FactCheck.org speaks: Obama’s mailer is “misleading.” Earlier FactCheck described a different Obama mailer, criticizing Clinton on health care, as “straining the facts, though not exactly false.” With regards to NAFTA: it’s amazing to see how American politicians try to say what the American people want to hear (opposed to NAFTA). NAFTA was, in fact, a good thing, and still is. Globalization isn’t bad, it’s good. Repeat after me. Globalization isn’t bad, it’s good. It helps all economies involved. Leaders should have the courage to stand up and tell the people that they’re wrong. This goes, of course, for just about every candidate since they’re all trying to convince voters that they’re not supporting NAFTA.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Michael, has Clinton always ardently opposed NAFTA, and did she or did she not suggest going after the wages of those who refuse to buy insurance they can afford?
Is the mailer misleading or isn’t it? Stick to the point this time. I’ve got enough of people changing the subject when it suits them. Was this e-mailer completely accurate or not? If not, and FactCheck proves it’s not, accept it and get over it.
At least Claudia had the guts to say that she doesn’t want Obama to use these tactics.
Michael, has Clinton always ardently opposed NAFTA, and did she or did she not suggest going after the wages of those who refuse to buy insurance they can afford?
Well Clinton is as Clinton is, and will always be on the side of whatever polls favor, and as usual, standing for nothing.
either way, NAFTA is good, however it could be better if it were properly applied, and if the greed of States were not an issue.
Yup agreed. And good to see you back!
"NAFTA was, in fact, a good thing, and still is."
Michael , which is your opinion. The annoying thing about the trade debate is that supporters of free trade talk about critics as if they weren’t a legitimate side of a two-way discussion, but are simply a social phenomena to be addressed.
NAFTA, if you would allow me to have an opinion about it, I would argue has led to increased illegal immigration through depressing wages in Mexico.
So let me get this straight… Sen. Obama used a word ("boon") which was used by Newsday to characterize Sen. Clinton’s position on NAFTA, which was strongly supported during the administration in which Sen. Clinton gained her much-trumpeted "experience." Sen. Obama had no way of knowing, not being an editor at Newsday, that they didn’t base their article on some more direct interview, and in fact it appears rather hard to determine exactly what Sen. Clinton’s position on NAFTA is (something which is generally true for her position on most issues). And you use this to claim that Sen. Obama is misleading people? Please. If anybody is at "fault" for that, it’s Newsday, not Sen. Obama.
I certainly think NAFTA is a good thing, but, as redish correctly points out, it’s entirely possible to have a rational opposition to it. It’s one of the actual, real differences of opinion between the left and the right, generally speaking. As a Republican, I would certainly point to Sen. Obama’s opposition to NAFTA as a reason to vote against him. The Democratic party contains plenty of folks who have seen only the most indirect benefits of NAFTA, while they’ve experienced the most direct costs. The position of the candidates in the Democratic primary OUGHT to be very clear. And yet, according to FactCheck: "We frankly find Clinton’s past position on NAFTA to be ambivalent."
Is that what you want in a political candidate, Michael? A candidate whose position on an important public policy issue is "ambivalent"?
At any rate, this is hardly "dirty politics." He didn’t claim she had an illegitimate child, he’s not arguing over minutae. He’s attacking her directly on her policy positions. Why isn’t that legitimate? Is it couched in terms of philosophical discourse? Of course not, nobody would read it. This is a healthy part of the process, not least because it will force Sen. Clinton to state her positions on mandatory insurance and on NAFTA more clearly, to address whether his characterization is accurate or not.
Hillary was for it before she was against it. Remind you of anyone? I don’ t think the flier was dirty. Maybe a speck. It shades the truth a little. Big whoop. I’m not with Claudia in hoping Obama sticks entirely to the high road. To win, he’ll have to play at least some of the game the other guys are using, because there really aren’t any refs. Hillary makes an awful lot of her vaunted experience in countering the GOP attack machine, or right wing noise machine. Neither she nor her husband shied from it. Then when Obama shows a little bit of game, not even anything especially nasty or crafty, she goes all righteous. She’s trying to have it both ways.
Calling this flier dirty politics is like comparing a baseball fight (shall we dance?) to a hockey fight, with fists and blood and teeth flying through the air.
Globalization isn’t bad, it’s good. Repeat after me. Globalization isn’t bad, it’s good. It helps all economies involved. Leaders should have the courage to stand up and tell the people that they’re wrong.
That would take some
chutzpahcourage. In fact, it would take a lot of courage, more than most politicians have. Can you imagine any of our wealthy political leaders (and they’re all wealthy at the level of running for president) standing face to face with factory workers in Ohio who lost their jobs to dirt cheap labor in Mexico and telling those workers that NAFTA and globalization are good and they are "wrong" to believe otherwise? That’s one I’d like to see.