Bill Clinton exact words calling NAFTA a boom....Hillary angry with Obama

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

Apparently, Obama's mailing on NAFTA has Hillary really angry.  She denies they believed it would be a boom.  Claims she is being smeared.  How about how husband exact words from the Press release on the NAFTA signing.  Is that good enough for her or her supporters?  If you're rationale is his Presidency then fairness says take the good with the bad. 

" I believe that NAFTA will create 200,000 American jobs in
the first two years of its effect. I believe if you look at the
trends -- and President Bush and I were talking about it this morning
-- starting about the time he was elected president, over one-third of
our economic growth, and in some years over one-half of our net new
jobs came directly from exports. And on average, those export-related
jobs paid much higher than jobs that had no connection to exports.

I believe that NAFTA will create a million jobs in the
first five years of its impact. And I believe that that is many more
jobs than will be lost, as inevitably some will be as always happens
when you open up the mix to a new range of competition.

"NAFTA will generate these jobs by fostering an export
boom to Mexico; by tearing down tariff walls which have been lowered
quite a bit by the present administration of President Salinas, but
are still higher than Americans."

source http://www.multied.com/Documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html

[Horus]

I got a letter from Hillary today... I threw it out quickly, but it said something to the extent of "Obama is a huge NAFTA supporter, and I never was".

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

I got a letter from Hillary today... I threw it out quickly, but it said something to the extent of "Obama is a huge NAFTA supporter, and I never was".

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that "the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

Source is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-pretends-_b_86747.html

Of course this would be during a political election year in front on a group that would favor Nafta

[Trilobyte]

Too bad it has become fashionable to bash NAFTA these days. The truth is both Clinton and Obama support NAFTA in their hearts, because they know it's the right way to embrace globalization.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

Too bad it has become fashionable to bash NAFTA these days. The truth is both Clinton and Obama support NAFTA in their hearts, because they know it's the right way to embrace globalization.

Actually it's good to bring up.  Yes, I believe both would have supported NAFTA but the debate now may get us to rethink our approaches here

[phk]

Is Obama going to withdraw the US from NAFTA? If so, than thats bad.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

Obama is advocating changing it.

Both Hillary and Obama have pretty much the same position on both NAFTA and the Central American Free Trade Agreement. 

The reason that this is a campaign issue is that Hillary's rationale for her candidacy is all the "Clinton" years.  They anticipated 1MM new jobs when it was signed.  It hasn't delivered.  Hillary should just have taken the position that this was a mistake.  Instead she is trying her typical approach of never acknowledging anything as a mistake.

This is pure politics, not substance, to remind people that the "Clinton" years were not as beautiful as Hillary wants to portray them

[Verily]

I am honestly and genuinely baffled by both of their calls to revisit NAFTA, not necessarily because I don't think they would do it (though I suspect neither would bother), but because there's no way Mexico, and Canada under the current government, would be willing to talk about changing NAFTA.

The issue is really already shut; they both mention NAFTA as something of a boogeyman of the past that many industrial workers dislike, but the reality is that unskilled industrial jobs aren't coming back. We should move on. And there are better fields in which to create jobs in than unskilled industry, anyway.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

I am honestly and genuinely baffled by both of their calls to revisit NAFTA, not necessarily because I don't think they would do it (though I suspect neither would bother), but because there's no way Mexico, and Canada under the current government, would be willing to talk about changing NAFTA.

The issue is really already shut; they both mention NAFTA as something of a boogeyman of the past that many industrial workers dislike, but the reality is that unskilled industrial jobs aren't coming back. We should move on. And there are better fields in which to create jobs in than unskilled industry, anyway.

I agree nothing will be done.  This is about reminding Hillary's base ( under 50K a year blue collar workers ) of the Clinton record and the impact on industrial jobs. 

[TomC]

It's not nice politics; Obama shouldn't have done it, but Hillary has already done it to him with the fliers distributed in NH about Obama's lack of support for abortion rights. If she's angry about negative campaigning, she shouldn't have spent January embroiled in slanting Obama's positions and record.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

It's not nice politics; Obama shouldn't have done it, but Hillary has already done it to him with the fliers distributed in NH about Obama's lack of support for abortion rights. If she's angry about negative campaigning, she shouldn't have spent January embroiled in slanting Obama's positions and record.

I agree it's not the nicest form of politics.  But there is an issue here for Hillary. If she opposed it, she should have separated herself from his policies.  I haven't seen one example of where she has.  So she must have supported it.  Now she has significantly changed.  The issue is what changed her thinking?  If she'd deal with it instead of denying it, the issue would die.  She keeps it alive
 

[Klippa]

Isn't this whole thread off on the wrong track?

The only story I've heard is to do with Obama's brochure pointing out Hillary Clinton's claim that NAFTA has been beneficial. The word at issue is 'boon' not 'boom'; the word was used by Newsday to characterise Clinton's position, not by Hillary herself; and neither the Obama campaign nor Newsday ascribed the word or the sentiment to Bill Clinton.

Check out the source at Newsday:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-clinton,0,7902521.story

Or is there another story about Bill and a 'boom'?

[King]

Well, technically there was an export boom.  A lot of jobs were exported.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

The Clinton's pushed it as it would result in a economic boom.  Hillary praised it directly in 1996 as reported by AP.  Didn't realize the mailing had boon versus boom.

Earlier, Newsday published an item saying the word "boon" had been the paper's "characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements."  Newsday is a home state ( NY ) local paper on Long Island that has been supportive of Hillary. Note, they concluded she supported it and I have AP quotes above.  The idea she didn't is nonsense.

Obama defended the mailings as accurate and rejected Clinton's complaint as a political ploy. He said that despite her current criticism of NAFTA, she supported the trade agreement when it passed during her husband's administration.   "You can't be for something and take credit for an administration ... and then when you run for president say that you didn't really mean what you said way back then. It doesn't work like that"

[WalterMitty]

oh brother.  obama's protectionist stands make me ill.

what a silly panderer.

[Ben.]

oh brother.  obama's protectionist stands make me ill.

what a silly panderer.

Clinton's not pandering... at the very least (much as i disagree with the position) Obama can credibly say he's opposed NAFTA, somthing Clinton cannot do.

[StateBoiler]

oh brother.  obama's protectionist stands make me ill.

what a silly panderer.

America, both Democrats and Republicans, are becoming more protectionist.

[WalterMitty]

oh brother.  obama's protectionist stands make me ill.

what a silly panderer.

Clinton's not pandering... at the very least (much as i disagree with the position) Obama can credibly say he's opposed NAFTA, somthing Clinton cannot do.

is obama a protectionist?  ive heard his anti-nafta crap, which ive been chalking up to pandering (and yes clinton is pandering in ohio too).

i dont get protectionists.  i dont understand them.  it is hard for me to believe that there are educated people out there who actually believe protectionism would be good for the economy of america in the 21st century.  blows my mind.

[Ben.]

oh brother.  obama's protectionist stands make me ill.

what a silly panderer.

Clinton's not pandering... at the very least (much as i disagree with the position) Obama can credibly say he's opposed NAFTA, somthing Clinton cannot do.

is obama a protectionist?  ive heard his anti-nafta crap, which ive been chalking up to pandering (and yes clinton is pandering in ohio too).

i dont get protectionists.  i dont understand them.  it is hard for me to believe that there are educated people out there who actually believe protectionism would be good for the economy of america in the 21st century.  blows my mind.

Probably not, the kind of folks in his campaign (at least from early on) and his own background make me think where politically possible both he, McCain and Clinton would seek to forward a sustainable trade policy.

The thing with protectionism is that it's short termism of the worst kind... but, sadly it's a political reality now. On the plus side the zealots on both sides (Huckabee and Edwards) havent gotten near either party's nomination this time around, but the worry is they could get a good deal closer in future years before folks wake up to reality.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

The label "protectionist" or free trader is too black and white.

As a country, we keep allowing companies to move jobs overseas for cheaper labor.  However, this has been going on for centuries and isn't in any way unique to the US.  It's all countries and societies.  The search for lower cost labor which helps keep the cost of goods lower and is designed to benefit the masses who get products cheaper.  That means many win and a few people lose.

But it's more complicated than a George W. "you either for it or akin it".  Should we be giving company tax breaks to do this?  I have a republican label next to my name.  I consider myself a free trader.  But free trade means free trade, so I don't think it's the government role to provide incentives to do this.    Nor should it be the governments job to "restrict" it.  However, the world is fairly complicated.  Do I want customer service functions outsourced overseas that have access to my personal records?  They are NOT subjected to US Privacy laws.  I have my doubts. 

So, no tax incentives and some consistency with US laws seem to make good common sense to me.

I don't think this is a protectionist.  Some discussion and review makes sense

[John Dibble]

oh brother.  obama's protectionist stands make me ill.

what a silly panderer.

No, that's regular pandering. THIS is silly pandering: