Hillary's Hypocrisy
Hillary Clinton is out in Indiana telling workers how hard she will fight to keep their jobs from being outsourced. Yesterday in the Huffington Post, David Sirotta revealed the hypocrisy of Clinton railing against a plant closing that her husband had made possible by approving the Chinese takeover in 1996. But the shamelessness of this pitch to the workers of Indiana goes much further.
In August of 2004, Ron Burkle and his business partner Bill Clinton purchased TDS Logistics. TDS is in the global automobile outsourcing business with plants all over the world and parts warehouses in the US. Thomson financial wrote at the time of the buyout, "Given that outsourcing is gripping the entire automotive industry, TDS and the rest of the logistics space are in position to reap continued profits from that trend." So what does this have to do with Indiana? TDS Logistics' clients in the state included Delphi, Chrysler, Eaton, Johnson Controls And Visteon. all of whom closed plants in Indiana -- leading to almost 2000 job losses.
I have been saying for a while that Bill and Hillary Clinton talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. As long as Bill's private interests and charitable trusts are kept hidden from the voters the gulf between the Clinton's actions and their words will continue to grow. It could be that Fox and CNN will continue to lay down the smokescreen of Jeremiah Wright throughout the weekend so that voters won't notice what's really going on, but then again, maybe the Hoosiers are smarter than that.
Jon,
Mind informing the readers why the Big 3 plants on their supplier plants had to close up shop in Indiana and other states. Its not nearly as simple as you'd like to make it.
May 1, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporters are going nuts right now.
Imagine if HRC had a racist pastor, and it took her 20 years to figure it out.
May 1, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll reply to Loui, but this is really for "present", I couldnt reply to him for some reason...now on with my posts:
For the love of God...please...and no offense to the caucasians in this country who are not using this as a means to call "wolf", but stop calling RACISM, as if you know what it means.
DEFINITION of Racism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
For Example: "Get out of this restaurant, we dont serve your kind here": Thats racism.
"Ill never vote for Obama because he is black": That is racism.
Granted Wright has some serious "anger" and resentment towards caucasian people and the sense of racism he has felt/feels from the government and media.
You all do need to understand, that hey, you might not dislike black people in such a way that Wright has described, but MANY in this country do and have.
Seriously, educate yourself, I cant imagine how I would see caucasians if I was born in the 40's.
May 1, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if you dont believe me....go ask your parents before you respond.
It has become readily apparent to me that Parents have not been too forth right with there children about the past of America and what their roles were in.
May 1, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If all it took to understand a term was a dictionary, we would not need any of those pesky textbooks, monographs, books and lectures from professors. Just buy a Dictionary and you have all the knowledge that is in the universe.
How silly!!!
May 1, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean its just that, its one thing to use a term incorrectly...we all do it.
Its another to use it incorrectly when it benefits "you".
And yes, Id say the samething to other races or classes that might be in the same situation.
Id just like people to make judgment calls and decisions based on the specific situation, versus taking random words and putting it to there own cause.
I feel its a slap in a face to what really WAS racism back in the day, only because the specific race that is getting its "feelings" hurt.
But no one says a peep when any of those other evangelical preachers, who preach that shit every few weeks, and wouldnt let a black man sit at his dinner table(Hagee?) are publically racist, or write it in books, or teach there followers hate.
Its just not the same with Wright.
May 1, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody seems to miss the point that Wright's big beef is with the government of this country and institutionalized injustice, not with whites per se. Though I daresay he has no love for the kind of white racists who, for their part, hate Wright's kind, I sincerely doubt he he harbors anything like that kind of hate for the white race as a whole. My guess is that he's perfectly fine with white people of good will, and the outrage directed at him as a racist is coming from whites who fail that standard.
May 1, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. My parents had a saying: "If the shoe fits... Wear it."
I listened to rev Wright's speeches this weekend and to several of his sermons on Youtube. I agree that some of his points are a bit over-the-top, but overall, I believe we would all do well to listen and understand the perspective that he and others of his generation learned.
I (a canonical white person) first learned some of those lessons from a book called "Black Like Me", by a man named John Howard Griffin. I have been privileged to have spent significant time in racially integrated environments, both personally and in the workplace, feel zero guilt about my own behavior (though "mistakes were made" on occasion...), and recognizing that this society is moving in approximately the right direction in fits and starts.
I believe we as a society had better be prepared to recognize and accept our various subgroups and learn to appreciate the differences (relatively minor in my experience) and similarities (relatively major in my experience).
"Appreciate" in both the academic and colloquial senses of the word.
May 1, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I agree with both of you guys
May 2, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do understand what you are saying. But even your dictionary definition does not mention any specific race. So it is possible for a black man to be a racist just as it is possible for anyone else to be a racist. Whether some specific act constitutes racism of one kind or another has to be ultimately determined in the context that it happens
There is no doubt that black people have been and still are victims of institutional racism. Much more so than whites. But that does not mean that balck people are immune from being racist
May 2, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you.
Ive met some racist black/hispanic/asian people. Hell, Ive met racist black people that dont like other black people. Its occuring more and more in Black women. But overall you can see that nonsense down south, where Light skin people would look down on dark skin, or Vice Versa.
But yeah, I see your point and I agree.
My only point really was that, too many individuals are slinging "racism" this and "bigotry" that, when they dont know what they are talking about.
May 2, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan,
What if one says, instead of I won't vote Obama because he's black that they will vote for Clinton because she's white? Is that racist? I haven't heard anyone say that, but hypothetically, how does that compare to voting for Obama because he is black. Chances are, someone voting Clinton only because she's white probably is racist, but not by definition.
You can’t have different standards for racism between different groups based on their experience or culture. That is what enables racism in the first place. When Reverend Wright says that blacks think differently (more creative) than whites think, you can call it enlightened thought or separatism or whatever. But usually, if that kind of concept comes from a Caucasian, it is ascribed to racism.
May 2, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't that make Rev. Wright indeed a racist as well?
May 3, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well then I guess you must be despairing about the polls. The "hypocrite" was 10 points behind Obama just nine days ago in the nation-wide daily Gallup tracking poll. Today she is 4 points ahead of him. And the trend is born out in other polls as well.
Maybe people really do care about the people and ideologies with which the candidates choose to associate themselves. Maybe to them it isn't just a distraction. Maybe people want their President to be someone who doesn't further divide the races. Maybe people aren't sure Obama new stance of distancing himself from his mentor is anything but politics.
May 1, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary can do no wrong, silence your lies liberal infidel, keep drinking the k- I mean, keep watching Jeremiah Wright and his inflamatory statements, SEE THEM!? It's a scary black man, like Obama! *Cough* Muslim *cough*
May 1, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you have to admit that Hillary is getting better at pushing the new I-care-about-you-Hillary crap. She's getting quite adept at widening her eyes and palpitating.
May 1, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan Taplin:
Please check out the analysis about these "hypocrisy" claims in this comment thread. There are problems with this story, and because of them, David Sirota is not a reliable source for the facts. I'd appreciate it if you looked at his work much more closely before citing him as an authoritative reason for bashing Hillary with words like "hypocrisy" and "shameless." Thanks.
Also, is it 200 jobs lost, or has the number now risen to 2000 jobs lost? Getting such facts straight would be helpful to us, just as it is to Indiana voters.
I have no reason to think you have an agenda, and I'd like to maintain that stance if I can. Sirota, on the other hand, does have an agenda.
May 1, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan is being entirely unfair here.
There's no way that Ron Burkle's investment in TDS caused those companies to close plants in Indiana. Delphi's US operations are in bankruptcy protection. Delphi is a spinoff from GM and is GM's major supplier. It went under because GM squeezed it for better prices. Visteon managed not to go bankrupt, yet, but is a spin-off from Ford, is Ford's major supplier, and has been squeezed by Ford. Chrysler nearly went under until it was bought by a private equity firm. Johnson Controls and Easton are falling prey to foreign comeptition. I suspect Jonathan knows this but it's so much easier to blame Bill Clinton and Ron Burkle for making an investment.
Meanwhile, Jonathan's sudden concern about technology being exported to China is reminiscent of another right-wing non-scandal that was used to attack the Clinton's during the 90s. Rabid right wingers claimed that Clinton was responsible for allowing sensitive technology from Loral to fall into Chinese hands during another cross-border investment that the Clinton Administration approved.
You know, China's direct investments in the U.S. have been really important for our economy. Would you have had Clinton put on the breaks a decade ago? Did you react xenophobically to the Dubai Ports deal?
What's in your 401(k) Jonathan? Do you have a global portfolio? Or do you only invest in funds that invest in companies that derive 100% of their sales from the US and have no overseas operations? Apparently you have a problem with Bill Clinton and Ron Burkle investing in international companies. So I'm sure you'd never do anything of the sort.
May 1, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, you seem to have fallen into denial mode once again.
TDS Logistics, owned by Burkle and Bill Clinton, are in the outsourcing business. They consult to outsource US plants and jobs to lower wage countries. That's what they do.
It's basically a high-end moving service. Only instead of clothes, furniture, and appliances, they move entire clothes, furniture, and applianec factories and bussinesses. And they help install the company in it's new country.
In fact, there's an entire industry (if you can call it that) devoted to easing the transition of outsourcing, maintaining supply chains, helping with international paperwork, greasing the right palms, finding labor in developing countries, etc.
And who better to do that than a well connected global businessman, and a former US President who wrote NAFTA and has been a pioneer at deregulating US companies and global trade.
It's incredibly profitable and quick work, if you can get it. The consultants in that business are obviously not planning to make a long term career out of it. As merchants, their inventory is rather limited.
May 1, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You all should read the article and then the comments. The one by David Sirota.
He answers most of you guys...Otto, destor, responses(you all reply the same, stopping at the same sentence to give your rebuttals).
You guys dont want Bill Clinton to get the blame, but your OK with Hillary Clinton blaming George Bush for it.
You cant have it both ways. I COMPLETELY understand that there is more to it than just the president stopping the move, and the back end financial issues that were going on.
But Hillary is telling voters in Indiana that it was George Bush's fault and she is NOT giving them all of the facts.
And THATS a fact and thats the underlying problem we are ALL trying to point out.
May 1, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not quite it. What I don't like his Jonathan Taplin's willingness to use right wing talking points, lifted right out of the 1990s, because they're as wrong today as they are now.
Criticize Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton all you want. But be fair about it. If you want to say that the roots of that plant closure were in Clinton's trade policies, well, I see that. It could have gone the other way, though. Direct foreign investments in the United States have also saved jobs, you know. Just ask any Wall Street bank that's looking for a sovereign fund to save them. Why did Clinton let the deal go through? Would the plant have closed without a buyer? It's possible. I don't know. And Taplin doesn't care. He's just trying to score points.
May 1, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
First and foremost, just be accurate about it. Accuracy should assure fairness.
And also, if you're going to accuse Hillary to pandering to voters, don't go pandering to a Hillary-hating audience by writing a headline like "Hillary's Hypocrisy."
May 1, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's entirely fair to say Bill Clinton wrote NAFTA, normalized trade with China without adequate labor or environmental standards, and deregulated trade and other US business following in the footsteps on Ronald Reagan's supply side economics.
It's entirely fair to say that TDS Logistics is in the outsourcing business, owned by Bill Clinton and Burkle, and making enormous profits by it.
It's entirely fair to say there's an entire "industry" devoted to outsourcing "logistics" by which they mean shipping US companies overseas while maintaining supply chains, lining up 3rd world labor, greasing the right pams in corrupt governments, and so on.
It's entirely fair to say that the "outsourcing industry" would be much smaller and less profitable if not for policies like NAFTA and trade normalization with China, written and passed by Bill Clinton, which is a huge conflict of interest.
It's entirely fair to say Burkle has been a long time Clinton friend, backer, and adviser, and that he's one of the richest men in the world, has made enourmous sums in transnational business particularly int he developing world, and has long been an advocate of "free trade."
It's entirely fair to say Burkle has helped make the Clintons extremely powerful and wealthy over the last couple decades.
***
If you want to talk about a lack of fairness, let's talk about the lack of FAIR trade provisions in Bill Clinton's policies like NAFTA and "Permanent Normal Trade" with China.
I think it's pretty fair to say the Clintons and DLC record is that of DINOs, and they've long duped the American public.
It's fair to say Clinton is better than Bush. It;s also fair to say, not by much, and mostly on token social issues. But they're both in the pocket of big business.
May 1, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
“It's entirely fair to say Bill Clinton wrote NAFTA, normalized trade with China without adequate labor or environmental standards, and deregulated trade and other US business following in the footsteps on Ronald Reagan's supply side economics.”
No. It’s not.
May 1, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is fair to say the Clintons have always been DINOs. Clinton's best possible excuse is he caved, repeatedly, which is no excuse. It ultimately undermines the entire party to give a Democratic stamp of approval to lousy policies.
It's far more realistic to say he was just following the stated policy goals of the DLC, like NAFTA, which are Wall Street Republican policies with a little liberal social tokenism and pander.
Bill Clinton was the architect of NAFTA and pushed it on other Democrats against objection from Progressives. Clinton did so with near unanimous support from Republicans except a few old school main streeters who also saw it as trade suicide.
Bill Clinton normalized trade with China. Progressives criticized the deal saying it would greatly undermine US companies due to a lack of FAIR trade standards, China's subsidies, and nearly nonexistent and easily circumvented environmental and labor standards. Progressives were right and the Clintons wrong.
It was Reagan who really popularized ideological deregulation and laissez faire, irresponsibly, with his flare for the dramatic. Instead of fine tuning regulation to enhance growth, deregulation became a goal unto itself with religious fervor, that ultimately led to another Gilded Age with many becoming fantastically rich by bleeding the American middle class and selling out to foreign investors, while depleting US infrastructure and middle class.
Clinton continued that with such ill advised policies as permanant trade normalizations with China, NAFTA, irresponsible banking deregulation including scuttling Glass-Stegall, scuttling anti-trust prohibitions on media consolidation, etc. The Clintons were always wired to hyper wealthy transnational business like Burkle, WALMART, etc.
Who deregulated banking to make the recessions possible? Who kept Greenspan while he inflated the first bubble? Bill Clinton with Hillary cheerleading, and McCain doing nothing except following the Republican party line.
Who deregulated energy markets to make the creation of ENRON possible? Bill Clinton with Hillary cheerleading, and McCain doing nothing except following the Republican party line.
Never forget that while ENRON may have been close to Republicans, especially the Bushs, all the harm they did actually occurred on Clinton's watch with the blessing of most everyone in the beltway from Krugman and Clinton econ advisers to McCain. They all stood by.
Who deregulated telecom to make all these media mergers possible so that now, all of the American MSM is owned by seven transnational corporations? Again, Bill Clinton with Hillary cheerleading, and McCain doing nothing except following the Republican party line.
Who architected NAFTA and China trade? Same. Bill Clinton with Hillary cheerleading, and McCain doing nothing except following the Republican party line.
Christ, Clinton even bought TDS Logistics, a company specializing in outsourcing, with Burkle, a global power player and Billionaire, involved in all kinds of shady business.
Wake up.
There isn't much difference in Washington Democrats and Republicans anymore. Many are totally sold out. They pander and play games, but in the end they all take care of transnational conglomerates in finance, resource acquisition, and manipulation of entire economies, while screwing Main Street and working people.
May 2, 2008 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kosmik
I’m not really disagreeing about Clinton being centrist and triangulating on many issues and failing on some (I never thought he was anything else). But that is likely the reason he was elected President twice, and he did a lot of good. I’m not the Clinton defender here but let’s not demonize them either. As compromised as Clinton’s administration may have been, it was a highlight in almost forty years of Republican terror.
Clinton didn’t “normalize” trade with China. We have been trading with China since the ‘70s. In 2000, he negotiated a treaty with labor restrictions that have not been as effective as they should have been and that made it more open and permanent instead of the annual review. I think it was a bad deal in the end, but free trade and a trade deficit with China is inevitable. NAFTA has been a double-edged sword with positive and negative benefits. Clinton was not the author and architect of it. He promoted and signed into law and Congress ratified the agreement that GHW Bush had already fast-tracked. And again, it was Clinton that added provisions to it for environmental and labor standards, which were watered down by Congress but still have had something of a positive impact on labor standards in Mexico.
None of the candidates are going to alter NAFTA to any degree, though the whole globalization/outsourcing/immigration issue has to be addressed in a major comprehensive way. Sen. Clinton tries to play both sides of NAFTA but she is no different from Obama on this. Goolsbee revealed Obama’s “hypocrisy” about campaign rhetoric and realpolitik. And this is what gets me most about these arguments over Clinton’s triangulating: Obama holds basically the same positions. He is not SuperLiberalProgressiveMan.
Supporters from either side can make good cases for their candidates as centrist Democrats and acceptable at this point (A Kucinich will never get a real shot). But to argue that Bill Clinton, and Hillary by association, is only slightly better than G. W. Bush is insulting and dishonest (and would imply that Obama is not much better than Bush, too). I believe that all of the candidates are corporate leaning; none so bad as McCain. I just don’t see a way to change that right now.
May 2, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Direct foreign investments in the United States have also saved jobs, you know. "
Sorry, that's ultimately a false argument.
Sure, I'd rather buy a Toyota made in the US than a Toyota made in Japan. But I'd really prefer to buy a car as good as the Prius made in the US, by a US company, with US technology, and US parts, and with excellent quality control, by workers, designers, executives, and investors, who are supporting US families and communities and contributing to US quality of life.
Once you take away that option, the best option for a healthy community, it's a downwards slide.
Despite having family in Japan and a lot of fondness for it, I believe in regionalism, by which I mean the rewards of making something and intellectual property should accrue to the community who contributed to making it possible.
I'm not opposed to globalism, so long as it's fair and trade is balanced, and government policies are accountable to citizens.
I have no problem with Japan making better cars and us importing them, so long as we make better airplanes, or computer chips, or whatever, and there is balanced trade, and our communities receiving their due in jobs and investment so they may remain healthy and able to compete globally.
Thanks in part to lousy policies like NAFTA and trade normalization with China without FAIR standards, that hasn't happened and US communities have been sold out. Those policies passed by Bill Clinton, which Hillary supported for over a decade, were always warned against rather prophetically. But the Clintons disregarded the warnings and even disparaged the critics, along with their proxies like Krugman and Greenspan, who were big cheerleaders for those policies and many more.
It's a complete OUTRAGE that US companies are selling out the citizenry of the US and selling out technology and know-how which was invented in the US, much of it resulting from public universities, a thriving middle class, and our liberal society.
Even worse they're selling it to countries like China, a repressive society, without any fair protections.
That, a complete lack of responsibility for one's community, background and roots, to turn a quick buck, is totally disgusting. This isn't about xenophobia or mindless nationalism. It's about having some loyalty to one's community and not looting our culture and economy.
I'm not against global trade. I am against cannibalism.
May 1, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've also been thinking about the word "hypocracy". Obama spoke in Philadelphia about his adoring grandmother, telling the world that she had been afraid of the black men she had sometimes seen on the street, and that she had used racial stereotypes that caused him to cringe, so it was therefore ok that Obama could stand by Wright. He said he could not renounce Jeremiah Wright, whom he described as a part of himself. Yet six weeks later, a day after saying that the Wright's comments were overblown by the media, he called Wrights comments outrageous and renounced him out of political expediency.
May 1, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
um. different comments. different behavior.
being slightly off-tune while preaching the gospel is one thing.
going in front of the press club and making a mockery out of yourself and the black church is another.
he had good things to say. but he let the spectacle take over.
May 1, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've got $4 a gallon gas and $4 a gallon milk and neocons who won't be happy till we have at least 4 wars to fight -- and we have that because there are people like you bamboozled by distractions. The Republican-Clinton Party loves voters like you.
May 1, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good sign. Jonathan Taplin is getting hysterical.
May 1, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, get real, everyone informed knows that you could do something similar with each of the 3 presidential candidates because they slant towards free trade and accepting of the realities of globalization but have to pretend not to. Each has his/her own way of trying to pander to protectionists and anti-free-traders, and none of them will be completely honest doing it, because it's a tough problem helping the losing areas of the country in the new world, one not conducive to the sound bites and speechifying necessary to win campaigns. Lou Dobbs on CNN does a show on it every weeknight, hates all 3 candidates and the current parties for this very reason, and I am sure he can furnish you with "hypocritical" findings for all 3 of them on this issue if you want them.
Couple of quick examples: Brad DeLong back in late February on Clinton and Obama's "silly and inaccurate" talk in Ohio. Yglesias on Clinton and Obama's contortions trying to avoid being labeled free-traders here and here.
May 1, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you artappraiser.
Both parties are globalization parties. At best we can hope that the Democrats will subject globalization to more meaningful conditions (labor and environmental standards) going forward. But nobody is going to close the borders to trade or outlaw multinationals or discourage direct foreign investment and if they did, most Americans would be very unhappy about it.
May 1, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course nobody is going to completely shut down global trade. That could hardly be more simplistic. The devil is entirely in the details.
There is all the difference in the world between a nation that has environmental protections, labor standards, and human rights generally, and one that does not. There is a huge difference between a President beholden and sympathetic to transnational companies, and a President for middle class America and long term economic strength.
We need to adopt the same managed trade policies as China, Japan, and all of Western Europe. They're pro-trade, but balanced with a baseline of protections and subsidy/investment of vital industries to promote technology infrastructure and quality of life issues for the long term national interest. Frankly, they stake out their industries and then make them national priorities, and kicking our asses by doing so.
For example, we should invest heavily in green technology like turbines and solar, and we should stake out that territory with targeted tariffs, tax breaks, and investment. Same as Japan does for its auto industry for example.
Also, this notion that we can't do anything about trade, that we just have to bend over, it's complete garbage. We still have a technology and expertise advantage over countries like China, and we're still an enourmous market, and we still have tremendous negotiating power should we start using it.
We need to change the incentives to keep the US strong and growing. Not just Wall Street, but communities. We need to stop allowing transnational robber barons bleeding the US.
May 2, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad DeLong is a former Clinton economic adviser who owes much of his career to Clinton. He's good on some things, for a former Clintonite, but frankly he was duped then and not exactly a pioneering genius now either.
To claim Hilalry, McCain and Obama are the same, that's just absolute nonsense, and it's a Republican talking point to encourage cynicism.
Firstly, you could hardly find a worse record on trade than Clinton in particular, and the Republican party and DLC in general. McCain's economic record is lousy.
Obama by comparison has been an advocate for fair trade standards all along. Yes, he admits globalization is here to stay. But there's a big difference in his support for fair trade backed up by a willingness to renegotiate trade deals based on issues like human rights and labor standards, and environemntal protections, by a President willing to fight for them. It has everything to do with ideology and who a President is beholden to.
The Clintons have always been with Republicans and transnational business on that, as has McCain.
May 2, 2008 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, and Brad DeLong has also been a NAFTA booster for more than a decade, having repeatedly called it a "success."
Not surprising since he was an economic adviser in the Clinton Administration, has his fingerprints all over NAFTA, and has a vested interest is sandbagging criticism of it or the Clintons which invariably reflects poorly on him as well.
May 2, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
And one more thing, the DeLong article you link to is garbage. With such lousy data, it's no wonder he was a Clinton adviser and NAFTA booster.
His Ohio manufacturing labor statistics are bogus. He claims Ohio manufacturing remained steady through the 90s after NAFTA was passed in 1994. What he declines to mention is that the definition of "manufacturing" was considerably loosened under GW Bush and Bill Clinton while quality of manufacturing jobs and pay fell considerably. Also that during the 90s many manufacturing worked had to negotiate lowered salaries, buyouts, lost pensions, etc, due to companies moving out of Ohio and into Mexico and elsewhere.
Secondly, he admits manufacturing did fall considerably, by 25%, since the late 90s, but claims NAFTA had nothign to do with it. Again, self serving nonsense form DeLong and passing the buck. In fact, as I just mentioned, with the passage of NAFTA quality of jobs declined drastically with workers conceeding again and again, and by 2000 there was nothign left to give, and factories just packed up and went south to Mexico.
But their fates were sealed in 1994, by NAFTA.
Also worth mentioning is that Bill Clinton as the advocate for NAFTA, and due to the Lewinsky scandal, lost any negotiating power to provide help and economic growth to communities devastated by NAFTA. Healthcare reform, which could have helped US business, was utterly blown by arrogant Hillary who refused all council and delivered it DOA.
McCain voted the Republican party line and did nothing to help.
May 2, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Almost forgot, in addition to NAFTA, Brad Delong also worked on Hillary's DOA HealthCare reform.
Heckuva job Brad DeLong! Such a stellar track record.
That is why so many players like DeLong, Krugman, etc continue shilling for Hillary. Legacy and covering their pudgy asses.
May 2, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the Clintons were in the White House, they united the races. They were considered heroes to most black Americans, and Bill was often referred to as the first black President. Since Obama began his campaign he has managed to successfully and falsely portray the Clintons as racists. The Jeremiah Wright debacle has increased our country's racial divide, and has even set blacks against blacks. Way to go, Obama!
May 1, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Increased? That's doubtful. Shown a light on the existing divide is much more accurate.
May 1, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baloney.
Bill Clinton played a little saxophone and pandered a bit to the black community. Which was received well after 12 years of Reagan and HWBush.
But in reality Bill Clinton didn't do much of anything good for working blacks or whites, and indirectly did a lot of harm.
He indirectly increased racial divides through policies like NAFTA which undermined US labor. Economic hardship in labor always increases racism as people compete for scarce jobs and resources.
It's important to mention McCain did no better and backed the Republican line on these issues along with Bill Clinton.
May 2, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
First and foremost, be accurate. Accuracy would assure fairness.
But also, if Taplin's going to fault Hillary for pandering, he shouldn't himself pander to a Hillary-hating audience by writing a headline like "Hillary's Hypocrisy."
May 1, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the double post (see above response to destor23). Movable Type hiccuped.
May 1, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A hiccup? At TPMCafe? You expect me to believe that?
May 1, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No offense but working white middle class Americans are morons and probably haven't paid attention to Hillary's voting record or Bill's companies instead they appeared focus on Jeremiah Wright. The white working class always seems to like politicians that are against their interests such as Reagan and Hillary Clinton. If they would have sided with more progressive leaders they would probably sill have their jobs. Instead the white working class chose to keep their guns and not their jobs.
May 1, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll let Politco reply for me
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10010.html
May 1, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked that article quite a lot when I read it this morning. There really are a lot of avenues Obama could and should explore.
But what on Earth does it have to do with the substantive objections that have been raised to your post here?
I suspect that you linked to an off-topic article because you can't answer the criticisms leveled at you.
May 1, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama won a clear and unassailable majority of primary-determining delegates two months ago. Nothing has essentially changed in the last two months and nothing will substantially change in the next two months. The Democratic Party's proportional-selection rules in a vanishing number of remaining primary elections dictate that. Therefore, I do not care what the also-ran Senator You-Know-Her has to say about anything except how she plans to support the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee, Barack Obama, against John "Dubya the Third" McBomb in the November general election.
Shakespeare already told You-Know-Her's vanity-tour story four hundred years ago when he wrote of "a walking shadow; a poor player who struts and frets [her] hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Too bad about that bungling of national health care as president's-first-wife and the even more galactically stupid authorization of a known imbecile's stud-hamster vendetta against the hapless Saddam Hussein. Lots of sound and fury there, although nothing but disastrous consequences for Americans, especially the so-called "white working class" that she and her husband Bill have so often betrayed to corporate greed and power. But by all means, let You-Know-Her's strutting and fretting continue for a few more hours. The audience does love to see that final act where long-forseen doom descends on the flawed and failing protagonist, leaving her -- as the fat lady sings and the curtain comes down -- twisting slowly, slowly in a breeze of her own blowing.
May 1, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I agree with your critique of NAFTA.
I still say he's overstating TDS' practical importance, though. And I don't think there's anything wrong with making money from globalization or investing in global companies or foreign companies. Taplin does, though I suspect he's a hypocrite on that topic.
Here's where I disagree with you. If I can get a well made Prius, I don't care if Toyota or Ford makes it. I want access to the best products from around the world. I'm not biased towards American products, but towards better products.
That said, I totally agree that we can level the playing field. Price is part of "better" and Clinton failed to get fairness into NAFTA and should be criticized for it. I'm not defending Clinton in this thread, though. I'm attack Taplin's weak argument.
May 2, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought that environmental and labor protections were in NAFTA, they just haven't been enforced since, um 2000.
Compare the number of U.S. complaints to the WTO pre-2000 and post-2000.
All the protections in the world are no good without some enforcement.
May 2, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You thought wrong.
"Protections" in Bill's NAFTA and China trade policies were always weak and unenforced except with a bit of tokenism. That was always the problem and why Progressives were always against them.
The entire principle of "free trade" is wrong. "Free trade" is laissez faire. We need FAIR trade. We need to balance mostly open trade agreements with some limits and common sense protections for US interests, industries, and quality of life.
We can't just allow Wall Street and transnational conglomerates to dictate US trade policy when every other country has nationalist protections in place, and developing countries have terrible standards. Profit seeking transnationals only care about profit, not about the environment, not about communities, not about child labor, etc.
Clinton's trade polices opened us to be looted and sold out. It's very profitable for investors in the short term, for the Burkles and Clintons of the world. But it's long term detestation.
The rust belt and so many US industries are now the economic equivalent to clear cutting or over fishing. Recovery is incredibly slow because the entire ecosystem is devastated. There's not enough left to grow the future.
In these communities we now see urban and rural blight, rotting infrastructure and skill loss, which creates secondary social problems like cynicism, crime and drug abuse. That in turn discourages new investment.
We need to turn that around. We have to start by reversing Clinton's and Republican's disastrous economic polices. We need FAIR trade, and we need stimulus and technology investment.
May 2, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I still say he's overstating TDS' practical importance"
How? Aside from you just covering your eyes? Companies like TDS Logistics are in the outsourcing business. They're economic cannibals.
It would be one thing if our other economic sectors were booming and middle class quality of life was soaring. Then I'd call them the economic equivalent of a haircut.
But with suicidal economic policies like NAFTA and China trade normalization, with middle class quality of life flat and even declining, they're helping cut the legs out from under the US middle class.
It's a huge conflict of interest for the Clintons to be making tens of millions with people like Burkle in companies like TDS, after Bill's major economic initiative was NAFTA, and with Hillary now claiming she's against it after being for it for over a decade.
I'm tired of the BS from politicians. I'm not playing "make believe" with their double talk anymore. No more DINOs and sell outs.
It's important to mention McCain and the Republicans went right along with it, and that's the problem with both parties in Washington. They're mostly all sell outs and phonies.
May 2, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink