I'm not cowed by lunacy, gibberish or hate-mongering. Like graffiti cowards of the real world, malicious adolescents and Republican dogs of the cyberworld are best ignored.

Bob K you're clear, clearly under the spell of the neo con fascists and their ilk. Of course, Hilary Rodham Klanton is a racist and soft on fascism and supports NAFTA and all other agreements to enslave working people.

Bob K you're clear, clearly under the spell of the neo con fascists and their ilk. Of course, Hilary Rodham Klanton is a racist and soft on fascism and supports NAFTA and all other agreements to enslave working people.

Now why don't go join a fascist neo or pro fascist discussion group on the dawg?

Maybe I wasn't clear. It's not just the New York Times. There is NO OTHER MEDIA reporting that the White House documents show Hillary was an "ardent advocate" of NAFTA, nor that she "strategized," nor that she was "in the thick of the maneuvering to block . . . a better agreement." ONLY the Obama campaign and John Nichols are telling these lies.

Many media outlets and blogs have re-published the John Nichols smear piece, but none have independently reported his claims.

If anyone can show me another media outlet reporting these claims, please do so.

The word if I didn't get in editorially is "say" between the words "can" and "about."

Bob K shows his true colors, backing the New York Times, that bastion of the US mainstream media, which we can say about it, "The more you read, the less you know." We can now thank Bob K for showing he's in with the soft on fascism, cheerleading for endless war US mainstream media.

Georgie Washington did just what I said he did, and Thomas Jefferson did just what I said he did. He and Sally Hemmings were together openly. Washington sneaked around behind the old plantation house. What was Washington did with freeing his slaves would be called non support today. Now deal with that!

Bob K is as wrong as hell, and he probably is far right supporter of Hilary Rodham Klanton, the stealth GOP candidate to make sure this country has two Republicans after both the major party conventions, completely stacking the deck in favor of the neo con dominated GOP.

The recently released White House schedules do NOT show that Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA back in 1993. Scour the media and you'll find no one reporting this lie — it's only the Obama campaign and their shill, John Nichols.

This sleazy, dung-slinging freak, John Nichols, brazenly lies: "Now that we know from the 11,000 pages of Clinton White House documents . . . that the former First Lady was an ardent advocate for NAFTA . . . that she held at least five meetings to strategize . . . that she was in the thick of the maneuvering to block . . . a better agreement . . ."

"Now that we know"? We know no such thing!

Compare Nichols' lies to this New York Times report:

"Newly released White House schedules show Mrs. Clinton attended several meetings on the trade pact while first lady. In one meeting . . . on Nov. 10, 1993, Mrs. Clinton spoke to about 120 participants at a NAFTA briefing. On the schedule released by the National Archives on Wednesday, the meeting was described as a "NAFTA Briefing Drop-By" and was closed to the press. Three other meetings in 1993 were generically described as NAFTA meetings, but the schedules provided few details."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/politics/21nafta.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

All we know from the White House schedules is that she attended meetings. That's it! There's nothing about "advocacy," "strategizing" or "maneuvering to block a better agreement."

Besides what's in the White House schedules, the only other information being reported comes from an ABC News story that an anonymous source said Hillary spoke in favor of NAFTA at meeting of business women. While it's expected that a First Lady would officially support the President's policies, we also know that advisers David Gergan and George Stephanopoulos have repeatedly said Hillary opposed NAFTA in White House meetings they attended.

It's really a shame that The Nation publishes John Nichols' smears. Whatever happened to journalistic standards?

AD - there is nothing wrong with interracial couples - as long as both partners have a choice in what goes on. Someone should be looking into this, because I haven't heard much about your founding father's personal lives.

I just shuddered when Obama used the phrase "ungoverned spaces" during a speech on his trip in Africa (doc on right now). Bob K probably wishes that On the Map was still on line because Avi did a very good explanation as to what exactly that phrase means.

Basically they are spaces which the Americans have deemed to have no official government and for which they feel it is in their best interests to impose their will on.

Georgie Washington was a real piece of work, sleeping with his slaves behind the old plantation house having illegitimate children by then, and when it was real convenient freeing them, I mean him from supporting them. Yeah, that old "terrible" Jefferson just came right out in the open in the middle of Paris right of white folks with Sally Hemmngs. Damn, "how dare" he do such? Why that's just where all this "terrible" race mixing started or "something" like that. Oh, and never sneaked the hell around to do what he did. "Oh what a terrible" person he was.

Hilary Rodham Klanton is" ready from day one" to lie through her teeth on NAFTA and a whole lot of other important issues, and don't ya'll forget!

Riverman, Bob K is a spin doctor - one doesn't so much argue with him but reveal his spin to others. Me, on the other hand, I have a poor memory - I'll repeat points because I don't remember making them.

NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA is being used as a metaphor for all NAFTA-like trade agreements. What does SPP stand for?

RE Susan George - If the alternative doesn't exist (ie isn't set up) then we should be asking in whose best interest that there never be an alternative. Think Chavez is trying to set up an alternative.

RE: - She has a lust for power second only to her lust for pussy. Ask anyone who served in the Clinton White House - she hates men.

In Canada, one long serving MP lists both her late common-law husband and her present common-law wife on her webpage - she is proud of both of them. Another MP dumped her party and her Conservative MP boyfriend on the same day and became a Liberal - a year or so later she was named as "the other woman" in Tie Domi's divorce. One Party leader started dating an MP for a party at the other end of the political spectrum. One Prime Minister's wife slept with one of the Rolling Stones.

In summary, how is Hillary Clinton's sex life relevant! And the only reason that a Lesbian has to hate a man is if he is married to the love of her life!

BTW - did you hear about Jenna Bush's new fragrance - it is called "Recession":

http://www.airfarce.com/seasons/season15/080314.html

They spoofed the Obama Race speech this week but if won't be on line for a few more days.

RE: - Where's her tax forms? I truly doubt that she will release her tax returns before the PA primary. She's scared of something or she wouldn't be dragging her feet.

This gives Hillary Clinton something in common with Brian Mulroney - and Joe Co says it best (Friday, February 29, 2008):

But we saw with Mr. Mulroney his refusal to give documentation to back up what was a fairly incredible story. However, the one that really got me was when he claimed that his income tax returns were sacred. My relationship with my wife is sacred. My relationship with my children is sacred. I want to be very clear to this House that my relationship with my accountant and the Revenue Canada office is not sacred, and neither should Mr. Mulroney's be. - Joe Comartin, NDP MP

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

RE: - Funny. Bill C told one lie and got impeached, Hillary told one lie and is either a wicked witch or a monster. Bush has told lies ever since he got in office and nobody seems to notice or worry about that problem.

I'm sure that she's told more than one. People tend to let Bush off the hook because they assume that he is not bright enough to know whether what his speech writers tell him is true or not - though, even if he was, I doubt he would care.

Hillary Clinton is not forward thinking in that she will say or do what is popular in the moment rather than what is right in the long term. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

None of us know all that much about Obama so it matters much how credible you perceive Harper (and other Anti-Bama's) to be,

GWB has too much of a fondness for his father's old friends and too little for average folk - yet he comes across as someone you wouldn't mind having a beer with - or did when he was running for first term. McCain seems the same way - until you realize that he looks up to Ronnie Regal as a role model.

RE: - And yes kathyodat, (pleasure ma'am) if I understand the survey correctly, 93% of those who actually do vote, do so on the basis of a high school popularity contest. They either want to fuck'em or be'em. Pardon the French.

I guess the same logic goes for how Congresspersons and Presidents vote on legislation which supports either corporate rights or workers rights and the environment - and you know which is getting which.

And for your information, the French word for seal or sea horse is spelled phoque. Pardon yourself in the language you spoke.

RE: - In your life, how many white males have you known who would refuse a marriage dowry of 200 humans slaves in chains (along with one little 14 yo girl who cannot say "No")

According to the linguistic historians, the word "Motherf--ker" was coined by the sons of women like little Sally Hemmings. Has the American government given a formal apology to these women an their descendants yet? Has either Clinton or Obama indicated that such a formal apology would be forth coming if they were to become President - or are they afraid that doing so would also necessitate an apology to Iraqi men and women?

I would hope that most men would resist this temptation. Though, on the other hand, there were those who purchased slaves to keep them from being sold to those who would take advantage. Owning another human being is wrong, but, at some times, ownership was the only means of saving a person from an even worse fate.

And things were better for the Blacks who came to Canada, but not that much better.

Now to Bob K

RE: - While a First Lady can't come out publicly against a President's policy, the truth is that Hillary opposed NAFTA behind the scenes:

The fact that she could not publicly oppose NAFTA because she is First Lady and doing so would hurt her husband's political career makes it hard to know what her true views were. It does make one think that Hillary figured that other things were more important that her opinions on that one issue, though. What were they? In Canada, such things are decided at convention and all he run on the party plank are beholden to what is decided at Convention (even the Party leader) so there are situations where one publicly has to support a position one personally opposes - though one doesn't have to run for the party if one has strong feelings against a specific policy.

RE: - Furthermore, it was Obama who lied to voters when he said he would renegotiate NAFTA, not Hillary.

Actually, the Canadian leaks accused both Clinton and Obama of them of that. I've been following the story and whether you believe this damages BOTH Clinton and Obama or not depends on how much you trust the source:

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/at_issue/naftagate_1.html

If you can't give me the pre-vote discussion on the the Dorgan Amendment, can you at least give me it's wording!

There was no Question Period last week and it won't be on this week - which is why I have stop giving updates on the issue.

RE: - Blackwater

There have been how many attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro! I am sure that Clinton did not use the regular army for those failed operatives. I like to get Blackwater as far out of Military operations as possible. However, it would be very difficult to say never to private security guards. I do think that Obama does need to provide more details as to his policy on this, though.

There is an SPP (ie NAFTA on steroids) meeting in New Orleans the end of April so NAFTA is the important issue right now. Blackwater is an issue for May.

BeForKids,

I can see why you want to change the subject. OK. On the subject of mercenaries:

Obama introduced S. 674 on February 16, 2007, with four co-sponsors. It has not been scheduled for debate.

Like other bills introduced by Obama which have gone nowhere, S. 674 is a sham bill that has some PR value but really does nothing. S. 674 offers the "Sense of the Congress" that Iraq contractors (mercenaries) who commit crimes should be prosecuted by the Department of Defense. But, it would be up to the DOD to make the rules and do the prosecuting. The thing about "Sense of Congress" resolutions: they do not make law and are not enforceable. See: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/senseof.htm

Hillary is co-sponsoring S. 2398, which was introduced by Senator Bernard Sanders [I-VT]. This is a strong bill which would end the use of Blackwater, DynCorp, Triple Canopy and other mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama does not support S. 2398. He has said he will not rule out use of mercenaries.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=39437&ref=rellink

See also:

http://dancingbear.vox.com/library/post/mercenary-man-claims-hell-pull-the-troops-out-but.html

RE - vaudree, only if she doesn't get elected President. Then all bets are off.

Kathyodat, the bets are not off when one is seeking a first term. After one has secured the second term, one has nothing to lose.

A McCain President can do openly what a Dem President can only accomplish behind our backs.

A Dem President/Liberal Prime Minister puts the onus on us to uncover what they are about to do before they have a chance to do it and then make a big fuss in the Media. So far, the NDP has stopped the Liberals from joining Star Wars (ok, they did manage to get their toes wet).

RE - NAFTA was step 1

Actually, CoMarc, NAFTA was step 2 - the FTA or Free Trade Agreement came first:

February 10th 1986

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hills): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister has stated in this House that water exports are not on the table with respect to free trade negotiations. I want to ask the Minister whether or not he is aware of the grant given by the National Research Council for a feasibility, study to the proponents of the Grand Canal water diversion? If he is, will he say whether or not he would consider the request made today by Great Lakes United and the Nishnawbe-Aski nation to have that grant rescinded?

http://www.billblaikie.ca/node/842

RE - The key fact is that Bill and Hillary Clinton favored ALL of this and pushed it through.

Or, at least, let Mexico join into the preexisting agreement between Canada and the US.

According to Bill Blaikie, there were pros and cons to Clinton (put "Clinton" in the search):

February 18th 1993

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has asked wealthy Americans to make some sacrifice in order to bring around their economy and in order to reduce their deficit, a sacrifice that has not been asked of the wealthy in this country.

http://www.billblaikie.ca/node/832

December 2, 1999

"This is nothing but Ronald Reagan's 'trickle-down' nonsense gone global. It's George Bush's gibberish about a New World Order. Then came Bill Clinton, who is to a real Democrat what near beer is to beer. He has led the Democratic Party - once the proud political home of working folks - into an unholy alliance with Republicans and Wall Street lobbyists to embrace NAFTA, GATT, WTO, AFTA, CBI, MAI and other initials that spell 'gotcha' in all the Romance languages.

http://www.billblaikie.ca/node/229

RE - with richardson.. yes the clintons would be over.. but hillary may keep alittle influence with the abortionists and feminists and the diseased and with types like

Save that type of talk for the politicians and not other board members. Actually, I am an Edwards supporter moved to Obama and I find the use of the word "feminist" as a swear offensive.

Think of where Maher Arar would be without feminists. First there was his wife, Monia Mazigh, and then there was the female lawyer Monia family found and sent to the US (how Maher Arar knew the Americans were lying because they referred to the lawyer as "he"), and MPs Marlene Catterall and Alexa McDonough.

Now think of yourself in the same situation as Maher Arar, but with an anti-feminist wife.

RE - corporate America won when John Edwards dropped out.

They won a battle, they gained an advantage - but the war - it is not over. What is John Edwards's next move any way?

RE - Besides NAFTA, it explains how chemicals & GMOs forced onto the Mexican farmers by US corps have destroyed the traditional farming methods.

And caused earlier puberty among girls since many of these chemicals mimic estrogen in the body.

Bob K, who lied about Blackwater? Obama introduced a bill in Feb 2007 to strip immunity from prosecution for Blackwater employees committing war crimes and Hillary declined to sign on to it. In Nov 2007 Hillary said she only just learned that Blackwater employees were immune to war crime prosecution. Let's hear your spin on that one.

kathyodat

As usual, this John Nichols smear job is complete crap. The recently-released White House documents don't show what Nichols claims they show. It's telling that he offers not one example of Hillary's supposed "ardent advocacy for NAFTA." That's because there aren't any.

Likewise, the ABC News report Nichols references is based on the recollection of one person; not the White House documents.

While a First Lady can't come out publicly against a President's policy, the truth is that Hillary opposed NAFTA behind the scenes:

"I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that's putting it mildly. I'm not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn't see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there's some justification for her camp saying, you know, she's never been a great backer for NAFTA." [David Gergen, interviewed on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360", 2/25/08]

Furthermore, it was Obama who lied to voters when he said he would renegotiate NAFTA, not Hillary. As everyone knows, Obama's senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, privately told Canadian officials that Obama's remarks were just campaign rhetoric and shouldn't be taken seriously. http://www.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/20070303canmemo.pdf

Furthermore, when the Senate voted on an amendment that would prohibit future trade deals like NAFTA [the Dorgan Amendment (S.Amdt. 1665) to the 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill], Hillary voted for the amendment, and Obama voted against it. That vote is proof of who is really serious about renegotiated NAFTA and who is not.

The unconscionable Nichols even goes so far as to say, "when Hillary Clinton speaks about trade policy, she begins with a lie so blatant — that she's been 'a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning' — that everything else she says must be viewed as suspect." Not only is Nichols lying about Hillary, his standard for judging a candidate's truthfulness would more appropriately apply to Obama, who "begins with a lie so blatant – that he's been 'a critic of the Iraq War from the very beginning' – that everything else he says must be viewed as suspect."

Powerful post, luckylefty. Do you suppose Tommy J, who wrote some of the most inspiring words for our country was aware of his own hypocrisy? It appears that whatever time we live in, we are blind to it's faults. Certainly if we are partaking of its advantages to us. After all, people have to be able to live with themselves.

kathyodat

Think of America in 1970 as a fatted animal waiting for the richfilth feast. The FBI and COINTELPRO wipe out (kill, ritually defame, or falsely imprison) every leader of every movement for economic or social justice in the US (dirty filthy f**king commies). All such movements are decimated by the late '70's.

Then you get Ray-gun and he sets "The Way-Way Back Machine" to 1880. Merger/Acquisition/LBO (remember?) then they dismember/destroy the companies or off-shore them to slave labor pits on the Pacific Rim. BTW, by mid-80's machiladora labor wasn't cheap enough, didn't produce slave level profits. Then come the Clintons. And they made a Knife & Fork for the Richfilth animals so they didn't have to get their hands dirty at the blood feast.

NAFTA is the knife, with it they slice to the bone. WTO is their fork. With it they pull off large chunks of flesh, turning the meat into profits. Yummmy. Fast Track that.

We are America. For 38 years we have been the feast for the Richfilth cannibals (SEE: Class War). HRC wants to be Chef in Charge. She wants to be the one to feed us to her richfilth friends. She's willing to LIE to get the job. Now, who is she willing to murder with her own hands so she can be Head Overseer? Just how digustingly ugly can she be, how degraded as a human being MUST she be before she is "qualified" to sacrifice us to her Masters. Tough questions.

Is this particular piece of degraded sociopathic meat up to job of being Tyrant or must we find another, greater sociopath to feed us to the Masters? Only we can answer that question. It's our job.

And yes kathyodat, (pleasure ma'am) if I understand the survey correctly, 93% of those who actually do vote, do so on the basis of a high school popularity contest. They either want to fuck'em or be'em. Pardon the French. I think that is why so many people who do read and think, tend to pull their hair out in madness when they contemplate the terrible realities.

Don't pull out your hair, you will want all of it later.

You see, if some nice group of folks had created a reverse COINTELPRO, to steal a name from Gordon R. Dickson, call it the Bureau of Sabotage or Busab, to screw up the Richfilth and their agents both in gov't and business, we might be living in a very different world.

We could have read of the elimination of the Coors family, the Vanderbilts, the breakup of the House of Morgan, we would all have DVDs of Nixon's trial and conviction and his transport, shackled, in an orange jump suit to Federal Prison. Where he should have gone.

Didn't happen of course and America (as a Rule) has actually ALWAYS WORSHIPPED the richfilth animals who now own America. They may love their flat-earth genocidal blood god, but they WORSHIP at the altar of greed. Got a question for you:

In your life, how many white males have you known who would refuse a marriage dowry of 200 humans slaves in chains (along with one little 14 yo girl who cannot say "No") - and with those humans in forced labor that male gets social status and vast wealth, power, and privilege (private law over the rest of us) for life. That's it. How many white male Americans have you known who would refuse that dowry? 1? None? That's our shared America.

Of course, I'm talking about Tommy J. from VA. HE WAS NOBODY GOIN' NOWHERE in a slave Plantation society. His family only had 60 slaves. Nothing. He was nobody. He was very bright and promising, that's why they took him in and got him a rich breeding white female, and a dowry to set him up for life. He fucked little Sally Hemmings (the 14 yo) every day between paragraphs of the Declaration. That's our psychotic America. At the end of his life he wrote to his good friend John Adams and said that he prayed there is not a Just God. As well he should. As well he should.

Rife with mendacity, covered in the blood of our victims, we now wait OUR turn on the butcher's wheel. Maybe, after genocide and slavery and more genocide and more slavery, there is a Just Deity about to settle some very old scores. But I won't count on it just yet. I do know this:

"Whosoever sows misery, reaps rage." That's the upscale version of the old biker line, "What goes around, comes around."

Couldn't be simpler.

Piece.

Peace.

She seems to be about an inch or two away from being hysterical all the time. She'll get well, after she quits fighting and begins supporting Obama. It's not about winning or losing, it's about doing the right thing.

This is a battle between the forces of light, love and truth, and those of darkness, fear, and deception.

Wake up ye supporters of Hilary!

Kernel, Hillary told more than one lie (you forgot Blackwater), and do you consider her "beefed up" resume, a deviation from the truth, is being honest? What I see is a disturbing pattern. I'm tired of liars in office. And I can't say nobody seems to notice or worry. My "Impeach Cheney First" bumper sticker gets lots of smiles, nods and thumbs-up responses. We can drag Congress to water and hold their heads under, but we can't make them drink. The only thing we can do is throw the bums out and I hope we do. Unfortunately we've got the most uninformed electorate on the planet.

kathyodat

ezyflyer__ Good point,anything can happen in elections, so best not to get too carried away with badmouthing.

Funny. Bill C told one lie and got impeached, Hillary told one lie and is either a wicked witch or a monster. Bush has told lies ever since he got in office and nobody seems to notice or worry about that problem.

One thing we know for sure, Obama has never told a lie and never will, as his preacher taught him how to behave. We know the country will be united immediately after his election and all will be wonderful because he says so.

Sorry, ezeflyer. The badmouthing will continue. Now and in the future and even (and especially) if she manages to slither her way to the nomination.

If you want a Republican in November, vote for McCain. If not, then Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney or Brian Moore.
The badmouthing will stop when Hillary and her odious husband are driven from public life.

Yes, I know. Mccain is evil and scary and all that. But that's what he is. Yes, I am sick of Republican misrule.
But misrule is what they do.

I am even sicker about a party that could do something about Republican misrule and WON'T! I know a progressive who took a lot of heat in 2006 for strongly advocating support for the Dems in the mid-term elections. His rationale: give the Dems power and see if they use it. I bet they won't.

Looks like he was right!

Whether we like her or not, we'd better stop badmouthing her just in case.

Hey, militantliberal, NAFTA stands for North American Free Trade Act--I don't think China is in North America.

Where's her tax forms? I truly doubt that she will release her tax returns before the PA primary. She's scared of something or she wouldn't be dragging her feet. She could release the returns 2006 back, if she hasn't finished her 2007. If not able, she and First Laddie should fire their accountant and get a new one. What she really needs to do is graciously support Obama as the Democratic nominee. There is so much at stake, America is at stake. She needs to let go of her Lady Macbeth desire for Power, step aside and let Obama TRY to fix the mess we're in.

I agree with WJM...I would love to see a woman president, but not this woman. For anyone to be suitable aa a candidate for the leader of this country they must be honest (Not liars), have integrity, and have their intnetions and priorities for the good of this country (Not for the good themselves or for their fortunes.) Some transparency would be nice. I would like to see her balance sheet, her financial holding, her major contributors. Then we would know who and what she is working for, certainly not for the average 'Joe Sixpack' as the working stiff is continually referred to.

To go beyond the problem of NAFTA/WTO/World Bank take a look at a design for a system of progressive, fair, balanced trade. And imagine what that would be like for us, and those in other nations.

For a brief summary of one of the better descriptions of a progressive system of world trade, see the article By Susan George:

http://mondediplo.com/2007/01/03economy

For a longer, more detailed description of such a vision, read People Before Profit by Charles Derber.

It is important to transcend our descriptions of problems and envision solutions to advocate.

re militantliberal's comments:

There's an excellent new book about how NAFTA has affected farmworkers, called "The Farmworkers' Journey" by Ann Aurelia Lopez, (University of California Press).
Besides NAFTA, it explains how chemicals & GMOs forced onto the Mexican farmers by US corps have destroyed the traditional farming methods.
A must read for NAFTA/Immigration/GMO debates.

McDee, you have a point. Hillary Clinton is beginning to look like a pathological liar. At this point, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but I would want to scrutinize her closely - if I was interested in her as a candidate, that is. It's coming out that she has been stretching the bounds of veracity about her "experience". From what I've seen, I don't consider her honest or trustworthy. But then Bill wasn't either. I remember Ralph Nader didn't consider his lying an impeachable offense, but did think he should be disbarred for lying. Seems to run in the family.

Amazing that the electorate doesn't seem to have very high standards for the behavior or principles for their candidates. You get what you expect

kathyodat

Could it be that Hillary Clinton has lied so often for so long that she is unable to tell the difference any more between what happened and what she thinks or wishes had happened?
The current occupant of the White House has a similar problem distinguishing reality from what he thinks is reality.
Not something that inspires confidence in a "leader" is it?

NAFTA was step 1. WTO was step 2. And before NAFTA there was the 'maquiladora' factories, so maybe that was step 1 and NAFTA was step 2.

All have been a long process that has destroyed American manufacturing and costs Americans good jobs. To try to argue that we are wrong to complain about one because it was really others of the same chain that are causing us more problems today is silly and facetious. The same people (ie, Clinton, most Democrats, the Republicans) have supported every step a long the way. So, its fair to blame these people for the effects.

Or, to be more specific, sure ...passing the WTO and giving China most-favored trading partner status made it more likely that US jobs would move to China instead of Mexico. It even caused some jobs in Mexico to pick up and leave to China as the race to the bottom continues.

The key fact is that Bill and Hillary Clinton favored ALL of this and pushed it through. As did most of the rest of the leadership of the Dem party. I can't think of any off the top of my head who only supported parts of this. The people who were bought and paid for to serve the corporations at our expense did their job consistently for years.

vaudree, only if she doesn't get elected President. Then all bets are off.

kathyodat

Again, I can't believe we let ourselves get distracted from the basic facts about Bilary's lying ways. And anyone who supports NAFTA is NOT one of us.

Die Hard 1995

Woman in car cuts off Bruce Willis.

BW: Who do you think you are lady, Hillary Clinton?

Samuel Jackson: That's it! The 42nd President.

BW: She'll be the 43rd president.

This is turning into a debate about whether or not NAFTA is a good thing. Let's be perfectly clear that McCain thinks it is.

This puts McCain in a position where he can promote NAFTA openly whereas Clinton and only promote it if she does so secretly and behind out backs - which gives us leverage over Clinton. As long as we remain vigilant and digilant we prevent her from doing anything inappropriate.

militantliberal, many of those new factory jobs in Mexico have headed to Asia. Since NAFTA, the standard of living in Mexico has gone DOWN, not up.

So Hillary is caught out in another lie. First Blackwater, now NAFTA. What's next, and will the corporate media give her a pass? After all. she's not the one saying that the problem lies with the wealthy squeezing the rest of us. Some many say all politicians lie, but she is attempting to conceal her corporatism to improve electibility. She's running under false colors. That is different from promising more than anyone can reasonably deliver. She has no intention of even trying to deliver her promises.

The media may be forgiving of her lies but the Republicans will be happy to present her as a flipflopper. And she's certainly been loading their weapons to use against any Democrat in her efforts to smear Obama.

kathyodat

militantliberal

What is the specific flaw in Nichols's critique that you are you referring to? Are you saying that NAFTA hasn't displaced Mexican farmers? Or that Mexicans aren't taking factory jobs?

Mexicans DO take factory jobs in Mexico—just look at the sweatshops that employ thousands on the Mexican side of the Mexico/US border. Many people don't, however, because the companies don't pay living wages and/or don't offer basic labor/safety protections. You can't just flood Mexico with government-subsidized US agricultural products and expect farmers to give up their centuries-old way of life!

I think you're right, however, about NAFTA not being the sole problem in regard to "outsourcing"—as you mention, many jobs indeed have been shipped to China and India.

clinton should not be.

in the same sentence as credibility.

It depends upon what you mean by "is". A "critic" may give rave reviews.
Hillary's two concerns are; winning and not getting stuck "legally". If she says she was a critic, most people will believe her to be meaning she was against it. Legally, the argument could be made... blah blah blah. In America, "credibility" is in the eye of the beholder.

There is a flaw in Nichols' NAFTA critique. If the treaty is putting Mexican peasants off their land, why aren't they taking those new factory jobs in their country instead of coming north?

I don't believe the demonization of NAFTA, at least as to its effects on the U.S. American auto companies opened up plants down there BEFORE the treaty passed. I suspect the really big absorbers of outsourced jobs since NAFTA have been China and India. NAFTA is only a symbol, not a cause of working-class distress.

I haven't trusted this woman since before her husband left office. She has always been a lover of big money, and this lie proves it. She is the big money candidate, and that is what has gotten us into the mess we are in now. We DON'T need more of that at this time.

I have no problem with a woman for president, I have a serious problem with THIS woman for president. She is a dulpicitous liar and needs to be kept away from the presidency. Period. More big money influence is not the way out of the problems we have now, it's big money that put us into these situations. And she is NOT going to reign them in, no matter how much she insists that she will. They will be able to tell her what to do, where to go, and who to shaft. And you can bet it's US, and we'll have to pay for it, too.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive"

The unvieling of Hillary Clinton will certainly make interesting reading in the coming weeks.

It was unfair to hold Mr. Obamas responsible for words he did not speak. Now we are learning that Mrs. Clinton, by her own words, deceived the people of Ohio and the wider America about her positive role in the passage of NAFTA. Its only fair to hold her responsible for her perpetual mendacity.

Are these traits Americans want in a President, who is expected to be ready from day one - is this the quality of leaders she will bring to the presidency?????

It is so interesting that as a spoiler, she is being exposed for what she realy is: a fraud.

Bob K, I rarely speak to people who write here but I feel that your style is to be supportive of the lies that Hillary Clinton writes to try and persuade the public that she is the one, the only one, that has a handle on the presidency and the experience in office that makes her campaign the one of choice.

Yes! Hillary has the experience to tell what truths she finds expedient to twist the minds of the voters, as the most experienced politicians do. We need only look at the most recent series of lies, if we want to see the tactics that she employs. The most obvious is the present lie to the public, the Bosnian bullet dodging episode, escorted to this event by her daughter on her arrival in a so called war zone. The pictures portray more than any words can.

Hillary does have the most experience, that is true, in lying to the public as most politicians do. I think when we talk of a new America, we are talking about ethics, truth, in public actions speech and also dealing with the reality of climate change and the necessary steps to rebuild the USA if that is still possible. I join in those efforts, if that is still an option? Obama is right when he says their is only a small window left to do this.

I believe that Obama has galvanized the youth. They are prepared to take America back. Those in Iraq are presently dying for the lies of Clinton and Bush and many in congress, those young people not in Iraq, will be dying for the inaction of America regarding climate pollution issues and the greed of the multinationals who wanted NAFTA and suborned the government with bribes and favors so they could to put their corporations where they could continue to pollute and hire slave labor to enhance profits.

Clinton, has proved herself a liar on national TV. She has twisted and used whatever is necessary to hoodwink the public and will continue this policy if she attains the nomination and the presidency. I hope that this is not possible because if she wins we all lose. I am one of the older Americans who want to see the America I once believed in when I was young. I thought than this country could help the rest of the world find a new place for humanity. I think this is possible with a change in the direction of the US and a new way for America to think about doing business; To be in collaboration with the world not as so-called leader but partner.

It is time to join the rest of the world and work for peace and global environmental and economic stability. Iran is the latest possible debacle in the neocon version of America. SO! It is time to sweep people like Cheney away and all those like him! I believe that the dialogue that takes place here is this polemic by people who truly see the future direction for the USA. I hope that others can see the light and support the party of youth and the future. This is not to say that Obama is perfect, this is only to say that he is the choice that has captured the youth. If elected he will grow into the office by the second term and has the intelligence to surround himself with good thinkers.

He will rise to the faith that we offer by our confidence in him. Our collective hope is a partnership of the people in government with him. His claims are to change the environmental policy central to the future and tied to economics, truth, change, hope, and the rebuilding of America's place in the family of nations. I applaud those ideals and all of us will have to work hard to help him do that. The time for the liars is past if we are to survive.

Bob K, I rarely speak to people who write here but I feel that your style is to be supportive of the lies that Hillary Clinton writes to try and persuade the public that she is the one, the only one, that has a handle on the presidency and the experience that makes her campaign the one of choice.

Yes! hillary has the experience to tell what truths she finds expedient to twist the minds of the voters. We need only look at the most recent if we want to see the tactics that she employs we need look at the most obvious lie to the public, the Bosnian bullet dodging episode escorted on her arrival to the war zone by her daughter.

Hillary does have the most experience, that is true, in lying to the public as most politicians do. I think when we talk of a new America, we are talking about ethics, truth, and dealing with the reality of climate change and the necessary steps to rebuild the USA if that is possible. i join in that effort if that is still possible.

The reason i do that is I believe that Obama has galvanized the youth. They are prepared to take America back. They are presently dying for the lies of Clinton and Bush and many in congress. Those not in Iraq will be dying for the inaction and greed of the multinationals who wanted NAFTA and suborned the government with bribes and favors so they could to put their corporations where it they could pollute and hire slave labor.

Clinton, has proved herself a liar on national TV. She has twisted and used whatever is necessary to hoodwink the public and will continue this policy if she attains the nomination and the presidency. I am one of the older Americans who want to see the America I believed in when I was young and thought this country could help the rest of the world. I think this is possible with a change in the way we think and do business.

it is time to join the rest of the world and work for peace and global environmental and economic stability. I believe that the dialogue that takes place here is this polemic and I hope that others can see the light and support the party of youth and the future. This is not to say that Obama is perfect, this is only to say that he is the choice that has captured the youth. if elected he will grow into the office by the second term.

he will rise to the faith that we offer in his claims to change the environmental policy central to the future and tied to economics, truth, change, hope, and the rebuilding of America's place in the family of nations.

Your accurate criticism should not be taken as support for Obama should it?
Obama is her political twin.

They are BOTH free, as against fair, traders.

Neither corporate Dem is going to address our trade ills appropriately to give Americans the kind of just international policy our government should have.

In that sense the election is already over: corporate America won when John Edwards dropped out.

Calling Ralph Nader.

I am totally freaked out by Hillary, mostly because of her connection with the elitist right wing "Family". How is that possible for a progressive person? It sounds like The Handmaids Tale by Margaret Atwood. This group reminds me of the top one percenters in that story. Hillary is bad news and I pray she leaves this race soon.

Surely by now its not a surprise to anyone that the Clinton name is associated with not being accurate with the truth. You'd have to be Rip Van Winkle and asleep since 1990 not to have noticed that.

I am a bit surprised. Bill was at least a little 'slicker' at it and usually didn't let himself get caught with 10,000 pages that documented how he lied.

Anyone who was paying any attention in the 90's has surely been rolling on the floor laughing at the notion that Hillary had opposed NAFTA.

-----------------
There will be other options on the ballot in Nov besides corporate America's candidates. What's needed is for Ameerica to wake up to the fact that its being screwed by both parties and that to stop it they have to vote differently.