This is too funny. Looks like Hillary is claiming she would change the "shortcomings" of the NAFTA law that her husband, Bill, signed into law. Hey....I thought she was his big "advisor" back then? Ooops.....must be lying. Again.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/top...008-01-01.html

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I don’t see anything wrong with Clinton wanting to improve it or crafting a new trade policy. I can’t think of anything over the past 7 years that’s turned out to be perfect so where do you get off judging her so harshly anyway?

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law in December of 1993. So, it's MORE than 7 years. How 'bout 14.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Quite a lot of time. What was it that Bush saw in NAFTA that he liked so much that kept him from improving it? If Clinton or anyone else have ideas to improve it I think it should be welcomed. It’s too bad that over the past 7 years nothing was done. I'm glad we'll have new leadership soon.

So, what do YOU think is wrong with it....specifically?

And why do YOU think Bill Clinton didn't change any of it during HIS 8 years?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I think it favors corporations too much. I don't think it's raised the quality of life for a lot of people like it was suppose to.

The reason I think Clinton didn't change it was pretty obvious. It was impossible to see how well it worked without letting it work. I'm interested in seeing what other people come up with and not knock them for it.

Well, it IS a trad agreement. It's supposed to help businesses and trade!

Well, on that note---some of the provisions didn't take effect for 15 years.....so we're still not there yet. IF what you claim was Clinton's reasoning, then it was most likely Bush's reasoning as well. Hillary Clinton and the other Dems need to be more specific about what they think is wrong with it and just how they'd propose to fix it.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Right…business is good therefore we shouldn’t give a crap as to how it’s conducted. Keeping mind that corporation’s didn’t sign the trade agreement…think about that.

I’d like to hear specifics too. I’m not backing any of them yet btw. I'm just happy they're at least talking about tweaking it a little because it's far from perfect.

HUH?? It's a TRADE agreement----between COUNTRIES. Specifically Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. I don't see how you can claim it's "far from perfect" when you don't seem to know that much about it or be able to state exactly HOW it's far from perfect.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

What exactly do we make in America that an average Mexican making $.75 in a 12 hour work day can afford?

I could get a Coke or Pepsi in Mexico before NAFTA, what has changed?

Trade usually signifies something mutually beneficial?

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.