Wednesday, February 27, 2008

previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)

Ohio debate hangover

The day after the Ohio debate, there's a lott of blog chatter about NAFTA and the whole Farrakhan imbroglio. However, I'd really like to see the mainstream media look into two big questions:

1) How, exactly, does the political leadership of Canada and Mexico feel about this whole NAFTA renegotiation business? Are they real big fans of this idea?

2) The following excerpt is from Hillary Clinton's intervention during the Farrakhan dust-up:

[O]ne of the parties at that time, the Independence Party, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that....

And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching. (emphases added)

Could the mainstream media ask Senator Clinton the following two questions:
a) How did rejecting the Independence Party (whose candidate won less than one percent of the vote) pose a risk to your 2000 Senate campaign?

b) How, exactly, do you propose not letting, " anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have"?

posted by Dan on 02.27.08 at 01:41 PM


Answer to a): 'No risk, but now you know how courageous I'll be as Commander-in-Chief.'

Answer to b): 'The moralizing socialist Left is just as capable in wielding a whip as is the moralizing religious Right; just give me a chance to show how it's done.'

posted by: a Duoist on 02.27.08 at 01:41 PM [permalink]

Re: Reactions from up north.

Canada's Trade Minister suggests (more here) that if NAFTA were revisted, Canada would like to rethink its energy concessions.

posted by: Aldous on 02.27.08 at 01:41 PM [permalink]

@a Duoist : I think you are maybe on autopilot here- moralizing against anti-semitism, how awful! Those damn "socialists", if only they would be more open minded and not criticize Farrakhan.

posted by: Kurtosis on 02.27.08 at 01:41 PM [permalink]

I'm up in Vancouver for some silly conference, and I'm struck by two things about the papers here. First, they seem resistant to accepting the idea that Canada is simply a province of Greater America, and so have remarkably little coverage of US issues. Second, one thing they did notice--and not favorably--was the whole "we'll scrap NAFTA" thing...


posted by: lamont cranston on 02.27.08 at 01:41 PM [permalink]

Most Mexicans would agree that we should renegotiate NAFTA (TLCAN). They feel that Mexico gave away too much and did not get enough in return. I think if the Dems are smart, they'll leave sleeping dogs lie.

posted by: OpenBorderMan on 02.27.08 at 01:41 PM [permalink]

Post a Comment:


Email Address:



Remember your info?