... and it seems that both Democratic candidates have decided that they would rather flip than flop. Specifically, on trade. They figure that they can flip between supporting free (illegal) immigration and opposing free (legal) trade so fast that no one will notice that the positions are contradictory.
How is it better for Americans to import cheap labor illegally (and pay the resulting social costs) than to allow the Mexican economy to develop manufacturing capabilities of its own to manufacture cheap goods using their own cheap labor and export the resulting products to the US, possibly improving the Mexican economy in the process?
It's better to have free trade, of course. Both Democratic candidates know this. They have both allegedly ensured the Canadian ambassador that they support NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement). But they had to give those assurances because their campaign rhetoric is increasingly protectionist as they pander to American voters anxious about their jobs going to China. Never mind that China has nothing to do with NAFTA.
Disparaging our existing treaties with other nations is shameful enough. Lying to voters about it is blatantly dishonest. That's no surprise from a Clinton campaign -- and nevermind that NAFTA happened under the other Clinton's presidency, so Hillary should be supporting and defending it! -- but Obama's airy rhetoric about "hope and change" should preclude the politics-as-usual pandering and lying.
I can only hope that these flips lead inevitably to election-day flops.
UPDATE: Names named. Obama's image as an honest outsider tarnished.
This entry was published Thu Feb 28 12:41:37 CST 2008 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2008-02-28 12:41:37.0.