Clinton's NAFTA Revisionism

We don't know what Barack Obama's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, told the Canadian consulate about NAFTA. We don't know whether the conservative Canadian government leaked misleading details of a meeting between Goolsbee and Canadian officials in order to damage Obama's candidacy, as some MPs in Canada are alleging.

What we do know is that Obama and Hillary Clinton are very similar when it comes to trade--supportive of some trade deals, like Peru, skeptical of others, like Colombia and South Korea.

We also know that Obama opposed NAFTA when he ran for the US Senate. So it's pretty ironic to see Clinton use NAFTA to criticize Obama in Ohio when that trade deal was one of the signature achievements of her husband's administration. Clinton claims she opposed NAFTA at the time, even though she's repeatedly praised it on the record. Her opposition should come as news to the labor unions that bitterly fought President Clinton over the deal in 1993. The lead architects of NAFTA and the Clinton Administration's neoliberal economic agenda, like Roger Altman and Gene Sperling, remain top advisers to Clinton's campaign.

Quite frankly, neither Clinton nor Obama is likely to re-negotiate NAFTA if they get into office. Both are playing politics with this issue in trade-ravaged Ohio, trumpeting economic populism when both have embraced neoliberal economic policies at one point or another.

As voters head to the polls in Ohio and Texas, a little perspective is in order. As John Edwards said throughout the campaign about the Clinton years: "In the 1990s, we didn't get universal health care, which is what we needed. We got NAFTA, which is what we didn't need."

Talk about false hope.

Comments (12)

1. Well, Mr Berman....I believe Johnny Edwards DID vote to open up trade with China, so he's hardly pure himself.

   But it is ironic, that Hillary has turned what could have been a serious negative (i.e. being MARRIED to the guy who pushed and SIGNED NAFTA)....with the help of some of those diabolical Machiavellians...the Canadians (heheh...just kidding FROSTY)...

   into a story about Obama and NAFTA and taking the glint off his shining armor going into an Ohio primary.

   Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 10:51am

2. "There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA," the embassy statement said. "We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

   oops! too late! sorry.

   you know, i think this is going to hurt HARPER.

   good.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 10:58am

3. Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008 -- The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

   The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.

   karl rove is the prime minister of canada...................

   Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 11:00am

4. BERMAN: ....in trade-ravaged Ohio,....

   My good deed of today...besides voting shortly....here's portions of yesterday's WSJ Ed on "Texas v. Ohio"

   New Job Creation `97-`07 1.6 Million v. -10k

   Net Domestic Migration 0.7 Million v. -360k

   2006 Exports $151 Billion v. $38B

   Yes, some jobs have disappeared, but most have left Ohio, Indiana & Michigan for business-friendly states like Texas. GM just announced plans to build a factory near Dallas to build its hybrid cars, as the lastest example.

   "Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005, from the likes of Microsoft, Samsung and Fujitsu. Foreign-owned companies supplied the state with 345,000 jobs. No wonder Texans don't fear global competition the way some presidential candidates do.....Texas embraces free trade, keeps taxes low, doesn't impose unions on businesses and has tooled itself for 21st century global competition. Ohioans may not like to hear this, but for any company considering where to locate a plant or move an existing one, the choice between Ohio and Texas isn't even a close call."

   Ohio Gov. blames Bush & the GOP but its problems took decades to develop and were overwhelmingly self-inflicted. "Ohio now ranks 47th in economic competitiveness......third highest corporate income tax....and the sixth highest personal income tax..."

   "Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians-and thus its employers-are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a "closed shop" states...Many companies-especially foreign-owned-say they will not even consider such locations for new sites."

   Posted by Happy at 03/04/2008 @ 11:11am

5. So it's pretty ironic to see Clinton use NAFTA to criticize Obama in Ohio when that trade deal was one of the signature achievements of her husband's administration. Clinton claims she opposed NAFTA at the time, even though she's repeatedly praised it on the record. Her opposition should come as news to the labor unions that bitterly fought President Clinton over the deal in 1993. The lead architects of NAFTA and the Clinton Administration's neoliberal economic agenda, like Roger Altman and Gene Sperling, remain top advisers to Clinton's campaign.

   This is classic Clinonism: criticize your opponent unfairly for something you yourself are ACTUALLY doing!

   Whether it is No Child Left Behind, Banckruptcy or Iraq, Clinton wants us to believe her VOTES (Action) for these things should be ignored in favor of her campaign statements (Talk) opposing these initiatives!

   And we wonder out loud why she is doing so well with UNEDUCATED voters!

   Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2008 @ 12:28pm

6. And we wonder out loud why she is doing so well with UNEDUCATED voters!

   Posted by METTEYYA 03/04/2008 @ 12:28pm

   Well, unfortunately, METTE...there may be more of them than the "educated" kind. The polling is starting to go south for Obama!

   Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 12:32pm

7. Posted by MASK 03/04/2008 @ 12:32pm

   Going South for Obama?

   He was behind by 20 point in EACH of these states just three weeks ago!

   He is now tied in Ohio, and only a couple of point behind in Texas. This is in fact the real story: HILLARY HAS LOST OVERWHELMING LEADS IN STATES ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY!

   Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2008 @ 12:56pm

8. Poor Hillary. Her '35 years of experience' sometimes comes back to bite her in the ass - stand on NAFTA, Iraq vote, Iran vote, the dead thousand-page health care reform package...

   George by this time has a lot of experience - perhaps we should put him back in office. How about Cheney - now there's 35 years of experience.

   Posted by felicity at 03/04/2008 @ 1:33pm

9. karl rove is the prime minister of canada...................

   Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/04/2008 @ 11:00am

   Then dagburnit where the heck are the Libs and the NDP with a no-confidence vote? Unlike us, if you REALLY don't like Harper/Bush-lite, you can trigger an election and dump him. I am honestly amazed at how he's running a minority government like it's his own personal fiefdom, but then again Dion and Layton seem to have even less spine than our Dems do.

   Hillary Clinton is Karl Rove in drag, I'm convinced now.

   Posted by yutsano at 03/04/2008 @ 1:35pm

10. Posted by METTEYYA 03/04/2008 @ 12:56pm

    Maybe....but he's not been crowned and she's not dead. And it's looking like the Big Mo' has stalled. If she can start rolling it back, things COULD change.

    Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 4:54pm

11. Here is why Hillary should drop out:

    BETWEEN THE LINES Jonathan Alter Hillary's Math Problem

    Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose. Mar 4, 2008 | Updated: 11:23 a.m. ET Mar 4, 2008

    Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.

    I'm no good at math either, but with the help of Slate's Delegate Calculator I've scoped out the rest of the primaries, and even if you assume huge Hillary wins from here on out, the numbers don't look good for Clinton. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week for the rest of the primaries.

    So here we go: Let's assume Hillary beats expectations and wins Ohio tonight 55-45, Rhode Island 55-45, Texas, 53-47 and (this is highly improbable), ties in Vermont, 50-50.

    Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi--where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary--she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.

    Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania--and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.

    Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.

    So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead.

    Posted by Metteyya at 03/04/2008 @ 6:57pm

12. Posted by YUTSANO 03/04/2008 @ 1:35pm

    i ask myself those same questions everyday.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/04/2008 @ 9:49pm