Hillary Clinton IS a Monster.... let us make buttons, bumper stickers and t-shirts that proclaim it out on the streets. Hillary doesn't care who or what she walks all over in her attempt to become the president.

For heaven's sake, fellow Americans, isn't it time we started voting in our own best interests? Down with Hillary. At all costs we must prevent her from ever taking the Oval Office.

Great article. But I would like to add that Americans can no longer go to Mexico, Canada, or the Carribean without a passport. Yet we are continually told that the borders to those countries are opening! How can you call shutting a border to people and opening it to capital, opening a border?

Also, newspaper employees shouldn't be so sure of their jobs.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/19/business/outsource.php

Mr. Sirota, I have been a fan of yours for a long time, and believe me when I say I have been against NAFTA since the beginning. Perot's Giant Sucking Sound was right on the money (pun intended). However, I think you are just encouraging the same old slap-fight by disparaging Hillary for the one bad choice her husband made in office. It was never literally the NAFTA agreement that was so evil in the first place. The evil was, and still is, the manner in which the filthy rich of this country have continued to bamboozle the citizenry into thinking that income inequality never matters much, no matter how extreme the divide becomes. The concept of the agreement was bad mostly because of the way the corporate power structure would inevitably abuse it.

I was a hard-core Edwards supporter until he dropped out. Now I support Hillary because she is next on the attack dog list. She understands the income inequality issue and she will stand her ground. I'll be happy to vote for Obama if he defeats her in the primaries, but I hope it doesn't come to that. He may have scruples, but he lacks the sheer guts that Hillary has to fight off the Republicans throughout a tenure, as well as a campaign. Of course what I would dearly love to see is a Hillary/Obama ticket. If that happens, the Republicans will be practically no threat at all.

NAFTA has been the excuse for just about everything. Losing your job, blame it on NAFTA. Prices too high and the dollar too low, blame it on you know what.

NAFTA was a response to European and Asian strength after the cold war. It allowed the U.S. to get energy from Canada and Mexico at reasonable prices rather than be at the mercy, or lack of it from OPEC.

The next time you fill your gas tank at twice the price, when oil has quadrupled in price, think of NAFTA and maybe you will start to see some of the benefits.

I don't believe NAFTA deserves the demonization it's gotten from labor supporters; it merely served as a symbol for anxieties about America's disadvantages in the global labor market. Factories had already moved to Mexico before NAFTA. The giant sucking sound since 1994 has been desperate Mexicans coming north for work in the U.S. If you want to know where your blue collar job went, look east, not south.

But I agree with Sirota; for Clinton to campaign against Obama as more pro-NAFTA than she is is just laughable.

RE: - How can you call shutting a border to people and opening it to capital, opening a border?

You would have to ask Milton Friedman that - it is his ideology behind that.

Seems, by all accounts, that the meeting in New Orleans in April is about making "NAFTA on Steroids" even more business friendly. Before the leak, we would have seen at least one (if not both) leading Dem candidates there shaking hands with the protesters. If things stay the way they are, both Clinton and Obama will avoid the place like the plague.

The following exchange brings up the debate about whether NAFTA-gate is basically about NAFTA or basically about rigging elections. While the NDP feel that it is about both, this is what Iggy (the guy most apt to replace Stephane Dion as Liberal Leader) has to say about it:

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a disturbing pattern is becoming evident. The Conservatives cannot seem to stop tampering with elections: municipal, federal and now, God knows, even an American election.

There is evidence that the environment minister interfered in the municipal election in Ottawa. There is evidence that the Conservatives made a financial offer to trigger a federal election in Canada. We now find that their partisan games have gone international, with a clumsy attempt to skew the vote in Ohio.

The Ambassador calls this interference. When will this pattern of interference end?

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what we have heard from the Liberal Party members is a series of wild accusations. What they considered to be a scandal was a patronage appointment that was never offered and never made, a court case that was never intervened in, a contract that was never handed out, a political effort that was never made.

I feel sorry for the deputy leader of the Liberal Party. I know he is a better man than this, but I know his leader has taken him in this direction.

Hey, David, Give em hell!

Spyder, Clintons' one bad choice?? Surely you jest? Or are you a closet Republican? How about "welfare reform? You know, the one that moved millions of children from poverty into deep poverty? Or the massive accelerated move of our national wealth to the top 1%? Or telecommunications deregulation, the one which has turned our journalists into squacking mouthpieces for the corporate empire? Or even forming the DLC, which has turned our Congress into corporate fund faucet? I could go on and on. But let's get to Hillary, who clearly will do anything - anything to win, including bringing down the Democratic party, and who has no morals about going about it. No deed too dirty for her. Yes, Obama has scruples, and we've already been living with a president without them. Why in the world would you want to have another liar in the oval office? Or maybe you don't have any problem with that. Don't count on Hillary to fight off the republicans, her agenda is too close for comfort to theirs. Check out how Bill got them so rich so fast.

The one thing I agree with is Obama had better show himself to be a fighter, tasteless as it may be to him, or she will do what she does best, destroy him with her Rovian tactics and lies. As for a Clinton-Obama ticket, I would never vote for such a thing. It's Obama or Nader for me. A person has to have some principles in this world, even if Hillary doesn't.

kathyodat

SJC, no research I've seen in 14 years mentions energy as NAFTA's primary purpose or achievement. NAFTA's underlying purpose was to back up the U.S. bailout of the Mexican peso by locking Mexico into free-market reforms. But the number of Mexicans living on two dollars a day or less has done nothing but grow by the millions ever since.

Credible studies and reports have been done demonstrating that NAFTA's net effect has been a shell game--some have done well, while some manufacturing sectors have suffered. The problem is that the damage is done at the lower end of the wage scale, and among those with less education or with a lower degree of job skills. About 70 percent of those laid off in the U.S. textile industry, for example, either found no work or made 25% less when they did find re-employment.

Gas in my area was $1.37 a gallon when Bush took office. It's now $3.21, in large part because we invaded a nation whose role in the world oil picture has traditionally been the country who regulated production to keep prices acceptable to OPEC. The idea that I should thank NAFTA that gas isn't $5 a galllon doesn't ring true.

So, somebody beat me to responding to the 'one bad choice' comment. Good job.

But here's on you left off this list that's just kinda important today. The Clintons led the charge on repealing the banking laws that were passed after the Great Depression. That's what was called Glass-Steagal. Those laws were put into place after the abuses of the roaring twenties led to the market collapse of the great depression. Glass-Steagel was the post depression era law that was taking the lessons learned from that collapse and trying to prevent it from happening again.

So, in the 90's, the Clinton's, after taking lots of money from Wall street and the bankers led the charge on 'banking reform'. They took those post-depression reform laws and got them repealed so their partners in corruption from the banking industry could make bigger profits.

Now look at the result. We once again see a collapse of the banking industry leading towards a recession (or worse). The banking industry, left un-regulated after the Clintons took their bribes and did their bidding, went wild with ripping off consumers with 'sub-prime' loans and bundling these bad debts in such strange ways into other financial instruments that no one could figure out what was going on.

This all leads to the collapse of real estate and banking that we are seeing today.

Thanks Clintons! And of course to all the other Democrats that supported this reversal of a key post-depression reform.

Yeah, one bad choice indeed! We could run out of electrons out here listing all the crappy things the Clintons and the Democrats did to sell us out the last time they were in power. Destroying the core of America's economic engine with NAFTA and WTO was just another part of it.

I was alive and well and paying attention during the NAFTA debate. I don't ever remember 'energy' being in the discussion. This was back when oil was something like $18 a barrel. This was just after the time when Bush Sr. had to fly to Saudi Arabia to plead with his buddies there that they work to keep oil prices from falling even below that.

What was told by the liars in the Democratic administration to the American people was that NAFTA would be a boon to Americans that would create MORE American jobs.

Yeah right. See what happens when you believe a Democrat.

Yes, NAFTA needs reform.

Anybody see Jack Layton on the Lou Dobbs show the other day?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=N_MR7tL7tWs

If Jack believes Obama, that is good enough for me.

http://www.ndp.ca/page/6236

Usually the studies that say NAFTA was a wash boil down to saying that when 30 people lose their jobs that were paying them $33,000 a year, while one billionaire makes an extra $1,000,000 a year ... that's even.

Never mind that those 30 people needed those jobs a heck of a lot more than the billionaire needed the extra million.

When 'studies' show that NAFTA has been about even in effect, I immediately want to ask the dates and the times which were studied. That's because we've seen a rolling effect that's rumbling through our economy that hasn't stopped yet.

The initial impact was on low to medium skill manufacturing jobs. Most people younger than me probably don't even realize that we used to actually make stuff in this country. Today, damn near everything you buy, from clothes to electronics and so forth was made overseas and imported. We actually used to make that stuff here. Which means people actually had better jobs (than say being a Walmart greeter) making that stuff.

During the Clinton era, there was lots of BS talk about the 'new economy', and how those lost manufacturing jobs would be replaced by high-tech computer jobs. Then they went the next step and passed the WTO, and all those high-tech 'new economy' jobs also started leaving the country. Suddenly all those computer jobs and IT jobs started moving to places like India. Ooops, conned again by the Democrats.

If you read Paul Craig Roberts much, you know what the next effect of NAFTA and WTO is. That is that engineering and research jobs also tend to be tied to the manufacturing base. It makes sense. The engineers who know how to design and run a manufacturing plant are likely to be located where the plant actually is ... not on the other side of the world. Especially when wages are cheaper where the plant is because that was the whole purpose of putting the plant there to begin with.

This of course takes longer. When the plant first moves, the people at the new place don't have the skills to do the engineering and research. But they learn. You get some engineers from hands-on work in the plant. Then once they have a talent for the job, they go get the training needed to go with the experience. Or just in general people where the plant is start to go get the education needed to do the engineering and research work. It beats working in the factory floor if you can be the person designing it instead.

So, that's the trend we've seen accelerating in this decade. Its still a rolling effect of NAFTA and WTO, only now its the about the 3rd wave of how its all screwing over Americans. Americans who study engineering can't find jobs these days. There's a glut of American engineers because those 'good' jobs are following the plant overseas.

So, I'm curious when those 'studies' were done that says its all a wash. And of course exactly who did them. There was a lot of that crap floating around in the few years after NAFTA as the people who had just seriously screwed over our country then tried to justify it.

A country losing its ability to manufacture is not a good thing. This has been shrouded in BS ever since it was first proposed, but its also been very obvious to a lot of people for a long time. A country that produces nothing but marketing BS and shell-game investment schemes and tanks is not going to be a prosperous country for very long. In the short term it might not look so bad, but in the long term it proves disastrous.

Look at the falling dollar. That's what happens when you don't make anything for export anymore, but continue to buy mountains of crap that's all made somewhere else. Like all the other shell games the Republicans and the Dems put out, its ok for awhile and maybe even can con people into believing it. But in the long term, you can't just make wealth out of thin air if you aren't actually making anything else to sell to the world.

Thank you, COMarc, I did forget to mention the Glass-Steagall Act repeal which has set us up for a humongous recession/depression. But hey, the bankers and the Clintons got very very rich. I remember when Clinton signed the repeal, thinking, this can only have one outcome,what can he be thinking of? Well, now we know.

Are we going to hear back from Spyder? Or perhaps he/she has seen the light?

kathyodat

Can anyone tell me a bit about Congressperson Marcy Kaptur from Ohio - I have never heard the name before.

RE: A country losing its ability to manufacture is not a good thing. This has been shrouded in BS ever since it was first proposed, but its also been very obvious to a lot of people for a long time.

Yeah, it has. I remember way back when Bill Blaikie was speaking out against these trade agreements - back when it was the FTA rather than the NAFTA (and the MAI etc) - NDP MP Bill Blaikie wanted worker protections and environmental protections placed into the agreements way back then.

As Jack Layton said on Lou Dobbs, Peter Julian is now our Trade Critic and he was talking to like-minded people in the American Congress and in Mexico to present an organized front against these pro-Corporate trade agreements:

NEWS: PARLIAMENTARIANS FROM THE THREE NAFTA COUNTRIES ANNOUNCE TASK FORCE ON NAFTA RENEGOTIATION

The Task Force on Renegotiating NAFTA, will be chaired by NDP Trade Critic, Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster), U.S. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), the Honourable Yeidckol Polevnsky (Senator for Mexico State and Vice-president of the Mexican Senate), and the Honourable Victor Quintana (Deputy of the State of Chihuahua, Mexico), with support from their respective political parties. Members of the Task Force undertake to promote within their respective legislatures the renegotiation of NAFTA.

The objectives of the Task Force include transforming and rebuilding NAFTA in order to achieve a fair trade policy. This fair trade model is designed to safeguard the sovereignty of the three countries, and includes enforceable measures for the protection of workers and the environment, and allows for all three governments to regulate in the public interest.

"In the United States, Mexico and Canada, income inequality has grown dramatically in the almost fifteen years since the free trade agenda took effect. In Canada, families are worse off today than they were when the first agreement was implemented in 1989," said Julian. ...

http://www.peterjulian.ca/page/595

Anyone with an active brain cell should have been able to see the outcome of the Freetoexploit Trade Agreements as soon as they were mooted. I imagine hundreds of thousands, if not millions must have had sight of ...

The Perils of Free Trade by
Herman E Daly, Scientific American November 1993

and surely it would have set some of them actually thinking. But then, Operation Mockingbird made sure that nothing of substance got mentioned in the media.

But of course, as the Bush-Clinton crime families became entrenched in the US government everything has become transformed into an Alice-through-the-Looking-Glass world. Practically everything is going to plan. US wealth is now stashed away in various banks all around the world in secret accounts and has been replaced with IOUs. Quite blatantly everything is now directed at processing further debt through the system to accrue to the benefit of the chosen few and to the distress of the ordinary citizen in the US and the people of the wider world.

Name just one thing that 43 has done that has been of benefit to the ordinary citizen of the US. If you do manage to dredge one up, compare it with the thousands of things he has done or authorized, often with the connivance of both side of congress, that have caused distress and then factor in the 900-odd lies he has told.

It is impossible to keep in mind what a total disaster the US has become over the past two or three decades. And the full impact of all this tragedy has yet to be felt.

Have you all forgotten what NAFTA, and it'd big brother the WTO was for???

What do you think all those angry poeple- Teamsters and turtles, went to Seattle in 1999 about???

Remember....Seattle... then DC,... then Goteborg, then Genova, then quebec....

Let me explain it:

The purpose of all these "free trade" agreements is to make corporate and the investor's "enjoyment of their investments" (actual wording) sovereign over a countries poeple and any laws to protect those people or the earth's environment. Any attempt to pass such laws allows affected corporations to pursue cross-border lawsuits for all possible lost profits for perpetuity, forcing the governments to drop the laws.

But, under NAFTA, governments have NO right to sue corporations for their environmental or worker malfeance.

In NAFTA, it is called "Chapter 11".

- NAFTA prevents local or national governments to pass new environmental protection laws.

- NAFTA prevents governments from passing new worker wage or safety laws.

- NAFTA is probably what will make it impossible for the US to repel the Taft Hartly act.

- NAFTA halts any new consumer protection orfood safety laws.

It this clear now????

What makes this Billary slander of Obama more Monstrous is that it was a Billary hack that informed the Canadians not to worry about changes in NAFTA because such statements were purely being made for the sake of politics.

There is a 59-page outline of what Barack Obama plans to do for America if he's elected President. This man hasn't left out a thing. Not only that, he includes a detailed plan of how he's going to carry out every one of his intentions.

It's very compelling - and he will definitely have my vote if he is chosen to run for President. I've never in my life seen or heard such a detailed outline of what a candidate plans to do once he gets into office - regarding every topic any thinking American could possibly be interested in.

If you'd care to take a look at it, it's at this web site:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

As others have written or hinted here, the NAFTA problem is a general class of logic problems -- the asymmetric imbalance of freedom.

Corporations, merchants, investors, etc. may benefit from NAFTA. Workers, tourists, students, citizens, etc. are experiencing quite the reverse: walls, RFID, passports, working visas. Godforsaken Middle Ages in the era of global nation-states: we're glued to the manor or plantation while the lord enjoys free mobility.

rumiluv wrote:

"What makes this Billary slander of Obama more Monstrous is that it was a Billary hack that informed the Canadians not to worry about changes in NAFTA because such statements were purely being made for the sake of politics"

What is so "monstrous" about it? It's true, isn't it? Doublespeak it the trademark of a democrat. Thank you, Canada!

At least the Republicans don't lie about their fascist plans.

I like that NAFTA's a part of the discourse, of course. It's time we had it out. It's the good part about this primary going on so long...the candidates still have to pander and make promises to constituencies and issues. The corporate Dem candidates would just as well not talk about thorny issues like NAFTA and Immigration (which are of course intertwined) and move on to a general election where they can contrast themselves with the corporate republicans (and make themselves seem like "nurturing parents" as opposed to those "strict father figures." God I hate that crap from Lakoff.)

While Sirota and I probably agree on the issue, I don't like the way we talk about it.

The frame of "free" vs "fair" is a distraction frame. Just what do the silly phrases actually mean? They make no sense.

We all know, instinctively, under whatever political and social system, that nothing material in this world is actually "free." It's really a question of who wins, who benefits, from trade deals? There's no doubt who's benefiting now - the powerful, the rich, the corporations. We can make deals that benefit more and more people, distribute power, strengthen democracy and build social and political wealth and capital for those currently left out.

Another world - another America - is truly possible.

Our task is to bridge the democracy divide.

This divide crosses demographics like race, religion, region and gender.

Part of this democracy divide is that we've abdicated our individual responsibilities to the democratic process – and I don't mean just during presidential elections, I mean day to day, every day.

Yet at the same time part of this democracy divide is because we've been shut out of the democratic process by corporate control of our public institutions, public space and mediums of communication.

We see this divide when workers try to organize and are met with union busting.

We see this divide whenever organized communities come up against twin targets of developers and local, city, state, federal and other governments.

We see this divide when we are denied appropriate health care.

We see this divide when...(fill it in with your story)

So the answer is to step up to our individual responsibilities, bridge the democracy divide, and hold to account the corporate governance of neo-liberalism. Every. Single. Day.

Solrak.

Everyone seems to forget that it was Daddy Bush's administration that negotiated NAFTA to begin with... and at the time everyone including the Press seemed to think the concept was wonderful!

In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed NAFTA.

The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994.

The basic concept was good, but like anything that has loopholes the multi-nationals can drive a megatanker through, it was quickly bastardized to profit the corporations and screw the peasants of all the nations involved.

Where it goes wrong are in several areas, not the least of which is some limit on BALANCING the trade between the nations. Another place is in the lack of enforcement regarding protections for the workers and the environment.

As it stands, companies can shut down their U.S. plants, move two miles south of the border, pay the workers 30 cents on the dollar compared to U.S. wages, NOT provide occupational health and safety standards for their workers, and pollute the environment in ways that would not be permitted in this country.

Naturally, this cuts production costs by a huge amount, but in the end, the savings rarely get passed on to the U.S. consumer.

In the end, the corporations are killing their own best market... by bankrupting the American economy.

USAn - Yes it's true. But the problem is that Clinton is but the poster child.

Orwell had this bunch pegged decades in advance: treaties to suppress working people's bargaining power, wages, and living conditions always are described as "free trade", a term which ought to be as nauseating to us as "slave trade".

Samantha Power is right: Hillary is a monster, one without conscience. The rightwing smearscum attack her for what she is NOT -- she is no public spirited person, and never has been, but an opportunist and a liar of the first magnitude, as free from the burden of conscience as Bush is.

RE: - Name just one thing that 43 has done that has been of benefit to the ordinary citizen of the US.

Bush being unpopular means that McCain is on his own and gives the Dems a chance to score points by tying McCain to an unpopular president. That is basically all I can come up with.

RE: - Remember….Seattle… then DC,… then Goteborg, then Genova, then quebec….

The much hated Chapter 11. You fill in the rest:

Seattle - l999
Quebec City - 2001
Waco Texas - 2005
Montebello - 2007
New Orleans - 2008 - April 21-22

I expect the people I vote for Federally to be there. I also expect Edwards and Nader to be there - unless either suffers from Asthma. I doubt that Bush wants the added publicity of either Obama or Clinton showing up in New Orleans in April. This scandal makes it less likely that either will show up to shake hands with the protesters.

RE: - Doublespeak it the trademark of a democrat. Thank you, Canada!

Most of the content of the two leaks has already been discredited in the Canadian press. Days before NAFTA-gate broke, we learned that Harper's bunch tried to give a dying man a million dollar bribe to influence his vote. Harper likes NAFTA so what does he gain through pointing this out before an election? Wouldn't he want a President who liked NAFTA also?

I am not saying that doublespeak isn't the trade mark of the Dems - all I am saying is that you should take anything that comes out of the PMO (Prime Minister's Office) with a grain of salt. Stephen "Schmiergelder" Harper is not married to the truth.

Harper doesn't like to be called "Steve" but he lets Bush call him "Steve" - because he will do anything to please Bush and the Republican party he admires. For more specific details, check my (and other Canadian) posts on

Canadian Government Will Probe 'Entire' NAFTA Leak: PM
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/07/7540/

and (more importantly)

'NAFTA-Gate' Began with Remark From Harper's Chief of Staff
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/06/7526/

RE: - The frame of "free" vs "fair" is a distraction frame. Just what do the silly phrases actually mean? They make no sense.

Fair Trade NOT Free Trade has been the mantra of the anti-FTA/NAFTA/MAI/SPP movement for decades (or for as long as the NDP has been opposing these agreements). Fair trade means trade agreements which protect workers and the enviroment rather than cater to corporations.

RE: - We see this divide when workers try to organize and are met with union busting.

This is a big problem in Mexico - where one can be murdered for trying to form a union.

Anyone here read Shock Doctrine yet?

Soma90405 , Clinton appears to the public as even more of a (the M word) IF (and only if) Obama takes the high road. Contrast is important. Larry Flint looks even more debaucherous when compared to Mother Teresa than he does when compared to Hugh Hefner (sp?).

Before you read this discussion of NAFTA-gate where Ian Brodie is compared to Scooter Libby, note that Ducros's crime was calling Bush a "Moron", and Parrish's was calling the Bush administration "American Bast-rds."

Friday, March 7, 2008

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister did not stop bragging that the Conservatives would establish good relations with the United States. With an alleged leak by his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, the Prime Minister has completely missed the mark, to say the least, unless, when he promised better relations with the United States, he was thinking only of relations with the government of Mr. Bush.

At the end of the day, is the leak not just an attempt by this right-wing Conservative government to help the Republicans in this presidential race?

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. The government is working to get to the bottom of this matter.

It is important that Canada has very good relations with the United States. It is our largest trading partner and it is our neighbour with whom we share a long border. An incident of this type has the potential to harm the construction of those kinds of good relations and that is why we take it seriously.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals did not hesitate to fire Jean Chretien's press secretary, Francoise Ducros, and to throw Carolyn Parrish out of their caucus under similar circumstances.

Since the investigation now extends to the Prime Minister's Office, and since Mr. Brodie, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, is the alleged source of the leak and is clearly in a conflict of interest, what is the Prime Minister waiting for to suspend him until the investigation gets to the bottom of this situation?

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have taken action in this regard and there is an investigation taking place. We can all agree that an event like this is not helpful to Canada–U.S. relations and the NAFTA has been very positive for Canada and the United States.

Canada has certainly enjoyed the benefits from a significant increase in jobs, an increase in the standard of living, and an increase in average incomes. These are all very positive things. The United States has experienced similar benefits. So, we all agree that this is important and we want to maintain those good relations. That is why we take this matter seriously.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most Americans have a tough time naming our Canadian Prime Minister but they sure are starting to learn the name of Ian Brodie and his role in leaking privileged information to mess up the Democratic primaries.

Another name Americans know well is that of Scooter Libby. Will the Prime Minister address this national embarrassment and fire his chief of staff, or would he rather keep denying and just wait until things turn out for Mr. Brodie like they did for Mr. Libby?

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to everybody's attention that the member for Halton has been letting everybody on the Hill know that he has released his new book. I do not know if it is autobiographical in nature but he is having a launch for his new book entitled Greater Fool.

The book deals with issues in the United States, in which he has a great interest. I know that in the past he has been a great supporter of NAFTA. We think that agreement is important and our relations with the United States are important. I hope he will agree with us on the importance of working to strengthen that relationship.

Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the plug. Canadians now understand that Mr. Brodie's leak of information to help the Republican buddies in the U.S. had a direct impact on one of the closest Democratic primaries in American history.

If the Prime Minister will not take decisive action with his staff he will end up wearing this. When will the Prime Minister fire Scooter Brodie?

xxxxxxx

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most Americans would not recognize the Prime Minister if he was standing right in front of them, but in the past few days the name of his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, has become as familiar to them as the names of any of their favourite television stars.

Ian Brodie made a serious mistake. By interfering in the U.S. primaries the way he did, he not only tarnished Canada's international reputation, but he put our trade interests with our biggest economic partner at risk.

When will the Prime Minister show him the door?

xxxxxxx

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the clerk of the Privy Council is the Prime Minister's highest ranking official. The Prime Minister's chief of staff is the most senior political employee. These two men are required to rub shoulders and work together on a regular basis.

How can the clerk of the Privy Council investigate someone he has to work so closely with? Does the Prime Minister realize that we do not need some phoney investigation for him to fire his chief of staff?

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1

I think even superdelegates are getting concerned that Hillary is willing to bring down the Democratic party to stop Obama. Her saying McCain can be better at keeping Americans safe than Obama makes her sound like she's campaigning for the Republicans. Even more it is sabotage of the Democratic party. How anyone can support her after saying that I don't understand, but some do. Either they aren't paying attention, or they also don't care as long as Obama doesn't win the nomination. I think riverman has a point there.

I think it's too bad because I think Obama could make our country respected again in this world, and heal the internal divisions, bringing us to feeling strong and proactive instead of fearful and apathetic. Hillary would do the opposite. I hope her tactics backfire on her. She deserves it.

kathyodat