Jane!

Just got off the phone from a fundraising call for the DCCC. It came from India. Gotta love it. Not.

I will NEVER give them another red cent. They are part of the problem.

will they call her someone who fights hard, a bitch, or desperate?

OMG - talk about sending the wrong message!

She’s trying to fool the voters into thinking she wasn’t for NAFTA. I supposed we can take some solace that our candidates are now running away from that mess. It’s progress! :)

This Dkos diary contains the Obama campaign response about those flyers:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....731/434555

The best part was how the guy kept using “we” - as in “we need to get out of this war”.

Why does she say NAFTA was negotiated by the bush administration? Is that true?

Is India IN this war?

yeah, it is certainly weird. To try to disassociate herself and Bill from NAFTA is just crazy. Way better to make the free-trade argument and then try to say that the implementation was flawed and should be improved than to try to pin the whole thing on someone else …

BTW, Jane, you left out the most puzzling quote:

As president, Mr. Clinton was a vigorous supporter of Nafta, lobbied Congress to pass it and signed it into law despite objections from fellow Democrats, who believed it would cost the country jobs.

Mrs. Clinton strenuously distanced herself from that position on Saturday, asserting that Mr. Clinton did not negotiate the agreement.

“The agreement was negotiated in the Bush administration,” she said. “It was passed in the Clinton administration.”

Losing it, is she?

‘They’ will always and forever ‘fuck up the job…’ since they are essentially Republicans who don’t believe in the traditions of FDR and LBJ.

Who are they? Any loser of a politician who belongs to the Dead Loser Caucus or the Dead Corpse Commitee on Change.

Bought and paid for: Hillary, Bill, Obama, the entire Dem Congresional ‘Leadership’. Get with the reality of it and start to work to dis-elect these shills for the ‘conservative’ scum who’ve driven this country to the brink of bankruptcy or worse.

Not really. Bush I admin did all the negotiations of the treaty then it was passed by the Senate and confirmed after Clinton took office.

Hillary seems to step into every trap Barack lays for her — talking about NAFTA in Ohio is entirely couterproductive for her. This does not strike me as a smart campaign.

Well, there is the tensions and occasional shot fired along their border with Pakistan. I wonder if Huck knows about this? :)

To answer your question directly, no, no troops in Iraq.

being a sold-out corporatist
AND
a progressive (/snark)

The whole thing is weird. I mean, it’s not like Bill vetoed it or anything.

The process of getting NAFTA approved was started during the Bush administration. It was completed by the Clinton administration.

My recollection is that Bill pushed hard for NAFTA. Is that incorrect?

The question is … why is Hillary talking about Nafta now? Why not over the past year?

My recollection is that Hillary supported it for a long time.

oh, fyi, cassie is at a bill clinton event this afternoon

Excuse me? Obama had to fight the DLC to get his name removed from their website.

The DCCC called me this week too, and the guy actually said “I’m asking, begging for your help so we can get more Democrats into office…” I told him we need more and better Democrats, so I’d be donating any money directly to candidates, rather than have the DCCC give money to incumbents who need to be replaced. He wasn’t happy, but didn’t sound surprised either.

just responding to one comment …
I certainly recall Mr Bill doing a lot of pro-NAFTA campaigning and putting pressure on congress to pass.
And the whole thing is very weird. Certainly not a point where it seems like Hillary will get much traction, even if there is confusion in the record …

CNN is on with the sound off. Sen. Obama looked rested, cheerful, and companionable. Sen. Clinton looks drained and fairly awful and, from her body language, is lecturing and hectoring.

People may start to detect that difference, among the others.

Here’s a link to the final NAFTA vote in the Senate

google is yr friend: one chronology of NAFTA. Lots of people’s fingers in that pie … One could make the case that Bush 1 negotiated and signed NAFTA and Bill Clinton merely negotiated and signed the subsidiary agreements and pushed NAFTA ratification thru congress. That’s very far from claiming to have not really supported it …

(thanks to dakine for getting me to look up timeline.)

It’s possible that Hillary is actually more liberal than Bill, but was caught in a conundrum - distancing herself from her own husband, also currently one of the most popular ex-Presidents, would make her campaign much more difficult. Now she has nothing to lose.

WHO didn’t KNOW she would???!!!?
I’ve been expecting this. Now that she’s let fly with it, I hope she burns out fast and backs out of this.

And she did SO WELL! at the debate!
wow.

This guy didn’t believe me when I told him I don’t have any money to give them because all my cash is tied up in my own campaign, so I hung up on him.

The question is … why is Hillary talking about Nafta now?

To be fair, she’s talking about it now because the Obama campaign released flyers in Ohio attacking her on it.

Just got back on. There was a fire at some substation somewhere. All I know is that I lost electrical power, lost the phone and (gasp)lost the internet.
Anyway, this is OT but I want to clarify something I said earlier. I had said that the repubs were planning to destroy the next president. Some took that to mean that I thought they would attack his character. They probably will, but that’s not what I meant.
This executive order is what got me thinking that they were laying land mines for the next president.

President Bush will issue an executive order tomorrow that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by lawmakers and included in a law approved by Congress. It’s a long-overdue step by the administration to curtail earmarks, but falls short of what conservatives had hoped Bush would do.

Bush’s maneuver will apply only to future earmarks, subjecting them to votes and greater transparency. However, it does nothing to block the nearly 10,000 earmarks included in the omnibus spending bill passed last month.

It goes into effect for the next president, not the current. It was noted in that article that any pres. that rescinds that order will face the criticism of the repubs.
That’s what I was referring to. This indicates to me that the repubs expect the next pres to be a dem and they’re setting the groundwork to make his administration fail.

This is an issue on which she really cannot win, no matter what she says.

IIRC NAFTA was negotiated by Bush 41 and passed the Senate after the change of administrations. I recall Clinton was moderately ambivalent at first but ended up giving the treaty full support in the Senate while at the same time resistance became organized against passing the treaty, which Bill duly ignored (the traditional labor support for the democratic party was at the center of opposition but this was not in Bill’s coalition of power). NAFTA was eventually passed after gaining broad opposition to its passage, a schism that survives till this day in the Democratic coalition.

And Obama ran so many ads in WI because so much of what was run against him was negative, whether it was lit, radio or TV. It costs money to fight against that type of attack.

I don’t see either of them (BO,HRC)untroducing legislation to renegotiate any of the terrible trade agreements.

So, my question is this. Can’t the next president NEGATE Bush’s signing statements and EO’s with signing statements and EO’s of his or her OWN?
Or is that the main reason why we need trials that end up at The Hague, so that we can undo all The Chimperor’s “edicts”?

and who cares or is listening to criticism from the rethugs anyway?

I said it before and I’ll say it again. It keeps coming back like a song. Hillary, you should have dumped Bill years ago.

Without Bill’s record and being nailed to his cross, she could have moved more freely into her own positions on issues. Instead, she has to cover for him. “Oh, my man I love him so…..”

The more Hillary speaks, the more I am confused who is the real Hillary. She works her butt off, she gives her all, she takes a lot of ugly sexist slaps. Still, she’s wearing Bill like a mill stone around her neck. Or, better expressed, she’s lugging him around like dead horses.

NAFTA was entrenched under Reagan. Bill continued it and under him it got it’s infamous name. They are smart people so how could they dismiss the devastation of the apparel industry, steel industry, footwear industry, pirating and on and on? The Reagan disaster of offshore manufacturing was in their face. Mass marketing was taking hold.

My deep concern about Hillary is that she is not her own person. If she were, she would have to rise up against Bill’s tenure as president. Instead, she uses his old Neocon advisors.

When she defends lobbyists by saying there are some very good causes like nurses, human rights, anti-war, women’s rights, she is right on. But she uses this to defend corporate lobbyists. She lumps them all together. Well, there is a gigantic difference. Lobbyists who fight for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves are a far cry from corporate lobbyists who quid pro quo for their own personal greedy interests. Hillary doesn’t seem to know the difference.

Where I live it is virtually impossible to ignore it unless you crawled under a rock and stayed there.

If I recall correctly, The West Wing had an episode in support of such trade agreements. Toby (I think) was the main force trying to explain its value. No real point here except that it was the progressive viewpoint at the time. Of course, now we know that its just more exploitation by the corporations.

The rethug media will scream and a couple days later the traditional media will join in. Except that now we have the internet and actual liberals will fight back. The 90’s might have been quite different for Bill Clinton if we were as organized back then as we are now.

well, there’s no need to negate signing statements. They’re constituionally meaningless. Seems like Obama can just say somewhere that he isn’t paying attention to them and they’re done.

Reworking exec orders, I assume, just requires work. They’re internal instructions to the exec branch and presumably continue by default in subsequent admin. So, Obama will have to figure all of them out and start re-issuing new exec orders and regulations as approp. Just a lot of work.

Hague trials are a whole different matter: bringing the war criminals to justice. And much as I’d love to see these guys called what they are and nailed for it, may or may not be the right answer for the country going forward. We should certainly speak truth about them being war criminals.

That’s not a fair criticism of a Senate candidate running for Presidential office. It’s fair to criticize what they do and don’t say, but not every cause has to be codified into a specific bill and introduced into the Senate.

The new earmark rules are in an Executive Order, which has force. Signing statements do not. Yes, the next president will need to write a bunch of new EOs, and amend quite a few more.

Just got off the phone from a fundraising call for the DCCC. It came from India. Gotta love it. Not.

Way back when, before I knew any better, I used to toss them some money now and again. Never again. Now Howard Dean’s organization Democracy for America gets a monthly contribution from me. I can’t afford to kick in much, but it goes to them every month. I am a huge supporter of Howard Dean and the 50 State Strategy.

I just wrote a comment that includes this. My business was the first to go. It was the apparel industry. The year was 1981 under Ronald Reagan. He made a deal with China that they could have the US apparel industry in exchange for multinational corporations like IBM, Coca Cola to go into China. China sent workers into Hong Kong, taking away jobs from Hongkongese for a fraction of the wage. Cheaper apparel was shipped to the US duty free and within one year small US manufacturers were totally out of business. Larger manufacturers moved their operation to Hong Kong.

siri, according to that article, the next pres can definitely do that. But expect some faux outrage when a dem wipes out the transparancy on earmarks.
It will be the first issue that will be hammered on FoxNews around the clock. “Bush tries to curb earmarks, Obama(?) voids the order.”

Creating an confrontational issue may be the very reason he signed the EO.

thank you lee.
really!

The trade agreements have lost millions of jobs, and helped our economy into the toilet, it’s more than fair IMO. If you’re going to make it an issues in your campaign it’s fair game.

The DCCC called me this week too, and the guy actually said “I’m asking, begging for your help so we can get more Democrats into office…” I told him we need more and better Democrats, so I’d be donating any money directly to candidates, rather than have the DCCC give money to incumbents who need to be replaced. He wasn’t happy, but didn’t sound surprised either.

Tell ‘em that you’ll contribute once they reclaim that $150K of “walking around money” they funneled to Al Wynn in the primary against [winning challenger] Donna Edwards. That’s what they do with “our” money.

Please forgive my ignorance, but I thought all earmarks were “voted on by lawmakers and included in a law approved by Congress.” The only other way I can think of to direct federal spending is by the executive branch directing the agencies themselves - which the President by definition controls.

What am I missing here?

well, that’s ONE! it’s all those others that have me so concerned!

Not really. Bush I admin did all the negotiations of the treaty then it was passed by the Senate and confirmed after Clinton took office.

Actually negotiations and modifications to the Treaty were made after Clinton entered office, as well. The Senate wouldn’t pass it without adding labor and environmental clauses, which won over enough Democrats to ratify the treaty. Bill Clinton firmly advocated NAFTA. That’s the NAFTA we have.

the problem is that they’re not really free trade agreements. The market and playing fields are still cooked. Free trade is a good thing if it’s really free trade. But, when they’re just agreement aimed at keeping the multi-nationals from actually having to compete and at ensuring that folks everywhere don’t get the rights and protections they need, they’re waaay bad.

The best article about Hillary and nafta by Mr Sirota

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....86747.html

you’re welcome!

Is no one conerned that the flyer quotes a news account that has since been corrected?
Now, of course, Hillary needs to make clear what her concerns with these trade pacts are, when she came to have these concerns and what does she intend to do about them?

The problem is that the clauses you reference are unenforceable (or at least not enforced).

How do we get rid of her? It’s like dinner guests who never leave.

According to Matt Taibbi(the guy who writes for Rolling Stone), Hillary left the Republicans when they nominated Nixon over Rockefeller. And she was a Goldwater Girl.

I’ve read from other sources on line that one of the few policy conflicts that Hillary had with bill was about NAFTA. She apparently did not trust corporations to uphold their end of the bargain where Bill saw no other way to approach the problem. That supports her claims and current perspective. It also explains her efforts to modify the things that she allowed in her supporting her husband’s well-intentioned efforts. The good thing to know is that Dems see purpose in revisiting the trade agreement and modifying corporate responsibilities in light of the way that corporations have turned NAFTA to disserve the labor force of this nation.
As for the ‘clean-up comment’. Bush the Elder left this nation more of a mess than NAFTA addressed. Bill handled a good deal of it effectively. Bush the Lesser has shredded the beneficial intent of many policies with the early help of a Republican majority. Acutely aware of this, Hillary is right on this point: she knows where to place the markers for major shifts in policy so that something is accomplished in short order. She goes for the election, if nominated, with a mandate for specific policies and outcomes. If nominated, Obama goes up for election with a mandate for hope. I’d like to do more than hope that the next president knows where to place the markers for the changes to be realized for the soonest benefit to be accomplished.

LOL!
good un’

Hill, you are soooooooo then! sooo was. What don’t you come our for something trendy like Free Silver. Go visit a zoo.

Why does she say NAFTA was negotiated by the bush administration? Is that true?

i think that is true.

and, imo, congress would never have passed it - too many dems were against it. but clinton became it’s champion and got it passed.

the best history of nafta that i’m aware of is “The Selling of “Free Trade”" by John R. MacArthur.

it’s been a while and my memory is fuzzy, time to pick up the book again and refresh my memory.

I agree, but she has really opened up a can of worms, there are so many articles and quotes about her quoting NAFTA and how good it is…
look at this campaign response from Obama;

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....731/434555

Losing it, is she?

fixed it for you.

Well, that was a good reason to leave the Republicans! (Nelson Rockefeller was my Governor for a long time, and today he would be castigated as being to the left of the left wing…)

If I recall correctly, The West Wing had an episode in support of such trade agreements. Toby (I think) was the main force trying to explain its value. No real point here except that it was the progressive viewpoint at the time. Of course, now we know that its just more exploitation by the corporations.

it was NOT the progressive view. it was the DLC view.

The Obama campaign mailer claims Hillary said that NAFTA was a “boon” to the economy. The quote is based on a 2006 Newsday article that CHARACTERTIZED her views this way without any substantiation. In fact, Newsday recently said that the Obama campaign’s use of their article was “misleading.” The Politico called the Obama campaign’s use of the quote “bogus.”

The second mailer from the Obama campaign mimics Harry and Louise ads that the health care industry used to scare people into opposing universal health care. It’s appalling that Obama would use the same ad campaign re Hillary’s health care proposal as was used by the health care industry in the early nineties. However, it isn’t surprising. Obama’s health care advisor, Rep. Jim Cooper, refused to consider universdal health care when the Clinton administration proposed it in 93′. In fact his counter proposal - approved by the health care industry - was the rallying popint for Republicans opposed to meaningful health care reform. The health care insurance industry and pharmaceutical companies were, and still are, among Cooper’slargest $ contributors.

Obama supporters criticize Hillary for claiming 35 years of experience citing that her 8 years as the first lady don’t count. Well, if you’re going to tag her for what you see as the failing of Bill’s 8 years then you have to credit her for all the good things and there were a lot.

I’ll vote for Obama next fall if I have to but, unlike the sheep falling in behind Obama, I won’t be dissapointed by his failings after/and if he’s elected. Hillary’s the progressive candidate in this contest. Obama is a “finger in the wind” centrist - at best.

so much for that NAFTAglow

but unfortunately, the clintons had a lot to do with redefining left wing as somewhat to the right of richard nixon … they’re not looking very clean to me … Clinton did appoint mostly competent people. And one of the best things about a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a return to competence in office.

While NAFTA isn’t the best solution to the economic disparity between the US and Mexico, it makes an attempt to bring Mexico into the larger US & Canadian economies. Over time, it could, if done right, make for a potent trading bloc like the EU. If you think that President Obama is going to end NAFTA or change it in any significant manner, you have drunk way too much of the messiah juice. Hillary may have a record that you don’t much care about, but at least she has a record; which is more than you can say for the blank slate onto which some people project every unreasonable fantasy that they have.

I told them in a lengthy letter that they would never receive another dime from me after the reprehensible betrayal of Christine Cegalis in Illinois’ 6th Congressional District in 2006. This after she had pulled 44% in a purely grassroots action opposing Henry Hyde, the late, unlamented Republican hypocrite.

Thank for calling Obama supporter “sheep”…..your mimicking of your candidate is revealing to say the least!

Forgive me, but as I recall the Overton window was shoved WAAAAAY right by Newt Gingrich and his band of evil elves, not the Clintons. It was Newt who promoted the use of the word “liberal” as a pejorative.

is it possible that neither of them are progressive? but that they are the best we could do given a sick and corrupt political and media culture? that considering the forces working against us, maybe neither one of them are so bad - but that doesn’t make either of them progressive?

(i know i’ve been told it’s gibberish to say that, but i still think it’s a question worth asking).

So, my question is this. Can’t the next president NEGATE Bush’s signing statements and EO’s with signing statements and EO’s of his or her OWN?
Or is that the main reason why we need trials that end up at The Hague, so that we can undo all The Chimperor’s “edicts”?

Signing statements are not “laws”…they are statements about how the law will (or in Bush’s case) or will not be enforced. Sometimes laws are vague in how they are to be implemented, and a President can detail how this will occur with Executive branch resources. In another sense, and this is how earlier Presidents have used signing statements, they are a challenge to the laws Constitutionality. Thus a President could tell Congress “The law you have just passed is UnConstitutional, and I will not enforce it. Take my actions to the Supreme Court if you disagree!” Bush has actually done the opposite (although he continually asserts that his power derives from the clause that makes him Commander In Chief and that he needs the power to wage war).

So a future President could easily rescind the signing statements (as they are Executive directives) and even Executive Orders. The only issue is whether such Orders and statements give some protection to actions that occurred while the directives were in place. IMO the law is THE law, regardless of a Presidential mandate to Executive officers to IGNORE the law or Constitution.

Just got off the phone from a fundraising call for the DCCC. It came from India. Gotta love it. Not.

Noonan,

In my experience people from India have a very hard time losing their strong accent. Could it be that you might have actually been talking to an American citizen origionally from India? Did you ask the question?

TexBetsy, you still here? It’s off topic, but you should post the info on the Bush Library again. That was priceless.

but the objections to NAFTA were not objections to trade. they were objections to a fucked up trade policy that rewarded corporations while undermining democracy, the environment and labor and human rights.

It is clear that over the last half century our countries manufacturing capacity has been diminished.
What is less clear is the role of Nafta and other trade pacts in this development.
There are many reasons this has occurred and very few of them are amenable to a legislative fix.

I saw all that on CNN…which ran it two or three more times. “Shame on you! Barack Obama!” she yelled…

wow, those quotes from clinton in the obama response sure seem pretty damning. either they’re made up or there’s one helluva lot of context where she says something like “I certainly don’t mean the following: XXX”, or she’s changing her position …

one example:

“Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once [NAFTA and health care]. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances.”

sure — fair enough. plenty of blame to go around. And newtie was certainly one of the major bad guys.

yes, but wasn’t NAFTA before gingrich.?

JUan, I agree with you. I’ll vote for my party’s candidate, but I’m not really sold on Obama.

Can you refrain from characterizing supporters of Sen Obama as sheep? It doesn’t advanced your argument and in general lowers the discourse level. If you want a flame war, try the orange overlord’s place or mydd or taylor marsh. thank you and now back to our civilized discussion

On the CNN website: Clinton to Obama: Shame on you!

I am not counting on either of them to sweep me up and ride off on their white steed into the sunset. I plan to hold the female or male footsies to the fire. What I do know is that I’ll be able to have more of a voice than I do now and we can return to some semblence of a democracy. Just rebuilding the erosion will be work enough.

The “boon” comment is not the only evidence that she favored NAFTA. See the official Obama response in the Dkos diary I linked to above.

Hillary’s the progressive candidate in this contest.

No, she’s the DLC triangulating candidate. That is why she co-sponsored a flag-burning bill with a Republican.

There are no “true” progressive top-tier candidates in this election. But if Hillary is the progressive candidate, why did Russ Feingold vote for Obama in the primary?

He was also one of the early ones. I blame most of the toxic quality of political discourse today on Newt Gingrich. The fact that he’s being resurrected as anything close to respectable today makes me want to puke.

I always have mixed emotions on the crying about lost textiles jobs and such. Especially since so many of the jobs had gone to the South from New England to get rid of unions. There is a bit of irony at the whining about the jobs now going somewhere the corps can pay even less and offer less protection to the new workers.

Little Boots uses signing statements as pretend line item vetos. They are worthless legally, but no one’s challenged them in court yet.

Could we put an end to the messiah references too? It serves no purpose except to insult people and make folks cranky (like me).

Still time to draft Edwards??

True of many southerners, also. Never mind the bad syntax.

I know how you feel.

I don’t care all that much which one wins, even though I’m leaning towards Obama. What I want to see is the Democrats come through this with a strong leader and a unified party.

If this takes too long to happen, we’ll all be in trouble.

good call. we used to know how to disagree - even very strongly without the personal attacks.

not saying i haven’t been partly to blame… but i’d like to figure out a way we can get back to believing in the good intentions of people here. even and especially when we disagree.

what can i do to help that happen?

I was responding to

the clintons had a lot to do with redefining left wing as somewhat to the right of richard nixon …

Who did a better job of that, Bill and Hill or Newt?

I guess “sheep” is now politically incorrect

Sirota checked it all out, they are HER comments

I agree that approach would work better, assuming she believes the free-trade argument. I try not to assume that Hillary equals Bill when it comes to policy goals.

Anyhow, it really does look like she’s splitting hairs here, and I doubt many people will be interested in the details of her differences with Bill over NAFTA, if they even really exist.

““Shame on you! Barack Obama!” she yelled…”

vapidly? Or perhaps she hissed the words out, or screamed them hysterically?

It’s union busting at the highest level. Bypass US ports and their longshoreman and whatever regulations you can ignore by importing thru Mexico.
http://www.theamericanvoice.co.....ighway.jpg

she(ep) put the boon in boondoggle…?

If I recall correctly, The West Wing had an episode in support of such trade agreements. Toby (I think) was the main force trying to explain its value. No real point here except that it was the progressive viewpoint at the time. Of course, now we know that its just more exploitation by the corporations.