I don't want to sound like an Obama shill, but all the crap against him that's being posted here is silly... if only because you are defending Sen. Clinton, a woman who has a consistent record of selling out progressives for political expediency with no shame.

Her support of NAFTA (a longer record than Obama's), her vote and support for the war, her siding with folks like Lieberman on Iran, her health "care" plan which is just a giveaway to the insurance lobby, her pandering on issues like flag burning, etc...

It is ridiculous to see so many sane people defending her, especially when the alternative is an imperfect man, but one with a much better record of standing up to conservative silliness.

Just my 2 cents.

This made the front page of the Globe and Mail up here in Canada. Our government made a statement saying that if the US killed NAFTA they'd loose their priviledged access to our oil. It also makes me wonder, being the gullible conspiracy-nut I am, if this is all just campaign rhetoric then why not wait until one reaches office before sending messages like these? Foul Play anyone?

No way Weez, you're just an insane cultist. CULTIST I TELLS YA.

Ok, so let me get this straight, we are ripping Obama on NAFTA because CTV says that one of his aides told some obscure Canadian official 6 months ago that Obama is not planning to overturn NAFTA, even though Obama himself is saying the opposite today?

Is this the follow up to Tim Russert's ridiculous Farrakahn questions?

I should rip Obama for what someone 6 people removed says on a foreign TV network? But Clinton's husband signs the dang thing into law and she gets a pass here?

Get real.

Call me an Obama shill if you want, i do like him the best of the 3 remaining options, but seems to me this site is shilling for ABO: anyting but Obama.

Did anyone notice how the clip was edited so that "the Obama campaign" became "the Obama" when the reporter first stated who made the call. Tricky. I thought it meant Barack himself (at first).

Cmflyer: ya. It was also edited at the point where it said a member of the "Obama campaign confirmed the contact..." [but what did they say?]

If this is true, then Obama made a mistake, in either case. First, they've been very disciplined about leaks, and this is a slip. Second, it is hard to tell whether this is the work of someone working directly on Obama's behalf, or someone within the campaign acting for other reasons.

HRC has gotten a free pass on a lot of stuff people "within her campaign" have done, including tacitly racist remarks, played up Obama's middle name, or sending ridiculous photos of Obama in African garb to Drudge. But at any rate, it bears no comparison, as others have mentioned, with HRC selling us out on the Iraq war, or voting to label the Iranian guard a "terrorist organization."

Um Paul. Since when is the Canadian ambassador to the US obscure?

Im sorry that a report like this ruins many Obama supporters image of him as someone who is above politics but you will eventually learn that it is true. The man is a politician and he will play every political trick in his bag to get elected. Thinking he is different is just plain naive.

sam-YF: [b]Im sorry that a report like this ruins many Obama supporters image of him as someone who is above politics but you will eventually learn that it is true. The man is a politician and he will play every political trick in his bag to get elected. Thinking he is different is just plain naive.[/b]

What I find amusing is how this link is tucked in the corner:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/CanadiansdenyObama_call.html

[i]A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of NAFTA.

"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the ambassador or any of the officials here to raise NAFTA," Landry said.[/i]

Okay, let me try that post again: sam-YF: Im sorry that a report like this ruins many Obama supporters image of him as someone who is above politics but you will eventually learn that it is true. The man is a politician and he will play every political trick in his bag to get elected. Thinking he is different is just plain naive.

What I find amusing is how this link is tucked in the corner of this post:

A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of NAFTA.

"None of the presidential campaigns have called either the ambassador or any of the officials here to raise NAFTA," Landry said.

What...do you think the Canadian Embassy is lying to protect a foreign presidential candidate? Since the rumour did not negatively portray the Canadians in any way....

I'd like someone who jumped so quickly on the attack to answer to that...a television network reported something...the actual Canadian Embassy flatly denies it. The rumour itself did not harm the Canadians in any way, it was only bad for Obama, so they had little motive to refute it, unless it was faulty information. So the embassy must be lying, huh? Because I'm sure they're very interested in protecting the reputation of foreign presidential candidates.

Im sorry that a report like this ruins many Obama supporters image of him as someone who is above politics but you will eventually learn that it is true.

Who thinks this? you are delusional. No one is more naive then you Hillary folks with your fantasies of rescuing the poor Obama supporters from themselves.

He is a human being and a politician. We know.

Sam-YF: Im sorry that a report like this ruins many Obama supporters image of him as someone who is above politics...

LOL....Aww..it is so sweet of you to show concern for the easily-bruised feelings of us political neophytes/Obama supporters. You're just swell!

... but you will eventually learn that it is true.

Yes, I suppose the bloom is destined to fade from Obama's rose soon enough. And, now that you mention it, I guess all this yucky excitement and the hopeful promise of a fresh, clean start is getting pretty tiresome anyway.

It'll feel really good to not trust any politicians again and have absolutely no expectation that things will ever improve. Because those were some good times!

Why would you post this after its been debunked and denied by the Canadian embassy? I used to love this blog until it became an inti-Obama blog. You are getting deleted off my favorites.

Yes Little Mickey,

Lets vote for the hawkish hack. We were so silly.

I thought the sky was going to open up and all my problems were going to be solved.

What I really want is a bureaucrat that will sell their every belief to gain power and then build a legacy.

question... I thought Nafta was a trade policy backed by the WTO? arn't they connected?

oh, and why is the news reporting on speculation that may or may not be true? There's no solid evidence anywhere in that report.

It wouldn't surprise me if true. We know Hillary isn't gonna undo what her husband signed into law (doesn't it feel awkward reading that?), and if Our Saviour Messiah-Bama can run as an "anti-Iraq War" candidate despite his voting record, we shouldn't be surprised he'd promise his followers Eternal Salvation--or whatever they want to hear--to get into office.

BOTH* funded this war with their voting records, only pausing their shoving $$$ into Bush's war machine long enough to get together on a "symbolic", non-binding opposition vote** just prior to running their campaigns in earnest.

*http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/739563,CST-NWS-sweet14.article

**http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051502207.html

Hmmm, this story says the same thing, but doesn't only focus on obama. It even provides what Hillary is saying.

Wierd how hillary is saying the same thing about NAFTA and Charles places the blame only on Obama.

If there are Obamaphiles, Charles in an Obamaphobic.

This story has already been rebutted and denied by both the Canadian government and the Obama campaign.

I expect better of 1GM. I am a longtime reader and have lost a lot of respect for this site due to the recent eagerness to bash Obama without researching the claims first or providing balance on Clinton.

It's common knowledge that Clinton has been ragging on NAFTA in her speeches lately too, but I wouldn't expect that to be reported here.

The story continues to advance. CTV reconfirmed the story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMpbpov-HcA

Since then the denials and stonewalling has started to come apart. Which leaves us with things like this:

Obama's Catch-22: Either He's Lying Or He Has An Insane, Out of Control Adviser

While I suppose it's possible for Barack Obama to have not known that his senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee was telling the Canadian government, it is rather disconcerting to see him denying that any conversation took place so emphatically, now that both the Canadian consulate and Goolsbee are no longer denying the conversation. http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

And even fun little surveys like this: http://vet4hill.googlepages.com/catch22.htm

Kate is 100% correct.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was developed by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Analogy: NAFTA is a law, WTO is the congress.

NAFTA has been especially bad for Mexico, but also bad for Canada and USA. Yes, trade increased. Wages and quality of life did not.

I encourage those of you who support labor (the little guy), and oppose the corporate fascists, to take a very close look at the WTO. There is a good reason why people like Dennis Kucinich oppose the WTO, and would like the U.S. to withdraw from NAFTA.

After 10 years, the jury is in. This is bad policy, and it is hurting the very people it promised to help.

However, I do not believe Hillary Clinton is responsible for NAFTA. And, being that neither Obama NOR Hillary have proposed a plan to withdraw, this is a moot point as far as I'm concerned. Pure politics- and John McCain is reaping the benefit.

Cut it out Dems! Get behind Obama already and let's focus on the next four years. Stick Clinton in the Supreme Court if you must, but please, enough of this!

Norm:

Unsolicited suggestion:

Why not bring on a pro-Obama guest blogger to balance Mr. Lemos' pro-Hillary posts?

Failing that, you forfeit the right to mock Fox News. You are quickly becoming that which you hate, friend.

Enjoy the weekend everyone!

Zap

Norm:

This is your party. You can invite whoever you wish, and serve whatever you want.

However, as we have both seen in the comments in recent weeks, a good amount of your readership feels alienated by your anti-Obama (or is it pro-Hillary?) slant.

The Fox News crack was a failed joke. Clearly you have no obligation- or intention- of being fair and balanced. Kudos to you for being honest about it.

Wow, it has begun. let us attack the candidates without getting the facts and not their actual positions. First specifically, what do "progressives" want outside of NAFTA, what particular parts of NAFTA should the US (or Canada for that matter) try and renegotiate. Where is the evidence that Canada is taking away jobs from folks in Ohio? What would be so bad if both Hillary and Obama's campaigns contacted Canadian government sources to reassure then that they were not planning to just suddenly disobey a WTO signed treaty, that they wanted good economic relationships with their neighbors, only wanted some parts of NAFTA changed. Imagine that, American political leaders being diplomatic rather than bullies.

When Canada decided to NOT go into Iraq without UN approval, the American ambassador to Canada (Paul Cellucci, such as ass i had to hang my american head in shame and take Canadian citizenship) basically offered a vague treat to Canadians of economic repercussions, implied somehow that Iraq had attacked them. Bush and his "you are with us or against us" diplomacy. Personally I hope that both Hillary and Obama's campaigns made some sort of diplomatic calls. That might actually show some judgement and skill with regards to international relations.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was developed by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Analogy: NAFTA is a law, WTO is the congress.

This is not factual. The WTO is an enforcement and regulatory body. It has nothing to do with NAFTA other than perhaps at times the agenda of free trade serves the corporate industry.

NAFTA is not a law. It is a treaty. That is really only a nominal difference. If the WTO were a congress it would an elective body. It is not. The leadership is appointed and it has own bureaucracy.

What is lost in all this discussion is one simple fact from 1994-2001, that is the Clinton years, the American manufacturing sector gained 476,000 jobs. Since the Bush Administration took over some 3 million jobs have been lost primarily to China, not Canada and not Mexico.

So why is NAFTA to blame since under Clinton expanded jobs?

Wierd how hillary is saying the same thing about NAFTA and Charles places the blame only on Obama.

Because Obama misrepresent Mrs. Clinton's position. As David Gergen noted, Mrs. Clinton did not urge its passage. She was one of those who argued for more labour and environmental standards.

NAFTA is not responsible for the loss of jobs in Ohio. The lack of tariffs to protect against Chinese imports is. The problem is the WTO. But Obama won't attack China because that's the hand that feeds corporate greed. Instead, Obama attacks Mexico. Obama knows the truth but he would rather lie to get a job. Your problem is that you are not paying attention to arguments.

Any time you hear any politician say that he is not afraid for foreign competition the hairs on the back of your neck should rise. Read between the lines. Clinton does this do. I don't deny that but she doesn't attack Obama over NAFTA. He attacks her when both are effectively the same thing. Clinton is better because she does seek very stiff enforcement regulations.

Under Clinton, American manufacturing jobs actualy expanded by 476,000 so clearly NAFTA is not the problem. It is the lack of Bush enforcement of regulations and the tax incentives (this is simply a betrayal of the American public, Bush should be shot for treason) that drive corporations to move jobs overseas.

I will give you concrete example. Home Depot secured a tariff reduction from 15% to 0% on fans made in China and only in China back in 2005. Coincidentally, the year before the CEO Nardelli made a $500,000 campaign contribution to the RNC. That little loophole provided an estimate $15 million profit for Home Depot on one product. When you work on Wall Street these things are well known, in the mainstream media, not so much. So I understand the fact that you may not be at fault because you probably don't read the WSJ ever day or look at 10Ks. Do you see the problem? This happens over and over again since Bush took office. This is the problem.

Obama is not different I am sorry to say. I wish that weren't true. You chose to believe this. Obama voted for that exception for Home Depot. Clinton skipped the vote. Not sure the reason. I have many other examples, some paint Clinton, more paint Obama. That's the difference. And David Alexrod chose to sell Obama as a personality, the decision to run now was based on a lack of a substantial record. Senators rarely reach the Presidency, only two this century because of the problem of having a legislative record that is well compromising.

I am sorry. But I pay attention to stories like this. It was my job to look for the former. It was my curiosity that provided the latter.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news. You seem to believe that I take some perverse pleasure in knocking down Obama. He is not who he says he is on a lot of different levels. He is a centrist and yes there are those who really prefer that. But it shouldn't be the middle class. They are being duped. The are being sold hope and change and then come new year will come the shaft.

The problem is the WTO.

Sorry I should have added Congress to that sentence.

Follow the money. Corporations have to play the Wall Street game of beating earnings. That drives the stock price. Stock price drives CEO compensation. CEO need to cut costs or increase sales. Sales are not really an option since they largely face saturated markets. That leaves costs. Their biggest cost is labour. Labour is cheaper in China. But tariffs protect against a flood of foreign imports. Political campaigns are expensive. To afford them, politicians sell their soul and their votes. Corporations (directly) contribute to both political parties and to candidates themselves. The more successful (and large) corporations look for comparative advantages. I showed you the Home Depot case with Chinese Ceiling Fans. Lowe's had a sweet deal with Indonesian timber, a 50% to 10% tariff reduction. It is not a bribe but rather a quid quo pro. Yada Yada Yada.

Is the above not common knowledge?

Obama, Martinez, Levin and Steny Hoyer are some of the worst offenders on the Democratic side. I dislike Hoyer intensely. Obama says he does not take money from lobbyists. He takes money from corporations directly. They all did except Edwards. On this count both parties are crap. That's why I like John Edwards, his epiphany came in the Senate. He had a Paul on the road to Damascus sort of moment.

See the problem? Can I be any clearer?

Is there a difference between a bribe and quid quo pro?

I should add that Wal-Mart is the best company at taking out costs. They have an amazing supply chain and distribution system, they also hold the line against labour costs through a variety of schemes which I leave for another night, they also negotiate very tough deals from the consumer product companies (Clorox sells approx. 35% of its products through Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart says jump, Clorox says how high) but Wal-Mart is also the largest importer of goods from China in the world. That's because Wal-Mart's policies on driving costs out of the system is driving manufacturers to find ways to cut costs. What did I say above? Labour is their biggest costs. They thus need to off-shore production because with cheap oil it is easy to ship half way around the world given that salaries in China are about ten cents on the dollar versus US salaries.

Globalization is a race to the bottom. You are being dragged down by these factors. These are the problems that we face. Not NAFTA. And I'll be honest, all politicians play this game. Some are worse than others. Obama is not one of the better ones. He's towards the front of the pack. Are they worse? Absolutely. Breaux. Allen from Virginia (now out). Dole from NC. Coleman from MN. They all do it except for Bernie Sanders. He is one out of a 100. Depressed yet?

Now do you understand why I left Wall Street? That's not entirely accurate because frankly lifestyle was the biggest factor. I was at work at 4:00 AM and home at 7:00 PM on an average day. But I covered Wal-Mart, that was one of my companies, I have been more times to Bentonville than I care to admit. I have probably been to close to 1,000 Wal-Marts stores. They are a problem.

Wal-Mart visits six years x 5-6 stores a month is more like 500 some odd. If there is one thing I do know is the retail system inside out. I was very good at what I did.

I will share with you my best call ever. It was a short on Safeway. The stock had been trading in the low $60s. It slid over the course of two months slowly to $55. I had a STRONG BUY on the stock. I was a little worried that I was missing something. And so one of the things I did is that every month generally twice a month I went somewhere to look at stores and talk to employees, customers, compare prices, see new stores etc. Corporations don't like Wall Street analysts talking to store employees. There is a reason, they say things they shouldn't.

And so I went down to Irvine, CA over a Memorial Day weekend. Safeway in southern California owns the Vons chain. I was in a store and I saw an employee stocking and changing prices. I asked her how she was doing? Innocent questions some times gets you the quite the answer if you pick the right person to ask. As Norm can attest I am very chatty. But I am also very good at listening and asking leading questions. I approach people on the street all the time. I ain't shy. At Vons the conversation went like this: -So how are you? Came back as "Not so good, sweetie." -Oh really why? "Oh they cut back my hours this week." RED FLAG! -Oh why? "Something from corporate." NICE! -Oh that's too bad, it is a tough business sometimes. "Yeah we're making lots of cuts." TELL ME MORE! Oh? -"No paper bags. Just plastic." ALL I NEED TO KNOW. So I should bring my own bag then. -"It helps I guess." What are the special this week? -"Oh the Safeway Select products, they're really good"

Yes they are but they are also higher margin which tells that they did have a top line problem but a cost structure problem. Top line you can solve quickly. Margin problems big problem.

Tuesday morning I cut the stock rating on SWY to MARKET PERFORM.

Called clients. Told them to short, short, short.

That's late May. Mid June Safeway preannounces that it is missing earnings for the first time in like 12 years. Stock is at $38.

If my clients followed my advice they made $17 a share in two weeks.

I just made millions for my clients. Tens of millions. That's my best call. Call of the year in my sector. I ask questions all the time.

A lot of what I write is really a way to get you to contribute bits and pieces. That happened on the ethanol tread. This one was a bit disappointing. People seem not to recognize the problem of globalization, corporate pressures and how that impacts the political system.

The post on Obama and Presidential History was a set-up. I am testing what the responses will be. I could care less about Obama's comments per se on his view of ten presidents. It did strike me as odd. It is not a fatal flaw. But it gave me a chance to test your thinking. I haven't seen the results as yet. I will tomorrow and write. My hunch is that people didn't see it as satire nor answer the questions I asked in the last paragraphs. That's my guess. Obama supporters are a problem because many of them are not looking at the issues. They are voting personality. That's their right. I don't dispute that but they should be voting policy. Personality got you Bush, Clinton, Reagan.

In 1992 I preferred Tsongas who did move Clinton on the budget which was then the problem. Guess what it's back. I'm a fiscal conservative though a Keynesian. Anyway, that's my thinking.

The charge against Norm is really off base. There are plenty of sites that make the argument against Clinton. Very few that make the argument against Obama. I will make the case for Clinton soon enough, don't worry, all in good time. I do think ahead though I also have to jump on opportunities as they arise. I have been wanting to write a piece on trade but no time.

We are also aware that a very small percentage of the viewers comment. Not quite sure why. However I have been amazed how widely disseminated the pieces get. Crossing the Mara hit blogs in Japan, the UK, the US and Canada. The Why John Edwards Quit piece was probably the one that got the most attention. It is interesting to see. I have also gotten fan mails and a few hate mails.

I know my style offends some. Polemical arguments however in my mind can work. The last piece wasn't polemical though. The piece was really mostly about Chester Arthur and an admonishment that I will make clearer when I reply to whatever insanity has been expressed over there.

While policy is clearly an issue when it comes to Obama, it will because of character that I will not support him. I don't like the now or never (that is the language of a hard sell, Buy It Now). In politics any one who says that is up to something. It is never now or never. Michelle Obama has also used that language. If you don't vote for him now, you won't the chance down the line because we won't run again. He's 46 years old. How does she know that? The last person who said that was Richard Nixon. "You won't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more" in 1962 when he lost the CA governor's race. He ran for President in 1968. And I've argued that Obama reminds me of Nixon (so has Krugman). Obama is clearly uncomfortable with criticism. He screams bloody murder. So did Richard Nixon. The Checker's speech. And Nixon's supporters, that Silent Majority, actually had fights with Humphrey supporters at times in the streets. They were vicious. For the record Nixon attacked Humphrey. We have had one knifing incident in a family in PA (a Clinton supporter stabbed his inlaw Obama supporter). This is the Democratic race, we tend well until recently to be civil. You didn't think my argument cogent, but I sent it to a friend from college who teaches in Maine. He loved it and made a few suggestions. He also sent me a book on rhetoric in America. The symbolism of the Promised Land. Academics are really worried about Obama. Go on CorrenteWire, they are mostly academics. You think I am bad. See what they have to say. Ditto TalkLeft.

There is a nascent transition happening on the blogs. There are now refugees. People, primarily Clinton supporters, are leaving sites like the HuffPost (the initial source of my ire), C&L, DailyKos (was never a fan) and Talking Points Memo. It reminds me of the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. Obama supporters going one way and Clinton supporters going the other way.

It would all be rather amusing except that the Democratic Party is likely split. I might argue that Clinton should she the nomination run as an independent. She might win. She will win the big states and Obama wins IA, MO, IL, WI, WA, OR, MN, MD & DC.

I went to blogger's meeting yesterday. There were 8 people there. Very left. Two won't vote for Obama, two won't vote for Clinton, four would do both. It is too small a sample to draw any conclusions. However the other person who could not vote for Obama was a black lesbian, working class girl. What does that tell you? Oh I almost forgot the best part. Why? I am long-winded she was short and sweet. He's not a Democrat. Hello?

If I see people on the street with a button, I ask questions. I talk more with Clinton supporters than I do Obama supporters because they generally can't say anything. He's wonderful, the best thing since sliced cheese, change you know the drill. Policy? Accomplishments? Nada. They talk in Messianic terms. JoAnn is the one really critical thinker that I have met. She knows her stuff. A few others too. That's cool.

Clinton supporters are far different. They point to accomplishments and failures. They talk about experience and values. About being Democrats. Not one Obama supporter has said this to me: I like Obama because he is a Democrat. Not one. That is so troubling that I can not even begin to tell you. What is he then?

Clinton supporters tend to be older, more women than men, very well dressed (in SF), party members and heavily gay (I live in the Castro so that is a factor). When I go to the Mission Dolores area, I see more Obama signs. The demographics are younger, less affluent, and not party members. Let me see which group is more fickle?

As Norm can tell you I ask questions all the time. It drives my partner crazy. I go up to people and just make comments or ask away. Love taking cabs just to talk to cabbies. Why? They are the eyes and ears of any city. They talk to people all day. Ask them what they hear and you get the pulse of a city. This is not rocket science. Pablo Escobar used that trick. He bribed cab drivers in Medellin and when they saw army movements, they called informants and informants called Pablo. There are so many ways to find out what one wants to know. That is really what I am good at. Asking questions. It is what made me a pretty decent Wall Street analyst.

Charles

Charles:

Analogy: drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect;

Analogy: NAFTA is a law, WTO is the congress.

I am perfectly aware that the North America Free Trade AGREEMENT is NOT a law.

I am also aware that the WTO is a private organization, not comprised of elected officials, but rather, nominees and appointments from member-states.

I am also perfectly aware that jobs increased under NAFTA circa '97. I never debated this.

My objection is that standard of living, that is, spending power of wages earned, have stagnated, or stagflated, in all member states of the NAFTA in the past decade.

NAFTA and WTO are there to help multinational corporations, not the working man. See also: Kucinich's long-standing contention that NAFTA and GATT intentionally limits workers rights. On this we agree. Therefore, I'm sure we also agree that NAFTA is bad policy.

P.S. David Gergen, whose clientèle includes Nixon, Ford, Reagan and George H.W. Bush (the elder) is quite possible the anti-christ, or some sort of troll or alien reptile. Joking aside, this sort of appeal to authority is just bizarre- Gergen is a known scumbag.

P.S. Wall Street analysts are the biggest scum bags this side of debt collectors. Kudos to you for reclaiming your soul.

That said, I can understand why you may have some severe cognitive dissonance re: NAFTA v. the working-man.

P.P.S. Several years ago, while training to be a ninja for the CIA, I was taught not to take the unconfirmed credentials of known Internet blow hards too seriously.

No disrespect intended, but if you understand NAFTA = hurts workers rights, I'm not sure why any self-described "progressive" would support it.

If this is the route progressive are going, I have a suggestion: leave my capital gains alone, and "redistribute" corporate subsidies instead.

P.P.P.S. The goal of NAFTA, WTO, GATT, and most "globalism" as I understand it (the pitch at least) is that free global trade is a method by which wealth disparity can find equilibrium, equality for all, higher standard of living for the 3rd world, yadda yadda yadda. We in the first world benefit with cheaper goods, more spending power, increased standard of living. This was the pitch- not reality.

This was the NAFTA pitch back when Perot was running around on network TV explaining why "Those evil Mexicans will steal all our jobs". Ironically he was right, but he didn't expect it to play out like it did.

As you rightly explain, China, not Mexico, is the golden goose these days- cheap labor, no labor rights, no environmental concerns, and a GOP administration eager to "facilitate trade" and "reject protectionism".

However, NAFTA has utterly failed the Mexican people. The poverty rate in urban areas has stagnated (credit where credit is due: the rural Mexican poverty rate has been slashed considerably). However, the truly poor in Mexico remain as desperate as ever. See also: illegal immigration, a consequence of Mexico's poor economy.

If NAFTA is helping Mexico's poor as much as the stats say it is, why are they flooding el Norte for less than minimum wage at record-levels? Something is not adding up here.

P.P.P.P.S. FYI: I used to be a daily reader of the WSJ. That is, until Murdoch bought it. Like I said re: Gergen, be careful of those sources.

P.P.P.P.P.S. If I hate you, it is only because you remind me of an older, more arrogant version of myself.

P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S. I myself was an 18-year-old series-7 back in the roaring 90's. As Charles can confirm, it is not something to be proud of, nor impressed by.

They would hire a lucky chimpanzee in a New York minute.

No insult intended to any chimps who might be reading this.