Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (official)

[Best Buckeye]

Is Clinton guarenteeing to repeal NAFTA ?

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Best Buckeye

Is Clinton guarenteeing to repeal NAFTA ?

I believe that she used the more weasle-like "reevaluate" it publicly. Beyond that, who knows what promises are being made backchannel through campaign intermediaries. Are these people so naive about the Clintons as to believe that somehow they'll be different...somehow they'll be the core Democratic constituency that the Clintons don't throw under the bus the moment their usefulness is over.

All this amounts to is the latest exercise in Clinton 'triangulation." Only this time, they're trying to outflank Obama on the left with her hints that she'll repeal NAFTA and her speeches promising to bail out everybody's mortgage. She's just pandering, and once she gets what she wants her promises will carry zero weight.

[Best Buckeye]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

I believe that she used the more weasle-like "reevaluate" it publicly. Beyond that, who knows what promises are being made backchannel through campaign intermediaries. Are these people so naive about the Clintons as to believe that somehow they'll be different...somehow they'll be the core Democratic constituency that the Clintons don't throw under the bus the moment their usefulness is over.

All this amounts to is the latest exercise in Clinton 'triangulation." Only this time, they're trying to outflank Obama on the left with her hints that she'll repeal NAFTA and her speeches promising to bail out everybody's mortgage. She's just pandering, and once she gets what she wants her promises will carry zero weight.

Absolutely correct. the mfg jobs are gone for good, the computer jobs are gone. The only way to get them back is to have the country go bankrupt so that the prevailing wages permit our access once again to those jobs.
We have priced ourselves out of them just as the unions have priced themselves out of millions of jobs.

[shetuck]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

I believe that she used the more weasle-like "reevaluate" it publicly. Beyond that, who knows what promises are being made backchannel through campaign intermediaries...

Russert really cornered her on this issue at in the Cleveland debate.

NYT Transcript

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you both about NAFTA because the record, I think, is clear. And I want to -- Senator Clinton. Senator Obama said that you did say in 2004 that on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America. You did say that. When President Clinton signed this bill -- and this was after he negotiated two new side agreements, for labor and environment -- President Clinton said it would be a force for economic growth and social progress. You said in '96 it was proving its worth as free and fair trade. You said that -- in 2000 -- it was a good idea that took political courage. So your record is pretty clear.

Based on that, and which you're now expressing your discomfort with it, in the debate that Al Gore had with Ross Perot, Al Gore said the following: "If you don't like NAFTA and what it's done, we can get out of it in six months.
The president can say to Canada and Mexico, we are out. This has not been a good agreement." Will U.S. president say we are out of NAFTA in six months?

SEN. CLINTON: I have said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously, you'd have to say to Canada and Mexico that that's exactly what we're going to do. But you know, in fairness --

MR. RUSSERT: Just because -- maybe Clinton --

SEN. CLINTON: Yes, I am serious.

MR. RUSSERT: You will get out. You will notify Mexico and Canada, NAFTA is gone in six months.

SEN. CLINTON: No, I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it, and we renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America.

But let's be fair here, Tim. There are lots of parts of New York that have benefitted, just like there are lots of parts of Texas that have benefitted. The problem is in places like upstate New York, places like Youngstown, Toledo, and others throughout Ohio that have not benefitted. And if you look at what I have been saying, it has been consistent.

You know, Senator Obama told the farmers of Illinois a couple of years ago that he wanted more trade agreements. I -- right now --

MR. RUSSERT: We're going to get -- we're going to get to Senator Obama, but I want to stay on your terms --

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but that -- but that is important --

MR. RUSSERT: -- because this was something that you wrote about as a real success for your husband. You said it was good on balance for New York and America in 2004, and now you're in Ohio and your words are much different, Senator. The record is very clear.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I -- I -- you don't have all the record because you can go back and look at what I've said consistently. And I haven't just said things; I have actually voted to toughen trade agreements, to try to put more teeth into our enforcement mechanisms. And I will continue to do so.
But you know, Tim, when you look at what the Cleveland Plain Dealer said when they examined the kind of criticism that Senator Obama was making of me -- it's not me saying it -- they said it was erroneous. And it was erroneous because it didn't look at the entire picture, both at what I've said and what I've done.

But let's talk about what we're going to do. It is not enough just to criticize NAFTA, which I have, and for some years now. I have put forward a very specific plan about what I would do, and it does include telling Canada and Mexico that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards -- not side agreements, but core agreements; that we will enhance the enforcement mechanism; and that we will have a very clear view of how we're going to review NAFTA going forward to make sure it works, and we're going to take out the ability of foreign companies to sue us because of what we do to protect our workers.

I would also say that you can go back and look at from the very beginning -- I think David Gergen was on TV today remembering that I was very skeptical about it.

It has worked in some parts of America. It has not worked in Ohio. It has not worked in upstate New York. And since I've been in the Senate -- neither of us voted on this. That wasn't something either of us got to cast an independent vote on. Since I have been in the Senate, I have worked to try to ameliorate the impact of these trade agreements.

MR. RUSSERT: But let me button this up. Absent the change that you're suggesting, you are willing to opt out of NAFTA in six months?

SEN. CLINTON: I'm confident that as president, when I say we will opt out unless we renegotiate, we will be able to renegotiate.

cont'd...

And I read somewhere about a month afterwards that she'd sent word up to Canada via one of her intermediaries that they shouldn't take that response at face value. I'm going to go see if I can find that story...

Shocking!!!1!!!

[sandgk]

An interesting evaluation of NAFTA from the perspective of Public Citizen.

Web Page

PDF

The job losses show NAFTA's backers had appallingly poor powers of prediction.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Best Buckeye

Absolutely correct. the mfg jobs are gone for good, the computer jobs are gone. The only way to get them back is to have the country go bankrupt so that the prevailing wages permit our access once again to those jobs.
We have priced ourselves out of them just as the unions have priced themselves out of millions of jobs.

So what's your solution because I have no desire to see this country race China to the bottom. Should we just willingly pack up our manufacturing base and hand it over to the Chinese or should we follow their model of poverty wages, no social safety net, no workplace safety regulations, child labor, prison labor etc. Is there no middle ground?

Somehow Europe has done a pretty good job of maintaining a good manufacturing-high tech-service industry balance without resorting to poverty level wages, a complete lack of benefits or workplace safety and child labor...or outsourcing their entire manufacturing base to China. It can be done.

My problem with Clinton is not the substance of some her proposals--it's the history of a complete lack of any sincerity or willingness to fight for them should they come into conflict with her own political survival.

[shetuck]

Here's the story about the Clinton camp contacting the office of Canadian Premier to reassure them not to take the "renegotiation" pledge too seriously...

MSNBC: Clinton's NAFTA-gate (The original Globe and Mail story is a premium article)

Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:37 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro

Per the Toronto Globe and Mail, in a story that was the lead on the paper?s front page today, that call to the Canadian embassy was actually from the Clinton campaign, not Obama's:

"Mr. [Ian] Brodie, [PM Harper?s chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

"Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

"The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was ?telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."

cont'd...

Since then, apparently, the whole thing's turned into a big mess. Seems now they're calling it NAFTA-gate and everybody is denying it or pointing to the other party.

So, the bottom line is... take it all with a grain of salt!

[Best Buckeye]

Originally Posted by ORD_Buckeye

So what's your solution because I have no desire to see this country race China to the bottom. Should we just willingly pack up our manufacturing base and hand it over to the Chinese or should we follow their model of poverty wages, no social safety net, no workplace safety regulations, child labor, prison labor etc. Is there no middle ground?
.

Apparently you don't understand that we have already lost our manufacturing base. We gave away all that with Nafta. How many millions of those jobs have been lost to other countries already. We cannot compete now with the world for manufacturing jobs because they undercut our prices. Why do you think it is that most of the goods we , as Americans, buy today come from other countries. One big reason is that we cannot compete, we cannot make a doohicky and sell it for $5 when we can get the same thing from another country for $2.
Our manufacturing base has gone to Mexico, China, Japan, Europe and other Countries.
All of the Computer industry jobs have gone to countries like India. Which is why you can't understand the Tech support person you might be lucky to reach on the phone.
All of our money is going to other countries. Look how many cars are made in the US by companies owned by businesses in or by other coutries.
those countries now benefit from the untold wealth we send to them.]
If China were to release all the US dollars they hold this country would most likely go bankrupt. They are gaining a stranglehold from all the US assets they are buying up, along with other countries.

The USA is now a techno driven economy. We pay 50 or 100 bucks each for a cellphone that costs maybe 2.50 to make in another country and that money all goes out of country.
If the techno business were to fold up so would we. But it won't.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by Best Buckeye

We gave away all that (manufacturing base) with Nafta.

Far too simplistic when, as you note, the effective job drain is to countries including China, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, etc, etc. None of which are, by definition, NAFTA signatories.

Besides which there is the, not minor, issue that the transfer of manufacturing jobs outside the US to low wage Asian and Indian markets is propelled by multinationals. Again, this a trend that has nothing to do with NAFTA - it is a matter of economic self-interest by corporations. The assumption that we are all going to a service economy oft-touted in the press has dangerous assumptions tied to it, dangerous outcomes that result from the same.

[Best Buckeye]

Originally Posted by sandgk

Far too simplistic when, as you note, the effective job drain is to countries including China, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, etc, etc. None of which are, by definition, NAFTA signatories.

Besides which there is the, not minor, issue that the transfer of manufacturing jobs outside the US to low wage Asian and Indian markets is propelled by multinationals. Again, this a trend that has nothing to do with NAFTA - it is a matter of economic self-interest by corporations. The assumption that we are all going to a service economy oft-touted in the press has dangerous assumptions tied to it, dangerous outcomes that result from the same.

Simplistic yes , and you make some good points.
My point being that it started with Nafta and the immediate movement of factories and jobs to Mexico. We all should.remember manufacturers by the dozens just picking up and moving there so they could pay wages like $2.50 an hour

Another point I neglected to bring out is that this country not only held more mfg jobs than any other in the world but also controlled most of them. That is no longer true. Just think of how many products that used to be made in this country that not longer are.
the tailoring industry is almost non existant as are the plants mfg all kinds of small items.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by Best Buckeye

Simplistic yes , and you make some good points.
My point being that it started with Nafta and the immediate movement of factories and jobs to Mexico.

No, it didn't start with NAFTA.

[Best Buckeye]

Thats when it started for Toledoans and anyone else in the car industries , because thats where and when the jobs went.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by redskinbucksfan

Thanks for taking the bait and once again demonstrating that you are a pompous, arrogant dbag with a massively inflated sense of self importance. You do realize that your "I know what's best for you because I'm smarter than you" attitude places you on the exact plane of those you despise so greatly: Politicians and your caricature of students who go to college in Ohio but not at Ohio State. Condescension to the point of hypocrisy...

Apologies to Casablanca

redskinbucksfan (Peter Lorre): You despise me; don't you, ORD?

ORD (Humphrey Bogart): I suppose that, if I gave you any thought, I would.

[ekeen]

Hillary is not going to go quietly and she is playing by the rules that the DNC created regarding the democratic primaries. It's a good thing that democratic superdelegates can be smarter than the voting public. The irony here after all that "voter disenfranchisement" in 2000 is unbelievable.

Clinton: in the Race for the Long Run
Mar 28, 9:32 PM (ET)
By BETH FOUHY



HAMMOND, Ind. (AP) - If Hillary Rodham Clinton is feeling heat from pundits and party elders to quit the race and back Barack Obama, you'd never know it from her crowds, energy level and upbeat demeanor on the campaign trail.

"There are millions of reasons to continue this race: people in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, and all of the contests yet to come," Clinton told reporters Friday. "This is a very close race and clearly I believe strongly that everyone should have their voices heard and their votes counted."
The former first lady weathered a two-pronged blow Friday, with influential Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr. endorsing Obama and another Senate colleague, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, urging her to step aside. But to hear Clinton tell it, it was just another day in an epic primary battle whose result is still not known.
"I believe a spirited contest is good for the Democratic Party and will strengthen the eventual nominee," she said. "We will have a united party behind whomever that nominee is. ... I look forward to campaigning over the next several months."

Link

[rocketman]

Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community and anyone else who will listen to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.

I'm trying to figure out why her supporters call her the champion of the blue-collar working class, when she deliberately [censored]s them over, time and time again.