Obama Whistles Past Economic Graveyard in Deluded SOTU Address

Two things you left out in your context rewind is that there was a huge opposition movement to NAFTA (and their prediction­s have been proved right) and that clinton had a chance to implement worker and wage protection­s - he tried, but then bailed on them.



And if clinton prolonged the process by successful­ly getting full union support in Mexico and Canada and the finalized agreement reached bush's desk, do you seriously think for a second that he'd have signed it?!? The man invaded a sovereign nation with only a few countries supporting him - you think he or the republican­s care about rankling feathers if they're asked to do something they don't want?



Of course not. And that's why they have an image of "strength.­" They stubbornly stick to their policy demands (anti-Amer­ican tho they are).



Dems, on the other hand, wring their hands and fret about offending Mexico or someone if they don't go along. Hence the image of waffling (other words are better but can't seem to get posted) persists.



In NAFTA's case, a bad deal is a bad deal. Sometimes being stubborn is best path when you're being asked to throw the middle class under the bus.



So why do Dems feel so duty bound to honor a process when the process yields bad policy, burns your base, and feeds a negative image? The answer to that question is a debate for another day.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost