posted on February 26, 2008 13:00
Senator Barack Obama told supporters Sunday in Ohio: “I don’t think NAFTA has been good for American’s, and I never have.”
But, four years ago, during his Senate race in Illinois, “Obama touted the benefits from United States exports under NAFTA” and the Associated Press reported “that Obama favored pursuing trade deals such as NAFTA.”
Obama explained this away blithely, saying he doesn’t “oppose free trade but he has reservations about NAFTA.” Then he added: “What the world should interpret is my consistent position, which is: I believe in trade.”
Hillary’s own position is a bit muddled. Her husband passed NAFTA. But, now, fourteen years later she’s decided the agreement was ‘flawed.’ Still, saying something she hoped would work turned out to be flawed beats ‘I’m for it. I’m against it. The world should accept my consistent position.’
With her record, NAFTA is not perfect ground for Hillary to take a stand on against Obi-wan Obama. But it is ground. And, politically, if her record is muddled, his is more muddled and, right now, bringing him down to her level is a victory for Hillary.
Tonight in the debate she should say, ‘Obama, words matter. You’ve said you ‘favor trade deals like NAFTA’ then you said ‘I don’t think NAFTA has been good.’ Now, explain to me how the world should see that as consistent.
Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.