I just read the following article in which the interviewer asked several of our soldiers in Iraq who they were supporting for President. All but one supported Obama, with the one supporting Clinton. Sounds like they want to come home to me but thats just my take on the story.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4244798&page=1

Hillary Clinton is finding out now that her husband, Bill, was the great supporter of NAFTA and CAFTA.
Now she is trying to distance herself from free trade to pander to the labor unions. Did she forget about all her free trade mumbo jumbo support when she was first lady?

It will be irony if her campaign implodes over this free trade issue. They threw Mark Penn under the bus. Will she throw hubby Bubba Bill under the bus, too?

Been_There_Done_That - 09 April 2008 07:12 AM

Hillary Clinton is finding out now that her husband, Bill, was the great supporter of NAFTA and CAFTA.
Now she is trying to distance herself from free trade to pander to the labor unions. Did she forget about all her free trade mumbo jumbo support when she was first lady?


It will be irony if her campaign implodes over this free trade issue. They threw Mark Penn under the bus. Will she throw hubby Bubba Bill under the bus, too?

Hillary reported this MONTHS ago.  In a statement she admitted that she “wasn’t a big fan of NAFTA” and that the whole policy needed to be fixed.

Very old news my friend.

Thanks for the update. Keep in mind that Bill, allegedly the ambassador to be, has NOT stated any ill thoughts on HIS free trade agenda. If those two are in the WH together, the VP will be an ornament with little purpose. Obama would be a fool to accept a VP offer from Clinton. Obama would be better off running as an Independent.

I don’t think Clinton can beat Obama at this point. If so, the VP position for him is a moot point. I suppose Hillary could go back to the mud slinging because there are a number of issues that the Republicans are going to raise that I’m sure she is aware of, but there seems to be some agreement that they are not going to weaken their chances in November by going that route.

On the NAFTA issue, wasn’t most of that agreement negotiated during the 1st Bush Administration? I thought Bill Clinton, running as a conservative Democrat went along with it because it was popular with the American people at the time. The nation as a whole seemed to be more conservative back then. Hillary does seem to be revising a little history. The AP released an article today which I just read in which she again attempts to distance herself from Bill on the NAFTA issue. Yet, it is documented that she attended a number of meetings with Congressional supporters of NAFTA prior to its ratification.

Yes, H W Bush is to blame for the free trade agreements in discussion, that Bill Clinton endorsed and tried to take credit for by expanding them.

Re: the American people supporting them - my only recollection is that we were told at the times that by bolstering the economies of our neighbors, we would see a drastic reduction in illegal immigration since those illegals could better find jobs in their homelands. Most Americans, perhaps other than organized labor, took a wait and see position. I have no recollection of John Kerry or Al Gore promising to fix these trade agreements.

Now that we have a crisis with illegal immigration, the sleeping giant has awakened. Clinton will say and do anything to get elected. If revising history is required, then Hillary and Bill will do that to win.
Although it is reported that Bill has taken millions from the South and Central Americans to lobby FOR NAFTA and CAFTA expansion, while Hillary is speaking against them.

But, I agree with what your posts are saying. The slugfest continues.

Here are a couple of interesting quotes from Obama.

“So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.”

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

I think that what he is saying is so true, and that evidence of this can be found on this website. Over time, the majority of Americans have lost confidence in the federal government to help solve the problems that average Americans face daily. Any listener can just tune in their local AM radio station to hear this message repeated day after day by the right wing supporters of Social Darwinism.

One reason that I support him, and one reason that I think many others particularly younger people support him is because we hope and believe that he can bring positive change to Washington, and Washington can create positive change for us. I personally believe that the Federal government is our only hope for the future of our Nation.

Well, I failed to realize that many would interpret Obama’s comments as insulting to small town America. I guess his opponents are putting a spin on the statements to benefit themselves and either Clinton or McCain. I do think that the majority of Americans have a tendency to be single issue voters whether that issue is abortion, war, the economy, taxes, the safety net, immigration, trade, energy, guns, healthcare, or the environment. Whatever they are dissatisfied with they always blame the Federal Government. That is how I interpreted his remarks, but I often find myself in the minority.

I guess I should add to that list of single issues, race, gender, and Federal Judges.

Many voted for George W Bush for single issues, instead of the best qualified to lead the country.
In 2000 it was gun control and abortion. In 2004 it was the War in Iraq.

Unfortunately, John Kerry was the type of guy you’d love to hate. The Dems blew it in 04. Why couldn’t they have come up with a credible challenger in 04?

Surely state and locals governments are not going to save anyone from disaster. The federal government is the only chance we have to work for the common good. Can they do the job? Only if the self serving stop getting elected, and more of the populace goes to vote.

We have a group of do nothings and hacks in Congress. There should be term limits for congresss so we get fresh ideas. The downside of all the “experience” in congress is that these folks have become real good at not getting anything done in Washington.

As you said earlier, the slugfest continues. In fact, I’m getting the impression that the Clintons would rather see the Democratic Party split down the middle and McCain win the election than lose what appears to be their futile fight for the nomination. Maybe, Obama can pull of a miracle and win Pennsylvania which would be a knockout blow, but it looks like it is going to go all the way to Denver. When this is all over, I bet the Democratic establishment will say good riddance to the Clintons.

Obama better watch out. Hillary is up there in Indiana doing shots of Crown and drinking beer with the hard working blue collar guys and gals. Fact is, she looked pretty comfortable doing both.

I recently learned a few things while reading about McCain’s proposed economic solutions for our apparant recession. First, I learned that our national debt has grown to $9.4 trillion and that President Bush’s proposed budget for 2009 has a deficit of $400 billion dollars. I guess that means that at the end of that year the debt would be $9.8 trillion dollars. I also learned that the annual interest payment alone on the $9.4 trillion dollars broken down by each American household is approximately $4,300.
I also learned the following facts. Americans at the end of March owed $950 billion in credit card debt. They owed $1.6 trillion dollars in non-revolving debt. This total personal debt is separate from the national debt but amounts to 27% of the national debt. So our national debt is almost four times the amount of money owed by all Americans individually. In addition, our country ran a trade deficit of $700 billion dollars in 2007.
A couple of more depressing facts are that home equity loan balances for the 1st quarter of this year were up 8% over the same period last year. Credit card balances are up 10% over the same period last year. Home equity and credit card borrowing are up the most in States where home prices are falling the fastest. Credit card balances were up 15% in Florida and California. Credit card companies say the extra debt is going for food and gas. In the 4th quarter of 2007, 30 day past due accounts increased to the highest levels since the 1st quarter of 1992.
Inflation at the wholesale level in March was three times what was expected by the Labor Department. Lastly, the economy lost close to 100,000 jobs in March, and had losses in the prior two months as well I think. I’m no expert but this is beginning to sound like the stagflation that was experienced in much of the 1970’s. Factors that contributed to problems back then were a large supply of money circulating in the economy, high unemployment, and high energy prices.
This brings me to the Reagan/Bush/McCain trickle down policies being proposed by McCain today. It seems like the Republicans today are repeating the same failed policies of the 70’s and 80’s increasing the money supply while unemployment is rising, running up the annual national deficit, and ultimately increasing the national debt.  I understand that some may think that, “He who dies with the most debt wins.” But, I don’t think it is moral for this generation to leave to our children and grandchildren a debt that may undermine their futures and the future of the Nation.
I hope the American public is smart enough to realize that trickle down economics only trickles red ink that ends up a part of our natioanl debt, and that it is this generations responsibility to accept a repeal of the irresponsible tax breaks passed under President Bush and to accept necessary tax increases. Given the information above it seems that we need both Obama’s tax plan and his bankruptcy reform plan.  So, Vote Obama in 08.

I don’t agree with McCain’s federal fuel tax suspension idea either unless it is coupled with Obama’s and Clinton’s suggested windfall profits tax on oil companies to replace the lost revenue, and even then I think it should only apply to diesel fuels to help keep the truckers in business. We don’t need to be stimulating demand for fuel by lowering the price, and that’s exactly what would take place. Besides, I bet there would not be a corresponding drop at the EXXON or CITGO pump equal to the fuel tax reduction and when the suspension was lifted the prices would be even higher. It sounds like just another vote buying effort in an election year.
In fact, oil companies should be paying windfall profit taxes already. For the benefit of the Country, they need to be regulated to the point that an investment in a oil company stock would give a return approximately equal to a utility stock. The risk is already approximately equal.

Former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia endorsed Obama today. For conservatives who go back a few years, this should carry a great deal of weight as former Senator Nunn is a very well-respected and knowledgeable individual, and a good man.