanted him to. How do I influence him to act differently in the future? Concern trolls don't care about the future; they just want to pick at scabs.

Sorry for the rant but CG is no Republican.

What is The October Protocol?

by Koan on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:37:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks koan. (2.00 / 1)

blind adulation is a dangerous thing. and to me - part of being a progressive or liberal is ensuring that government is accountable to the people.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:53:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nuff respect CG n/t (2.00 / 1)

What is The October Protocol?

by Koan on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:40:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

YOU (2.00 / 1)

don not know what the fuck you are talking about!

TR'd for calling CG a repug and for you acting like a troll.

I would have HR'd you but I did not want CG's other comments to also be hidden.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:42:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama softens on NAFTA. (2.00 / 1)

Did anyone other than the Obamanauts who used it as an issue to attack Bill Clinton EVER believe that Obama was going to renegotiate Nafta? I have no problem with this because it was totally unrealistic to expect it because of the mayhem it would have caused with our two nearest neighbors and major trade partners. However, I won't be holding my breath waiting for retractions from all those Bill Clinton haters.

by ottovbvs on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:58:52 AM EST

Look! A Hate-Baiter! (2.00 / 1)

I am an Obamanaut and I don't hate either Clinton.

I do "hate" people using sneering dogwhistles, though. Have you folks ever gotten together to see how many times you can use the word "hate" in a post? Kinda like an apple-dunking contest for hate-baiters?

But gosh, thanks or coming out and attacking Senator Obama again. You Concern is noted.

"Because after an eight-year hiatus it is vital to have a president who leads the country instead of lassoing, roping and branding it." Shaun Appleby

by chrisblask on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:34:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Chill (none / 0)

Obama said last night that he is still opposed to NAFTA and will negotiate with Canada and Mexico to improve it.

The reason why he told FORTUNE magazine that the rhetoric was over heated is that at one time he said that he would opt out of it. However, Obama says that he will not opt out of it if the negotiations totally fall apart.

The article is in NYT today.

by puma on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:36:46 AM EST

linky? please. (2.00 / 1)

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:10:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here you go! (2.00 / 1)

Here is the NYT article that talks about Obama's NAFTA stand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/us/pol itics/21trade.html

by puma on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:20:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks. will take a look. (2.00 / 1)

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:28:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

okay... (2.00 / 1)

so i read it and still does not answer my questions... if BO wants to reopen negotiations to cover environmental and labour protections, so that third world sweatshops can't undercut American workers, fine. but how is canada a laggard in protecting the environment and the rights of workers?

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:48:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

NAFTA must DIE (2.00 / 1)

and if it is to be "changed" or renegotiated, then it MUST become FAIR Trade!

All countries are about We The People! Our government in particular is WE/US/You and I, NOT the corporations and the corporatist! It needs to reflect this!

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:34:32 PM EST

Re: NAFTA must DIE (none / 0)

the idealist in me totally agrees with you, but pragmatist in me knows that it will never happen. ;(

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is not idealist (2.00 / 1)

We need to stop accepting what they "give" us! WE need to start DEMANDING! This is OUR country! We The People! NOT they and them. Not the corporations!

We need to be willing to take to the streets and make things happen.

Maybe what we should be doing is this. We should start teaming up with "progressives" in Canada and Mexico to make this happen.

We need to find the DailyKos and MyDD of Canada and Mexico and start organizing.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:10:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is not idealist (none / 0)

yeah -most canadians really do hate NAFTA. that being said - it would open up the oil issue and as much as we hear rhetoric to the otherwise, but IMO there is no way that washington (no matter who is in the white house) would allow a re-negotiation to happen.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What many seem to forget is this (2.00 / 1)

WE are "Washington". If WE keep doing as we are doing, we will change the direction of WA DC. It did not get there overnight and it won't change overnight.

With the current state of the economy, this is a perfect chance to smash NAFTA.

A small way to approach this is on a local level. By buying and "going" local.

Here is our local effort of Going Local.
http://www.golocaltacoma.com/

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A quote for all of us (2.00 / 1)

to take to heart:

"You have a uniquely important responsibility. You are the guardians not only of what kind of president we will have, but what kind of future we will leave to our children."

- John Edwards - from his One America plan.
http://jre.gigliwood.com/issues/plan-to- build-one-america.pdf

This also holds true for us as it relates to Barack Obama.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:32:43 PM EST

oops (2.00 / 1)

I forgot to mention, I found this again at the EENR Blog.
http://www.eenrblog.com/

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:34:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.