In Praise of Our Democratic Presidential Candidates

Here I am in my comfy chair, indulging in my usual lazy Sunday afternoon/evening ritual - sipping my cocktail and making smart-assed comments in other people's diaries.  Could I relax and enjoy it?  Nooooooo!

I'm sick of the war between Edwards and Obama supporters.  I'm tired of the "I Hate Hillary and Will Never Vote for Her" bullshit.  In fact, I'm so sick and tired, that I felt compelled to write a diary about it.  A bitchy diary.  You've disrupted my lazy Sunday, and now you must pay.  In my best step-fatherly voice: Take a time out, think about what you've done, and meet me on the other side, pronto, if you know what's good for you!

The Big Three - Senators Clinton and Obama, and former Senator Edwards - are an amazing, progressive crop of presidential candidates.  For those of you still pining for Al Gore, I guess that would be the Big Four.  I don't think Al will run, but he is yet another amazing, progressive Democrat.

Were Clinton and Edwards wrong at the outset of the Iraq War?  Yes.  Was that a horrible mistake?  Yes.  Are they for prolonging or surging the Iraq War?  NO!  All of our candidates are for ending this tragedy.

Is Senator Clinton really running on her husband's legacy?  Um, how about NO!  Witness her vote on CAFTA. President Clinton ushered in NAFTA, you know.  But Senator Clinton said no more fuckin' trade deals that don't address labor and environmental issues.  How's that for independent?

Is Obama "experienced"? Survey says: "YES!"  The man has led an incredible life, and has seen so many things in the world from a perspective that almost no one else has.  And of all the places he has been in the world, he loves this country and aches to make it a better place.  Talk about getting the big picture!  What the fuck else do you want?  He is a sitting United States Senator, and he is qualified to be President of the United States!

Al Gore?  Was he wrong on NAFTA?  Uh-huh.  Would he do it again?  I fucking doubt it! And as a Michigander watching my neighborhood turn into a ghost town as auto jobs disappear by the tens of thousands, let me tell you, I will work my nuts off for Al Gore if he is our nominee.  He made a mistake where NAFTA is concerned, but I believe in him and I know he cares about working people in this country.  He would work his nuts off for me, too.

Can Senator Edwards possibly give a shit about the poor when he is so goddamned rich?  That would be YES!  Three words - Franlkin Delano Roosevelt.  BTW, show me a viable presidential candidate who is poor.   Go ahead.  I'll wait here.  Couldn't find one, could you?  Edwards is a very wealthy man, but he knows from poverty.  He doesn't want to leave us in his wake, he wants to help us into the boat.

Jesus Christ, people!  What do you want?  The Democratic nominee will be either Clinton, Edwards, Gore or Obama.  You'll note that names like "Warner" and "Bayh" and "Landrieu" do not appear in that list.  All four viable candidates are strong, progressive Democrats.  Could we stop being such sore winners already?

No matter who you support in the primaries, neither Clinton, Edwards, Gore nor Obama are your "opponents" or "enemies."  The other Democrats are your competition.  It is the Publicans who are your enemies and opponents.

•  None

  of the candidates are perfect, but all of them are deserving of support, if they are the nominee.

  by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:38:33 PM PDT

  •  Good rant

    The trouble, as I've said before, is that if one looks at the Republican candidiates one can see the electoral disaster awaiting the wingnuts this time around.

    This IMO is making it very hard for everybody who has already chosen their horse to play fair, as it were.  The stakes this time are very high and we all know it.

    I'd give any of these candidiates my full support in the GE, and while it seems unlikely to happen, I'd love to see an end to posts that tear any Dem candidates down.  They have nothing to do with the apporpriate and thruough vetting process we already put these people through in a Primary.  Why should we do our enemies' job for them?

    thanks for the diary....

    by Dion on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:01:21 PM PDT

    •  Good Analysis

      While these is no such thing as a sure thing in politics, it does seem like whomever wins the Democratic nomination will be our next President.  I agree that that is having an impact on the ferocity of various candidates' supporters.

      by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:11:24 PM PDT

      •  I am less and less sure

        about the idea that whoever the Dem nominee is will be the next President.  Sure the "generic" polls show voters picking a generic Democrat over a generic Republican by 15 or so points.  However, when you put actual names up against each other, our leads shrink dramaticly.  Often they sink all the way to negative.

        I think perhaps some of the ferociousness is based on that fact.  I like to say that the stars are aligned for us to win in 2008.  All we have to do is keep from shooting ourselves in the foot. I think there is great fear among many of us that if the "wrong" candidate wins the nomination, we will have once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

        Florida Kossacks Rock

        Blog Florida Blue

        by gatordem on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:10:12 PM PDT

  •  Applause

    by brooklynbadboy on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:07:03 PM PDT

    •  Thanks! (n/t)

      by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:08:43 PM PDT

    •  BTW

      I think it goes for us, too.  We may want to beat each other about the head at times, but we are on the same side in the same fight, and I'm glad of it.

      by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:12:57 PM PDT

      •  No question about it.

        I know who my friends are and who my enemies are.

        by brooklynbadboy on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:21:12 PM PDT

  •  NAFTA criticism is bloew beyond reason and facts

    Please see my long post below

    by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 04:17:18 PM PDT

    •  'blown'

      by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 04:17:33 PM PDT

  •  In praise of our candidates?

    Good rant, but I wonder why you left out Joe Biden (although he's in your tags)? Dennis Kucinich? Chris Dodd? Mike Gravel? Bill Richardson?  They all are Democratic candidates for president, and every one (even Joe) would be better than the best the Repugs could throw at us.  And at least one of them is so progressive that he's too progressive, it seems.  

    Ah, I see, they can't win the nomination, so they don't get praised.

    Maybe I should change that to 1/2 a good rant.

    by rjones2818 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 04:39:30 PM PDT

    •  Well,

      1/2 is better than none, I suppose.  And I don't know why Joe Biden was in the tags.  I removed him.

      by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 05:08:49 PM PDT

  •  Thanks you (nt)

    by Aexia on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:43:04 AM PDT

•  Thank you! My sentiments exactly

  I am sick of the whining. We have got to pull together and take back White House for a long long time.  There is so much at stake.

  by linnie on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:41:33 PM PDT

  •  To be clear,

    I am all for a vigorous Democratic primary.  The candidates' position are fair game, and we should let the fur fly.

    But no fucking haircuts.  No bullshit about spouses.  No crap about "inexperience."

    by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:44:20 PM PDT

•  I have my preferences

  but I will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general.  Always have, always will.

  by clonecone on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:41:56 PM PDT

•  You know

  I shared this sentiment at the outset - and in all honesty, I do like our crop of candidates. Compared to the GOP, they look even better.

  But they've fallen down in quite a few ways since then. Too much cautious rhetoric. After reading Matt Bai's profile of John Edwards, it makes me wonder if he's really in it. Reading more on Obama, it makes his campaign about 'change' - whatever that may be - ring a little more hollow. And I've never liked Hillary, even more so after declaring we're safer after 9/11 and using her NY residence as a method of burnishing her national security credentials.

  For now, I'm happy to sit on the sidelines. And maybe, just maybe, the candidate who would really ignite the grassroots will get in the race...

  Al Gore.

  by PsiFighter37 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:45:19 PM PDT

•  Excellent post. I can not believe how far we've

  come.  We have made it, my friends.  We have lived to see the end of the Reagan Revolution.  Rejoice!  When Hillary Clinton is your "centrist" candidate it's time to celebrate.

  by masslib on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:45:57 PM PDT

  •  Great Comment

    I believe the Reagan Revolution drowned in New Orleans.  People have seen the ugly, shameful results of extreme conservatism, and they don't want any part of it.

    by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:50:36 PM PDT

    •  Ohhh, that's a good one "drowned in NO".

      by masslib on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:53:21 PM PDT

•  Another poll without "pie"...

  I'm sensing a disturbing trend here.

  by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:46:09 PM PDT

  •  Well, it wouldn't really fit.

    Pies are colorful.  The poll was black and white.  You agree with the diarist 100% on every statement, or you're a whiney loser who doesn't deserve to live.

    Or ...  you don't vote in the poll.

    by sheddhead on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:04:23 PM PDT

    •  Actually...I don't agree with him 100%

      but I recommended him because I like the "positive". Its good to get a dose of that once in awhile..though I'm still a tad peeved about the pie thing :)

      by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:08:18 PM PDT

      •  I liked the positive, too, actually.

        I do have strong feelings about only one of the current crop of candidates, and strong feelings about someone not announced.  The finger pointing between the different camps is freaking me out - and when smart people, people with way more education that my little Jr College Degree can post in a diary that is hateful smear, and filled with hateful smear comments, and state categorically that no one has smeared the other candidate, I fear for the sanity of those people.

        But I'm also a Democrat.  And that helps me realize that very few things are on or off, yes or no, black or white - except in dog training.  Only (ultraconservative) Republicans insist otherwise.  So the poll really f*cks up the intent of the diary, to me.

        by sheddhead on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:13:03 PM PDT

•  I Am Sick Of It As Well

  It is actually pissing me off. I almost can't even say I like Edwards here without somebody hopping in to slam him. As I've said before and I assume I'll say again I have actually voted for Obama. I even drove up to Springfield to see him announce.

  I got NOTHING against the guy. I just prefer Edwards at this point. But I would be very, very proud to vote Obama if he is in the general. It would be a vote, for a number of reasons, I will never forget casting.

  by webranding on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:00:39 PM PDT

  •  Me Too

    I support John Edwards, but I'll work like a madman for Barack Obama if he wins the nomination.  He is a fine human being, and would make a wonderful
    President.

    by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:05:22 PM PDT

    •  And Looking At Your Sign-off

      I like Richardson a lot and mentioning his name here can get ugly. He might need to lose a few pounds. He might not be the best on his feet during a debate. But the man just produces results. I'm not sure what he does when he is behind closed doors with world leaders, but it seems to work.

      by webranding on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:10:40 PM PDT

      •  He's also up to 10% in New Hampshire...

        You know, the weight thing is funny. I saw him last weekend and he has lost a lot in the past two years but he still photos heavier. His body is pretty darn slim...

        by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:12:19 PM PDT

        •  No Agreed There

          As a guy that is only 5'4 and used to carry around an extra 100 pounds I would suggest he shop for some new cloths. But that is just me being metro sexual.

          I really, really like Richardson. After Edwards he would be my second pick. I think it is vital that he has run a state. My gut is those that are in the Senate think they understand what he like to run the nation, but don't really understand since they've never really run anything at all.

          by webranding on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:16:11 PM PDT

          •  Richardson needs to stop relaxing...

            A shame to have this critique about him but he simply enjoys meeting people too much. He's very relaxed, very willing to engage and he's made some goofs because of it.

            I'm hoping he tightens things up a little along the way.

            by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:19:02 PM PDT

            •  Well ....

              I understand what you are saying, but appearance is important. I am not talking about being "good looking" or "pretty." I am talking about at least trying to look nice.

              by webranding on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:23:52 PM PDT

      •  Richardson

        I disagree with Richardson on trade and economics, but he is a foreign policy savant.

        He need to stop slagging the other Democratic candidates, yesterday, but I'd still love to see him on the ticket.

        by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:16:08 PM PDT

•  Amen.

  Purist Democrats will cut off their nose to spite their face.

  Nobody is good enough for them.

  by Lucius Vorenus on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:02:00 PM PDT

  •  Personally...Richardson, Obama, Edwards..

    are ALL candidates that I could see spending significant money and time on.

    I guess I'm just not that "pure" :)

    by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:14:21 PM PDT

•  we're democrats, we whine

  i get sick of it sometimes too - but it's what we do.  while i'll do whatever i can to see that edwards is the nominee, i'll happily march in to that voting booth and vote for whoever gets the democratic nomination.  there'll be time for whining afterwards if hillary the triangulator is our new president.

  by scooter in brooklyn on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:02:06 PM PDT

  •  Whining is a good word for it.

    For that is what children do.

    by Lucius Vorenus on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:04:10 PM PDT

  •  yep

    I'll whine if Hillary is elected president, no doubt.  Then Justice Stevens will retire or pass away, and I'll thank God that kossacks and other purists weren't stupid enough to stay home because she was too "centrist."

    by cardinal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:04:59 PM PDT

•  One quibble....

  Landrieu and Bayh are not progressive.

  by Lucius Vorenus on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:03:22 PM PDT

  •  They certainly aren't.

    I was pointing out that the candidates for president are, and that "names like 'Warner' and 'Bayh' and 'Landrieu' do not appear in that list."

    Or, maybe, are you saying that you think Warner is progressive?

    by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:07:58 PM PDT

    •  I misunderstood you.

      I consider Warner to be more progressive than the other two, yes.  

      by Lucius Vorenus on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:14:29 PM PDT

•  We are entitled to have standards

  You are being unfair to progressives with standards who will not accept a pro-war candidate. I'll strongly support any Dem candidate except the one who thinks that war is justified if the "enemy" happens to acquire WMDs. That's unAmerican. We've successfully used containment for over half a century.

  You want me to vote for some3one who will destroy a country just because they aspire to have the same type of weapons that we have?

  Sorry, I can't respect anyone who will vote for a candidate just because they are endorsed by Dems, no matter how wrong they are on issues.

  by MakeChessNotWar on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:09:02 PM PDT

  •  Who

    is the "pro-war" candidate?

    by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:17:02 PM PDT

    •  Purists are so insane that they have to invent

      disagreements where there are none.

      by Lucius Vorenus on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:17:53 PM PDT

    •  Hillary says

      that if the intelligence was accurate, invading Iraq was justified. No it wasn't. With Hillary we might have been at war with Russia or China acco4rding ton her statements. I will not vote for anyone so willing to destroy a country.

      But I focus on defeating her in primaries, so that I don't have to abstain in 2008.

      by MakeChessNotWar on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:23:21 PM PDT

      •  You are insane MakeChess...

        Its like Hillary is the boogie man to you that no matter what she does or says, you will immediately cry "War Mongerer" or something.

        and just so you know, if the intelligence was right, the rest of the world would have agreed to disarm Saddam, and it never would have been as controversial on the world stage as it has been.So in sense, she is absolutely right.

        by Jambro on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:27:21 PM PDT

        •  Actions are based on the media

          not on the facts!

          I'm not saying Hillary would rush to war, just that her standards are way to low for a civilized society.

          by MakeChessNotWar on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:42:05 PM PDT

      •  Hillary

        Believes in diplomacy and the rule of law.  Senator Clinton is not an immoral warmonger, and I trust her to make the big decisions regarding war and peace.

        by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:27:35 PM PDT

  •  And I cannot respect anyone who will not

    vote for a Democrat just because of a disagreement on one issue.  Indeed, you mischaracterize the candidates just to find a disagreement, as none of them are Pro-War as you describe.  

    If you will not vote for a Democrat, you are no better than a Republican voter.

    by Lucius Vorenus on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:17:18 PM PDT

    •  When the issue is tens of thousands of lives

      I find your callousness inhuman.

      by MakeChessNotWar on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:24:14 PM PDT

      •  Precisely.

        There are tens of thousands of lives at stake.  And you will sit out the election, content to give it to the Republicans.

        Hypocrite.  

        by Lucius Vorenus on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:43:26 PM PDT

        •  I Can't Stand Hillary

          and as I've said I am not even sure why. But if she makes it to the general I will campaign for her, give her money, do everything in my power to get her into the White House. Although I don't like her she'd be a 100 times better then the alternative.

          by webranding on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:49:07 PM PDT

          •  Thank you.

            Those that ignore the vast differences between Hillary or any Democratic candidate they do not like and any living or dead Republican is willfully ignorant, if not maliciously so.

            by Lucius Vorenus on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:50:19 PM PDT

            •  Generally Speaking

              I am the guy that says "can't we all get along" and tries very hard to never be mean. Well .... i won't have any, I mean any patience if people here can't get behind whomever enters the general.

              by webranding on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:54:09 PM PDT

  •  MakeChessNotWar

    what the fuck candidate on the Dem side is pro-war?

    You are living in another world than the rest of us.  

    by Jambro on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:25:10 PM PDT

    •  My Gut Is It Is The

      hate related to Clinton. I don't much like her which doesn't make a lot of sense to be honest. On most, if not all the issues she isn't much (if any) different then Obama or Edwards. And she was way out in front on the health care issue, which is huge for me. I can't really even explain why I dislike her other then Clinton fatigue

      by webranding on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:28:51 PM PDT

      •  webranding...

        I understand that, as long as your dislike of her isn't causing you to live in an alternate reality where she is as bad as bush, which is essentially what MakeChess is saying.

        by Jambro on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:31:40 PM PDT

        •  I'd Throw Myself

          down a flight of stairs to have Clinton and not Bush in office right now. Anybody that thinks Clinton is similar to Bush is living in a reality I want no part of.

          by webranding on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:38:26 PM PDT

•  Thank you

  Harvey.

  These are my sentiments exactly.  This is by far one of the most exemplary set of candidates that either party has ever seen.  

  by Jambro on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:28:40 PM PDT

•  A good diary

  but I think we're a little wary about ambitious Dems since the Funding Bill disappointment. At least I am.

  by anotherCt Dem on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:46:24 PM PDT

•  I will never vote for

  a Republican.  I will support whoever wins the Dem nomination.

  by ParaHammer on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:51:27 PM PDT

•  I do not believe that Clinton will be a ...

  ... progressive, full stop.

  On

  Witness her vote on CAFTA. President Clinton ushered in NAFTA, you know.  But Senator Clinton said no more fuckin' trade deals that don't address labor and environmental issues.  How's that for independent?

  ... I read her remarks when she cast that vote, and it sure as anything sounded like it pained her to cast that no vote ... that she wanted to support another bogus free trade agreement, but this one was just too bogus, and with too much political heat, to let her.

  And so while I could not vote in the poll, because I do not view the field as four progressive choices, I sure as hell will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.

  The younger set around here simply do not understand in their gut how far right the minority right wing movement had dragged the country that someone who started where Clinton did could reposition herself as an Eisenhower Republican and not even be in the right wing of the Democratic party. But we sure are not going to have any chances for any positive victories fighting for more progressive policies out of Congress and Senate if there is a radical right wing Republican sitting in the Oval Office surrounded by the radical right wing apparathiks, with his veto pen at the ready.

  by BruceMcF on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:56:53 PM PDT

•  NAFTA critique is blown way out of proportion.

  Nader folks started this bashing while ignoring many facts, and some Dems adopt it without really checking key background facts:

  1. regardless of NAFTA, Clinton/Gore economy created a 22 million NET new and higher paying jobs, lowered poverty etc (more stats below). Since the complaints about NAFTA is generally about jobs, how does the critique hold water in the face of the fact that 22 million net jobs were created?

  2. our trade IS better balanced with Mexico and Canada than with the rest of the world. About 75c exports per dollar import to Mexico/Canada, compared to only about 50c with other countries.

  3. Our exports to Mexico increased several fold to over $100 billion per annum, after NAFTA.

  4. Even though our imports from Mexico and Canada exceed exports (as mentioned export 75c for every dollar imported, approximately), as a fraction of GDP, Mexico and Canada import a lot more from the US than the US does in the other direction as a fraction of its GDP.

  5. Before NAFTA, and the $20 bn loan from Clinton, Mexico was on the brink of bankruptcy. Had they gone under, the immigration problem would have been far worse.

  I do not support unbalanced trade and I think that one should continually work to improve trade deals, but the fact IS that our trade with NAFTA countries is much better balanced than with the rest of the world.

  Folks that don't use facts to arrive at their opinions on NAFTA are merely victims of years of demagoguery (some are perpetrators of it themselves).

  Then, Gore said in 2000 the following: "And a Gore Administration will insist that in all appropriate trade agreements negotiated, labor and environmental standards will be addressed in the agreement itself."

  No other current major candidate, including Edwards, haven't said anything different from what Gore said back in 2000. In particular, Edwards DOES NOT support cancelling NAFTA. He supports exactly what Gore said he does.

  There are a few problems with NAFTA that I am aware of: Mexico's corn industry apparently took a major hit from it, eg, and some conditions on liability law suits etc aren't apparently perfect, and some environmental issue may have arise from increased production o Mexico's side, but those are details. Those and other aspects should be improved upon as well as working towards strongly enforceable labor/env regulations should be done, but the way NAFTA gets demagogued is beyond reason.

  ~~~~~~~~

  Next, many have likely seen me post this before, but it is worth repeating because the context. To follow is a summary of Clinton/Gore economic accomplishments. Exactly what are people complaining about with either the job or economic situation that Clinton/Gore worked to build (facing a hostile and bitterly partisan GOP controlled congress)? I don't understand.

  Clinton-Gore economic accomplishments

  • 22 million net new jobs
  • lowered unemployment from 7.5% to 4%
  • real wage growth of 6.8% (after adjusting to inflation)
  • turned record deficits into record surpluses
  • record low African American unemployment
  • lowered unemployment among Hispanics from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 5.4 percent in April 2000 (lowest rate on record)
  • lowest unemployment rate for women since 1953
  • increase in manufacturing jobs by 391 thousand
  • increase in IT jobs by 1 million (roughly half of which survived even the Bush's outsourced "economy")
  • a two-step minimum wage increase in 96/97 from $4.25 to $5.15
  • lowered poverty rate from 15.1% (1993) down to 11.8% (1999)

  Gore promised another increase of $1 in minimum wage, and would have probably given a few more, now approaching a living wage.

  Gore also called for a review of all trade deals with the objective of improving labor and environmental protections, and called for incorporating these protections in the text of agreement itself (for better enforceability) in 2000.

  The results above show the utter emptiness of bashing Gore (or Clinton) on jobs and thus on NAFTA.

  Interestingly, Clinton and Gore promised to get those strong results in the blockquote above before they got elected as can be seen in Gore's stump speech below AND they DELIVERED on almost all counts!
  

  by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 04:16:04 PM PDT

  •  NAFTA

    Has been an unmitigated disaster.  We've been over this before.  I would no sooner discuss the merits of invading Iraq.

    As I noted above, Senator Clinton voted against CAFTA.  Good.

    by HarveyMilk on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 05:07:53 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      NAFTA. Has been an unmitigated disaster.

      Argue why. Just because Nader said so is not good enough.

      It can't be jobs because how can you tell the overall impact of the much expanded exports to Mexico and Canada as a result of NAFTA?

      Give evidence, make arguments and prove your statement above. Your argument should why Clinton and Gore did poorly on the economy and on jobs (don't worry they were both key figures on the economic team for the most part).

      No, the EPI report that says NAFTA cost 1 millions jobs etc is not good enough. Here are some reasons why (besides the points I have made above):

      1. if for the sake of argument, NAFTA did cost 1 million jobs during Clinton/Gore, then it only means that the economy otherwise created 23 million new other jobs to replace those 1 million jobs because 22 million NET new jobs were created.

      2. that study doesn't account for economic growth from internal circulation created by increased exports to Mexico and Canada. i.e. does not factor in secondary and further dynamics of the overall economy. This works somewhat like the middle class tax cuts that Clinton/Gore gave; the economic expansion expected is far larger than the actually tax cuts given because money changes hands and creates a circulation effect. Likewise, increased exports creates a circulation effect internally, which might well be much larger than the imports (even though imports are nominally larger in amount than exports).

      Give me real meat of an argument, not a borrowed attack line from Nader.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 05:24:30 PM PDT

•  Hey Harvey

  I'm quite happy with my choice, Obama, but I'll vote for whomever is the nominee.  My complaint is when others try to change my position, or when they  present their candidate as morally superior.  They're politicians!

  by chicago minx on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 05:41:39 PM PDT