Now that Obama has revealed the same position as Hillary on NAFTA, will the haters vote for Nader?

Hillary's position has been all along that NAFTA is essential, but it has its flaws. These need to be renegotiated. A position, as Obama said in the debate, that he shares too.

So there's been a lot of anti-Clinton venom around here, for Bill's passing of NAFTA, and general gnashing of teeth about job going away, and other simplistic positions. What will these people do now?

make yourself comfortable and may I interest you in a frosty beverage?

edit to add--What really makes me angry is that Hillary formulated her position on NAFTA and Obama has just taken it up as a good idea, acting as if he had already taken that position.

He is a copycat. Where's the innovation? Where are all his ideas? He robs Hillary's ideas.

It makes me want to scream.

in debates. So Barack can say "I agree with what Hillary said".

as I'm sure Hillary is aware.

Her position now is very different than what it had been for many years.

Also, her flip-flopping, and lying about her past statements on NAFTA.

I don't criticize Obama's or Clinton's present views.

The question is, what will the NAFTA haters do now?

a fair NAFTA, which had strong worker rights and environmental standards(NAFTA in it's previous and current form, which Hillary supported), is not objected by nearly as many.

So I do not have to deal with a switch in position. Your question is not an issue to me.

stolen her ideas and acted like that's what he's been saying.

She was against it from the start and had to go along--confirmed by David Gergen. She was not president.

He scrubbed his position on NAFTA from his website just in time for Ohio. Is that not flip-flopping?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4664208

If Clinton is asked the first question, we get whines that that is unfair. But actually, it is an advantage to go first, especially on issues where there is general agreement among the Dem. candidates. The first speaker gets to shine, the following speakers are limited to agreement.

If something is a good idea for the country, I want all the candidates to agree on it.

Furthermore, most of us give a lot of credit to John Edwards for dragging both Clinton and Obama to more populist positions through the course of the debates. So are you claiming Clinton "stole Edwards ideas"? That's a childish way to look at it. Sort of a, "I was here first! It's all mine!" Try to think of political debates among members of the same political party as opportunities to persuade other candidates, and voters, to your point of view, rather than these scream fest round robin "news" shows where no one listens to anyone.

As Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do,sir?" It's clear that Clinton has changed her mind. Good for her. All thinking, rational people do change their minds. The problem everyone has with her is her inability to admit she's changed her position. That's a subset of the stereotypical macho posture she's assumed of NEVER admitting to making a mistake.

In the last 2 days, both in the debate and in her interview on PBS nightly news, she insults all of our intelligence by rewriting her history. Tonight she claimed she always planned on the primary campaign lasting this long, and that last spring she told her staff that Texas would be important and they had to start working on Texas. My god, it's all over the internet that her own staff have confirmed she never had a Plan B in case she didn't have the race wrapped up by Super Tuesday. And it's also come out that her staff never even checked out the complex Texas Two Step election/caucus formula until THIS MONTH.

We live in an incredibly complex, quickly changing world. I want a leader who is open to listening to well reasoned analysis, and changing his/her opinion as the relevant facts change and as the circumstances dictate. And I want a leader who is secure enough to be able to honestly admit that he or she has changed their views or positions because the relevant facts have changed.

“Let’s be clear: It was her husband who got NAFTA passed. In her own book, Senator Clinton called NAFTA one of ‘Bill’s successes’ and ‘legislative victories,’” Obama said, referring to her memoir, Living History.

Speaking to a town hall meeting of manufacturing workers at a gypsum wallboard plant near Cleveland, Obama also cited a 2004 statement in which Clinton said, “I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America.”

These statements are documented clearly, and have been repeated by many sources. You can't dispute her own words.


Here's an article.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/23/162727/254/78/462675

overall, good for our country. Now she is saying it's bad for our country, overall. Switching from praise to staunch criticism.

There isn't ambiguity here, she said one thing and now says the opposite, that it was overall good before, and now overall bad. She doesn't recognize or explain her change of opinion. She instead says she disapproved of it all along.


I have done some research into NAFTA, although not as much as needed to do an independent analysis. In part I am trusting the positions of the Democratic leaders who are critical of it, because I believe they have sound judgment... and I have researched trade issues more broadly, and know about the negatives of unchecked globalism, lack of labor and environmental standards.


I still don't trust candidates who switch positions like this, and deny that they did.

for several years after it was signed. It boosted our economy and created jobs. Various areas of the country want it because it has helped them so much. This has become a trigger word for both sides of the aisle. I am tired of people just using these trigger words to lather people up and influence them. It is not unlike abortion and gay marriage for the right wing. It is done to manipulate. Won't buy my vote with that kind of crap.

for the country? Now she keeps insisting she was always a strong critic of it, and has opposed it for many years. It is evident this is not the case, for example from her 2004 quote saying on balance it has been good for America. If it was only good for several years, why would she approve it up to 2004?


Here is another quote, that indicates that now she now thinks it was NOT good. It was a mistake.

"NAFTA was a mistake, to an extent that it did not deliver on what we hoped it would".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw

It seems quite clear, to myself and others, that she has clearly been ambiguous, and inconsistent.

it did not deliver what we hoped it would. As for when it was started she was very skeptical of it, and there are many who have confirmed that. It started out good, but when Bill went out and Bush came in things changed. Bush has managed to mangle even the Constitution. Is it so surprising he didn't follow the intent of the agreement? Same with many things he has done as you know. Obama isn't above distorting Hillary's positions and words. He is a politician after all.

Nader is fine as a progressive consumer advocate. As a Presidential candidate he is a cocktail party joke who should stop punishing himself. Irrelevent.

have no one to vote for.



we have a choice between two moderate, basically "republican," pro-corporate, "free"-traders.

neither represents real change; neither represents hope for middle- and working-class voters.

And say it again.

I couldn't wait for this election year to get here - and now I'm just depressed about it.

Nader hater's will go to discredit their convoluted solutions to problems that need not exist. Well done.

another reason why I support neither.

For the record, I am not a "hater." I don't hate either of them. One can withhold support without "hating."

And it will be also in the GE. In the primary, because of the numbers and the rules, the race card favors Obama. In the GE, it will be just the opposite. To pretend it is not a big factor, second only to Hillary-hate, is a mistake that is going to really depress a lot of people come November. And it is not "playing the race card" to recognize the reality of the US electorate. Their voting records and positions are just too close to be the major factor in deteriming the choice between the two of them. I give Obama credit for energizing the young and first time voters, but the numbers just aren't there to claim that Obama would be a better candidate against any Republican than Hillary. The movement is on! Hat's off to the movement. But reality has a way to kick ass.

Well, some will, but not many. The fact is that, whatever you think about NAFTA, either Clinton or Obama would be vastly preferable to McCain.

I'm not going to bother explaining why. There may still be some people in 2008 who follow the Naderite view that there's no significant difference between the two major parties. I see no point to trying to reason with such people. Sensible progressives will ignore the nitwit Nader. We'll hope that counterbalancing right-wing nitwit for the Constitution Party or the like siphons off some votes from McCain, and we'll concentrate on working for Democratic wins from the White House on down.

e-mails from some friends who voted for him last time.