And where was this debunking of Mr. Gore's campaign finance excesses done?  What is the explanation of the Buddhist temple thing, for example? (this isn't to say that Republican bitching about this was valid--their issues were as bad if not worse--but it is something that I have never really heard explained.

My point on NAFTA is that, you have to look at the overall economy, which produced a ton of new jobs, among other things.

Besides, most of the NAFTA bashing is less than factual, for example your claim: "NAFTA, sans environmental/worker protections" is false. NAFTA expressly had some protections for these.

Provisions regarding worker and environmental protection were added later as a result of supplemental agreements signed in 1993.
Wiki page on NAFTA.

One will have to review how these deals worked otr didn't and fix those parts that didn't work well.

As such, trade is a complex subject (the only simple solution that is not complex is strict isolationism with no trade whatsover).

The bottom line, bilateral trade is  an imporant economic engine. I oppose unfettered free trade, but exactly where one should draw the line between that and zero-trade that would qualify as "fair trade" nobody really knows in an ever changing global market.

So, you try something and refine it as you go along.

Do you know that John Edwards only called for renegotiating NAFTA and not cancelling it outright?

Renegotiate NAFTA rather than cancel it

SHARPTON: I want to cancel it.

EDWARDS: I think we do need to renegotiate it. The problem with NAFTA is these side agreements don't work. You have to put these labor/environmental protections in the text of the agreement.

Source: Democratic 2004 primary debate at USC Feb 26, 2004
[Wiki http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edw ards_Free_Trade.htm ]

Even Sherrod Brown only called for renegotiating NAFTA:

Q: Would you repeal NAFTA?

BROWN: I would renegotiate NAFTA, as I would renegotiate PNTR with China. We've lost so many small businesses, as these big companies outsource. And Mike DeWine has supported every time these trade agreements that give incentives to the big corporations.

Source: 2006 Ohio Senate Debate on NBC Meet the Press Oct 1, 2006
Wiki

On "rolling Clinton into Gore", eg, who had the affair in the oval office, and who paid for it?

craverguy's out of nowhere claim about big oil was false, and represents the type of spin that comes from the radical left.

Let me post a post I had written earlier about my personal views on trade, NAFTA etc:

--------

Here is my take on NAFTA.

Foreign trade is an important component of the economy. Without it, the economy WILL stagnate from lack of channels  for expansion and growth.

There is no question that unfettered free trade can and will have adverse consequences. I DO NOT support unfettered free trade.

The question then is how to strike the balance and find what would make "fair trade".

I don't think that anyone has the perfect answer for that question, even in theory, because modeling this mathematically is rather hard.

Therefore this isn' exact science, and begs for an empirical approach to arriving at "fair" trade.

I see NAFTA as an attempt in that direction. From what I gather, NAFTA does have some labor and environmental protections, although the evidence is that they didn't cover all the bases, and one would have to review what happened and figure out ways to improve it and other trade deals and bring them closer to what could be "fair" trade.

What I ask of people is to look both sides of the argument. While NAFTA has had negative effects, they need to be viewed in the context of the positive aspects (there is enough to show that it's had positive effects as well) to form a balanced opinion leading to balanced dialogue about it.

Here are some facts you may or may not know:

1. For every $1 we import from Canada/Mexico, we export 73c back to them compared to 45-50c exports per dollar to other countries?

2. Mexico imports roughly 10% of their GDP's worth from the US, whereas we import only about 1.5% of our GDP from them (similar #s for Canada)

3. Mexico was on the brink of bankruptcy. Had they gone under, tens of millions would have crossed the border overnight, with incredible pain, suffering, and economic unrest in many quarters. The 20 bn loan and NAFTA probably helped Mexico stave off bankruptcy and recover their economy back to a healthy state.

4. US exports some 100 bn to Mexico and over that to Canada. The internal impact of those exports is likely significantly higher than the mere export figure since the US economy is a "fast circulating" one (i.e. money changes hands rapidly and creates economic expansion).

Trade data from census.gov

My view is that the "circulation" aspect of trade (point (4) above) is often overlooked, as for example in the epi study often quoted by NAFTA critics. Because of circulation, a billion dollars worth of exports can multiply internally into several billions dollars worth of economic expansion.

It's somewhat similar to how targeted tax cuts work. Clinton/Gore gave $250 bn middle class tax cuts. That's not a significant portion of the GDP (about 3% back then), yet it may have helped spur the economy into motion, and created an effect that was much larger than the 250 bn injected into the economy.

Therefore, it can be argued that the exports resulting from NAFTA (even though they were larger than imports), could experience internal circulation to grow the economy (and produce jobs in the newly expanded economy).

That's my main criticism of the epi study.

Clinton/Gore economy produced a net of 22 million new jobs, and lowered unemployment to record lows. It turns out that when you look at the facts, even manufacturing jobs increased by 300K over their tenure.

Of course, a new sector evolved. That was the IT sector, which created something like 1 million new jobs, and about half of the next jobs survived even the Bush "economy" and much increase outsourcing these past 6 years.

who as we all know is toxic to about 50% of the electorate

How does that explain her getting 67% of the vote last Tuesday?

Gore will be the one to stop the Saint Hillary express if it looks like nobody in the field has a chance of doing sometime in the second half of next year. He would seem to be the only potential candidate who can enter the campaign at that late date. He may well also be the only potential candidate who would get substantial benefit from coming in as a result of a Draft Gore movement.

So I'd expect a Draft Gore movement to be a constant thread over the next eight months.

I know it is a rhetorical device, still, I cannot imagine Republican hearts, much less heart of hearts.  

I think he has been very clever about this.  He is flying under the radar, accumulating rabid admirers, who don't really even know that others exists.  Global Warming is THE issue of our times.  I say that as someone who poo-pooed it in 1991 because after the Mount Pinatubo eruption, it was actually cold in May on the Gulf Coast.  But the evidence is in and we are seeing the results first hand now.  Our window is small to react.  

Some day soon we will all find each other.  In the meantime, he has a chance to get the word out without going through the Mainstream Media, which would much prefer to talk about his clothes or how inappropriate some turn of phrase was.  He is a MAGNIFICENT speaker.  Sometimes I just tear up when I listen to him talk.  He's our man.  He's decent and wise.  And Global Warming should unite all people.  HE OWNS THIS ISSUE.

Is Y a vowel or a consonant? Or sometimes one and sometimes the other? Just to forestall the next round, where its post-Civil War and then where Kennedy ends in a vowel sound, but as an Irish Catholic, the Y is considered a consonant because, after all, nobody would lose votes in any part of the country for fear that the Pope would dictate American policy.

of dialogue and debate.

Your defense of Gore seems a little rabid.

There are two components to my posts here and elsewhere related to Gore:
1. things that I know are either not correct or are interpreted in an inaccurate and unreasonable manner. I try my best to research and provide information.

2. my own personal reaction to the harshness and bitterness from the other party. I let that stand in this post. It is possible for me to tone it down, but what you see here is what I would say in person in an informal debate. I have a bit of a reflective personality. Although with some effort that can be overcome, but it isn't always easy to do that in short order :)

In retrospect, the Clinton/Gore years traded environment and equality for a booming economy, and while a successful execution of that policy could only be achieved by Democrats, it is at heart a conservative one.

On the environment, considering that from 1994 onwards C/G needed to deal with a hostile congress, which became rabidly destructive once the scandal surfaced, I give them a "B" on the environment (but Nader'00, made it seem like an "F", unfortunately).

Here is a partial listing of C/G's env. record. Reader urged to explore the record at the link provided:

Clinton/Gore record on environment

• Restoring the Florida Everglades.
  
• Preserving our Lands Legacy.
  
• Safeguarding the Arctic Refuge.
  
• Forging Conservation Partnerships with Farmers.
  
• Cleaning Up Auto Emissions.
  
• Strengthening Clean Air Protections
  
• locking Offshore Oil Drilling.
  
• Preserving Coral Reefs.
  
• Investing in Clean Energy Research. Won more than $1 billion in FY 1999 and in FY 2000 for the Climate Change Technology Initiative, a program of clean energy research and development that will save energy and consumers money.
  
• Improving Scientific Understanding. Increased funding for the United States Global Change Research Program to more than $1.7 billion in FY 2000
  
• Healing the Ozone Layer. Successfully phased out CFCs (chloroflourocarbons) by 1996 and other major ozone-depleting substances by 1994.
  
• Expanding Recycling.
  

I voted for Gore in 2000 in part because he was a Democrat, in part because I heard on TV that he invented the Internet(and I like the Internet, it's good), but mostly because Agent K endorsed him.

Good vote, and good to see that the internet meme helped Gore in getting some votes (but, alas, probably lost several million at the same time) :)

And I don't think it matters, anyway, because no man can be elected President whose name ends in a vowel(look it up).

"Albert Gore Junior" does end in a consonant though :)

The American political landscape really est si bizarre.

I agree, but I think that it used to be a lot cleaner before the right-wing noise machine went into full gear. Perhaps the midterms (and of course, the emergence of the netroots) marks the beginning of the turning of the tide.

All the best, and thanks for your comment.

How progressive is General Clark? That is, as a politician, not as a general.

Thanks, 99, for the information on the Mexican government's involvement in the corn market.

I knew that importation of cheap corn had displaced millions in Mexico, many of whom were so rural they didn't even speak Spanish, but I didn't know the rest.

The rapid unilateral liberalization caused those farmer's problems more rapidly than the NAFTA schedule would have done, but they are the same problems.

And don't forget that the largest part of NAFTA does not address trade in goods and services, but is rather focused on liberalizing wealth flows. That is a direct increase in the power of multinational corporations in a country, and while that is not the only foundation for the right wing caudillo-puppets gaining the Mexican presidency, two of the last three Presidential elections have been close things, and the increase in the opportunities for the exercise of MNC power certainly did not contribute to putting place governments that would protect the interest of middle-sized farmers, and the microfundistas that relied upon them for cash income.

Is that based on Congressional voting records? Its certainly possible for a wheeler dealer, especially a Republican in a Democratic-controlled congress with, for the most part, a Republican president, to have a voting record that looks more moderate than the congresscritter actually is.

That would be screened out by focusing on "key votes", but even there if you were willing to vote against your inclinations on issues that were less important to you, in order to collect the associated political chits, there may still be a bias.

In addition to what BruceMcF said, Cheney didn't display senile dementia (in public?) prior to the PNAC takeover of the Publican mind control devices after Bush I. His image was 'adult conservative,' not Mr. Evil 'Go Fuck Yourself' Gnome. His voting record now would likely be considerably more conservative.

Actually, I disagree... I think they see Gore as a weak candidate... so they would love him to be nominated... However, that would be a gross underestimation of the man and the GOP underestimating Gore's strength would be beaten down.

Why does no one remember how horribly weak the 2000 campaign was on both sides?  Gore looked wooden, changed message constantly, and generally had huge trouble communicating; Bush went around the country making gaffes and saying the words 'compassionate' and 'conservative' over and over and over and over.

Bush was a weak candidate.  He went into office with the lowest approval rating of any new president ever.  It shouldn't have been a close election.  It should never have to come down to 10,000 or so disputed Florida ballots.  Gore should have carried TN, MO and FL.  The election was stolen, but it was left unattended with the front door unlocked.

Despite some early heated exchanges we've had, I have come to appreciate your forthrightness and honesty, as is witnessed in this comment of yours as well.

Like you, I also want someone that is principled, will stand up for his/her beliefs with conviction, and will fight hard to win.

I like the Gore/Obama ticket as well as several other VP possibilities such as Dean, Feingold, Jack Reed, Clark, Kent Conrad, Sebelius, Napolitano, Warner, Kaine, etc. Sen. Feinstein who is not exactly popular in the netroots (and was a hawk on Iraq) has in the recent past been very progressive, including a principled, rational, and diplomacy-first approach to dealing with Iran (Diane Feinstein: Stop Threatening Iran); carrots and sticks as deserved. I like Carl Levin also, but I am not sure he would be interested. If Harry Reid stands up for "doing the right thing" consistently in the new senate, I could get interested in him as possible VP for Gore as well.

Gore/Tester is another exciting possibility. We could unleash "Gore-Tester time" over mountain west and southwest, and rural landscape across the nation :)

But, of course VP choice would depend heavily on where things stand in the summer of 2008.

If Russ is not on the ticket, I'd like to see him nominated to the Supreme court bench. He would be a wonderful and dependable defender of the constitution, the rule of law and progressive way of thought in the once-esteemed top court of the land.

Likewise, if Dean in not on the ticket, then I'd like to see him given an enhanced DHS role, with the task of charting out a universal healthcare plan (single player and alternatives; goal being, realizing affordable coverage for everyone that needs it, phased-in over a reasonable period of time).

Appreciate your comment, and may I suggest that my Gore-related commentary is always an effort to set the record straight, and not "rantings" :) During that process, I have become an even stronger supporter of Al Gore.

I love your cartoons.

Gore "gets it" on global warming, environment and energy. We face a global environmental crisis, but most politicians don't get it. That's why Gore has moved towards the top of my list.

Yes, of course.  But you might liken Gore to a young fellow deciding whether to ask a girl to a dance.  If the girl looks at him as if he were something crawling out from under a rock, as opposed to someone who thinks, "oh, well, I guess he's okay."  In either case, the guy might easily sit it out.  For Gore to be able to influence events, he needs a tidal wave at his back so that he can rise above politics.  

He owns the signature issue of our time.  The Survival of our Planet.  I'm a patient person and I know political change takes time, but what if we don't have time.  It's looking more and more like that.  I myself scoffed at global warming in the early 1990's.  I read Gore's book, and I thought he was unbalanced.  But I was wrong.  

And this issue is at least a twofer.  Our perceived need to spend half our discretionary budget on the military is, if we're honest, largely to give us access to oil.  The problems in the middle east have a lot to do with power and corruption in the search for black gold.  (The most corrupt and violent regimes  in the world are  most often in countries whose economies depend on extractive industries, gold, diamonds, timber.  Rape the Earth.  We need a better way of relating to nature and rewarding countries which protect the Earth, both for the sakes of the people and the Earth.)

If in fact Al Gore is elected, he will have been the seminal figure in two of the most important steps forward in our history.  He provided the major push in Congress to adapt Arpanet to civilian use,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/02/ net_builders_kahn_cerf_recognise/

and he may have the opportunity to help save us from habitat destruction and the marginalization of human civilization.

Gore is still a horrible campaigner and didn't stand up and fight for the job he was elected for.

Gore came back from double-digit deficits to Bush to win the popular vote and the election.

He fought for 35 days to secure electoral justice in Florida, and only withdrew when:

1. no legal recourse was left
   
2. the party turned lukewarm towards a continued contest, and the DNC chair (Rendell) called for concession following the verdict.
   

And for the first time in more than a month, senior supporters of Al Gore strongly urged him to step aside, saying he had exhausted all his legal options after a bitter monthlong fight. Even as Gore lawyers scrambled to find an opening amid a thicket of conflicting legal opinions, Democratic National Committee chairman Ed Rendell said the vice president "should act now and concede."
From: Backers want Gore to concede, By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff, 12/13/2000

3. 79% of Americans wanted him to concede

    CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll

   From CNN Polling Director Keating Holland

   December 10, 2000
    Web posted at: 9:37 p.m. EST (0237 GMT)

   As of today, do you think Al Gore should concede the election, or should he not concede?

   Yes       53%
    No        43
    Sampling error: +-4%  pts

   If the U.S. Supreme Court rules against Al Gore, should he concede the election, or should he not concede?

   Yes        79%
    No         16
    Sampling error: +-4%  pts

I find it amusing that you call it a Clinton/Gore economy but the taint of Bill's other decisions are not Gore's to bear, you have to take the good with the bad.

It was the Clint/Gore administration and Gore worked hard for it, but the boss in C/G was Clinton. Gore gets credit for what he contributed. That's where things stand. See here for more

Most certainly, Gore is not accountable for Clinton's sexual escapades in the oval office, but he was tagged with "Clinton fatigue", which was used by many people in the media as Gore's problem as well. And there is some evidence that Clinton did not back Gore on global warming.

Gore has made some good speeches but he still is a corpo first faux populist.

No. Gore stands with the people in "people vs powerful".

I have no agenda except my clear disdain for Gore, the man reeks of loser, he is boring, and he needs to stick to what he is doing currently, he has no heart for the game of politics, he got punked like a newbie in prison by Bush and Rove, and I don't want a heartless punk running for President.

This remark betrays your lack of rational perspective. I'm holding back my impulse to reciprocate commensurately here.

Gore is the most progressive potential candidate with a good chance to win the Presidency, and an excellent chance to win it by a landslide if a good campaign rebuffing negative attacks is waged. This time, the netroots will be a powerful ally in setting the record straight as well.