Comments on Cut Along the Bias

I'm glad someone's finally talking about transportation infrastructure development on a national level. And who would've thunk it - the candidate who "doesn't have specifics".

"(yeah, Josh, narrative)"

Oh no you didn't Annie Wagner!

Uh-oh, he's going after NAFTA. That way he can destroy three economies, not just one.

GM isn't in trouble because of NAFTA. They're in trouble because they're stupid, and can't compete. Forcing the prices of their vehicles up a few thousand dollars isn't going to help them compete more.

I ... don't get it. You've quoted the article out of sequence, and the article in question didn't seem to have much of a slant either way. The only thing I took away from the article was that Obama is anti-NAFTA, which is kind of too bad, because I'm a dem who supports free trade. (I'm also anti-subsidy. I think Carribean sugar should be able to compete with corn syrup.)

Also, speeches are speeches....they are meant to rally, inspire, elicit emotion and pride. That's the point. Obama and Clinton are equally detailed in their plans online and in debates--if anyting Hillary is "better" in debates at sticking to rhetoric and soundbites and not getting mired in details and explanations.

Arduous, free trade IS anti-subsidy. There's no reason on earth one family should be importing slave labor into the US to harvest sugar cane at a benefit to no one but themselves and at the cost of destroyed foreign economies. The US should be trying to prove that it means it when it talks about free trade, not trying to undercut it.

@4: Only the last quote is out of sequence. If you don't see the bias, you don't see it. But "boilerplate" and "hooting" are judgmental words, and that barrage of Obama policy followed closely by HRC's "rhetoric" comment is structured so as to raise questions about her conclusion. These are NYT reporters; they're not incompetent.

HRC on trade (sorry, it's a long one):

TIME: The other thing I wanted to talk to you about was trade. You describe yourself as not a free trader or a fair trader but —

CLINTON: smart, pro-American trade.

TIME: But your husband was a free trader..

CLINTON: Uh-huh

TIME: What's this evolution about?

CLINTON: I think it's about the changing world in which we find ourselves. I believe very much in trade. Trade on balance has been very good for America. But I don't see how anyone can look at what's happened in the global economy and not ask yourself, what are we missing here? Why is it that we have such a huge trade deficit with the world, particularly with China? Is it all because we can't compete? I don't think so. Is it because the rules are not being enforced? Is it because most other governments in the world take actions that maximize the positive impact of their trading relationships for their workers? I think so. And it's not just China, which is just the most egregious example.

I issued a report earlier this year about some of the problems we have with Canada, our very good neighbor and ally along our border. We have trouble getting New York agricultural products into Canada. And I believe that it's because the federal and provincial governments of Canada, they protect themselves. They protect their farmers. They are not going to just open their borders regardless of what NAFTA says.

I voted against CAFTA [the Central American Free Trade Agreement], because I looked at the facts and I thought we have no environmental or labor standards—something that I believe is within the rubric of free trade. Free trade doesn't mean trade without rules. It doesn't mean a race to the bottom. It's supposed to be based on comparative advantage, so the trading partners all improve their standard of living. If you don't have some rules that will create conditions for employees to be treated fairly, the money is all going to go to the pockets of the elite. I heard the other day that in Mexico, they are importing cheap labor from Central and South America. Meanwhile, you have all of these ambitious, motivated Mexicans leaving their country to get a better life in ours. There's something wrong with this picture.

TIME: Do you think NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by Bill Clinton] was the right thing to do?

CLINTON: I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example—

TIME: That was your husband's Adminstration, wasn't it? Because I recall a lot of debate about it not having labor standards and environmental standards.

CLINTON: But it was inherited. NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration. I believe in the general principles it represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have. You look at the trade enforcement record between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration brought more trade enforcement actions in one year than the Bush Administration brought in six years.

For me, trade is who we are. We're traders. We want to be involved in the global economy, but not be played for suckers.

As we look at trade today, I don't think we can look at trade separate and apart from how we fix health care. I don't think we can look at it separate and apart from how we incentivize and pay for education, so we keep trying to improve the skills of our workforce. And I think that the budget deficit has mortgaged our future and the holders of the mortgages are governments like the government of China, so then it makes it even more difficult for us to get tough when it comes to trade. So we've kind of walked into this vicious cycle and we need to break it.

man i'm getting tired of this blah blah over tweedledee & tweedledum.

both with be adequate. both will sell us out. both won't end the war quick enough. both won't be able to get health care passed.

I'm reading some Feingold subtext in that line about NAFTA. There have been several articles in the Wisconsin media about Feingold's superdelegate vote being up for grabs (he's anti-NAFTA and listening for Clinton or Obama to say it too), and now Obama says this in Feingold's hometown where people are seeing their industry's jobs sent to Mexico.

Huh. Seems like it can be easier to get endorsements from dead people.

@6, sorry you misunderstood me. I agree completely with you. I am anti-subsidy, and I know that's redundant with saying I support free trade, but I've heard a lot of people who think corn subsidies are bad but also think NAFTA is bad so I was underscoring that point.

"HRC needs to get nimble, quick."

you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. how old are you, 17?

seriously, she has an amazing career and is more nimble and intelligent than you could ever dream of being.

she is both a quick-thinker and extremely steady in her character - just look at the attacks she has been taking the high road against for 16 years.

have some respect.

@9-- "He criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed during the Clinton administration, and offered a series of plans to inject more jobs into the economy."

I think Feingold's wait is over?

@12: I think HRC is very smart, and I respect her. I'm really using her name as a shortcut for her campaign, which got caught making a flimsy accusation which may not hold up for long. And I'm 27, but I don't see what that has to do with being able to read and interpret a newspaper article.

Um, the reason our trade balance is so bad is (a) because our net savings is below zero, because we spend every penny we create and then some, and (b) because our massive government debt is owned by the Chinese, who are our biggest trading partners, and who are artificially propping up our currency so their investment in us doesn't go into the toilet. Neither of these have fuck-all to do with NAFTA.

If Clinton or Obama want to get serious on the economy, they're going to have do something about the deficit. That money that's currently going into the war doesn't need to pay for new programs, it needs to NOT BE SPENT, since we don't actually have it in the first place.

NAFTA sucks balls... for so many reasons I can't even begin to name them here.

FIGHT! FIGHT!

The way Hillary twisted way from responsibility for all the bad in NAFTA while trying to own what was good is certainly, uh, nimble. Not just nimble. Positively elastic.

I almost feel pity for the lows that Hillary is stooping to to try and salvage her campaign.

She's becoming more of a pathetic joke every day.

I almost feel sorry for her.

Almost.

But not really.

NAFTA sucks balls... for so many reasons I can't even begin to name them here.

Looks like Sdizzle is the one lacking substance. How about putting some meat in that argument?

TIME: Do you think NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by Bill Clinton] was the right thing to do?

CLINTON: I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example—

TIME: That was your husband's Adminstration, wasn't it? Because I recall a lot of debate about it not having labor standards and environmental standards.

CLINTON: But it was inherited. NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration. I believe in the general principles it represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain.

I love how Hillary says that the Clinton administration "inherited" NAFTA. What does she mean by that? OK, it was in the works for years before Clinton came into office but he pushed for its ratification and signed it into law.

If NAFTA was a bad idea, or a good idea badly implemented and without protections for workers and the environment then Bill Clinton had no obligation to sign it just because the Bush administration handed it to him. Clinton could have said "OK, free trade is a good idea, but there are problems with NAFTA that we need to resolve." but he never did, he was as gung-ho for it as anyone in the Bush administration had been. Hillary Clinton was similarly silent. If she feels that NAFTA doesn't have enough enforcement mechanisms than she has no one to blame but her husband, but rather than do that she tries to blame the Bush administration. Nice attempt at dodging responsibility Hillary, but you have no one to blame but Bill (and yourself since you were first lady and that's apparently part of your 35 years of experience) for it.

Then there's Hillary's whining about not being able to get agricultural products into Canada. Boo fucking hoo for New York's heavily subsidized farmers. Hillary ought to shag her ass north of the border and ask Canadians how they feel about the US imposing tariffs on Canadian softwood imports. Tariffs that were ruled illegal by both the WTO and the NAFTA panel, decisions which the United States chose to ignore.

Given the USA's shitty track record of saying one thing and then doing another thing when it comes to international trade agreements it doesn't surprise me one bit if the Canadians, or any other country said "let's look out for ourselves".

I'm so bored with everybody pretending that this is still a race. Obama has won.

Can we move on to either the general election or RTID II, please?

@21: I can't believe you're giving up so easily! Tejas! Ohio! Pennsylvania!

Just out of curiosity... for the NAFTA/anti-subsidy proponents.

Do you think national health care is a subsidy?

There was a time when the US was talking about going after Canada on the basis that their health care system was an unfair subsidy.

annie- Bah humbug. It's all over but the shouting. My guess: she'll win OH and PA, but by small margins, and by the convention the superdelegates won't matter.